Can I be allowed to talk in need and be replied when asked something
significant?
I am a blocked user in Wikipedia spaces and restricted to send emails so I
needed help in this regard.
Thank you
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
Hello all,
I'm a bit uncertain if it's the right avenue to ask. I apologize if it's
not the appropriate place and I will refrain from using this platform
in the future for similar reasons. I'm asking here to invite a broader
community perspective in this RfC[1] since this issue needs opinions
Dear Sir/Madam,
Due to personal interest, I would like to request unsubscribe from the
Wikipedia list.
Please kindly fulfil my request accordingly.
Thank you.
Best,
Moly vannarong
Sent from my iPhone
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list --
No.
OCW uses CC-NC-SA 4.0; Wikimedia uses CC-SA 3.0.
Denny is asking where we are in upgrading to CC-SA 4.0, which is a very
good question. :)
That will provide all of the same modes of reuse as the 3.0 license, but is
more cleanly compatible with other 4.0 licenses, particularly around edge
I think this CC-4 licensing would allow for 1) sharing, 2) adapting, but 3)
non-commercially. At least this is what I learned when I was in
communication a number of times with the MIT associate *dean* of
digital *learning
Cecilia d'Oliveira *at the time about sharing CC-4 licensed MIT
About one and a half years ago, there was a consultation process about
updating the Wikimedia Terms of Use to move from CC 3.0 to 4.0 licenses.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use/Creative_Commons_4.0
I would like to ask what the status of this proposal is, and whom to bother
to get
Just dont read the thread?
On Monday, 6 April 2015, Aleksey Bilogur aleksey.bilo...@gmail.com wrote:
Is that not the function of the mailing list? I'm certainly learning a lot.
I oppose such a move.
On Apr 5, 2015 2:36 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com
javascript:; wrote:
There has
There has been a protracted thread in the last couple of days that seems to
amount to an escalating ego battle among 2-3 participants. I could be
wrong, but I don't think this has much interest beyond those 2-3
individuals.
I'd like to request that the participants or the list moderators take
Hi,
During the Zürich Hackathon I met several people that looked for solutions
about how to integrate external open datasets into our projects (mainly
Wikipedia, Wikidata). Since Wikidata is not the right tool to manage them
(reasons explained in the RFC as discussed during the Wikidata session),
Micru,
There are several related aspects of datasets, that I would enumerate as:
1) Storing / archiving datasets
2) Editing / manipulating datasets
3) Using excerpts (e.g. specific data) from datasets
Each of these involves a different, but related set of tools.
It isn't entirely clear to me,
Hi Robert,
TBH I asked the question as NPOV as possible because I have my own bias. By
stating it in general terms I hope that the conversation isn't forced in
any particular direction.
There are technical limitations to reuse external datasets, like how do you
control that the external site
I am writing to request comment from Wikimedia users who can provide
guidance on what projects and their components would benefit from receiving
a video tutorial. Video tutorials are being developed by Jackson Peebles (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jackson_Peebles) and will be available
in
A notification to the broader community of the Wikimedia Foundation.
I have recently posted a request for comment at meta
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Activity_levels_of_advanced_administrative_rights_holders
The purpose of the discussion is to determine a model guideline
*Hi all, *
*
*
*We are asking for community consultation on five proposed guidelines
relating to potential conflicts of interest when people ask for resources
belonging to the Wikimedia movement.
For your review and comments, you may find more information, a proposed
Board resolution, and the
Yes. From the linked page:We encourage international participation,
and, if more time is needed to allow for translations or comments, we
want to take that into consideration.
So please, yes!
PB
—
Philippe Beaudette
Director, Community Advocacy
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc
On Dec 21,
There are already a few questions on the talk page.
Mbingu Safidi, 21/12/2012 16:07:
is Wikimedia Foundation interested in involving communities that don't
speak English in this consultation?
Involving more communities is always a good thing, but (for the sake of
clarity) as far as I can
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Mbingu Safidi mginbu.saf...@gmail.comwrote:
Thanks.
I see. A text only in English is very welcome to other communities
know there is a consultation.
Good point. Is there a short three-word message like Please translate
this! that we can put in a template
[off topic]
On 10 November 2012 01:02, James Alexander jameso...@gmail.com wrote:
...
On an incredibly picky Wikipedian side note: What are you meaning by the
':meta' notation? It seems like interwiki links but the colon is in the
wrong location (a wikilink would obviously be meta:, m: or wikt:
Hi Steven,
Thanks for the reply.
Yes, the Global Requests Committee proposal is more sophisticated and
getting consensus for its implementation might be challenging, but I think
the GRC or something like it would be a reasonable option if global bans are
to be implemented.
I anticipate
ENWP Pine, 07/07/2012 11:32:
2. May I ask what the rationale is for proposing that global bans be decided
via global community consensus on Meta, instead what appears to be the status
quo of stewards making decisions about global bans based on requests at SRG?
This is very simple. Global
On Sun, Jul 8, 2012 at 4:25 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
With that in mind, and since the current state of the RFC on your
proposal, roughly nine days after commenting began, is about 50% for and
50% against in its current form, I would like to offer to work with you on
Hi Steven,
I agree with you that there should be a “fair and consistent way” for enacting
a global block of an account. My concerns are about the process and
circumstances under which this may happen.
I think that
The way I read it, Steven correct me if I am wrong, he is writing in a
staff role, but not necessarily within his Engineering responsibilities.
Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 12:17 PM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:04 AM, Steven Walling
Hi Steven,
Could you explain the distinctions between
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_locks,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_blocks, and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_bans? These look to me like they have
some redundancy and some areas where they diverge. A chart which
Short answer as I understand it:
Global blocks are the technical feature and refer to the accounts, the IPs
and the software capability; global bans are the policy and refer to the
people who are unwelcome.
On 6 July 2012 10:44, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi Steven,
Could you
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Theo10011 de10...@gmail.com wrote:
It also doesn't help
that 4 of the 12 supporters for implementing the policy in its current form
are WMF staff.
Theo,
Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm not sure that I understand. Is
it your proposition that WMF
On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Philippe Beaudette
phili...@wikimedia.orgwrote:
Theo,
Could you please expand on this a bit? I'm not sure that I understand. Is
it your proposition that WMF staff shouldn't weigh in on this? Or are you
surprised at the number? or what?
Hi Philippe
No,
On Jul 6, 2012 2:38 AM, Dan Rosenthal swatjes...@gmail.com wrote:
The way I read it, Steven correct me if I am wrong, he is writing in a
staff role, but not necessarily within his Engineering responsibilities.
Dan Rosenthal
Dan is correct. Apologies for any confusion.
Steven
On Fri, Jul
On Jul 6, 2012 2:48 AM, Deryck Chan deryckc...@wikimedia.hk wrote:
Short answer as I understand it:
Global blocks are the technical feature and refer to the accounts, the IPs
and the software capability; global bans are the policy and refer to the
people who are unwelcome.
Deryck has got it
Hi everyone,
This is a long email, so the less TL;DR version is: there is a request
for comment on Meta about a community policy for global bans.[1] This
is vitally important, and I hope you will both comment and help spread
the word in your community. The background on why we're doing this
It's worth noting here that there is something of a disagreement about the
import of the Terms of Use; Steve Walling and Ryan Kaldari have argued that
the ToU require that the Wikimedia community devise a policy permitting and
describing a process for instituting global bans. In fact, the ToU
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's worth noting here that there is something of a disagreement about the
import of the Terms of Use; Steve Walling and Ryan Kaldari have argued that
the ToU require that the Wikimedia community devise a policy permitting and
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 6:53 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:50 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Right now, the RfC is trending towards dispensing with the current global
ban policy. A large portion of that sentiment is from people opposed to
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought about that but beyond the language issue, the RfC has also been
open for awhile and had significant participation. Since the trend is to
reject the policy as written anyway, that makes it unenforceable until a
new RfC
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
I thought about that but beyond the language issue, the RfC has also been
open for awhile and had significant participation. Since the trend is to
35 matches
Mail list logo
