Great news! Congratulations to China.
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 2:30 AM, Sydney Poore sydney.po...@gmail.com wrote:
Congratulations!
Sydney
On Jul 30, 2014 12:18 PM, Carlos M. Colina ma...@wikimedia.org.ve
wrote:
Dear all,
It is an honor to announce that the Affiliations Committee has
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the
information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy policy,
the Meta
On 2 August 2014 06:25, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you able to specify which policy or statement entitles you to the
information you request? I can find no basis for it in the privacy
policy,
the Meta
Hello,
just a few remarks from the OC about this case.
2014-08-01 22:19 GMT+02:00 Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.com:
Hi all,
On 27 May 2014 I received an email back from the OC which basically
said that because no personal information was divulged, there was no
breach of the WMF
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 1:25 AM, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:25 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
Russavia said something nice to someone in 2013 on their retirement,
and raised a formal complaint about an unknown CU's action in 2014.
How are these
On 2 August 2014 09:17, John Mark Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm guessing you mean June 2014, as the only earlier investigation was
April 2013, which was a royal mess.
No. The April 2013 check was extended beyond en. No reason not to extend
it to commons.
--
geni
In general, using Google to store Wikimedia slide decks is a bad idea as that's
essentially temporary (and restricted-access) storage - it's much better to
upload a copy to Commons so they are properly archived (hopefully
indefinitely!) and available to all...
Thanks,
Mike
On 1 Aug 2014, at
Thogo, et al
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Thomas Goldammer tho...@gmail.com wrote:
1) There was indeed a leak of my CU data. An unknown Commons CU had
indeed leaked my CU data to another person who was NOT a CU on
Commons. The information given to this non-CU person included the very
name
Re:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten
If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event,
wouldn't that meet the Wikipedia notability requirements to make an
article about it?
The information being
What's the article on Wikipedia in question?
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I
believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now
not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it
pretty clear that The Guardian does not known which article is involved.
On 2 August 2014 23:49, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I
believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now
not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it
pretty clear that
Well, Fae, since the only place that Adam Osborne is mentioned in Wikipedia
is as the son of his father, and it does not mention anything more than his
name, I am pretty certain that you're mistaken. The exact quote from the
Guardian is:
Google has already begun to implement the ruling, with
Google's motto is Do no evil
I suppose you would have ours be do all notable evil
Fred
Re:
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/aug/02/wikipedia-page-google-link-hidden-right-to-be-forgotten
If Google disappearing a Wikipedia article is a notable news event,
wouldn't that meet the
The title of the article above an image of Jimmy Wales, is: Wikipedia
link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law
Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is
first to affect an entry in the online encyclopaedia
Fred
Re:
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 7:51 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
The title of the article above an image of Jimmy Wales, is: Wikipedia
link to be hidden in Google under 'right to be forgotten' law
Request for blocking of search results granted to anonymous applicant is
first to
On 2 August 2014 17:18, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
...
i personally do not care about the russavia case in particular i must
say. but i care about the (non-)care of persons having access to
account data triggered by a bad policy. imo
* checkuser usage must be requested
On Sat, Aug 2, 2014 at 9:19 PM, K. Peachey p858sn...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 August 2014 17:18, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote:
...
i personally do not care about the russavia case in particular i must
say. but i care about the (non-)care of persons having access to
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 11:31 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
..
I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that the logs are maintained
indefinitely but the data is retained for only 3 months (i.e. the results
of the check that is recorded in the log).
The checkuser log are kept
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.[1] The
editor in question, who stated that they ordinarily would not share private
communications but felt compelled to on this occasion, forwarded me the
email,
This e-mail strikes me as a major overreaction based on the
information presented, especially since there is no indication that
Russavia ever contacted the person he is accusing and asked him what
was meant by the comment. In any event, the posting is wildly
inappropriate for a public mailing
On Sun, Aug 3, 2014 at 8:49 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not sure you're correct about what is being disappeared, Fae. I
believe that the Guardian is referring to an article of theirs that is now
not seen in Google search results for certain terms. The article makes it
pretty
22 matches
Mail list logo
