and process to
decide whether we have too many committees and processes.
On Wed, May 18, 2022 at 4:45 PM Samuel Klein wrote:
> Dear Board (and all),
> The growing complexity of governance efforts is defeating us. Process
> creep <https://en.wik
The problem with this feature was that when the deleted material was
libelous, offensive, etc., it would still automatically be copied into the
deletion summary, which served to defeat the entire purpose of deleting it.
On Monday, January 17, 2022, Amir E. Aharoni
Every time I see the title of this thread, I momentarily wonder why this
event is being held 220 years ago.
On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:37 AM Rajeeb Dutta wrote:
> Thank you, Maggie for the kind update, I am looking forward to it.
> Best Regards,
This whole subject raises interesting and important legal and ethical
issues, but are there any direct implications at this time for
On Sunday, January 19, 2020, Ryan Merkley wrote:
> I don't believe it implies that. As with many things le
On 3/15/17, Michelle Paulson <mpaul...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Hello All,
> I’m writing with a brief update; this afternoon, Judge Derrick K. Watson
> granted the temporary restraining order , blocking the executive order
I suspect that this was posted not by OhNoItsJamie but by an imposter.
On 2/6/17, OhNoitsJamie 1 <ohnoitsjami...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have been long interested in starting my own MediaWiki project, but the
> issue is that I cannot maintain server inf
in the future, or to make it available offline for
research use or consultation by historians or other researchers who
could make good use of it.
On 1/11/17, Pete Forsyth <petefors...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thank you for bringing this up, Yann. Some relevant context is that Me
general statement that there's a discussion of
scaling them back?
On 12/20/16, Lilburne <lilbu...@tygers-of-wrath.net> wrote:
> The DMCA and safe harbours is certainly why Google makes so much and
> pays so little from YT. So much copyright violating material get
I suggest that we just drop the Trump tangent from the discussion, as
it is a distraction.
On 6/28/16, Milos Rancic <mill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moving this issue out of the thread about India, as it doesn't belong to it.
> It seems that my explanation of explanatio
"Talkpage watcher" would do fine.
On 5/26/16, David Goodman <dgge...@gmail.com> wrote:
> talk-page stalker is not necessarily an unfriendly term. It's meant as an
> explanation for why the person saw the question, and posted there. But
> perhaps we
it will be helpful at least to some
On 2/29/16, Amir E. Aharoni <amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il> wrote:
> Nathan, as pretty much always, is correct.
> Everybody is tired of this mystery.
> I'm not blaming anybody - it's part of the unfortunate atmosp
I too am one of those people who is not to be found on Facebook. I
only have room in my life for one online timesink ... and I already
have Wikipedia :)
On 2/21/16, Risker <risker...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As has already been explained on this list, many people do not ha
to make any public statement about the subject.
On 1/10/16, Craig Franklin <cfrank...@halonetwork.net> wrote:
> I don't disagree that we need an explanation not only of his actions, but
> also on how he was selected without this being disclosed to existing
sion in a new thread, though?)
On 1/11/16, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok - I would be really surprised if WMF have discussed Google in their
> executive sessions either - given the difficulties around staff and
> strategy the
on strange and unfortunate. However, it seems
relevant and I thought people in this discussion might want to be
aware of it..
I also agree that the information about the two new board members
should be circulated promptly.
On 12/29/15, Steinsplitter Wiki <steinsplitter-w...@li
contacted Mr. Bischoff and asked him what he is doing
On Monday, July 20, 2015, Robert Rohde raro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Brad Jorsch (Anomie)
Since when has that ever been a thing? With respect
on the ground that it was free where it was posted?
On 6/22/15, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
On 22 June 2015 at 13:17, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes I agree an example of what Wikipedia would look like if this
regulation passed is an excellent idea. Could we base it on the geo
On 6/17/15, Paolo B. tito...@gmail.com wrote:
The Philippines' Supreme Court has, on some occasions, cited Wikipedia
articles in their decisions to provide supplementary background
information. Here's one example---and one that was written as early as 2005!
On 4/7/15, Anthony Cole ahcole...@gmail.com wrote:
It's an encyclopedia, Marc. The world's encyclopedia. People should be able
to trust it. You and the rest of the WMF need
I agree with the others who have opined that this should not happen.
On 3/29/15, Brian reflect...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm sure many of you recall the Netflix Prize
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netflix_Prize. This is that, for Wikipedia!
Although the initial goal of the Netflix Prize
Here's a compromise between those who want to discuss cryonics and those
who think it's weirdly off-topic: We'll freeze this thread.
On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 12:16 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
Hmmm. James and Liam just put a smile on my face, and honestly, if
Actually, those would not be appropriate ways of handling the (alleged)
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 1:40 PM, Dennis Pierri dennis6...@gmail.com wrote:
You can go to SatuSuro's talk page and say this personally to him or
vandalize it or whatever your heart desires
On 8/2/14, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
In mid-July I was advised by an editor that on 5 July 2014 they had
received via the Wikimedia mailing system an email from SatuSuro. The
editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share private
The activity you describe is obviously unacceptable. However, the amount
of time and effort that out associated with tracking down and returning a
particular $20 contribution would not be worth it.
On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
those sites do not epitomize good practice in
my view, but this one they get right.) Similarly, I assume that such
checks are performed on Wikimedia mailing lists such as this one.
There is every reason that offwiki can do so as well and I hope you
On 7/9/14, Wil
Given that the purpose of the new site is discussion toward the
improvement of Wikipedia/Wikimedia, I don't see a problem in principle
with a post mentioning the existence of the new site. Repeated
promotional e-mails would be out of line, but I trust that will not be
the more clearly, our collective,
non-delegable editorial responsibility.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:17 PM, edward edw...@logicmuseum.com wrote:
On 16/06/2014 21:07, Newyorkbrad wrote:
In its decision, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view of Section 230 and
holds that Section 230 protection is not lost even where the website
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
Don't lecture me about what is and isn't acceptable.
Sure, you're a member of WMNYC and you are, of course, really butthurt
over the fact that basically the only report on the conference
(man statements -- many statements)
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 5:33 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia, your post confirms my rule of thumb that any post containing the
word butthurt is unworthy of serious attention.
I was not present at the conference while the newspaper
should fear, nor that we would, even
jokingly, threaten to do create a BLP as a form of what came last year to
be called revenge editing.
Please don't make this sort of comment again.
On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 4:39 AM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com
any form of
Wikipedia/Wikimedia criticism nor your becoming more familiar with the
projects and their communities.
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:23 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
What talk page are you talking about? How in the world am I making an
. But I suspect that Wil understands that already.
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
about child protection rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look
like you were
Is there one place, perhaps on Meta, where a Wikipedian/Wikimedian could
find a summary/briefing on the various different programs that exist?
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 10:24 AM, Leigh Thelmadatter osama...@hotmail.comwrote:
I think this speaks to how little is known and how poorly
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Dominic McDevitt-Parks
I've thought a lot about the issues around conflict of interest, paid
editing, and paid advocacy (by the way, those are all overlapping but
different concepts). My writing (and
if the equipment were
On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 3:04 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
A message I just sent in a wikimediauk-l thread about photographic
negative scanners, which I thought might be of general interest to
tl;dr: an archival-quality
theoretical, not to screw over legitimate claims
by rightsholders or by people with privacy interests implicated by the
On Monday, December 30, 2013, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30 December 2013 11:26, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead of .
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since UTC is a confusing
, and should be
as clearly expressed as possible. Anyone who disagrees with me is free
to state his or her opinion until today.
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:47 AM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.orgwrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:45 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
It's simple enough to use 0001 instead
Are you saying that our extensive discussion of the meaning of counts
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Michael Snow wikipe...@frontier.comwrote:
On 10/30/2013 8:39 AM, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
On 10/30/2013 11:20 AM, Risker wrote:
Just to clarify, since
policy had been in place at the relevant time? (I myself can
think of one and only one, but am curious if there are others.)
On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Marc A. Pelletier m...@uberbox.org wrote:
On 10/21/2013 08:13 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
On a typical site, paid staff would deal
is a long enough period in which all chapters can do so.
I understand there are reasons to want to move ahead expeditiously with
this election, so I'm not calling for delay for the sake of delay; on the
other hand, allowing a bit more time might be in order.
On Sunday, February
CECI N'EST PAS UNE ENCYCLOPEDIE.
On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 4:41 PM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
I too like that work of Catherine. I have it on my userpage also.
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 10:41:26 -0200
From: Everton Zanella Alvarenga ezalvare
. Or is it just that there is disagreement about
the membership or method of picking the ArbCom? (The Meta discussion is
not completely clear.)
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 7:01 AM, Teofilo teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
A group of French admins is threatening me of what they call a block
Mail list logo