One of the most useful articles on Wikitravel that I've found is an outline
of different Bavarian beers, and which groups they are popular with in
Bavaria. I refer back to it regularly. I can't say I see the "not
educational" argument.
Dan Rosenthal
On Mon, Apr 9, 201
Thanks, I figured out the problem, or rather a workaround.
Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 09:23:14PM +0300, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> > Trying to connect -- anyone else having trouble or is it just me?
&
bscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
Trying to connect -- anyone else having trouble or is it just me?
Dan Rosenthal
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 6:28 PM, WereSpielChequers <
werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
> --
>
> >
> > Message: 5
> > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 13:03:25 +0200
> > From: Tobias Oelgarte
> > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Letter to the community on Controversial
> >Co
If the entire premise of an email comes down to "I'm taunting you", that's
an indication it probably shouldn't be sent.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ??? wrote:
> On 16/10/2011 19:36, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
> > Am 16.10.2011 16:17, sch
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Peter Coombe wrote:
> Using a geotargeted CentralNotice would be clever, but I believe it
> would be trivial to get around by disabling Javascript. Currently
> it.wikipedia is using JS to redirect to their message, but beyond that
> all page contents are also being
ng to above. Or maybe the community considered and
rejected it. Just throwing it out there.
Also, we have a Sicilian Wikipedia, don't we? Is that still up? What about
the Latin Wikipedia?
Dan Rosenthal
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 4:41 PM, Cristian Consonni
wrote:
> 2011/10/5 M. Williamson :
On Sun, Sep 18, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Without seeing the responses to the "referendum", I am betting you
> have in the comments a huge amount of _committed_ "You are on crack; I
> will never stand for this." comments, a wide field of wishy washies
> giving conditionals,
Sounds like a solid reason to fork and looks like the start of a promising
project -- I hope you guys have the best of luck.
Dan
> To be clear, OpenGlobe was not created due to a dispute with the
> Foundation.
> The main reason for forking was the perceived hostility and rudeness among
> Wikine
On Tue, Sep 6, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> >
> > Does your feminism excludes necessity for sexual education?
> >
> >
> No, but, I can send you some pictures on Commons that have been "speedy
> keeps" of strippers with their legs spread wide because they are
> "educational and high qual
>
> The point of
> rational discussion that I find interesting is his demi-glace reduction in
> the very last email he sent. I'm working with gmail, so quoting it is
> annoying.
>
Throw in a side of potatos, and I'm officially hungry. Statistics is yummy!
___
>
>
> >
> > We consider WL to be a reliable source?
> >
> >> [1] http://wikileaks.org/cable/2006/01/06BELGRADE41.html
> >
> > (goes off to read)
>
> Leaked cables are primary sources, some of which pose problems because
> they may contain non-public personal identifying information. Generally
> the
Yeah whatever was the final ruling on that, as to whether wikileaks cables
can be cited?
Dan Rosenthal
On Sun, Sep 4, 2011 at 7:59 PM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 04, 2011 at 08:32:59AM +0200, Milos Rancic wrote:
> > So, to understand the circumstances around building com
Ah, ok this is a recent thing then.
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:49 PM, CasteloBranco <
michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes, Dan
>
> It was announced in WMF July Report [1] (last point in the "Brazil
> Catalyst" section).
>
> [1]
professional to manage it.
Was this announced some place?
Dan Rosenthal
On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 10:11 PM, CasteloBranco <
michelcastelobra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> For your information
>
> The Brazilian community is offering WMF a letter of agreement, which was
> collaborativel
The subject matter "chapters" thing sounds quite a bit like en.wp's
Wikiprojects.
Dan Rosenthal
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Aug 2, 2011, at 8:07 PM, Andre Engels wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter >> wrote:
>>>
>>> Did the idea of the second trial get any momentum in the end of the day?
>>> As a en.wp newbie, I could only find
On Jul 30, 2011, at 9:35 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Fae wrote:
>> It would be helpful if someone from the Foundation could
>> confirm whether guidelines that might result from such discussions
>> would be considered binding in the future for WMF and whether the
>>
Why can't you do both?
Provide the original text in the original language in the citation, followed by
a translation. Any bickering over the quality of the translation can be dealt
with through consensus on the talk page, while the original is still there for
those who want the original to do t
106 (reader relations)
>
> phili...@wikimedia.org
>
>
>
Ah, somehow I forgot this (which is doubly stupid since I recall
talking to Jon about it at some point last year!)
Sorry about the confusion.
--
Dan Rosenthal
___
foundation-l mailing list
fou
een fixed now and it properly goes to the legal queue),
which has no authority for handling office actions. Realistically the
fastest way to get an office action resolved is to email Philippe, and
if there is an immediate and urgent (and unquestionable need) for some
sort of deletion, contact an admi
-l mailing list
> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Dan Rosenthal
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Awesome! Congrats HaeB!
Dan Rosenthal
On Fri, Jul 8, 2011 at 8:52 PM, aude wrote:
> HaeB,
>
> Congratulations!!! You've done superb work with the signpost and we'll
> (signpost folks) greatly miss you.
>
> Cheers,
> Katie
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> O
>
> The general observation that we should be easier for everyone to edit
> is reasonable, and that doing that and more outreach would help the
> rest of the world contribute more effectively.
(I did in fact see this in my previous email, but forgot to erase the line
about you missing my point,
On Jun 25, 2011, at 6:46 PM, George Herbert wrote:
>
> "How do I manage the political factions on ANI or an Arbcom case on
> english language Wikipedia to deal with this policy / behavior
> problem" is something that very few *insiders* can do well...
That's not the board's job though, and miss
On Jun 25, 2011, at 4:41 PM, Jan-Bart de Vreede wrote:
> Hi
>
> Having had the honor of being one of the first outside appointed board member
> to the Wikimedia Board I do want to add that one of the main reasons for
> having appointed members is to get an outsiders perspective. This is
> gen
On Jun 23, 2011, at 6:45 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> To be frank, I also disagree that changing the timing would have
> improved things in any practical sense. It doesn't really obscure the
> connection much, if that's even what we would want to do. And for people
> who were worrying about the i
On Jun 23, 2011, at 4:09 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> It seems to me like you're characterizing Matt-joining-the-board as
> problematic, while at the same time saying Matt himself is a good
> board member. That seems contradictory to me.
I'm not sure it is. I think what Joseph is saying is that Matt
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:50 PM, George Herbert wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin
> wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>>
>>> On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
>>>
>>>> Imagine
I see, I was reading the statement to imply that he/she was somehow using
Wikimedia projects as a method of acquiring personally identifiable
information, not as a distribution method.
-Dan
On Jun 3, 2011, at 6:46 PM, Kirill Lokshin wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 6:41 PM, Dan Rosent
On Jun 3, 2011, at 8:29 AM, Scott MacDonald wrote:
> Imagine if poetlister now engages in identity theft and deception at
> Wikiversity.
How precisely does one engage in identity theft in a project that does not
require the submission of identifying information?
-Dan
__
On May 22, 2011, at 3:20 PM, Mardetanha wrote:
> Dear all fellow wikipedian and wikimedians
> I am so pleased to announce some minutes ago Farsi wikipedia has reached
> 15 articles.
>
>
> Mardetanha
Congratulations!
-Dan
___
foundation-l maili
I feel like this image from the same author:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Futanari.png might be crossing the
lines. Given Niabot's user page loudly railing against Commons being
"censored", I'd say the issue is less "art" and more "lets see who we can shock
and/or piss off."
-Dan
On
It might be easier if you look at it as a numerical scale where "native
speaker" is a quality level at or near the top, and someone who speaks none of
or only a handful of words in the language is at the bottom. From Jay's
clarification:
"Perhaps a more clear way to write this sentence would ha
On Apr 10, 2011, at 6:28 AM, WereSpielChequers wrote:
> 4 What it would be like to grant amnesty to all that are currently
> banned and/or blocked.
>
> It is just fine, providing we continue to only grant amnesty to those
> who accept the terms of
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standar
d for the goose is good for the gander."
>
> After engaging in a "friendly and polite exchange" with Dan
> Rosenthal, he saw fit to send me an e-mail, Sun, 3 Apr 2011 05:26,
> concerning "[Foundation-l] Wiki-revolution," using language
> unbecoming to a gen
Virgilio:
Your userpage claims you speak American English at an en-4 "near-native level".
Want to try again?
-Dan
On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:47 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> When I misspelled the word intellectual I wasn't referring to certain
> people whose language skills revolve around b
I think you're missing the humor in the "choice" of word misspelled. If you're
going to criticize Fred's intelligence, you should take care to ensure that you
spell intellectual correctly. Otherwise, it puts quite a damper on your
argument. If I was getting heart surgery, I would want my surgeon
On Apr 3, 2011, at 1:02 AM, Virgilio A. P. Machado wrote:
> intelectual
*cough*
-Dan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
NHK is apparently reporting 9 ft. tsunami heading for Shinchicho, Fukushima
Prefecture, from what I'm reading in the stewards channel. If you are in the
potential target area, please be safe.
-Dan
(crossposting to multiple lists)
___
foundation-l ma
On Mar 8, 2011, at 12:14 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 8 March 2011 13:24, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>> On 3/5/11 7:48 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
>>> While most donations come from people outside the Wikimedia (editing)
>>> community, the people within the community often feel that the very small
>>> staff o
I sincerely doubt that poverty is anyones attraction to wikipedia.
--
Dan Rosenthal
Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity.
On Mar 5, 2011, at 4:30 PM, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 06:48, MZMcBride wrote:
>> church.of.emacs.ml wrote:
>>> However
Did autocomplete change your sentence Fred? I don't follow and it doesn't seem
to relate to MZMcBride's new question about naming.
--
Dan Rosenthal
Sent from my iPhone. My apologies for any brevity.
On Mar 1, 2011, at 1:33 PM, "Fred Bauder" wrote:
>> I
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:49 AM, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 17/02/2011 03:41, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
>> Your solution is that it is easier to blame the staff, rather than point out
>> that the criticism lacks any foundation? And then you say "assume good
>> faith"? That
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:34 AM, Pronoein wrote:
> Le 17/02/2011 02:07, Dan Rosenthal a écrit :
>> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend;
>> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including
>> ones whe
On Feb 17, 2011, at 1:29 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> I'm not referring to a single incident. I'm referring to a broader trend;
>> there have been recent incidents on other mailing lists as well, including
>> ones where staff subscriptions are m
On Feb 17, 2011, at 12:00 AM, MZMcBride wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
>>> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
>>> to escape the unfounded criticism.
>>
>> This +1. I can think
On Feb 16, 2011, at 5:52 PM, Nathan wrote:
> At some point WMF employees might just stop posting here altogether,
> to escape the unfounded criticism.
This +1. I can think of what, three or four instances in the past couple of
weeks, in which WMF employees were excessively criticized for their
No matter what time you're dealing with you're going to have bad timing
somewhere. Move it forward a few hours, and you lose Europe. Move it backwards
and you lose the WMF and west coast US (and not likely to get much east coast
involvement that early).
-Dan
On Feb 6, 2011, at 11:12 PM, KIZU
Yeah, I was confused about the page as well, so I got in touch with the
research team. They're going to build out their page a bit better first, it'll
explain more what they mean.
-Dan
On Jan 31, 2011, at 12:58 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> All mention that this is supported by the have been rem
Banners have been turned off for logged-in users on en.wp (and maybe other
projects?) for quite some time now, since well before Christmas holiday break
for most people.
-Dan
On Dec 31, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Brian J Mingus wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Mono mium wrote:
>
>> Awesome!
Addressing the other half of this issue, "is creating a page = to editing", I'd
argue that page creation is a subset of editing with a fundamental difference.
Creating a page has different requirements (such as meeting mandatory inclusion
requirements, like notability, or local project rules) th
The Colorado law has been significantly weakened in the past year. See Mink v.
Knox, No. 08-1250 (10th Cir. July 19, 2010), slip. op. at 26.
-Dan
On Dec 22, 2010, at 5:51 AM, Fred Bauder wrote:
> An example of an actual prosecution:
>
> http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=20937
>
Kibble, you never cease to amaze. Much <3. That's a great summary.
-Dan
On Dec 18, 2010, at 2:24 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 5:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
> wrote:
>> Please stop it: this is incorrect and perhaps you should at least double
>> check if someone says it's inco
Pedro-
Correct, it's just set up wrong on OTRS. Right now Legal@ is not even an OTRS
email address. If it were, we could then structure it so the languages were
subqueues. But that'd require legal@ becoming an OTRS email address.
Huib - The staff (myself and Jon) are saying two different, contr
at end, so if
something major has changed without telling us, someone's got some explaining
to do.
-Dan
On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal, 17/12/2010 01:01:
>> If you have a legal question, best to send it to legal...@wikimedia.org. It
>&
interim legal council. When
> we get a new full time council, the alias will be repointed to them. So
> le...@wikimedia.org will always be a good and safe bet.
>
> -Jon
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 07:28, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
>> That email is incorrect.
>>
&
s for long
before I started working for the WMF.
-Dan Rosenthal
On Dec 18, 2010, at 5:13 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Dan Rosenthal, 17/12/2010 01:01:
>> If you have a legal question, best to send it to legal...@wikimedia.org. It
>> will be routed much faster and is much prefer
That might work, but it is the least ideal way of getting in touch.
If you have a legal question, best to send it to legal...@wikimedia.org. It
will be routed much faster and is much preferable.
-Dan
On Dec 16, 2010, at 6:29 PM, K. Peachey wrote:
> WMF Legal has a email assigned to it, so you
That email is incorrect.
The direct email is legal...@wikimedia.org.
As far as I know, simply le...@wikimedia.org forwards to bo...@wikimedia.org or
some other email address; either way, not where it needs to go.
-Dan
On Dec 16, 2010, at 7:19 AM, Huib Laurens wrote:
> Hello,
>
> As far as I k
On Dec 5, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Alec Conroy wrote:
> I just wanted to write in to compliment all those who are behind the
> banners on the site right now-- Personal Appeals from individual
> editors with inspiring visions about how Wikimedia can help change the
> world for the better.
>
> This, t
We should all be asking "Is there really a problem here that would justify
creating a major exception to our privacy policies?" -- because I haven't seen
one. Did anyone notice how some of the earlier posts were suggesting that it
was OK because people can anonymize themselves with a proxy or so
Noein, you keep saying that the community does or does not believe a certain
way. To my knowledge there have been no studies of socioeconomic perspectives
and policies of community members to support your argument. If there are and
I'm mistaken, I'd love to know as that would be very interesting
On Nov 20, 2010, at 6:00 PM, Noein wrote:
> Thank you everybody for explaining your views.
> Most of the US inhabitants who answered me seem to be living and
> believing in a hierarchical and competitive world where the highest
> ranked ones- who are praised as gods - take from the lowest ones -
On Nov 19, 2010, at 4:05 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 19 November 2010 18:39, Noein wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> > of employees past and present of the WMF>
>>
>
> Noein, I believe you will find the answers you seek in the latest 503(c)
> filing that the WMF h
On Nov 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Noein wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 19/11/2010 11:42, Fred Bauder wrote:
>>> On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 14:46, David Gerard wrote:
On 19 November 2010 13:41, Abbas Mahmoud wrote:
> Does Wikimedia Foundation engage in Co
To be fair, the DNI is a relative a friend of mine and I am pretty sure he
does not personally publish much of anything on the website. But the point
is probably well taken.
-Dan
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> It's a bit of a Keystone Kops joke for the FBI to complain ab
Cary,
Hopefully, your successor will be even a fraction of you, in every way.
Dan Rosenthal
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 6:40 PM, Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
> Thank you for all you have done, and the very best of wish for all your
> future endeavours.
>
> KTC
>
> --
> Experience
If you think about it, one could interpret consensus as pushing one groups
opinion on another. Doesn't make it wrong.
-Dan
On Jul 18, 2010, at 5:21 PM, James Alexander wrote:
> The only thing I see coming out of this at the moment is
> "proof" that we are indeed pushing our own opinion on the
Please stop with the aggressive threats against other users. It's a) not
helpful, b) incredibly inappropriate, and c) not your decision anyway.
-Dan
On Jun 25, 2010, at 6:55 PM, Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> David Gerard,
>
> This list is not for your political advocacy.
>
> Now, stop trolling.
>
>
Isn't the quote backwards? "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in
practice. It could never work in theory"?
-Dan
On Jun 17, 2010, at 4:03 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> "The problem with Wikipedia is that it only works in theory. It could
> never work in practice."
>
> I've seen that qu
I think the immediate question would be this: Ignoring the question of
trademark infringement for the moment, what way would the Persian Wikipedia
WANT to do it? Is there a standard that is used for non-trademarked things when
there is no Persian word in existence to describe the title? For exam
Here here. There is a tactical map of 18th century Boston by Lt. Page of the
British Army on commons that I really am just blown away by. I believe it is
a featured picture, if anyone is interested. Also I saw a brilliant photo of
a homeless person in Philidelphia that could have been put on a maga
On May 9, 2010, at 7:28 AM, Kim Bruning wrote:
> On Sun, May 09, 2010 at 10:46:50AM +0100, Jimmy Wales wrote:
>>
>> In the interest of encouraging this discussion to be about real
>> philosophical/content issues, rather than be about me and how quickly I
>> acted, I've just now removed virtual
On May 8, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
> On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Adam Cuerden wrote:
>> If someone will tell me how to get messages to thread if you're in
>> digest mode - I've been making honest efforts to try and get threading
>> - I will happily use whatever technique is sugge
Adam,
You've made your point. I and other list readers don't need my email box
stuffed full with dozens of new posts from the same person saying substantively
the same thing, with different subjects.
If anyone had confusion about where you stand on this issue, it was clarified
long ago. Contin
On May 7, 2010, at 12:21 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 1:35 PM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> On May 6, 2010, at 10:24 PM, geni wrote:
>>>
>>> 3D objects could already be supported as .blend files although we
>>> don't at this point
On May 6, 2010, at 10:24 PM, geni wrote:
> On 7 May 2010 03:17, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>> The obvious example that comes to mind is the 3D virtual world physics as a
>> tool for disseminating knowledge. For instance, I was looking up various
>> model Porsche race cars the o
The obvious example that comes to mind is the 3D virtual world physics as a
tool for disseminating knowledge. For instance, I was looking up various model
Porsche race cars the other day on Wikipedia. No amount of text can truly
describe the intangible differences in control between driving a Po
On May 2, 2010, at 1:49 AM, Keegan Peterzell wrote:
> On Sat, May 1, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Stephen Bain wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 2, 2010 at 1:53 PM, James Alexander
>> wrote:
>>> Yea it is :)
>>
>> The source to which seems to be located here:
>>
>> http://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-iphone
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the particular project/maps/geodata in
>> question, but a blanket statement that claiming copyright on a map
>> is "absurdity" is itself wrong.
>>
>> -Dan
>>
> If I'm not mistaken, the thread is not about the copyrightability of
> maps themselves, but the copyrigh
(This is meant as a reply to GerardM, not WJhonson)
Pure data such as longitude and latitude, in the US, is treated significantly
differently from the act of creation and determination of a map, particularly
one that involves "inherent pictorial or photographic nature".
"It is true that maps a
Assuming that other people care about ones own form of mailing choice is
crap also, as far as this list is concerned. Let people do as they choose.
Nobody forces you to read their posts.
On Mar 30, 2010 7:45 PM, wrote:
Top posting is not what *creates* the crap.
Copying the entire email is a sta
How is it logical for the Wikimedia Foundation, by way of volunteers supporting
the Wikimedia Foundation, be disallowed from having their own logo on their own
website?
In what universe is this logical?
The problem with use of copyrighted/trademarked logos is the concern that the
owner of that
> Why should we
> reuse our own unfree logo and not others unfree logos. We aim to creat
> a free encyclopedia that can be freely reused.
What is rational about taking a scenario to the extreme?
We want to use a bare minimum of unfree content, wherever possible. That is not
the same as NO unfre
I think the bigger question would be "Why did Open Democracy copy a mediawiki
installation and at least some content from Wiktionary, but change the license
to CC-BY-NC-ND and not credit Wiktionary on the history page?"
So in fact, I believe copyright IS at issue here.
-Dan
On Mar 28, 2010, at
verse it. So
no, there's no obligation to interject ourselves, but more importantly I
think we DO have an obligation to respect the existing legal system as well
as protect the entire project from litigation.
Dan Rosenthal
On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 10:32 PM, wrote:
>
> But Dan your rep
posted the content as they can't
> remove content after it has been published. Since the WMF got the notice, it
> is their responsibility to file a counternotice or not.
>
> On 2010-03-03, at 7:40 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
>
>> Doesn't matter how they were poste
ee the revisions
> with the keys because of the oversights, to see how they were posted and
> where, so we are in the dark there.
>
> On 2010-03-03, at 4:38 AM, Chad wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 3:47 AM, Peter Gervai wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 04
I think you're misconstruing who is doing what here. The Foundation is not the
"person" required to send the counter notice, nor do they have the freedom or
the obligation to involve themselves in a copyright dispute between TI and
another user. It's not their determination to make whether the a
I'm not an expert in the particular arena, but it would seem that the onus of
any requirement on individual accounts lies on the account holder; it would be
patently unreasonable to expect a website or service provider to have any
method of enforcing that.
For instance, AOL has not the slightes
I'd toss in there "lack of realistic expectations from your project",
especially as far as being financially compensated is concerned. This alone can
account for much of the other things you view as "breakdowns".
-Dan
On Nov 29, 2009, at 5:09 PM, Laura Hale wrote:
> I'm going to post a clarific
On Nov 29, 2009, at 2:02 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 1:46 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> Neo-Nazis are frequently banned for
>> disruptive editing as are many other aggressive POV pushers.
>
> "All IP addresses owned or operated by the Church of Scientology and
> its associates, bro
In addition to Brad's very good points, I'd like to point out, if it hasn't
been already, that any discussion on this topic also inevitably generates
external criticism of "Why does XXX editor protect pedophiles"? (or even
substitute Wikipedia for XXX editor).
Nothing good can come of this con
I want to echo Thomas's remarks. It is certainly a fine line to
balance, and I am glad that the donor's concerns are on your mind. I
also want to reiterate my support for an endowment. I'm not going to
preach at anyone here (least of all you and Veronique) the benefits of
having one, but I'
Somehow I'm not disappointed that we're having a problem trying to
find a title to describe how incredibly awesome Brion is.
Congrats.
-Dan
On Aug 8, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Jim Redmond wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 19:32, Kat Walsh
> wrote:
>
>> Or you could have two sets of business cards. :-)
On Aug 6, 2009, at 9:59 AM, Chad wrote:
> Then ask him/her about it off list. This has nothing to do with
> foundation-l.
>
> -Chad
>
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM,
> mizusumashi wrote:
>> Hello, Huib.
>>
>> O.K. I promise to stop this if Jade would declare her/his edit
>> history
>>
I find it somewhat ridiculous that someone would not know about the
key dates. I've had them on my calendar for at least a month, if not
more.
-Dan
On Jul 20, 2009, at 12:05 PM, Philippe Beaudette wrote:
> It appears that perhaps centralnotice might be working again once
> you've confirme
I will be there to assist, for one.
-Dan
On Jul 14, 2009, at 6:22 PM, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Hello Frank,
>
> This sounds very cool. Which Wikipedians will be there? Is it open to
> anyone at the NIH? Is there a public agenda?
>
> SJ
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Frank Schulenburg
> wr
The statute supports that as well, providing a private right of action
and civil remedy. It's not entirely that cut and dry (there are
certain restrictions that must be met) but yeah, it appears that in
some cases TOS violations can be illegal.
-Dan
On Jun 22, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Mark Wagner w
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
