Ugh. This: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2#Example

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ugh.I just edited the page and now it's not working. Try this:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Ref_supports2/Example
>
> Anthony Cole
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:42 AM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Regarding "Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically
>> discern what a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph." Check
>> out the first paragraph and its references here:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_and_Albert_Museum_Spiral.
>>
>> Hovering your mouse over each footnote marker (or, depending on your
>> MediaWiki preferences, the dotted line under it) will tell you what each
>> reference is supporting. The ideal solution would be highlighting the
>> supported text on the page, rather than having it appear in a tool tip.
>>
>> I wish the WMF would organise that - and organise it in a way that screen
>> readers can read it.
>>
>> Anthony Cole
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:57 AM, Magnus Manske <
>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:18 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Ah. You mean you're counting all footnote markers (including those at
>>> the
>>> > end of paragraphs). You're not just counting the number of references
>>> at
>>> > the bottom of the page. Yes I saw that. But you are missing my point.
>>> Many
>>> > editors use one footnote marker to support all the sentences in a
>>> > paragraph. Many use one footnote marker to support all sentences after
>>> the
>>> > last footnote marker.
>>> >
>>> > There are many multi-sentence paragraphs in
>>> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_pain with just one footnote
>>> marker
>>> > supporting all the sentences. Using your metric, the sentences at the
>>> > beginning and middle of those paragraphs would be counted as unsourced
>>> > statements.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Yes. Unless I missed it, there is no good way to automatically discern
>>> what
>>> a <ref> refers to - a word, a sentence, a paragraph. As described, my
>>> "one
>>> sentence, one statement" metric is a lower bound of statement numbers. So
>>> is my <ref> count, then. I am certain you can find an article where my
>>> statement-to-reference ratio is off against WIkipedia; but I believe I
>>> could find more instances where it is in favour of Wikipedia.
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > But, really, who cares? The whole thing is a non-argument. It just
>>> doesn't
>>> > matter which project is more poorly referenced.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Well, considering the amount you write about it, apparently you care :-)
>>>
>>> My argument, and I believe I made this reasonably solid, is that one
>>> can't
>>> "sit on Wikipedia", pointing finders at Wikidata for poor referencing.
>>> Which is what Andreas Kolbe implicitly did (amongst other things). That
>>> is
>>> all.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Magnus
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Anthony Cole
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:59 PM, Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Magnus, I've just re-scanned your essay and don't see mention of you
>>> only
>>> > > counting footnote markers within the paragraphs and not at the end of
>>> > > paragraphs.
>>> > >
>>> > > And why wouldn't you count a footnote marker at the end of a
>>> paragraph
>>> > if,
>>> > > as I've just explained, the sole citation at the end of a paragraph
>>> often
>>> > > supports all statements in the paragraph?
>>> > >
>>> > > Why would you assume one sentence only contains one fact?
>>> > >
>>> > > Choosing a lead sentence as your example - Denny did the same in his
>>> > > response to Andreas's critique - is potentially misleading because,
>>> > > provided statements are repeated and supported by a reliable source
>>> in
>>> > the
>>> > > body of an article, citations are not expected or required in
>>> > en.Wikipedia
>>> > > article leads.
>>> > >
>>> > > Your methodology is flawed; fatally biased toward exaggerating
>>> > Wikipedia's
>>> > > lack of references. But. I really don't care because I think the
>>> > > reliability of Wikipedia and level of referencing in Wikipedia is
>>> > > appalling.
>>> > >
>>> > > Forgive me for mischaracterising your argument as, ""Wikipedia is
>>> worse".
>>> > > You appear to be saying, "Well, Wikipedia is bad, too." That's true
>>> but
>>> > > still an invalid argument.
>>> > >
>>> > > It was someone else who put the "It's a wiki" argument.
>>> > >
>>> > > Several of your colleagues above have complained that adding
>>> references
>>> > is
>>> > > difficult in Wikidata. And your response is what? "Actually, it is
>>> easy
>>> > > to add references to Wikidata, certainly not more difficult than
>>> adding
>>> > > them to Wikipedia." Please listen to people, will you?
>>> > >
>>> > > You still seem to think the problem with the roll-out of the media
>>> viewer
>>> > > and visual editor was the stoopid power users.
>>> > >
>>> > > Anthony Cole
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:11 PM, Magnus Manske <
>>> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 12:27 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com>
>>> > >> wrote:
>>> > >>
>>> > >> > Hi Magnus.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > I'm re-reading this thread and just noticed you linked me to an
>>> essay
>>> > >> [1]
>>> > >> > earlier. I'm sorry, I didn't realise at the time that you were
>>> > >> addressing
>>> > >> > me.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Comments have closed there, so I'll post my thoughts here. You
>>> > describe
>>> > >> a
>>> > >> > formula for measuring how well Wikipedia is supported by reliable
>>> > >> sources.
>>> > >> > Basically, correct me if this is wrong, you presume that each
>>> sentence
>>> > >> > contains one statement of fact and compare the number of sentences
>>> > with
>>> > >> the
>>> > >> > number of footnote markers. That ratio is what you call the
>>> references
>>> > >> per
>>> > >> > statement (RPS) ratio. You have another formula for arriving at
>>> the
>>> > RPS
>>> > >> > ratio for Wikidata statements. You then compare the RPS ratios of
>>> > >> > en.Wikipedia featured articles with the RPS ratios of their
>>> associated
>>> > >> > Wikidata items. And drew conclusions from that latter comparison.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Correct.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Many of the Wikipedia articles I write have a low RPS ratio
>>> because
>>> > >> whole
>>> > >> > paragraphs are supported by one reference, whose footnote marker
>>> > appears
>>> > >> > only once at the end of the paragraph.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Which is why I am counting reference markers within the paragraphs,
>>> not
>>> > >> references at the end. Every <ref> is sacred ;-)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Actually, I think my statement count for entire Wikipedia articles
>>> is
>>> > low
>>> > >> (and thus, favourable to Wikipedia). Take jsut the first sentence at
>>> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Adams
>>> > >> This sentence alone contains nine statements (first names, last
>>> name,
>>> > >> birth
>>> > >> date, death date, nationality, the fact he's human, and three
>>> > >> occupations).
>>> > >> But I would only count that as one statement, as it is one sentence.
>>> > This
>>> > >> reduces the number of statements I count in the article, but the
>>> number
>>> > of
>>> > >> references (btw, only one in the entire lead section) remains
>>> constant,
>>> > >> thus pushing the RPS ratio in favour of Wikipedia.
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > But, really, it doesn't matter. The arguments that "it's a wiki it
>>> > >> should
>>> > >> > be unreliable", or "Wikipedia is worse" are not really very valid
>>> > >> > arguments.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> I agree. Which is why I never made such arguments. Please don't put
>>> them
>>> > >> in
>>> > >> my mouth; I don't know you well enough for that.
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > The sound argument coming from above is the cry from Gerrard and
>>> > others
>>> > >> > that it is hideously difficult to add citations to Wikidata
>>> sources.
>>> > If
>>> > >> > that is so, you should fix that.
>>> > >> >
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Actually, it is easy to add references to Wikidata, certainly not
>>> more
>>> > >> difficult than adding them to Wikipedia. I have written bots and
>>> > >> drag'n'drop scripts to make it even easier. It is a little fiiddly
>>> to
>>> > add
>>> > >> book references, but still reasoably possible.
>>> > >> What /is/ difficult is to do this automatically, by bot. But pick a
>>> > random
>>> > >> Wikidata entry, and with a little googling, many statements can be
>>> > >> referenced to URLs. But this takes time.
>>> > >> Which brings me back to my blog post: Even after ~3 years, Wikidata
>>> is
>>> > >> referenced not too badly, compared to Wikipedia. And if we have
>>> learned
>>> > >> one
>>> > >> thing from Wikipedia, it is that the state in general, and
>>> references in
>>> > >> particular, will improve over time.
>>> > >> So to everyone who disses Wikidata because of "missing references",
>>> I
>>> > say:
>>> > >> 1. You're wrong (it's already OK)
>>> > >> 2. Patience (it will get even better)
>>> > >>
>>> > >> Cheers,
>>> > >> Magnus
>>> > >>
>>> > >>
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > 1. http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=378
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > Anthony Cole
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 4:37 PM, Andre Engels <
>>> andreeng...@gmail.com>
>>> > >> > wrote:
>>> > >> >
>>> > >> > > The issue is that you are framing all objections to be of the
>>> "it's
>>> > >> > > new, so it's bad" crowd. I'm not even convinced that such a
>>> crowd
>>> > >> > > exists, let alone that it is the mainstream of community is
>>> behind
>>> > it,
>>> > >> > > as you seem to imply. To be honest, as a member of the
>>> community who
>>> > >> > > had a negative opinion about the first released version of
>>> visual
>>> > >> > > editor, I feel personally insulted by your statements. Which I
>>> had
>>> > to
>>> > >> > > be, because I know you have done many good things.
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > And how would you want to "come together and fix it"? Your
>>> average
>>> > >> > > Wikipedia/other project editor does not have the software
>>> > engineering
>>> > >> > > skills to just go and repair the Mediawiki code, and even if
>>> they
>>> > did,
>>> > >> > > they would not have the power to make their repairs go life in
>>> short
>>> > >> > > term (and before I'm misunderstood, I am not complaining about
>>> that,
>>> > >> > > it is entirely logical and doing it differently would probably
>>> cause
>>> > >> > > disasters). They can of course complain, and file bug reports
>>> > >> > > etcetera, but they have no idea what will happen with them.
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > I think a big part of the blame lies with Wikimedia's way of
>>> working
>>> > >> > > in this, at least that's what I see in the Imageviewer case.
>>> People
>>> > >> > > see issues, and want them resolved. But some of those issues
>>> are so
>>> > >> > > large that they do not want the product at all *until they are
>>> > >> > > resolved*. By not only using the user as a beta tester, but also
>>> > >> > > forcing the product on them in the period between the discovery
>>> of
>>> > the
>>> > >> > > issues/bugs and the time they are resolved, Wikimedia in my
>>> opinion
>>> > is
>>> > >> > > instrumental in turning the objections against specific issues
>>> into
>>> > >> > > resistance against the product as a whole.
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Magnus Manske
>>> > >> > > <magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> > >> > > > Anthony, it does seem you've missed some of which I wrote in
>>> this
>>> > >> > > thread. I
>>> > >> > > > have no problem with specific criticism where it is deserved,
>>> and
>>> > I
>>> > >> do
>>> > >> > > well
>>> > >> > > > remember that the Visual Editor, in its early incarnation,
>>> was not
>>> > >> > quite
>>> > >> > > up
>>> > >> > > > to the job.
>>> > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > > What I do have a problem with is people fixating on some
>>> technical
>>> > >> or
>>> > >> > > > early-lifecycle issues, declaring the entire thing worthless,
>>> even
>>> > >> > > > dangerous, and spreading that view around. This behaviour, I
>>> have
>>> > >> seen
>>> > >> > > time
>>> > >> > > > and again, with the Media Viewer, with Wikidata.
>>> > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > > It's bad because it's broken - let's come together and fix it.
>>> > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > > It's bad because ... well, everyone says it's bad. And new.
>>> And
>>> > Not
>>> > >> > Made
>>> > >> > > > Here. THAT is a problem, and not a technological one.
>>> > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > > On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 2:39 PM Anthony Cole <
>>> ahcole...@gmail.com
>>> > >
>>> > >> > > wrote:
>>> > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > >> Magnus, you've missed the point of the visual editor revolt.
>>> A
>>> > >> couple
>>> > >> > of
>>> > >> > > >> people here have tried to explain that to you, politely. And
>>> > you're
>>> > >> > > >> persisting with your idée fixe.
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> There were two parts to the visual editor catastrophe,
>>> actually.
>>> > >> The
>>> > >> > > >> product wasn't ready for anyone to use. Not veteran editors.
>>> Not
>>> > >> > > newbies.
>>> > >> > > >> Newbies who used it were less likely to successfully
>>> complete an
>>> > >> edit.
>>> > >> > > It
>>> > >> > > >> was broken, and the WMF insisted we had to use it.
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> The second part of the problem was arrogance. Yes, a few
>>> editors
>>> > >> were
>>> > >> > > >> unnecessarily rude about the product and the developers. But
>>> then
>>> > >> most
>>> > >> > > of
>>> > >> > > >> the developers and tech staff who dealt with the community
>>> > >> arrogantly
>>> > >> > > >> characterised *anyone* who complained about the product as an
>>> > >> > ignorant,
>>> > >> > > >> selfish Ludite - and you're persisting with that
>>> characterisation
>>> > >> now.
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> The WMF under Lila has learned the lessons from that, and
>>> they
>>> > have
>>> > >> > > >> fostered a much healthier relationship between the
>>> developers and
>>> > >> the
>>> > >> > > >> community. You clearly haven't learned all you might have.
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> In fact, reading the arrogant responses from you here and in
>>> the
>>> > >> > > concurrent
>>> > >> > > >> thread titled "How to disseminate free knowledge," and from
>>> Denny
>>> > >> in
>>> > >> > > >> earlier threads addressing criticism of WikiData, it seems
>>> to me
>>> > >> there
>>> > >> > > is
>>> > >> > > >> still a significant arrogance problem that needs addressing,
>>> at
>>> > >> least
>>> > >> > > over
>>> > >> > > >> at WikiData.
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> Some people may approach you arrogantly, maybe even
>>> insultingly,
>>> > >> about
>>> > >> > > an
>>> > >> > > >> innovation, and I suppose you might be justified in talking
>>> down
>>> > to
>>> > >> > > them or
>>> > >> > > >> ridiculing them (though I advise against it.). But if you
>>> can't
>>> > >> > > distinguish
>>> > >> > > >> them from those who approach you with genuine concerns and
>>> > >> > well-founded
>>> > >> > > >> criticisms, then no matter how clever you think your
>>> technical
>>> > >> > solutions
>>> > >> > > >> are, you will soon find you're no more welcome here than
>>> those
>>> > WMF
>>> > >> > > staffers
>>> > >> > > >> who thought insulting well-meaning critics was a good career
>>> > move.
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> Denny's contemptuous dismissal of valid criticisms of his
>>> > project,
>>> > >> and
>>> > >> > > your
>>> > >> > > >> contemptuous dismissal of the valid criticisms of the early
>>> > visual
>>> > >> > > editor
>>> > >> > > >> and its launch are both very disappointing.
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> Anthony Cole
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> On Tue, Jan 19, 2016 at 7:24 AM, Magnus Manske <
>>> > >> > > >> magnusman...@googlemail.com>
>>> > >> > > >> wrote:
>>> > >> > > >>
>>> > >> > > >> > The iPhone was a commercial success because it let you do
>>> the
>>> > >> basic
>>> > >> > > >> > functions easily and intuitively, and looked shiny at the
>>> same
>>> > >> time.
>>> > >> > > We
>>> > >> > > >> do
>>> > >> > > >> > not charge a price; our "win" comes by people using our
>>> > product.
>>> > >> If
>>> > >> > we
>>> > >> > > >> can
>>> > >> > > >> > present the product in such a way that more people use it,
>>> it
>>> > is
>>> > >> a
>>> > >> > > >> success
>>> > >> > > >> > for us.
>>> > >> > > >> >
>>> > >> > > >> > I do stand by my example :-)
>>> > >> > > >> >
>>> > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jan 18, 2016 at 10:37 PM Michael Peel <
>>> > >> em...@mikepeel.net>
>>> > >> > > >> wrote:
>>> > >> > > >> >
>>> > >> > > >> > >
>>> > >> > > >> > > > On 18 Jan 2016, at 22:35, Magnus Manske <
>>> > >> > > magnusman...@googlemail.com
>>> > >> > > >> >
>>> > >> > > >> > > wrote:
>>> > >> > > >> > > >
>>> > >> > > >> > > > As one can be overly conservative, one can also be
>>> overly
>>> > >> > > >> > enthusiastic. I
>>> > >> > > >> > > > would hope the Foundation by now understands better
>>> how to
>>> > >> > handle
>>> > >> > > new
>>> > >> > > >> > > > software releases. Apple here shows the way: Basic
>>> > >> > functionality,
>>> > >> > > but
>>> > >> > > >> > > > working smoothly first.
>>> > >> > > >> > >
>>> > >> > > >> > > But at a huge cost premium? I'm not sure that's a good
>>> > example
>>> > >> to
>>> > >> > > make
>>> > >> > > >> > > here. :-/
>>> > >> > > >> > >
>>> > >> > > >> > > Thanks,
>>> > >> > > >> > > Mike
>>> > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > >> > > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > >> > > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > >> > > >> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > > >> > > Unsubscribe:
>>> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > >> > > >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________
>>> > >> > > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > >> > > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > >> > > >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > > >> > Unsubscribe:
>>> > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> > >> > > ,
>>> > >> > > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> > >> > > >> >
>>> > >> > > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> > > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > >> > > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > >> > > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > > >> Unsubscribe:
>>> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> > >> > ,
>>> > >> > > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> > >> > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > >> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > >> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > > > Unsubscribe:
>>> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > --
>>> > >> > > André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > >> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > >> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > >> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > > Unsubscribe:
>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> > >> ,
>>> > >> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> > >> > >
>>> > >> > _______________________________________________
>>> > >> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > >> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > >> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> > Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>>> > ,
>>> > >> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > >> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > >> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > >> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > >> Unsubscribe:
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > >> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> > >>
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
>>> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>>>
>>
>>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to