First, right up top (not top posting; but noting something intentionally
at the top
of this posting), let me acknowledge that responding to one of ones own
postings is considered bad form. But in my defense I will note that I am
genuinely
not doing so in order to prolong a thread well past its
Thanks for the encouragement,
I would be willing to do some coding for this on my free time.
My philosophy is evolutionary development.
I could at least do a code review and design on how it would fit.
Right now I am using the google docs to host polls, it is very good.
I think the basic
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com
wrote:
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
But I am sure there are no applicable moral rights
to let's say correcting missing space around punctuation.
I have made some studies, and it appears this last
sentence is in
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:49 AM, Geoffrey Plourde geo.p...@yahoo.com wrote:
What he is pointing out is that the chapter set up the whole process, thus
making them culpable.
The French chapter didn't set up anything. The chapter merely agreed
to accept the donations that the printer
As a note, the images are watermarked, and I have notified the user. IUP
states that this should not occur.
- Chris
On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
I'm assuming the Image Use Policy.
A gentle reminder to those on this list who hail from enwiki: not
all of us speak in acronyms.
-Chad
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Gerard Meijssen
gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi
What is IUP ?
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/29 Chris Down
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
Hoi
What is IUP ?
Thanks,
GerardM
[[en:WP:IUP]]
Marcus Buck
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Specifically
thishttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images
.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:36 PM, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Gerard Meijssen hett schreven:
Hoi
What is IUP ?
Thanks,
GerardM
[[en:WP:IUP]]
Marcus Buck
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM, Mark (Markie)
newsmar...@googlemail.com wrote:
i must admit i havent looked closely, but could you give us an example of an
image where the watermark can be
thanks
seems to me that they are on images which they own copyright on, so maybe
its just that the files theyve used were from an online version or
something?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:49 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia-The_Missing_Manual_I_mediaobject_d1e29885.png
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:44 PM,
well if they/john bought the image rights then they would own it, meaning
that the credit is sufficient as it is.
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:54 PM, Chris Down
neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.comwrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29,
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com wrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator of the original image, either.
- Chris
The original is however referenced in the image caption on the page
where it is used:
Okay, I'll move it to the image description page soon if someone hasn't done
it already.
- Chris
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Chris Down
neuro.wikipe...@googlemail.com wrote:
That page doesn't attribute the creator
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/28 Andrew Whitworth wknight8...@gmail.com:
Wikipedia would have to write some kind of
special exception to every rule to allow this book to exist there.
We already have the only exception we need: IAR. (That doesn't means
Wikibooks wouldn't handle it
Thomas Dalton wrote:
2009/1/28 effe iets anders effeietsand...@gmail.com:
Maybe a silly question, but nobody is stopping anyone to copy it to
Wikibooks. The question is mainly, should it be deleted from Wikipedia. I
agree there with Erik, that this is clearly a community decision.
Why
Andrew Gray wrote:
2009/1/28 geni:
Copyright issues mean that it will be heading for deletio n once we
switch toi CC-BY-SA-3.0.
Yes, along with all the other imported GFDL material... oh, wait,
sorry, I mean all the material which a contributor has chosen to
license under GFDL 1.2
G'day all,
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post, I
apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for proposing
policy http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Sexual_content, flooding
and generally getting a bit boring about this issue, so I
- In some contexts, such as sexual content, it is desirable to be
rigourous in confirming factors such as the subject's age, and 'release' or
permission - it is this area which is lacking a bit at the moment.
Perhaps you explain this in your essays (it's late and I have to be up
early,
On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 12:39 AM, private musings thepmacco...@gmail.comwrote:
This is a sort of 'essay spam' I guess, so for those aspects of this post,
I
apologise! I've also been criticised on some Wikimedia projects for
proposing
policy
Sam - I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure privatemusings has as much right
as you or anyone else to post to this list. If you prefer not to discuss it
further, then you can simply refrain from reading the posts or responding.
Nathan
___
foundation-l
Forum shopping typically describes someone going from forum to forum trying
to get a different decision on some particular thing they want. In this
case, I don't think privatemusings is looking for a specific outcome (like
deleting an image, achieving a block, influencing an AfD, etc.). The object
Two comments:
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for discussion and it
usefully illustrate by such a photo. So that rates pretty highly on
utility. I think it rates pretty low of potential for harm since
the subjects aren't identified and they chose to
Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free.
What's the difference?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Marcus Buck m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
Two comments:
Thomas Dalton hett schreven:
Topless sunbathing is a legitimate topic for
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.com wrote:
Commons is meant to be a collection of freely-licensed media, not a dumping
ground for all media that happens to be free.
What's the difference?
Collection implies some sort of useful organization and coherence,
with
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 9:50 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.comwrote:
That sounds more like an indictment of the organization of images, rather
than the images themselves.
DM
On 1/29/09, Jesse Plamondon-Willard pathosch...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 8:50 PM, David
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
hope being culturally significant would still be a priority. I always
considered
that a major point in
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.comwrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:09 PM, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Emphasis on usefulness. We're about providing free content, and I would
hope being culturally
just because we can have 4500 pictures of erect penises, doesn't
mean we should.
For what reason, specifically?
FMF
On 1/29/09, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:22 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.com
wrote:
voyeurism isn't relevant to our culture?
On
I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how many
images are useful for a topic. Such a limit exists for no other type of
image
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:09 PM, David Moran fordmadoxfr...@gmail.comwrote:
I'm just saying there's a weird value judgement inherent in the supposition
that a sexually explicit image might not be horrible in itself, but a
multiplicity of such images is horrible. Like there's a limit to how
On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:19 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
To some of those people, and to others, trying to place restrictions of any
sort of sexually explicit images is cultural relativism and censorship. To
me, but maybe not to you, it is simply being responsible.
Re-reading
32 matches
Mail list logo
