Thanks Peter. It's not my work, I put it out to tender at Village Pump
(technical) and User:Makyen took it and did it. (It doesn't seem to be
working now, though.) I'm pretty confident it's technically possible to
make it accessible (readable by JAWS [1]) now. What's missing is the WMF's
decision to invest in reliability. Reliability, I'm discovering, is the
thing that must not be named. "We tried fixing reliability. Remember
Nupedia? Hahahahahahaha."

Magnus: I think we agree both ratios (Wikipedia's and Wikidata's) have a
long way to go. :o)

TTS: Yes. Why not? A simple button that smoothly reads an article to me,
like a podcast, with fast forward and rewind or skip, while I do the dishes
would be cool. I hope they're not going to try to re-invent JAWS, though.




Anthony Cole


On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 5:31 AM, Magnus Manske <magnusman...@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> I like this for the interface, and as you said for the screen reading
> function. I hear WMF is working on some TTS thing now?
>
> Not sure it would significantly alter my ratios at the moment, especially
> given its rather low takeup (i presume). In your example, it would actually
> make the ratio worse for Wikipedia, providing evidence for more than one
> statement per sentence ;-)
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:53 PM Anthony Cole <ahcole...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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>
> _______________________________________________
> 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