Maybe I've missed something, but there is still an open consultation process on
Commons, and one of the points raised there is that of a Wikimedian who
operates a website (although a blog would be equally applicable) seriously
libelling another Wikimedian. As it stands this UCoC is silent on
n Tue, 8 Dec 2020 at 19:07, Phil Nash via Wikimedia-l
wrote:
Great news. Vulnerable contributors to Wikimedia projects should be owed a duty
of care, not least because they make good, well-informed contributions, but
also that those projects should not become the preserve of a socially and
pol
ridiculous, and mentioned in my RFA on Commons.
Time, perhaps, for the WMF to get its act together and say to people "That was
the wrong thing to do, and we have no hesitation in correcting it". Fortunately
I am no longer alone; I have people interested in exposing the arbitrariness of
arb
The search has to be done before the category structure is addressed, even if
that needs to be done. How else would you compartmentalise, what 32 million
images?
And structured data has to be fixed before either. The reason is that
structured data does not have unique names, and I don't think
I haven't seen any evidence of this on Commons. We do delete selfies of
non-Wikimedians because we are not Facebook. Apart from that, I'd like to see
some evidence for this. Thanks
User:Rodhullandemu
---
New Outlook Express and Windows Live Mail replacement - get it here:
- Original Message -
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 4:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
On 07/09/2013 08:37 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
How is that
- Original Message -
From: Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 6:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Russian Wikipedia in trouble /yet/ again
- Original Message -
From: Fred Bauder
A good and just result. However, there is no mention of costs and I would
hope that the Foundation would have recovered these in the face of what
seemed to be an optimistic, if not actually frivolous, claim.
Lest history should repeat itself, I'd be glad if it were made clear that
the
I found it mostly useless. Not only could I mark the feedback resolved,
which should not be possible for a banned user (!), but the feedback was
either gibberish/abuse or unhelpful in the sense of (1) the material
requested was already in the article, or a linked article, or (2) the
complaint
- Original Message -
From: Risker risker...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] commons promotion
...old days when everything operated on the assumption that
there were always warm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_and_television_shows_set_in_Liverpool
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
- 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
- Original Message -
From: Victor Vasiliev vasi...@gmail.com
To: Wikimedia Mailing List wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2012 11:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Watchlist email notifications enabled on all
wikis
Please, do not enable this feature by default.
13 matches
Mail list logo