George Herbert wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM, phoebe ayers
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard
>> wrote:
>>> On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride wrote:
>>>
I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia
Foundation involved in making individua
On 4 June 2011 17:47, Michael Dale wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>> There's been some ongoing work on TimedMediaHandler extension which will
>> replace the older OggHandler
> Yes, been hammering away on associated bugs. People can help by testing and
> filing bugs
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 3:00 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride wrote:
>>
>>> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
>>> involved in making individual decisions about who can and can'
On Sun, Jun 5, 2011 at 3:30 AM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> > On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride wrote:
> >
> >> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia
> Foundation
> >> involved in making individual decisions about who can a
On Sat, Jun 4, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride wrote:
>
>> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
>> involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit.
>
>
> They certainly can determine who can and can'
David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride wrote:
>> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
>> involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit.
>
> They certainly can determine who can and can't use the servers they
> are custodi
On Fri, 3 Jun 2011 22:28:28 -0400, Newyorkbrad
wrote:
> I second everything that Risker has said.
>
> I am not convinced that further public discussion of this situation is
> really going to do anything other than feed Poetlister's ego, and create
> exactly the bitterness and divisiveness in the
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:32 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> James Forrester wrote:
>> On 2 June 2011 03:25, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> Samuel Klein wrote:
I'd like to see this for more than just the Foundation - any event
where wikimedians have a presence - but this is a great place to
start.
>>>
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:45 PM, Tanvir Rahman wrote:
> formate. So, I think most of the YouTube videos need to be converted to ogv
> (from mpeg or flv). Can we do that automatically with script?
ffmpeg and or mencoder can do this,
in theory it could run on toolserver, but those tools burn cpu big
A nice script to download YouTube videos is youtube-dl[1]. Link that with a
flv/mp4 -> ogg converter and an uploader to Commons is trivial.
[1] http://rg3.github.com/youtube-dl/
2011/6/4 Michael Dale
> Comments inline:
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
>
> > (I'm not sure
Comments inline:
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> (I'm not sure offhand if I'm set up to cross-post to Foundation-l; if this
> doesn't make it, somebody please CC a mention if necessary. Thanks!)
>
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:42 PM, aude wrote:
>
> > Aside from the very real
Reminder: general meeting today in a couple hours (1800 UTC). Bring
your agenda items and topics for discussion with others, etc. (see
below for the original idea). Casual, moderated by Mono and myself.
freenode#wikimedia
best,
Phoebe
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 12:40 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> Hi al
On 4 June 2011 15:42, MZMcBride wrote:
> I think it's a fairly dangerous precedent to have the Wikimedia Foundation
> involved in making individual decisions about who can and can't edit.
They certainly can determine who can and can't use the servers they
are custodians of.
I appreciate your c
Billinghurst wrote:
> I disagree, this needs to be a decision by the WMF, not by stewards. Some
> sites are 'independent', and this is a matter that needs to have no wriggle
> room, and hence be a definitive statement. It is simply a case that the
> worst of the worst need to be managed from the
On 3 Jun 2011 at 13:34, MZMcBride wrote:
> Sue Gardner wrote:
> > On 3 June 2011 10:00, Risker wrote:
> >> I too would like to see the development of a process for global banning of
> >> users who have created serious problems on either the global or the
> >> multiple-project level.
> >
> > Is t
> -Original Message-
> From: foundation-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Newyorkbrad
> Sent: 04 June 2011 03:28
> To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Global ban - poetlister?
>
> I second every
On 3 June 2011 23:58, James Heilman wrote:
> My local IT got back to me today and agreed to unblock all of Wikipedia for
> all 25,000 computers they manage. A bit of success for increasing access.
> IMO Wikimedia needs to stay on top of these issues. I have emailed Websense
> who created the list
17 matches
Mail list logo
