2012/6/21 Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com:
Incidentally, a Commons copyright specialist is currently being banned for
nominating admins' copyright violations for deletion, even though the vast
majority of his deletions have always turned out to be correct ... the
administrators are feeling
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:46 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Many images on Wikipedia have been taken without the subject's genuine
consent. So surely that isn't the issue.
Many are transferred to Commons from
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Anthony wikim...@inbox.org wrote:
Well, first of all, why?
Secondly, I'm not talking just about sexually explicit photos.
Wikipedia has photos of people being or about to be [[behead]]ed,
[[torture]]d, [[kidnap]]ped, [[assassination]]ed, etc. I checked, and
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
Am 21.06.2012 21:55, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 7:50 PM, Todd Allentoddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
This thread isn't about copyvios, and I don't want to get too far
afield, but I think it does kind of show the thought process here
sometimes. From my read of the discussions
On 21 June 2012 20:38, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
topic, provided it were appropriately licensed and did not raise privacy
concerns
Am 21.06.2012 22:24, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM, Andreas Kolbejayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Well, Todd has certainly said on-wiki in the past that he would not see a
problem in Wikipedia using a video of rape to illustrate an article on the
topic, provided it were
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you point me to any examples of real child abuse, sexual abuse or of
child sexual abuse?
On Wikipedia? On Commons? Anywhere?
For child sexual abuse, I was referring mainly to the Virgin Killer
image
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
But in practice, we do have photos of
victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
Some of those photos are extremely disturbing. That's because the
articles are about extremely disturbing subjects.
Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Can you point me to any examples of real child abuse, sexual abuse or of
child sexual abuse?
On Wikipedia? On Commons? Anywhere?
Do i really need to answer this
Am 22.06.2012 00:02, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 5:48 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 21.06.2012 22:51, schrieb Anthony:
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.comwrote:
Can you point me to any examples of
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 10:10 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
That was a highly theoretical scenario (and one you brought up for
that reason, as I recall.) But in practice, we do have photos of
victims at articles such as [[Rape of Nanking]] and [[Holocaust]].
Some of those photos
On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 04:46:50PM -0700, En Pine wrote:
Here's an opinion piece, The Problem with Wikidata, by Mark Graham, who
is a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, which appears on
The Atlantic's website. I'm not personally supporting or opposing his views
but I found
Dear all,
Dear activists for free knowledge in education,
since we are new to this list: first a Hello to all of you!
Throughout the last years Wikimedia Deutschland has gained a lot of
experience in the educational field. Working in this sector, we had a lot
of different programs and
Jussi, I'm not finding the post you are replying too, what's the context here?
On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 3:29 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
The core problem here is that the Board is not alive and well.
The Board of Trustees is dead in their shoes. What precisely
are they
According to:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120330/12402418305/why-missing-20th-century-books-is-even-worse-than-it-seems.shtml
a lot of books have an uncertain copyright status, because the Copyright Office
records have not been
digitized yet.
Is this true? Would offering to
There are scans of most of the relevant records, and the records for books
are also transcribed by Project Gutenberg and searchable at a stanford uni
website. See en.ws template PD-US-no-renewal. The scans need to be
transcribed to increase accessibility.
On Jun 24, 2012 3:50 AM, Kim Bruning
Whoa, in 1958/59, only *seven *percent of the books and *eleven *percent of
the journals were renewed? This may be obvious, but clarifying the
copyright status of these works would be a huge benefit to editors looking
for public domain image to illustrate Wikipedia articles... and that's not
While I'm also interested in looking into this, for *images* in
particular I think it's quite difficult. They're often used in books and
journals by permission of the photographer, so the fact that the
book/journal's copyright wasn't renewed doesn't necessarily mean the
photographs in the
The FSF is not very pleased about being classified as a gambling site.
http://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/dear-microsoft-fsf.org-is-not-a-gambling-site
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
--
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
The proposal for the Wikimedia Movement to take on a travel site continues
to develop. The site WikiVoyage www.wikivoyage.com at their last board
meeting has agreed in principle to join a WMF run site. This will mean that
the WM movement has the potential ability to bring two communities of
On 24 June 2012 18:22, Siebrand Mazeland (WMF) smazel...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Date: 2012-07-18
Time: 16.30 UTC
Venue: #wikimedia-office
You are invited to a Wikimedia Foundation IRC Offfice Hours in Wednesday
July 18, 2012 at 16:30 UTC (time zone information: http://hexm.de/j6).
The
the address is http://www.wikivoyage.org/
what is the difference to wikitravel.org? well it is in german and
italian, and missing information on places that are in the wikitravel.
For the würzburg article it seems pretty good at first glance it seems better
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 12:25 AM, Samuel Klein meta...@gmail.com wrote:
The Board has been following the public discussion on Meta for the
past month, and will have had time before Wikimania to follow any
input resulting from this more public announcement of the proposal.
No decision has
I didn't really mind it -- a fun reminder some people still live in the
Micro$haft Winbl0ws 1990s. :)
Michel
On 25 June 2012 06:21, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
On Jun 25, 2012 5:22 AM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
And this has what to do with the Wikimedia-l List?
FSF are a partner of ours, so I guess it is on topic. I found it
interesting.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Evolution of political battles (this one on piracy).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/24/richard-o-dwyer-my-petition
This is currently first on http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (UK news but I've seen
it
Hi all,
I ran some analysis last week, to get some numbers out of the
Wikipedia language links. One type of reports that were generated was
the list of all articles in the main namespaces of the Wikipedias that
link to more than one article in another language edition of Wikipedia
(so called
Hi Denny,
This is a really interesting list.
Looking at the Hungarian list, I find that in many instances the duplicate
interwiki link is actually commented out (in the form of !-- Source:
[[en: something]] -- or !-- wrong interwikis: [[en: ..] [[fr: ..]] --),
and not real duplicate links. (In
Hi Denny,
TL;DR: It's a very important question, but don't worry about it too
much. Just do Wikidata well as it is currently planned.
Now, the full reply.
I wrote a bit of an essay about it in 2008:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Tips_for_resolving_interwiki_conflicts
I also started a page to
Thanks for this list. For the languages I know, I've started going
through and fixing ones that are clearly wrong. If a number of people do
that, that should improve the general quality/consistency of interwiki
links. I second the other comment that it'd be nice if the parsing could
be re-run
Hello,
So may I guess that double links are usually the result of a
Wikipedian who was not sure which language link to set, so in doubt,
he simply put in the language links for two different articles?
And in general, is it imagineable that different languages divide the
knowledge in different
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading out
the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased
diversity in times, it seems ALL office hours are now being scheduled
during
Hi Pine,
Reviving this thread because it looks like your questions haven't been
answered...
On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 4:26 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Erik,
Thanks for replying. Let me make sure that I understand. The graph at
http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/new_editors
On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading
out
the times during which office hours would be hosted. Instead of increased
I think the top slot in the poll I took was Saturdays, either 11AM to noon
SF time (6PM-7PM UTC, going from memory) or noon to one SF time (7PM-8PM
UTC).
I am totally fine with either of those times, and so I will volunteer to do
my next office hours in one of those slots. Normally I'm scheduled
Op-ed: A call for editorial input in developing new Creative Commons licensing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2012-06-25/Op-ed
News and notes: Mystical Picture of the Year; run-up to Wikimania DC; RfA
reform 2012
2012/6/26 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we had a discussion about spreading
out
the times during which office hours would
Ziko,
it does not jeopardize the Wikidata goal -- the current language link
system won't be switched off, but can be further used. Everything that
is working currently will still be possible afterwards. Wikidata can
still be used to represent the 99.2% of language links that are simple
-- this
Amir,
thank you for the thoughtful reply!
Indeed our current plan is a kind of a staged deployment in the sense
that we will not automatically transfer the links but let the editor
community do it. On our test systems we already see bots being tried
out and rewritten, so we expect that as soon
This number, 99.2% was also mentioned on the Berlin Hackathon. It
sounds much higher than what my (very scientifically relevant,
obviously) gut feeling tells me. Could you indicate where this number
is coming from?
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Denny Vrandečić
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de
I got the number from Brent Hecht, a researcher at Northwestern, who
has a number of great papers published on Wikipedia-related topics.
CC-ing him, so he knows I am blam.., er, referencing him :)
Cheers,
Denny
2012/6/26 Martijn Hoekstra martijnhoeks...@gmail.com:
This number, 99.2% was also
On 26 June 2012 07:47, Denny Vrandečić denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de wrote:
2012/6/26 Risker risker...@gmail.com:
On 25 June 2012 13:56, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 5:54 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Excuse me. Just about a month ago, we
One major problem with double language links I've encountered before was
that they confuse interwiki bots and therefore break things. Several
articles on the Cantonese Wikipedia (zh-yue.wp) pertaining to local
political and cultural issues in the Cantonese-speaking world have
__NOBOT__ on them
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
forced to censor a
number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
And thus is the wisdom of eschewing advertizement and sponsorship
highlighted for all too see. I've always
On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our
movies. It
somehow feels soviet. :-/
A significant chunk of them would probably fail [[WP:V]]. Actually for
the most part I just feel sorry for the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 08:41:04PM +0100, geni wrote:
On 26 June 2012 19:02, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
In the mean time, the discussed tropes *do* exist in our culture and in our
movies. It
somehow feels soviet. :-/
A significant chunk of them would probably fail
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:22 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 26/06/2012 2:02 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
Wow, thank goodness we never had advertising. The TV-Tropes wiki has been
forced to censor a
number of pages due to advertiser pressure.
And thus is the wisdom of eschewing
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh, that is not
the
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, the ones putting pressure on TV Tropes, and who made them take
the
pages down, are Google.
That is the same Google who are a major financial contributor to
Wikimedia.
True. But if Google told WMF Change
Maryana, thank you.
For anyone else who's following this, my understanding that the wikistats
fixes are complete, including
http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors_target and
http://reportcard.wmflabs.org/graphs/active_editors.
Pine
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
itself. The WMF, for example, is not neutral on the question of
whether or not
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 4:23 PM, Todd Allen toddmal...@gmail.com wrote:
I've never understood why that was considered non-neutral. WMF, as an
entity, can have viewpoints, especially as relates to the organization
itself. The
* Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for abandoning
neutrality. You might say it was done for great reasons, and that it
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:45 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann derhoe...@gmx.net wrote:
* Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons. That is the condicio sine qua non for
Hi All,
Brent Hecht here :-) This has been a really interesting discussion, and I
wanted to chime in with a few notes.
The 99.2% is based on a quick script I wrote that looked at reciprocity among a
sample of interlanguage links (ILLs) in 25 languages to address some questions
that Denny
Kim Bruning wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:07:02PM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I've always been against ads, but as far as I am concerned, the illusion of
an NPOV project ended with the SOPA strike, and Jimbo's current exploits
around O'Dwyer (who I agree should not be extradited, but doh,
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.
Figuratively speaking, or do you think it actually made a whit of difference?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I was actually thinking of the board, or just Jimbo himself, rather than
any wider group of luminaries (or actual Wikipedia editors). If Google
wanted something, I am sure they would speak in person to the people they
On 27 June 2012 05:15, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps so. :)) (But clearly, so have you.)
The difference being that I've been following Wikipedia criticism for
much longer to the point where I can just view it as a rather
repetitive soap opera.
I was actually thinking of the
On 27/06/12 06:46, Nathan wrote:
It's simple. The WMF didn't do anything. The English Wikipedia did. That
project effectively changed the content of the entire encyclopedia for
political reasons.
Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF
staff.
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Tim Starling tstarl...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Actually, the SOPA blackout notice was developed and deployed by WMF
staff.
Point of clarification:
Developed and deployed, yes - but at the request of the English Wikipedia
community, in the form of the RFC that
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a
long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SexualHarassmentAndRapeTropes?from=Main.RapeTropes
- it seems they just had a problem with Google withdrawing ad revenue
because they
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 5:10 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 16:02, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
This must be the most misleading mailing list title I've seen in a
long time. Almost all of these tropes are untouched:
On 27 June 2012 16:30, David Richfield davidrichfi...@gmail.com wrote:
Wow, they moved fast! I read the blog post and then went to check,
and found the supposedly deleted articles up, less than a full day
after the original mailing list email, so I assumed there had to be
some mistake. How
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 12:48 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January extradition trial:
[snip]
It looks like these – rather than NPOV – are the values that Wikipedia has
been co-opted to
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 17:56, Nathan wrote:
Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
The whole point about deliberate obfuscation is that it's supposed to blur that
line. ;-)
--
Tom Morris
http://tommorris.org/
___
Jimmy is not Wikipedia. What about that is hard to understand?
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia
founder label.
- Original Message -
From: Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012 5:48 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] O'Dwyer
Further to Jimbo's championing O'Dwyer, here is the court document from
O'Dwyer's January
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that mentions his campaign for O'Dwyer has the obligatory Wikipedia
founder label.
Jimmy's platform is Wikipedia.
The media struggle to seperate the two (note the connect back to SOPA
in this case)
Not that I agree entirely with Andreas. But certainly I think the
community could have a view on this.
Tom Morton
On 27 Jun 2012, at 18:01, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 6:10 PM, Tom Morris t...@tommorris.org wrote:
On Wednesday, 27 June 2012 at 18:05, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
I would have agreed with you half a year ago. But Jimbo decided there
would
be a SOPA blackout, and a SOPA blackout was had. And every press article
that
Dominic - A fair point; this shoudl be clarified explicitly in the
description of AffCom work. The discussion in DC will touch on both,
but is mostly about getting AffCom underway. SJ
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
mcdev...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for that
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And
hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
I understand you've not really studied the subject but there are far
more than that.
Let's just
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:19 PM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27 June 2012 18:51, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote: And
hell, there really are two points of view about copyright,
I understand you've not really
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Thomas Morton morton.tho...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On the topic of Jimmy; Wikipedia is his calling card, it opens doors. I
think he hasn't done enough in many situations to distance his own views
from us; which is unfortunate. But not necessarily deliberate :)
On 27 June 2012 21:25, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Let's just start with the notion that there might be more than just *one*
view. ;)
Why start there? Again I understand you haven't really studied
copyright but quite a few wikipedians have. So everything from
copyright maximalist
On 27 June 2012 22:05, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
attributed to the Wikipedia founder, then there really is no discernible
difference between his view and Wikipedia's, or Google's.
wikipedia doesn't really have views in the conventional sense. The
amorphous blob that is the
All,
FYI
The Board of Trustees passed a resolution extending and making
permanent the Board Visitors visitors program, which we tried out for
a one-year trial in 2011.
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Resolution:Board_Visitors_%282012%29
The language is the same as that in the resolution
In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are
actually just attending one meeting?
And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along
to observe their meetings?
On 27 June 2012 23:58, phoebe ayers phoebe.w...@gmail.com wrote:
All,
FYI
The Board of
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 4:03 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are
actually just attending one meeting?
In the sense that someone could attend any of the meetings happening
within that year, as agreed on by the board
On 28 Jun 2012, at 00:03, Thomas Dalton wrote:
In what sense do these visitors have a one-year term when they are
actually just attending one meeting?
And why doesn't the board just allow anyone that wants to come along
to observe their meetings?
+1. Compare and contrast with WMUK board
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 11:42 PM, Jay Walsh jwa...@wikimedia.org wrote:
It would be interesting to see the community develop its own high
profile
media contacts so this view can be communicated to the world!
If Jimmy can write this in The Guardian (a paper which really seems
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 9:05 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 27/06/2012 12:10 AM, Anthony wrote:
On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Kim Bruningk...@bruning.xs4all.nl
wrote:
The SOPA strike was necessary for us to retain neutrality.
Figuratively speaking, or do you think it
On 28 June 2012 01:37, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
Jay, what did Jimmy expect the press to report? None of you have been doing
this since yesterday. Jimmy's very petition is signed Jimmy Wales,
Wikipedia founder.
Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation was approached by the founders of an
organization called the Internet Defense League, which is soon to be
launched. The founders would like the Foundation to join the League.
However, the online community as a whole is the heart of this proposed
grassroots
well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples
personal lives.
I dont want to deal with stuff like that,
mike
On Wed, Jun 27, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Mike Dupont
jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well you think i should delete them from the speedydeletion wikia?
@Tobias O.:
You are wrong, the day before yesterday
RalfR. wrote,
that only the winners will write history
(Aber es stimmt schon,
der Sieger schreibt die Geschichte, so
falsch das auch sein mag
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Internet_Defense_League I wonder why
it was not deleted yet. considering that established artists and
doctors are speedily deleted, why not them?
mike
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 5:30 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Internet Defense League
--
Uhm, {{sofixit}}?
___
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
415-839-6885, x 6643
phili...@wikimedia.org
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 2:46 PM, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Well I am not a deletionist, I am just pointing out that there is a
very strange criteria for deletion on the wikipedia, that is why i
started the speedydeletion.wikia.com
mike
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 9:55 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Uhm, {{sofixit}}?
On 28 June 2012 22:59, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com wrote:
Well I am not a deletionist, I am just pointing out that there is a
very strange criteria for deletion on the wikipedia, that is why i
started the speedydeletion.wikia.com
The article has several references to
Could we keep this thread on topic please ?
Alex
2012/6/28 Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com
On 28 June 2012 22:59, Mike Dupont jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com
wrote:
Well I am not a deletionist, I am just pointing out that there is a
very strange criteria for deletion on the
On 28 June 2012 23:10, J Alexandr Ledbury-Romanov
alexandrdmitriroma...@gmail.com wrote:
Could we keep this thread on topic please ?
The thread has no topic. It was just an announcement pointing to the
RFC, all the discussion is taking place there. There's no harm in
re-purposing this thread to
Thomas Dalton, 29/06/2012 00:32:
On 28 June 2012 23:26, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I think we should debate what is and isn't thread hijacking, and when it
may or may not be appropriate.
The weather today in London was wonderful.
Also, this thread is a valuable example of what the
Greetings,
I am pleased to announce that the Midwest region of the United States now has
our own email list!
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-us-mw -
wikimedia-us...@lists.wikimedia.org.
This discussion list allows for individuals in the Midwest US to discuss
Cross-posting.
-greg
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
Subject: New, lower traffic, announcements only email list for Wikimedia
developers
Date: 30 June, 2012 1:23:11 AM EDT
To: wikitec...@lists.wikimedia.org
Greetings,
Following discussions with
Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve
TVTropes.
sincerely,
Kim Bruning
On Thu, Jun 28, 2012 at 06:17:57PM +, Mike Dupont wrote:
well i decided to delete them, and other articles dealing with peoples
personal lives.
I dont want to deal
well i can give you copies of the scripts, the articles are still on
archive org, I dont want to host them,
mike
On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Kim Bruning k...@bruning.xs4all.nl wrote:
Better would be to keep those articles, and also (at some point) to preserve
TVTropes.
sincerely,
Hi Gregory,
Could I ask a related common question - why not just send these out on
WikimediaAnnounce-l?
Thanks,
Mike
On 30 Jun 2012, at 06:49, Gregory Varnum wrote:
Cross-posting.
-greg
Begin forwarded message:
From: Gregory Varnum gregory.var...@gmail.com
Subject: New, lower
501 - 600 of 37056 matches
Mail list logo
