Library Team is doing a great job, but I really feel
this is a bad deal. And it was sent to the open access mailing list.
Which this is not.)
On Wed, Nov 5, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Jake Orlowitz jorlow...@gmail.com wrote:
The Wikipedia Library has new, free research donations available:
will not give us much
insight into the question if we should go into the business of
offering data services or not.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 9:02 AM, John Mark Vandenberg <jay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:38 AM, Isaac David <isacdaa...@isacdaavid.info>
Please see below the reply by Rob from MusicBrainz (forwarding because
he is not on the mailing list):
> On Jan 17, 2016, at 04:51, Mitar <mmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would suggest that anyone interested in monetizing APIs check how
> MusicBrainz (https://musicbra
and suggesting that they pay/donate for their
service. In this way the service is free for users, but organizations
behind big groups of users are paying for service to be online for
On Sat, Jan 16, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm i
tagged with "not an encyclopedia-grade article, possible lacking
notability and/or significance" and move on? And then we can discuss
the merits of that tag being applied to a particular article. Which is
much less new-editor-scary than a warning "page is nominated for
And 280 deletionists:
So, how is this still a thing? How can this be put to a vote and
finally move on? What is Wikipedia's governance process here? Does
Wikipedia has something like https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/ ?
Ehm, that looks great, but I have no idea what a project is and how to
I join? The talk page on the Edit_Review_Improvements has just some
suggestions? How is communication being done here? Sorry if this is
On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.
ity? In 8 years there should really already be
So, what are issues people have with my proposal above? Why would not
this satisfy both groups?
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 6:19 PM, Brill Lyle <wp.brilll...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mitar is not being specific about the entry and seems more into
This is restored version of the article with even more references (11)
than at the time of deletion (8):
On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 11:47 PM, Pine W <wiki.p...@gmail.com> wrote:
> A number of us are currently discussing this
he first thing could be improved, it is a content issue?
Anyway, what is the process to improve this process? Or should we just
leave it be and everything is great?
hanks for your attention, to those who managed to read through my
long rant. Sorry.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
rticle was plain and simple, this would be
easier. And then later on those students can come to the Wikipedia
article about a company they visited and add a photo of it to the
article, and explain what they learned during the visit about the
history of the company.
Mail list logo