On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 7:07 AM, aude wrote:
> Rather than 10th birthday for the projects, I think he's talking about as
> an
> editor. Anyone here who has been editing for 10 years? ;)
>
Plus a few months, my first edits were from March 2001.
--
André Engels, andreeng...@gmail.com
__
On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 11:30 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> According to [1]:
>
> * 15 January: English
> * 16 March: Catalan, German
> * 23 March: French
> * 3 May: Swedish
> * 11 May: Chinese, Esperanto,Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese,
> Spanish, Russian
> * 19 June: Dutch
> * 26 September: P
According to [1]:
* 15 January: English
* 16 March: Catalan, German
* 23 March: French
* 3 May: Swedish
* 11 May: Chinese, Esperanto,Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese,
Spanish, Russian
* 19 June: Dutch
* 26 September: Polish
* 16 November: Afrikaans
* 26 November: Norwegian (Bokmal)
* 6 Decemb
And now for something completely different. :-)
Who here has already had their 10th wikibirthday, and who will have it soon?
Seems like an excuse for a party :-)
sincerely,
Kim 'TINC' Bruning
--
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@li
On 24/09/2011 22:31, wrote:
> Could people on this list please refrain from spamming this email with
> requests to join LinkIn (and that includes Mike Godwin), as I have no
> interest in joining.
They're sent out automatically from the LinkedIn (or whoever) system
with consent of the named s
Am 25.09.2011 01:10, schrieb Jussi-Ville Heiskanen:
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Phil Nash wrote:
>> wrote:
>>> On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 24 September 2011 22:40, wrote:
> The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
> lawmak
Am 25.09.2011 00:43, schrieb David Gerard:
> On 24 September 2011 23:00, Phil Nash wrote:
>
>> The IWF just did not understand how access to Wikipedia works; a strange
>> situation, given their mission. And it wasn't helped by their publicity at
>> the time, IIRC. Fortunately, they seem to have sh
On Sun, Sep 25, 2011 at 1:39 AM, Phil Nash wrote:
> wrote:
>> On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 24 September 2011 22:40, wrote:
>>>
The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
All this discussion is useless.
The image filter is a violation of the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation.
"The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage
people around the world to collect and develop educational content
under a free license or in the public domain, and to dis
On 24 September 2011 23:00, Phil Nash wrote:
> The IWF just did not understand how access to Wikipedia works; a strange
> situation, given their mission. And it wasn't helped by their publicity at
> the time, IIRC. Fortunately, they seem to have shut up since then, and
> possibly got their act to
wrote:
> On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 24 September 2011 22:40, wrote:
>>
>>> The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
>>> lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
>>> excessively violent. They go so far as periodically g
Am 25.09.2011 00:15, schrieb :
> On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
>> On 24 September 2011 22:40, wrote:
>>
>>> The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
>>> lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
>>> excessively violent. They go
Am 24.09.2011 23:40, schrieb :
> On 23/09/2011 17:46, Kim Bruning wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43:14AM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning
>>> wrote:
The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the
fundamental questi
On 24/09/2011 22:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 24 September 2011 22:40, wrote:
>
>> The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
>> lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
>> excessively violent. They go so far as periodically getting Google to
>>
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Kim Bruning
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>>> Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the
>>> Mohammed cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where
>>> countri
wrote:
> Could people on this list please refrain from spamming this email with
> requests to join LinkIn (and that includes Mike Godwin), as I have no
> interest in joining.
>
> Thank you.
That's an artefact of having a semi-open mailing list; I've been subscribed
here and on other WMF mail
On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:38:18AM +0100, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> Wikipedia was also briefly blocked in Pakistan, because of the Mohammed
>> cartoon controversy. So there might be a scenario where countries like Saudi
>> Arabia and Pakistan f
* m...@marcusbuck.org wrote:
>I just want to point out that an idea like a free community-driven
>everybody-can-edit-it encyclopedia with no editorial or peer-review
>process would never have been created if a long discussion would have
>preceded its creation. The scepticists would have raise
On 24 September 2011 22:40, wrote:
> The last I heard the German people, as expressed through their
> lawmakers, DO NOT want their kids looking at porn or images that are
> excessively violent. They go so far as periodically getting Google to
> filter the search results for Germans.
Analog
On 23/09/2011 17:46, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 02:43:14AM +1000, Stephen Bain wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
>>>
>>> The survey was not a poll or referendum, and did not address the
>>> fundamental question of whether this feature is wanted.
>>>
>
Could people on this list please refrain from spamming this email with
requests to join LinkIn (and that includes Mike Godwin), as I have no
interest in joining.
Thank you.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: h
On 23/09 2011 14:31, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> I agree with that. But i also have to mention that we have same
> repeating patterns in the claims that we would need a filter, because
> there is a huge mass of users demanding it. Actually i don't see this
> mass of users in all samples that i have ta
22 matches
Mail list logo
