On 20 May 2014 02:44, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
Regarding hierarchy, there's absolutely no technical reason, as far as I'm
aware, that categories must be hierarchal. It's certainly an intended
feature that categories have subcategories and the capability to be
hierarchal (i.e., you
On 19 May 2014 08:26, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
I'm giving this thread a poke because we're still waiting for answers to
questions. The most recent email was from Srikanth on May 7.
But Benghazi!
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list,
On 20 May 2014 00:05, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia's post directed to me earlier in this thread managed in one stroke
to confirm just about everything that I said: that comments from those who
aren't regular participants on Commons are to be belittled and ignored,
that even a
On 20 May 2014 00:14, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I did give serious consideration to going and properly categorizing the
image, but given the underlying threat from Russavia, and my disinclination
to be blocked, I'll leave it to someone who finds the Commons experience
less
On 15 May 2014 23:20, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
A final detail, directed mainly to Wil (and anybody interested in the Board
resolution that's been discussed): I don't think it's been mentioned that
the directive to develop an image suppression feature was rescinded a year
On 10 May 2014 23:54, Kevin Gorman kgor...@gmail.com wrote:
I was using oversight rather loosely to mean there's a body of people
looking over the process sufficient to catch any terrific fumbles before
they get out of the gate, rather than any stricter sense of the term. I
view the scrutiny
On 8 May 2014 17:42, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
Geni:
You seem to think its straightforward. If you think that you should be
able to propose a study design.
It is straightforward in my field. I have already studied most of the
Wikipedia articles in that area, and they all contain
On 8 May 2014 19:27, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with those above who highlight the flaws in the current scholarly
peer-review process. If enWikipedia is to embrace scholarly review (and we
should) we need to confront and address the well-known problems with peer
review in
On 7 May 2014 23:14, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
For what it's worth, there was a recent external study of Wikipedia's
medical content that came to unflattering results:
http://www.jaoa.org/content/114/5/368.full
Osteopaths.
Perhaps we could ask the chiropractors and homeopaths
On 17 April 2014 09:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Every time I see Fae or Russavia in a from: line, I dread opening
the email. Fae, posts like this, where any actual point you have is
buried under a mountain of your overwhelming bitterness, with you
tag-teaming with Russavia on *his*
On 17 April 2014 10:41, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
My response on this thread for Erik's unacceptable public behaviour as
a Foundation senior manager have nothing whatsoever to do with
Wikimedia UK or the wikimediauk-l list, so your using your authority
on a different list to punish me is
On 17 April 2014 16:25, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.com wrote:
To illustrate how silly this can get on some level, consider the fact that
justifiably or not, the media and the general public often treat the content
of Wikimedia projects as if it reflects on the reputation of the Wikimedia
On 17 April 2014 17:05, Brad Jorsch (Anomie) bjor...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For example, others are blasting Victor (whom I may have met, but if I have
it slipped my mind in the middle of all the other people I've met) for
On 17 April 2014 17:36, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I think Steven's interpretation here is pretty sound - yes, it's
legitimate for us to do this, but we should be a bit cautious :-)
Infrastructure tools yes, GIMP probably not.
Inkscape, however ... we have such a huge
On 17 April 2014 18:03, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
I assume good faith on the part of the people who choose to work for the
WMF. Shouldn't we all?
I think this statement seriously neglects the context of this discussion.
- d.
___
On 17 April 2014 20:49, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
OK -- I think that's all you need from me. Now enjoy yourselves as you
continue to grind Wikipedia to a whining halt.
It's important to note that threads like this are pretty much entirely
raised by people who aren't actually
On 17 April 2014 22:05, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
You haven't mentioned it on this list, but you actually accused Zack of
violating the sockpuppetry policy on his talk page, and you threaten to
pursue further action. But the most cursory review of the sockpuppetry
policy, which I assume
On 16 April 2014 13:03, Craig Franklin cfrank...@halonetwork.net wrote:
Grants directed to the development specific functionality that Wikimedia
can use and which can later be included in other project's core offerings?
Sure, I don't think anyone has a problem with that. But I think that
On 15 April 2014 21:08, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a difficult question. I'm in favour in general, and I think it's a
good idea to support projects that we use and need the money. The problem I
have with it (and that is absent in your points above) is in how far we
On 15 April 2014 21:57, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd also personally support in-kind donations (i.e. dedicate an FTE or
portion of an FTE to integration work that benefits a non-profit, or
implements a feature that is requested for a specific platform, etc.).
Training or consultation
On 7 April 2014 11:16, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
I'm used to the secrecy, but I find it deeply disturbing that such a comment
could have been made during a public workshop in passing; however, it
would fit perfectly in the alleged divisions between some chapters and
On 7 April 2014 22:40, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
I'm not sure I want to be subscribed to this mailing list any more. :-( What
happened to the intelligent conversation that used to take place here?
This year, Fae and Russavia.
- d.
On 27 March 2014 01:38, Steven Walling swall...@wikimedia.org wrote:
2. Non-Wikipedia projects on Tuesday, April 1th.
Closer! Getting closer!
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 15 March 2014 13:31, Daniel Zahn dz...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote
It's hard to credit that people are still pushing for the WMF to accept
Bitcoin payments after the worlds major venue for trading them, the Magic:
The Gathering
On 2 March 2014 16:31, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
These days I wouldn't dare upload an image that was not either my own work
or public doman due to life+100 because I couldn't guarantee that it wont be
delted. Even with my own work I'm wary because of recent cases of amateur
On 2 March 2014 16:56, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
On 3/2/14, 5:31 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
There is a further disconnect in that Commons is taking an increasingly
ultra-conservative approach to the definition of Free, whereas most other
projects are working to a definition of Free for
On 2 March 2014 13:51, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
Its a pretty accurate description. What do you think the law says?
It's possible, if you want people and organisations to stop their
moves against you, that snideness and word play may not serve to
convince them that you have any evidenced
On 28 February 2014 08:27, Delirium delir...@hackish.org wrote:
But the other Wikimedia projects are *also* supposed to share that goal: of
producing a Free-as-in-freedom encyclopedia whose contents can be safely
reused and adapted by a wide range of other people and organizations, who
should
On 28 February 2014 16:05, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 28 February 2014 08:18, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
This supports what I noted: Commons increasingly just can't be relied
upon as a repository for the other Wikimedia projects.
Given the general failure of such projects
On 27 February 2014 22:03, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
We remain convinced that something is fundamentally wrong when its
practical result is self-inflicting the highest possible loss of contents.
And we remain convinced that there is space for a way more prudent
implementation of
On 24 February 2014 20:51, Galileo Vidoni gali...@gmail.com wrote:
However, over the last months certain Wikimedia Commons administrators have
conducted massive deletions of these contents, in many cases involving
entire categories. The burden of proof has been inverted: instead of having
to
On 26 February 2014 16:46, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
If anyone wants to create meaningful and lasting change to Commons,
then please create a Request for Comment on Commons[1] rather than
making a fuss and criticising Commons (volunteer) administrators in
non-Commons discussion channels,
On 19 February 2014 00:34, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm surprised not to see any replies to this particular thread. It seems
to me to be a no-brainer (to use a nonce-word that I hate) that imaging
equipment for local wiki organizations in a position to make good use of it
to
be a useful thing that an organisation could use to make very good
friends with GLAMs and individuals.
- d.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
Date: 15 February 2014 20:00
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK
On 6 February 2014 21:41, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm meeting with the Boundless team tomorrow.
Excellent!
How could they improve attribution?
What download formats or APIs would we like to see to enable reposting
to Wikibooks, or better cross-platform collaboration?
Yeah,
On 4 February 2014 12:40, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Before you do that in the future, perhaps it would be a good idea to
understand why a project had to, after years of trying to work with a
valued editor and to mitigate the problems caused, finally remove him from
the project.
On 4 February 2014 16:42, Harold Hidalgo hah...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps it would be a good idea to understand how bad ArbCom managed the
Rich Farmbrough case by putting him against a slow death that would
ultimately end in a year-long ban handled by a single administrator.
Risker has not
On 18 January 2014 11:29, Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
The Speakerthon event is in progress at New Broadcasting House in London:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:BBC_voice_project
We've already added sound files to the (English) Wikipedia articles on
Tim
On 17 January 2014 14:19, Fajro fai...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI it's against the bylaws of at least 4 chapters (Argentina, Chile,
Uruguay and Venezuela) to promote content in non-free formats.
Do you have the precise wording handy? e.g. What constitutes promotion?
- d.
On 17 January 2014 15:03, Ted Chien hsiangtai.ch...@gmail.com wrote:
From my knowledge when I was working as an engineer in the multimedia
software company back in 2006, if there's no transcoding to MP* formats, no
patent fee is required. So if you upload MP4 files then download them
without
A pile of press is linked at the top of the talk page.
- d.
On 17 January 2014 16:43, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
There's an article about the debate up from yesterday on Ars:
On 17 January 2014 17:12, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
property yoke. Commons' great benefit to the world is no-questions-asked
reusability, and I don't want to see it compromised in this fashion,
license freebie or otherwise. I'm with User:David
On 16 January 2014 13:37, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
3. The CNET interview with MPEG-LA's legal folks seems to indicate a
bizarre stance: Yes, they intentionally have scary, inconsistent and
confusing licensing terms. This is to make sure people with deep pockets
wind up paying
On 16 January 2014 14:14, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
it may not even be possible to tell). We could choose to make that change,
but
On 16 January 2014 16:02, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
Instead, I'd neutralize backdoored to something like, unwittingly shifting
our cherished values for the worse.
This is about the fourth time this has come around; I hope you can
understand that it's harder to credit unwittingly
On 16 January 2014 15:36, Andrew Lih andrew@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
This proposal asks to move to a free as in beer model, where content will
be free to view, but not necessarily to reuse (and with the opaque license,
it may
It is important to note that WMF itself is not in any way neutral on
this issue: adding MPEG4 is explicitly listed as a 2014 goal for the
Multimedia team.
That is, it has already been determined that this is *going to happen*.
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Multimedia/2013-14_Goals#Activities
On 14 January 2014 14:42, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
What does indeed make a difference and creates a sense of human interaction
is custom messaging over templated messaging.
It's the human interaction bit. I was *delighted* when I got a thank
you for an edit, and really
On 14 January 2014 21:20, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 14 January 2014 12:29, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
I'd rather call is a systemic bias which makes us favor standardised
technological whizbangs just because we can measure them rather than for an
actual
On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
with the person, I assume.
Apparently that's the reason.
However, being able to thank IP contributors for their contribution
would be FANTASTIC. Saying
by accident.
Kevin Rutherford
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 10, 2014, at 4:03 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 January 2014 20:28, Oliver Keyes oke...@wikimedia.org wrote:
For 1: because it'd be impossible to accurately associate notifications
with the person, I assume.
Apparently
On 8 January 2014 12:12, Andre Engels andreeng...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think it's expressly forbidden, 'frowned upon' would be the words
I'd use. Apart from that, I have a feeling this whole thread is a storm in
less than a glass of water. Odesk is a system where people can offer or
take
On 6 January 2014 00:23, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, this is not being brought up because of anything to do with
your own vicious and odious personal attacks on individuals on Commons
in any manner whatsoever.
Back under the bridge.
- d.
For your amusement:
http://pseudomonas.dreamwidth.org/120535.html
We are strictly-HTTPS to censorious regimes like the UK, aren't we?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 22 December 2013 19:31, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 December 2013 13:35, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
For your amusement:
http://pseudomonas.dreamwidth.org/120535.html
We are strictly-HTTPS to censorious regimes like the UK, aren't we?
If people chose to opt
On 12 December 2013 12:25, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Undue or unsourced negative information about living people is one aspect of
that, and what most of the formal BLP-related policy, and the process around
things like OTRS, is intended to address. The flipside is undue or unsourced
On 10 December 2013 23:13, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 11/12/13 06:58, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
I'm sure those reading this list can Google the topic themselves, so I
won't link to the many angry discussion that are taking place on the
interwebs right now;
I tried
It's *completely* wrong to call these things Ponzi schemes.
*Technically*, they're pump-and-dumps.
- d.
On 11 Dec 2013 10:59, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
I demand that the Wikimedia Foundation start accepting the following:
Litecoin
Namecoin
PPCoin
Feathercoin
Craftcoin
There's a whole site full of possible inspirations:
http://tabcloseddidntread.com/
https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/a30bbe8b54a5
Perhaps next year?
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
On 10 December 2013 14:24, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 12/10/2013 03:07 AM, David Gerard wrote:
There's a whole site full of possible inspirations:
Mind you, you are comparing apples (a small floaty reminder that /can/
overlap with part of the sidebar when scrolling
On 26 November 2013 07:26, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
They are under a CC BY SA license and if you follow the links seen here
http://books.google.ca/books?id=7avpQBAJpg=PA2058 they do eventually
attribute Wikipedia.
They are being offered for free on amazon.com
On 5 November 2013 18:58, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes if it's South enough to be in the middle of the Channel for best
neutrality.
Jersey 2015!
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
and diagram generation
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List common...@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: David Gerard dger...@gmail.com
David Gerard, 02/11/2013 23:08:
I'm going holy crap! at what you can do with LibreLogo for diagram
generation.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki
On 24 October 2013 00:07, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/23/2013 07:01 PM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
(I myself can
think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
I can also think of exactly one off the cuff (and it is almost certainly
the same); but I can think of
On 16 October 2013 06:08, Srikanth Ramakrishnan srik.r...@wikimedia.in wrote:
Chris, as Ziko put it. Would you like a novice driver with a Learner's
permit to drive on a Crowded street or a High speed expressway or in a
deserted ground?
Visual Editor for newbies has caused a lot of pages to
I just got a phone call and followup email today asking about how to
upload a photo to be on a Wikipedia article.
This has got to be an incredibly common request. What's a standardised
way to handle it?
Here's the text I wrote back with:
===
OK - the key point with contributing a picture to
On 11 October 2013 20:49, Strainu strain...@gmail.com wrote:
For this category of people we have OTRS:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/OTRS#Licensing_images:_when_do_I_contact_OTRS.3F
:)
If you want to cut the queue, just contact a volunteer to have the
ticket processed.
Yes, there's
On 11 October 2013 20:56, John phoenixoverr...@gmail.com wrote:
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donating_copyrighted_materials
Oh, that's pretty much exactly what I was thinking of. Thank you!
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On 11 October 2013 20:58, Michael Peel em...@mikepeel.net wrote:
Can't you point them towards:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses
to explain a lot of this?
I've just followed up with:
===
Here are useful pages to read
Referring to John and Federico as these two individuals comes across
as attempting to depersonalise and deprecate your opposition. Are you
quite sure this is the effect you're after?
On 9 October 2013 07:13, James Alexander jalexan...@wikimedia.org wrote:
The legal team have provided some
The big problem is that it's pretty obvious WMF could legally
obliterate Federico and John, and pointing the legal equivalent of an
M1 Abrams tank at them - as you have - does give the impression that
this is the aim.
I suggest, however, that this would not only fail to win hearts and
minds, but
fyi
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kathleen McCook klmcc...@gmail.com
Date: 24 September 2013 12:25
Subject: [WikiEN-l] access to journals
To: English Wikipedia wikie...@lists.wikimedia.org
In an effort to enhance access options for people who aren’t
affiliated with
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/09/mpaa-school-propaganda/
“This thinly disguised corporate propaganda is inaccurate and
inappropriate,” says Mitch Stoltz, an intellectual property attorney
with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who reviewed the material at
WIRED’s request.
“It suggests,
On 8 September 2013 13:06, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 10:20 PM, Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Drafting on wiki is more of a good process than an ideal way to publish the
content, in my opinion.
why?
Because turning MediaWiki from a
On 5 September 2013 20:03, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Mediawiki is indeed the most versatile platform, but that just means
it's okay at most things. It doesn't mean it's better than other
platforms explicitly designed for a particular job ;-)
Wordpress is a ridiculously
On 23 August 2013 10:28, Jens Best jens.b...@wikimedia.de wrote:
I would suggest to keep distance to this wannabe-NGO which more or less
only exists to serve the interests of commercial players which mostly do *
not* stand for a free and open web.
internet.org is nothing what will serve the
On 14 August 2013 20:39, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
YMMV, but I'd prefer if the solid value returned from my donation went
to someone in more dire need of it - i.e. if my donation could be used
to directly improve access for others who may not enjoy it. Indirectly
any donation to
On 13 August 2013 13:57, Chris Keating chriskeatingw...@gmail.com wrote:
At Wikimania there was (not for the first time) discussion that not much
support and advice there is available to Chapter board members. On Sunday
afternoon a small group of us (myself, Markus Glaser, Michał Buczyński,
On 13 August 2013 15:39, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
True. Even worse, many do not even try to be board members (or active
chapter members, for that matter) because they (think they) don't have
enough experience. It's crucial to ensure the availability of growing paths
On 6 August 2013 07:44, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
That said, this doubt is tempered by the _enormous_ selection bias we see
in the on-wiki discussion. Namely that (a) the discussion has only been
advertised to logged-in users, and (b) that nearly everyone participating
in the
On 6 August 2013 18:46, Matthew Walker mwal...@wikimedia.org wrote:
In addition what use would giving a donor a DVD set serve? They clearly
already have access to the site -- with the caveat that some countries have
restricted use restrictions from the local government. If instead we are
On 3 August 2013 18:46, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
I wonder sometimes if maintaining help/documentation pages would be a
sensible thing for WMF to have a (part?) time staffer working on, but
I guess this gets into the muddy area of paying people for volunteer
tasks
The
On 1 August 2013 22:19, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
So you mostly agree with m, but prefer to come out knee-jerking first and
only after that showing that you somehow agree.
No, he's saying you're full of it, because you are. Under your
definition, there has never been an
On 31 July 2013 10:59, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
de:wp convinced you. What would it take to convince you on en:wp? (I'm
asking for a clear objective criterion here. If you can only offer a
subjective one, please explain how de:wp convinced you when en:wp
hasn't.)
Hi
On 31 July 2013 19:27, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 5:36 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Erik, James - how did de:wp convinced you when en:wp hasn't?
I don't really agree with your framing - it's not about who's
convincing who, but being
On 31 July 2013 20:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg
(Credit to David Gerard for digging that out; this same issue
On 31 July 2013 21:00, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 July 2013 20:48, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I believe the concern derives from one of the subpages of the article:
https://image.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2013/7/31/1375269604628/KS8-001.jpg
(Credit
On 31 July 2013 21:47, Ryan Lane rl...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Why would we expect that we weren't being targeted? Knowing what people are
looking up is powerful knowledge.
That doesn't make it one dot less reprehensible.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l
On 31 July 2013 23:01, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that's just naive. Of course it was always denied until it
became impossible to deny it. That's how these things work. But I have
honestly assumed for many years that virtually everything transmitted
over almost any electronic
On 30 July 2013 07:39, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
I can dream up horrors you can't even imagine. Consider a template
consisting if two single quotes. For a demonstration, see
http://en.Wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Martijn_Hoekstra/Lovecraftian_horror2
D-:
That's like a
On 30 July 2013 09:06, Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com wrote:
6. Announce a date from where on saving a page with a transcluded legacy
template will be blocked. Expect public outcry.
An important consideration that all developers must keep in mind is that
though the current syntax
On 30 July 2013 15:44, Ziko van Dijk vand...@wmnederland.nl wrote:
It's interesting how an essentially social question (being welcoming to new
people by a Visual editor) turns quickly into a debate on software.
.nl has yet to experience the software in question, and the social
issues
On 30 July 2013 17:03, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
If the overwhelming community sentiment
is that the cost of continuous improvement with a large scale user
base is larger than the benefit (as it was on dewiki), we'll switch
back (or to a compromise), and use a more rigid set of
On 30 July 2013 21:47, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
Why should a consensus of any arbitrary number of power editors be allowed
to define the defaults for all editors, including anonymous and
OK - so why were those people listened to on de:wp? What happened
there that they
On 30 July 2013 22:27, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 July 2013 21:47, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
Why should a consensus of any arbitrary number of power editors be allowed
to define the defaults for all editors, including anonymous and
OK - so why were those
On 29 July 2013 23:41, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
Nostalgia for the good old days of hand-spun wikitables with baroque
hacked together syntax notwithstanding.
MediaWiki wikitext should indeed be set on fire and put in a bin and
fired into the sun, with any other horrible and
On 26 July 2013 03:12, Everton Zanella Alvarenga
everton.alvare...@okfn.org wrote:
Maybe a new community (less conservative?) to build a good
encyclopedia can come up if a new platformn be invented?
Hence power users as a snarl word.
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of
On 23 July 2013 12:07, Rui Correia correia@gmail.com wrote:
I've have my setting on receive copy of own emails, but did not receive
this email that I sent out. Can someone please confirm?
It went out. What you're seeing is that GMail refuses to show you
messages you sent to a list, even
On 15 July 2013 00:06, Richard Symonds richard.symo...@wikimedia.org.uk wrote:
I'd say that yes, you want uniform pictures, with a uniform idea behind
them. For example, all professional, or all slightly informal, or all
crazy. It doesn't matter so much about tattoos, but they need to all have
On 15 July 2013 21:41, Matthew Roth mr...@wikimedia.org wrote:
I find this to be a terribly sexy proposition. I would urge geni to become
the new manager for equipment approvals.
geni is a Commons admin. Nitpickers so formidable that Counsel has
expressed his admiration for their l33t
201 - 300 of 441 matches
Mail list logo
