Hoi,
This is an old old story with the same arguments repeated again and again.
- The language is called Moldovan, but Moldovan is also spoken in
Transnistria
- In Transnistria they write Cyrillic
- In Transnistria the Moldovan constitution is not recognised
- ..
Yes, the Moldovan
correction of my previous mail..
/s/When you say I write english with latin scripts,
When you say We write english with latin scripts
/s/Here is a facebook group
It's a facebook petition
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi,
This is an old old
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 3:12 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
- The language is called Moldovan, but Moldovan is also spoken in
Transnistria
- In Transnistria they write Cyrillic
perfect, then http://mo-cyrl.wikipedia.org/ is for them
- In Transnistria the
Cetateanu;
Brion and his staff are extremely busy individuals. Also, renaming a wiki takes
quite a bit of time and if not done at the correct pace would be messy. I am
sure he will handle the rename as soon as he can, but patience is key.
Peace;
Geoffrey Plourde
Geoffrey Plourde hett schreven:
I am sure he will handle the rename as soon as he can, but patience is key.
cough, please be patient! It's only been three years since mo.wikipedia
was closed. The case will be handled as soon as one of our service team
members becomes available.
Marcus
Could this thread be killed, please. We will never be able to get rid of
this, starting all over again once per month.
Cheers
Yaroslav
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
Well if we want to decrease the backlog, we could suggest that people put up
money for desired extensions I know its come up before and been rejecte,
but it might attract people to develop stuff.
From: Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org
To: Wikimedia
Yaroslav M. Blanter hett schreven:
Could this thread be killed, please. We will never be able to get rid of
this, starting all over again once per month.
Cheers
Yaroslav
It's natural, that unresolved issues come up again.
The solution is to solve the issue. It will never come up again
On 1/15/09 11:19 AM, Brian wrote:
Chad,
What more would you like me to do, specifically?
The first things that would help would be:
1) Stop looking to blame someone for past wrongs
2) Think of something that *would* actually help, and do that
When a discussion starts in a negative direction,
Unresolved... the wiki is closed already. Sure, it hasn't reached
the resolution that this particular person wants... but hey, it
could be open.
2009/1/16 Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org:
Yaroslav M. Blanter hett schreven:
Could this thread be killed, please. We will never be able to get rid of
Hoi,
If we want to decrease the backlog, we should not invest in more extensions.
We should invest in capacity to assess the extensions that are waiting. We
should invest in capacity to triage our problems, we should invest in fixing
the problems that we know off.
We have asked the public to help
I agree with you entirely. I believe that a decent portion of the backlog
results from the fact that for its size, the Foundation has too few developers.
One way to use funds would be to look into developing a Wikiversity course to
train developers, to provide more volunteers to take the load
Well what I proposed encouraged people to prioritize. For example, if 100
people donate 5 dollars each for semantic mediawiki, it might encourage an
outside developer to work on it, freeing up staff and saving money.
From: Gerard Meijssen
Hoi,
You have no clue how much money has already been invested in Semantic
MediaWiki. This is not where the problem is. The problem is in having
capacity to evaluate what is there. The capacity to evaluate and integrate
functionality is key. It is for this reason that I am so happy that a tool
is
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote:
NB Five hundred dollars does not cut it. A *really *good commercial
programmer may bill you for this amount for a days work.
$500/day isn't so much. Experienced contractors in programming can
bill well upwards of
On 11 Jan 2009, at 21:46, Erik Moeller wrote:
The GFDL (including prior versions) deals with author names for three
different purposes:
* author credit on the title page;
* author copyright in the copyright notices;
* author names for tracking modifications in the history section.
...
In
I like Sam's point.
Do you really want to print this on a t-shirt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Pageaction=history
Also, it makes specific reference to Wikipedia.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/14 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I think requiring attribution-by-history should be the best practice
for heavily edited articles, at least until we more prominently point
out the author credit in the article footer.
Eh? Which should it be? A requirement, or a best practise?
You can't have it both
2009/1/16 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I like Sam's point.
Do you really want to print this on a t-shirt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Pageaction=history
Also, it makes specific reference to Wikipedia.
Since you would also have to include complete copies of the GFDL
I am talking about CC-BY-SA geni.
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 2:34 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/1/16 Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu:
I like Sam's point.
Do you really want to print this on a t-shirt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Pageaction=history
Also, it
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
I think requiring attribution-by-history should be the best practice
for heavily edited articles, at least until we more prominently point
out the author credit in the article footer.
What is an attribution-by-history-reference? How come it has to be a
url and not something like:
The term Bushism is a neologism that refers to a number of peculiar
words, phrases, pronunciations, malapropisms, and semantic or
linguistic errors that have occurred in the public speaking of United
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/14 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
It appears that it would be adequate (as a minimum acceptable standard) to
specify the CC-BY-SA license and refer to the Wikipedia article - certainly
the license section 4(c) allows for significant flexibility in this regard.
The
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Attribution here can only be a very *minimal* requirement,
I cannot see how the whole history of alterations could be
somehow swept under the carpet...
Are you referring to indicating changes? Per CC-BY-SA, 3.b:
... to create and Reproduce
Erik Moeller wrote:
* The attribution terms should avoid requiring specific reference to
Wikipedia, so that it's clear that there is not necessarily a tie
between the project in which collaboration currently happens, and any
future use of the content. If someone creates a better alternative
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Attribution here can only be a very *minimal* requirement,
I cannot see how the whole history of alterations could be
somehow swept under the carpet...
Are you referring to indicating changes? Per CC-BY-SA,
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:14 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm curious: why isn't a copyright notice displayed at the bottom of
each article, stating the copyright owners of the material?
Because the copyright owners is often a very long list. The notice:
All text is
Erik Moeller wrote:
* For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
author.
This is of course very far from the truth. If you did
create the media file from your very own brain-pan,
yes, this would be accurate, but to say that that this
is often the case, is somewhat quizzical
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
Erik Moeller wrote:
* The attribution terms should avoid requiring specific reference to
Wikipedia, so that it's clear that there is not necessarily a tie
between the project in which collaboration currently
Maybe 500 was a bad example, but I meant that by having people offer rewards
for extensions, we can have them developed/evaluated faster.
From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2009/1/16 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
That is, you must at least reference Wikipedia and the article, but it may
be appropriate to additionally *or* alternatively refer to individual
contributor(s).
Yes - I agree with this. The only question would be whether referring
to the history or to the
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:07 PM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
* For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single author. If
you are the photographer of a high resolution panorama that you've
contributed to Wikipedia, I think it's a reasonable expectation to be named
Erik Moeller wrote:
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
I must be a moron or at least functionally illiterate, since
I simply cannot parse the previous paragraph in a way
that makes logical sense.
:-)
Imagine that:
...
Unlikely? Perhaps - though some
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
* For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
author.
This is of course very far from the truth. If you did
create the media file from your very own brain-pan,
yes, this would be accurate, but to say that that this
2009/1/16 Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com:
It seems though
that the _prospect_ of very speculative and indecisively
defined new ways of showing editors _on_ wikipedia
pages fringes (not requiring it downstream even), is
what is really concretely even hinted at...
The downstream
On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
We got 6 million bucks, ain't we?
First of all, I hate how people say this. :-) We have had a budget
drafted that required $6 million, we achieved that -- that doesn't
mean we just have $6 million lying around to do
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:25 AM, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2009/1/16 Sam Johnston s...@samj.net:
That is, you must at least reference Wikipedia and the article, but it
may
be appropriate to additionally *or* alternatively refer to individual
contributor(s).
Yes - I agree
Delirium wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
* For pictures, sound files, etc., there is often just a single
author.
This is of course very far from the truth. If you did
create the media file from your very own brain-pan,
yes, this would be
Erik Moeller wrote:
In this thread, the argument has been made that these requirements are
going too far, or not far enough. The reason they are formulated as
they are is to be consistent with the expectations set forth by the
GFDL itself, and the re-use guidelines implemented throughout WP
39 matches
Mail list logo
