Yep, that's the one. Same person I was thinking of. I don't think they've
been active for a while, though.
- GlassCobra
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Biblio wrote:
> From a check of the user I have in mind, they became an admin at 11 and a
> crat at 12.
>
> biblio
>
>
___
>From a check of the user I have in mind, they became an admin at 11 and a crat
>at 12.
biblio
--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Alex Sawczynec wrote:
From: Alex Sawczynec
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] What was our youngest admin again?
To: "English Wikipedia"
Date: Wednesday, July 15, 2009, 4:53 PM
Hmm, I wa
Hmm, I was fairly sure the youngest admin/crat was the same person; I
thought I remembered hearing that they were 12 when adminned, and then 13
when made crat. All these figures seem to be in about the same range,
though.
- GlassCobra
___
WikiEN-l mailin
Our youngest crat, if I'm not mistaken, was 12 years old. I'm not sure how
young our youngest admin was, but 10 seems to ring a bell. It wasn't the same
two people, I know that for sure.
biblio
--- On Wed, 7/15/09, Thomas Dalton wrote:
From: Thomas Dalton
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] What was our
2009/7/16 David Gerard :
> http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/07/hey-kid-support-your-local-wiki/
If memory serves, our youngest admin was 10 and our youngest crat 14
(quite possibly the same person).
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.or
http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2009/07/hey-kid-support-your-local-wiki/
- d.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Mathias
> Schindler wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>>
>>> And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about
>>> their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
>>>
>>>
>>
Sage Ross wrote:
> Since this is a UK issue, though, maybe our inflammatory rhetoric
> should use the tropes of imperialism.
>
I can remember it well, circa 1909: the world map was one big [[paint by
number]], and all you needed was enough pink. (Shades of Terry
Pratchett.) Now it is all pots
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Carcharoth wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville
> Heiskanen wrote:
>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>>
>>> Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public
>>> domain material, running through their minds all the time.
>>
>> I hope you wil
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 4:07 PM, FT2 wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Carcharoth
> wrote:
>
>> Agreed. Ironically, if the NPG *had* done photographs of the portraits
>> in their gallery settings, including the 3D frames and with lighting
>> and angle considerations, and there had been a d
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:50 PM, Carcharoth wrote:
> Agreed. Ironically, if the NPG *had* done photographs of the portraits
> in their gallery settings, including the 3D frames and with lighting
> and angle considerations, and there had been a developed 'style' of
> how to frame the photographs of
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanen wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>> Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public
>> domain material, running through their minds all the time.
>
> I hope you will forgive me.
>
> I know that is likely to be a "brain fart"
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanen wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>> Remember that the number of (highly skilled) staff required to
>> operate that sort of process may not show up on the NPG payroll, as
>> they may contract that sort of work out to others.
>>
> Granted without a
Carcharoth wrote:
>
> Not everyone has noble thoughts about free culture and freeing public
> domain material, running through their minds all the time.
>
>
I hope you will forgive me.
I know that is likely to be a "brain fart" of the type
that I personally suffer from more than most, but I
di
Carcharoth wrote:
>
> Remember that the number of (highly skilled) staff required to
> operate that sort of process may not show up on the NPG payroll, as
> they may contract that sort of work out to others.
>
Granted without a question. But that just begs the question.
If they are claiming a "
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Jussi-Ville
Heiskanen wrote:
> FT2 wrote:
>> I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete
>> surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council,
>> House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based
FT2 wrote:
> I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete
> surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council,
> House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based
> upon US law.
>
> It turns out the case was heard under UK law (!
On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Mathias
Schindler wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2007 at 9:22 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> And then presumably we should ask the National Portrait Gallery about
>> their claimed copyright on hundreds of years old pictures. [*]
>>
>>
>> [*] hint: the NPG stopped sending us
I just got curious and read up on Bridgeman vs. Corel. To my complete
surprise, though heard in the US, it cites UK precedent (Privy Council,
House of Lords) in forming its opinion -- it is /not/ purely a case based
upon US law.
It turns out the case was heard under UK law (!). It cites as authori
19 matches
Mail list logo
