Maybe it will become accessible with future technology, in which case your work 
would not be wasted.
Cheers,
Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of 
Anthony Cole
Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 9:06 PM
To: Wikimedia Mailing List
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske

I'd use it for most of my citations if it also worked for users of screen 
readers. But I can't bring myself to add a feature to an article that isn't 
accessible by the sight impaired.

Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:59 AM, Peter Southwood < 
peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:

> That would be a useful feature in the long term Cheers,  Peter
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Anthony Cole
> Sent: Saturday, 12 March 2016 8:42 PM
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Profile of Magnus Manske
>
> 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/Guidel
> > > >> > > >> > > in es 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/Guidelin
> > > >> > > >> > es 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=unsubsc
> > > >> ri
> > > >> be>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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=unsubscrib
> > > e>
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4540/11801 - Release Date: 
> 03/12/16
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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>

-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7497 / Virus Database: 4540/11804 - Release Date: 03/12/16


_______________________________________________
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