t only partially, and not before Aaron Swartz became
involved)
* Happy Birthday - via legal means (exposed as copyfraud via academic
research and subsequently freed by lawsuit)
Regards, HaeB (T. Bayer)
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
Background for some of the references in this thread (for people, such
as myself, who haven't been following this particular, peculiar corner
of the universe closely):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vox_Day
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theodore_Beale
2016-10-10 11:13 GMT-07:00 David Gerard :
> "INF
There is more information at
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Unvisited_app .
2014-05-31 12:26 GMT-07:00 Kevin Rutherford :
> Hey all,
>
> I realized at the Wikimedia Conference in Berlin that many people do not know
> that there is a phone app that you can use on your phone that search
On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
wrote:
> On 20 February 2014 00:56, HaeB wrote:
>>
>>
>> Sorry, but I think these concerns are overblown.
>>
>
> I do not intend to fill everyone's inbox with a back-and-forth, but I do
> want t
he NARA
images uploaded by your bot.) But the GLAM perspective is not the only
one, and if there really exists legitimate, beneficial work by
Wikimedians-in-residence such as yourself that would be seriously
affected in the negative by the current wording of the proposed
amendment - which I highly d
nd can't speak with
authority on the details of Sarah's current job responsibilities, but I'm
quite certain that the blog's claim about them is wrong.
Regards, HaeB (Tilman Bayer)
Am Sonntag, 5. Januar 2014 schrieb Russavia :
> Odder has published a fantastic blog piece at
>
2013/8/30 Renata St :
> Hi Lisa,
>
> Thanks for the reply, I never doubted it's WM event -- it just majorly
> surprised me and I still have a bunch of questions:
>
> 1) is this the first fundraising event? I have never heard of them before...
FWIW, here is a Signpost article about a previous fundr
2013/1/22 ??? :
> On 22/01/2013 18:28, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>>
>> On 22 January 2013 16:51, Richard Symonds
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> It appears that opinion is divided on whether a hyperlink is acceptable
>>> as
>>> attribution, therefore I'm asking the experts:
>>>
>>> - Does anyone have any input o
