Publishers employ people who check out information in books being published. 
For accuracy and to avoid legal problems.

When I used Angela Davis's autobiography to write her article, there was a 
passage about her encountering racial bias in Germany when she was going to 
school there. Is that just her perception, or a fact? Knowing people, I had no 
problem using it as a fact, but people have objected and it is gone now.

Fred

----- Original Message -----
From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:53:40 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems

It's reliable concerning the opinions and vision of the author on the
things he describes, not the facts themselves.

And unless I'm misunderstanding this, fact checkers (critics?) are actually
secondary sources, I believe?

Paulo

2018-05-12 13:48 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:

> Autobiographical writing published by the mainstream press with editors
> and fact checkers is more reliable.
>
> Fred
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:44:07 -0400 (EDT)
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
>
> There is a difference between the two situations. The king's deed and the
> parish books are primary sources, but both are official documents, subject
> to peer review. Diaries and autobiographies are primary sources as well,
> but generally not subjected to any review. There should be some way to
> distinguish between the two types.
>
> Paulo
>
> 2018-05-12 13:40 GMT+01:00 FRED BAUDER <fredb...@fairpoint.net>:
>
> > And should be used, just as an image of a headstone can be used, in
> > preference to some writing about it. Exceptions, don't prove the rule
> > though. A diary should not be used directly, and an autobiography with
> > great care, depending on how it was edited and published.
> >
> > Fred
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Paulo Santos Perneta <paulospern...@gmail.com>
> > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent: Sat, 12 May 2018 08:27:06 -0400 (EDT)
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> >
> > A parish book, with all records signed by the priest (and witnesses), and
> > reviewed by the Diocesis, is a primary source, and immensely more
> reliable
> > than any secondary sources quoting it.
> >
> > As we say in Portugal, who tells a story adds something. I'm pretty much
> > sure there is a similar saying in English as well.
> >
> > There is not any reason that I can foresee why a secondary source should
> be
> > used instead of a primary source in those situations.
> >
> > Paulo
> >
> > 2018-05-12 6:49 GMT+01:00 Peter Southwood <peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> :
> >
> > > Maybe there is, but maybe they are in fact conceptually similar, and
> have
> > > similar problems. You will have to clarify:
> > > In what way are primary sources "as in history" more reliable and
> > > verifiable?
> > > Also, how does "as in history" distinguish them from other primary
> > sources
> > > produced by the subject?
> > > Cheers,
> > > Peter
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > > Behalf Of Paulo Santos Perneta
> > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 10:25 PM
> > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > >
> > > Isn't there an endemic confusion in the Wikipedias between what are
> > primary
> > > sources (produced by the subject) and primary sources (original
> sources,
> > as
> > > in History)? While the first should be avoided at all costs, the second
> > > should be preferred over secondary sources most of the time, as they
> > > generally are more reliable and verifiable. I keep seeing this
> confusion
> > in
> > > Wikipedias, all the time, with disastrous results on the quality of the
> > > articles.
> > >
> > > Paulo
> > >
> > >
> > > 2018-05-11 5:49 GMT+01:00 Cameron <came...@cameron11598.net>:
> > >
> > > > Well audio recordings or video recordings of oral histories and
> > > traditions
> > > > come to mind. However I'm not sure how comfortable I am with an
> > > > encyclopedia using such sources.
> > > >
> > > > Now as an aspiring historian (Only one semester left on my degree), I
> > use
> > > > primary sources quite often for papers, and projects however those
> are
> > > > generally frowned upon for Wikipedia; mainly because Wikipedia is an
> > > > encyclopedia not an academic journal. Good encyclopedias are
> typically
> > > > sourced from secondary sources, and ocassionaly tertiary sources.
> > > >
> > > > Now compiling a repository of such orally transmitted histories and
> > > > traditions would be an amazing idea for a new project in my opinion.
> My
> > > > personal thought on this issue is keeping our current verifiability
> and
> > > > notability requirements is a good idea. In some areas I think we
> > include
> > > > far too much (fan cruft anyone?).
> > > >
> > > > - Cameron C.
> > > > Cameron11598
> > > >
> > > > ---- On Thu, 10 May 2018 21:34:15 -0700 peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> > > > wrote ----
> > > >
> > > > If not written, how would they be referenced and verified?
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Peter
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org]
> On
> > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 6:28 AM
> > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > >
> > > > You are missing the whole point. I'm not talking about second
> guessing
> > > > sources but rather changing our narrow point of views of what we
> > consider
> > > > sources of knowledge. A lot of cultures are of oral tradition and not
> > > > written.
> > > >
> > > > JP
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018, 16:42 Todd Allen, <toddmal...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Abandoning notability and verifiability is a wide open sign for
> > > spammers
> > > > > and hoaxers. We have enough of that without giving them an engraved
> > > > > invitation.
> > > > >
> > > > > If published sources are biased, the efforts to correct that should
> > be
> > > > made
> > > > > at the source (literally) level. Just like rather than "disputing"
> a
> > > > > reliable source, if we found evidence that contradicts them, we'd
> ask
> > > > them
> > > > > to correct, and then once they do we'll update the article
> > accordingly
> > > > > based on their correction. Wikipedia is not there to second-guess
> > what
> > > > > sources choose to publish or find "alternative" or "non-western" or
> > > > > whatever else have you types of information. If our references are
> > > > flawed,
> > > > > the solution lies in getting them to correct what they're doing,
> not
> > > > > "correcting" for any perceived bias by editors. We reflect sources,
> > we
> > > do
> > > > > not second-guess, dispute, or correct them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todd
> > > > >
> > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:46 AM, Peter Southwood <
> > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > When Wikipedia was new and unknown there were not so many people
> > > > wanting
> > > > > > to use it for purposes that conflict with our purposes. Times
> > change.
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > Peter
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > On
> > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 5:30 PM
> > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If we where that septic at the beginning, we will never have
> > started
> > > > > > Wikipedia to begin with. Really, an encyclopedia written by
> anyone
> > > > > without
> > > > > > any authority to double check before it is published? It is
> doomed
> > to
> > > > > fail.
> > > > > > Yes, in theory, but practice showed us otherwise. The question is
> > not
> > > > to
> > > > > > remove notability and verifiability requirements, but to change
> > those
> > > > > > requirements to be more inclusive of different ways of sharing
> > > > > knowledge. I
> > > > > > think practice can show us otherwise in that case too if we are
> > ready
> > > > to
> > > > > do
> > > > > > that leap of faith, the same way we did at the beginning of
> > Wikipedia
> > > > > when
> > > > > > we opened editing to anybody.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > JP
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:05 AM Peter Southwood <
> > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One Jar'Edo Wens hoax is enough, and that lasted 10 years in
> > spite
> > > of
> > > > > > > notability and verifiability requirements, Without the
> > > verifiability
> > > > > > > requirement it would probably still be there. Leaps of faith
> are
> > > > > things
> > > > > > > that I do not generally do, I am a natural sceptic and prefer
> > > > evidence,
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > where possible, reproducible results. When the evidence is
> > > > intangible,
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > authors must take responsibility for their work, and that means
> > > track
> > > > > > > record and proof of identity.
> > > > > > > This would be more easily fitted into a new project. I do not
> see
> > > it
> > > > as
> > > > > > > possible in Wikipedia. If the new project became recognised as
> a
> > > > > reliable
> > > > > > > source then Wikipedia could use it as a source, without
> > destroying
> > > > the
> > > > > > > credibility we have.
> > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Gnangarra
> > > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:50
> > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing problems
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > notability and verifiability are important, every culture and
> > > > > language
> > > > > > > has this issue when it comes to sharing knowledge. These
> culture
> > > > > manage
> > > > > > > successfully to share knowledge many of them long before the
> > > western
> > > > > > styles
> > > > > > > were developed, I'd say they are robust alternatives. The issue
> > is
> > > > how
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > we bring these sources into the western system, how do we
> respect
> > > > them,
> > > > > > > how do we teach ourselves to understand that what we currently
> do
> > > is
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > the only.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > There are risks in potential abuses of every system, even our
> > > current
> > > > > > > systems have their faults and we assume good faith in the
> > citations
> > > > > from
> > > > > > > books published but no digital. Changing the way we consider
> and
> > > > value
> > > > > > > alternative knowledge streams will take a leap of faith, the
> > > question
> > > > > is
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > we really want to take that leap, do we really want to share
> the
> > > sum
> > > > of
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > knowledge, do we want to address inherent bias in our current
> > > > knowledge
> > > > > > > networks or are we comfortable with just token efforts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Maybe the solution isnt in incorporating directly into the
> > > wikipedia
> > > > > but
> > > > > > > rather the creation of new project to bring forth these
> > alternative
> > > > > > > knowledge streams
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 10 May 2018 at 21:47, Eduardo Testart <etest...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I posted this a while ago, an investigation on gender bias
> > where
> > > a
> > > > > > member
> > > > > > > > of Wikimedia Chile was involved, in his personal capacity
> > though:
> > > > > > > > https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.
> > > > > > > > 1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There are many things that can be addressed individually and
> > as a
> > > > > > > movement
> > > > > > > > or collective, if we believe the conclusions are valid,
> which I
> > > > > > > personally
> > > > > > > > do, since they are supported with data and not on our
> personal
> > > > > > > impressions.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Cheers!
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > El jue., may. 10, 2018 10:27, Peter Southwood <
> > > > > > > > peter.southw...@telkomsa.net>
> > > > > > > > escribió:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Notability and verifiability are important. They allow us
> to
> > > > > produce
> > > > > > > > > reasonably reliable work. Moving away from those
> constraints
> > > > opens
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > doors to extremely unreliable material. If Wikipedia is to
> > > remain
> > > > > > open
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > anyone to edit, there do not appear to be any robust
> > > > alternatives.
> > > > > > > Other
> > > > > > > > > projects may work around this problem, but would then
> > probably
> > > > not
> > > > > be
> > > > > > > > open
> > > > > > > > > for anyone to edit. Or can you suggest another way?
> > > > > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > > > > > Peter
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Wikimedia-l [mailto:wikimedia-l-bounces@
> > > > lists.wikimedia.org]
> > > > > > On
> > > > > > > > > Behalf Of Jean-Philippe Béland
> > > > > > > > > Sent: 10 May 2018 15:01
> > > > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
> > problems
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
> > > canon
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But it is what we accept as part of the canon of
> "knowledge"
> > as
> > > > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > > > that could be improved. We have a very western approach to
> > that
> > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > it needs to be published in such books or journals to be
> > > notable
> > > > > > > enough,
> > > > > > > > > when different cultures use different ways to build their
> > canon
> > > > of
> > > > > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > JP
> > > > > > > > > User:Amqui
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 5:53 AM FRED BAUDER <
> > > > > fredb...@fairpoint.net>
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > > > To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.
> > org>
> > > > > > > > > > Sent: Thu, 10 May 2018 04:02:46 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gendergap approach causing
> > > problems
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > ...because of our rules regarding references. Oddly,
> > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia can at best only echo the systemic bias, but
> will
> > > > never
> > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > able
> > > > > > > > > > to correct it."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Nothing odd, it's baked in: Wikipedia is a summary of the
> > > canon
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > knowledge, the corpus of generally accepted knowledge.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The knowledge industry could do better. And when it does,
> > > > > Wikipedia
> > > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > > reflect that. in the meantime it is helpful if gender and
> > > other
> > > > > > bias
> > > > > > > > > issues
> > > > > > > > > > are noted and accommodated. Our mission is more modest
> than
> > > > full
> > > > > > > > > correction
> > > > > > > > > > of all bias, but we can contribute or even lead.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Fred
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > and
> > > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > > 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
> and
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > 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>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
> > > > > > > > > http://www.avg.com
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> and
> > > > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > > 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 and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > > 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>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > GN.
> > > > > > > Noongarpedia: https://incubator.wikimedia.
> > > org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
> > > > > > > WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
> > > > > > > Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
> > > > > > > Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), *Never
> > Again:
> > > > > > > Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8*, UWAP,
> > > 2017.
> > > > > > > Order
> > > > > > > here
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-
> > > > > > reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > 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 and
> > > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > > 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 and
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> wiki/Wikimedia-l
> 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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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 and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
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