When asked by anyone, I always recommend New York as a meeting location, but
I may be biased.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Michael Snow wikipe...@verizon.net wrote:
I don't recall if I'd updated this publicly before, but we ended up
changing the location of the February board
background on
this that anyone should have? Is this a pending issue requiring resolution,
or the restatement of a long-settled matter? And, something I should
already know the answer to but just realized I don't, who within the
foundation or community makes this type of decisions, anyway?
Newyorkbrad
will
recognize the Mantanmoreland and MZMcBride 2 cases as examples.)
I am not clear, however, on why this issue of such such importance to the
thread-creator.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
I was thinking of another case, whose link on enwiki
I agree that this factual error should be corrected (as we have told it is
being corrected), but raising what was perfectly likely to have been an
innocent error to the level of being morally wrong, without having even
asked first, seems rhetorically excessive.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010
to a greater extent than by submitting it elsewhere. If one
believes it's important that one's writing be presented as submitted,
without change, then Wikipedia is not the right forum for it, regardless of
the merits of the content.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM, Arlen Beiler arlen
For anyone interested who hasn't already seen it, here's a link to Judge
Chin's opinion rejecting the proposed settlement in the Google Books case:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=specialid=115
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
is
particularly concerning and I would not be averse to Foundation-level
intervention at this time.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Aaron Adrignola
aaron.adrign...@gmail.comwrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Scott MacDonald doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com
To: 'Wikimedia
that WQ User:Cato had been identified as Poetlister at the time he was
made a checkuser there.
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
to create. My view is that if we can't
come to a consensus quickly on this matter, it ought to just be handled and
announced, either by one or more stewards or by the Office acting as such.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
On 3 June 2011 22:03
I'm glad I finally found you. I have a silly walk, and I'd like to apply
for a government grant to help me develop it.
Newyorkbrad
2011/8/23 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com
Wow, if all it takes to get exemption from road tax is a quick edit, I
can guess there will soon be a number
I did, but it was deleted. The deletion summary was that's not *particularly
*silly
Newyorkbrad
2011/8/24 David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com
2011/8/24 Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com:
I'm glad I finally found you. I have a silly walk, and I'd like to apply
for a government
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty
regime?
Newyorkbrad
On 2
below would be an example of the latter, and in
my view a well-nigh indefensible one.
Newyorkbrad
On 2/23/12, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
one
: the facts of the case are unpleasant.)
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
dumps have been utilized for
purposes such as harvesting oversighted edits in userspace and utilizing the
information for purposes of harassment. I am not sure whether there is
value to providing dumps of other than the content spaces. Comments?
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 11:02 AM, River
Actually, I was thinking primarily of userspace.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) newyorkb...@gmail.com:
However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
conclude, all namespaces
of this if
nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone?
Newyorkbrad
On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,
The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
The clause
to extend it if needed?
Newyorkbrad
On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchange
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
Newyorkbrad
On Thu, May 28, 2009
.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I was going to call NPG this morning first thing (as a volunteer, to
see what could be reasonably done to avert a public battle - our own
museum/gallery liaison volunteers can really, really do without a
public battle
of three-dimensional objects displayed sufficient
originality to be independently copyrightable, because they were not
slavish copies of the originals (the standard from the familiar Corel v.
Bridgeman decision).
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
By that logic, a book, which costs money to buy, would never be a
verifiable source either.
We might *prefer* to cite free (gratis) accessible sources over others, all
things being equal, but the fact that a source is behind a paywall does not
negate verifiability.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Nov 23
producing
much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not
happen.
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
23 matches
Mail list logo
