the wiki editors had noticed this apparent
change of status during the last 3.5 years.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text.jsp?file_id=241541 (English version)
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe
he rights of copyright for the individuals end at the border of Iran, period."
At least some of the Wikipedia commenters seem prepared to draw a hard
line on this issue with no exceptions.
Personally, I'd like to believe that we as a community are m
emails on
this thread.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
t the very least
such templates need to be consistent with Berne / US laws regarding
the treatment of content from non-treaty states. In my opinion, the
larger ethical issues still deserve further consideration though.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Michael Snow wrote:
> On 2/2
ver, the one thing that is clear though is that any claim to
public domain status due to the lack of copyright relations needs to
address all three factors raised above. John, can you raise these
concerns at Wikisource?
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l
surrounding copyright and reuse, and a change like
this could set a precedent for what we ultimately do on the other
projects.
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027373.html
[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Copyrights#Usage_
has.
So, it seems like it might not even be a real screenshot of Wikipedia,
but rather a page that had been further edited for their purposes.
For example, they easily could have swapped in a public domain image
of the moon from NASA.
-Robert Rohde
On Sat, Dec 17, 2011 at 8:49 AM, Kim Bruning
hat this was one of the major underlying
motivations.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
filters, and whether having a filter that is
sort-of-okay some of the time would be helpful to the people who want
filtering.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
In part, I think our
perceptions of that famous quote have been evolving alongside our
perceptions of what Wikimedia and Wikipedia have become.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedi
no
claim to notability at all. In general, "notability" has very little
to do with Commons at any level.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ner size (or even smaller). And by seriously consider, I
mean testing what the impact is likely to be, and have a conversation
about whether a somewhat longer campaign is a worthwhile trade-off for
less annoying banners.
-Robert Rohde
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/inde
ible to do so and there is no need to panic.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
. In addition, the
communication with the community about the fundraiser seems to have
improved over previous years.
So great work guys. Keep it up.
-Robert Rohde
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Przykuta wrote:
> :]
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Special:FundraiserStatistic
cebook and $1500 M suggested by
this look at About.com. Personally, I believe the truth would
probably be closer to the high end than the low end, largely because
About would seem to be a better analog of what we do than Facebook is.
But I also think
a million
anon accounts do edit. However, the number of anon accounts with at
least 5 edits in any particular month is definitely not millions, it
is several tens of thousands.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Un
On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:06 PM, John Vandenberg wrote:
>
> Are you sure these are not accounted for in stats.wm.org?
>
Yes. The current Wikimedia Stats (stats.wikimedia.org) do not count
anons towards any of the metrics that measure "Wikipedians" or "active
contr
r
community who only edit anonymously.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I would also like to add my gratitude to Mike for his years of useful
service. It is hard to imagine who could be a suitable replacement.
-Robert Rohde
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:20 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
> Again Kat found the right words. Thank you very much Mike for all the
> works yo
a.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
-Robert Rohde
On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 9:52 AM, Joan Goma wrote:
> Is there any explanation for the extraordinary jump in page views this
> month?
>
> http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesPageViewsMonthly.htm
> __
rt initiatives that reach out to and help the very
newest users. Exactly what kinds of support we provide will likely
vary depending on what issues are determined to be most common, but
regardless of the details, I think this is a very important avenue for
outreach and growth.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
editing" account on another project.
Circa last May, roughly 15% of new EN wikipedia accounts were being
created by SUL cross-overs. Even if you assume that none of these
were to engage in editing, it still means that at least 80% of the
unused accounts were created via lo
veral cases where
well known newspapers and magazines appropriated my images without
attempting to contact me (and in some cases even without providing any
attribution). It does leave me to wonder how many other times my
images might have been used professionally and/or improperly and I
just don
that archive web
content is a good one, but I don't know that IA is really in a
position to be all that useful.
-Robert Rohde
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 6:57 AM, emijrp wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> I want to make a proposal about external links preservation. Many times,
> when you check an e
ave a more restrictive privacy policy
governing their own content, then that seems fine, but I suspect they
would have a difficult uphill battle to extend that decision beyond
their own immediate sphere of influence.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
Er, I mean: "I think it would feel less imposing and more friendly to
have a smaller banner THAT ran longer."
Silly typo.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.o
coupled to a longer campaign and
accomplish the same effect as a big banner with a shorter campaign.
Personally, I think it would feel less imposing and more friendly to
have a smaller banner than ran longer.
That's just my two cents.
-Robert Rohde
___
makes the files more easily
scalable (and more compatible with SVG in general), but it also makes
the sensation of depth less realistic. Is this a deliberate choice,
and if so, why?
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
bolder, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#New_logo
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ld not forget
the potential to harm the people in the images.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e can get an idea of what the issue is and consider the best ways to
address it.
I've compiled the list at:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:List_of_genitalia_for_review
(There are actually only 411 on the list, as I dropped 14 after my
editor mangled
ontent filtering standard
that some segment of the community wants to support, then I'm
perfectly happy to see that happen.
-Robert Rohde
On Sun, May 9, 2010 at 6:24 AM, Derk-Jan Hartman wrote:
> This message is CC'ed to other people who might wish to comment on this
> potenti
express a position on the appropriate use of sexual content?
-Robert Rohde
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
[2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Cleanup_policy
(and following sections)
[3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Sexual_conten
ho
> will.
Anything that is rendered as page content will appear in the export
dumps and needs to be considered by reusers, which includes those
navigational templates. The logo at the upper left is different in
that regard since it isn't part of the dumps.
-Robert Rohde
_
-by-Wikimedia templates, but we can go and fix that.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
go in
part because of the desire to avoid a copyrighted logo.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
would be. It is all heavily compressed to make it fit in the
space available, but that's entirely reversible of course.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
nowledged that we are unlikely to ever really know whether this
particular image was child porn unless the uploader chooses to
confess.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
e than written assurances that everything is okay, and I don't see
why we couldn't ask for the same thing here. And, in the unfortunate
event that things aren't okay, we would be able to point a specific
individual who misled us rath
downsides to allowing such
collections grow far beyond the applications we have for them.
-Robert Rohde
[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Privatemusings/ImagesUsedInVideoPresentation
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
nated. Based on the fact that all
references to such a position have been eliminated from that page, I
would suspect that the position no longer exists.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsub
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 10:21 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:05 AM, geni wrote:
>> There is one point left. We can't measure the change in traffic to
>> Craigslist but we can measure this:
>>
>> http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Craigslist
>
http://stats.grok.se/en/200912/Craig%20Newmark
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The banner can be seen at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NoticeTemplate/view&template=2009_Craig_Appeal1
-Robert Rohde
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> care to give some context to your question?
>
> [[witty lama]]
>
> wittylama.com
to have a board resolution that
said, in essence, "Wikimedia should take reasonable and cost-effective
steps to reduce or offset its carbon footprint and other impacts on
the environment"? Assuming the Board and the executive director can
share a similar idea of what is "reasonable"
that
Milos was discussing in the start of the thread (unless I
misunderstood something myself).
Yes, there are other scenarios we have to deal with, and perhaps some
of them could in fact be helped by the development of standardized
permission forms, but I was never suggesting
that in some ways it runs counter
to Milos's complaint, since it requires a new process rather than
cutting out bureaucracy per se. However, I think having a fixed and
standardized approach for free content releases would ultimately cut
down on
the only people empowered to make such infringement
claims are the specific authors of the article being infringed. So,
for each article you wanted to take down, you would need to find at
least one major contributor to that specific article who was willing
to file the infring
to experiment and try some ideas to
see what sticks.
-Robert rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
social changes that occur to
individuals over the course of a single human lifetime. Good for
understanding people's wants, needs, and expectations.
-Robert Rohde
PS. Welcome Megan.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, wrote:
>
> How do you determine the number of views a particular Wikipedia page has
> received?
http://stats.grok.se/en/200910/Colorado%20Balloon%20Incident
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
fou
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 2:18 PM, Bod Notbod wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
>> At the root, I think that Wikipedia is something of a victim of it's
>> own success. We've written the largest encyclopedia in history,
>> become a hou
;ve become
resistant to it.
I'm wondering whether other people at the Foundation-l level perceive
the same trends, and what they think about the balance between
innovation and growth versus simply maintaining and solidifying the
processes and products that we already have.
-Robert Rohde
___
sense) both
used that general format, and I hope we aim to replicate that again
this year.
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Cary Bass wrote:
> Trying one more time. Seems to have disconnected from my previous message.
>
> Original Message
> Subject:
latter gives direct information about participation, while the
former gives a convolution of participation data with information
about how people perceive their own participation. Either approach
can be useful, but which one is used should be determined by a clear
understanding of what it is the surv
urce of their books, and then continue as
is.
At its core though, the fact that Wikipedia works can be repackaged
and sold is a feature of the free content movement. If the
implications of that are sometimes disturbing then either we need
accept the unintended consequences as a necessary evil, o
ent a content filter, but I don't know.
In terms of kid safety though, I think the biggest points are probably
A) that it is not connected to the scary scary internet, and B) it is
only text.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing li
problems, but I'll assume that those were fixed in
the intervening months.
Anyway, this appears to be a good way to increase Wikipedia's reach by
giving it physical form. Good luck to Openmoko.
-Robert Rohde
On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> -- Forw
is probably the
most that it is reasonable to ask of the staff as an ongoing
commitment.
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:23 AM, Waerth wrote:
> Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> 2009/9/30 Waerth :
>>
>>> Basically if there is room for two sets of office hours it should
#x27;s stamp of approval or funding. I suspect that many
such things, if they are truly worth doing and well supported by the
larger community, would actually get implemented long before the
Foundation gets around to endorsing a long-term plan.
It would probably be a good idea for someone to start
re rarely
made during the public campaigns (and make up only a small fraction of
the campaign totals), and yet at the same time it is too small to have
gotten the same level of attention that might go into soliciting a
major foundation for $100k+ grant.
-Robert Rohde
__
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 6:03 AM, Sage Ross wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:51 AM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>>
>> It is settled case law in the US that restorations are not
>> copyrightable as they lack sufficient originality. The intent is to
>> create a slavish copy
as the UK) which
place a greater emphasis on effort in determining eligibility for
copyright.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
crosoft has no rights
that novel, even if the copy of Word I used was completely stolen.
They could sue me for the cost of the lost revenue if I am not using a
properly licensed copy of their software, but they would have no
direct claims over the intellectual works I
to make it efficient, but the underlying
idea is simple. Locating nearby articles (and geocoded images) could
have a lot of uses.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.
dress some of this, but
shoehorning everything into a "book" model doesn't really make sense
either.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ither by us or by Wikia and similar third parties.
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 8:24 AM, oscar wrote:
> On 9/9/09, Michael Peel wrote:
>>
>> On 2 Sep 2009, at 12:35, David Goodman wrote:
>>
>>> There is sufficient missing material in every Wikipedia, suffi
uld never be 100% secure,
but one could take steps (such as a per user / thread reply-to
addresses) to reduce the opportunities for impersonation.
I would suggest that the optimal solution is probably a system that is
mostly a forum but has a few email features as well rather than
th
t in place.
In any event, I think we could probably set up a system that provided
more flexible control over threads and users without necessarily
sacrificing the convenience of email for people that prefer that
approach. And of course, people who
thers is offensive and not in keeping with the
collaborative spirit necessary to run WMF projects.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Brion Vibber wrote:
> Robert, is it possible to share the source for generating the
> revert-based stats with other folks who may be interested in pursuing
> further work on the subject? Thanks!
Not as a complete stand-alone entity. The analysis framework I
thro
us with respect to actual editing
behaviors. Maybe our concern for ensuring accuracy and addressing
vandalism has grown, but the scale of the underlying problem of
incoming vandalism appears to be more or less constant.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l
is such that the bad content is more likely to be seen than
suggested by the uniform weighting.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 12:26 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>> However, in this case, even if we
>> assume the seat was outright "bought" for $2M, I don't think there are
>
> I'm not sure why people are
deal
world, maybe we'd never make deals like this, but in a pragmatic
world, I don't think this particular deal will lead to much general
outrage.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ay
anything sooner.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 7:13 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM, Thomas Dalton
>> wrote:
>> > 2009/8/20 Anthony :
>> >> I wouldn't suggest looking at the edit history at all,
ing issue with
addressing vandalism, but there are a significant number of ways to
commit vandalism that nonetheless have nothing to do with impairing
the resulting article's accuracy.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikim
t paying
attention to it in particular, and all vandalism starts out that way.
Perhaps it would be more useful if you think of this work as a
characterization of revert statistics?
Anyway, I provided my data point and described what I did so others
could judge it for themselves. Regardless of your opinion, it
addressed an issue of interest to me, and I would hope others also
find some useful insight in it.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ikipedia as intended rather than in a vandalized state.
(Though to be fair I didn't try to figure out if the vandalism
occurred in more frequently visited parts or not.)
Unfortunately, that's it for now as I need to get back to my thesis /
job search.
-Robert Rohde
__
Personally, I think the 2 articles in the Bengali Wikipedia
serving a speaking community of 230 million is an even better example
of failure.
-Robert Rohde
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Lars Aronsson wrote:
> Andrew Gray wrote:
>
>> For those curious as to overall statistics,
use there are unaffiliated with Mediawiki, the more
difficult it would be to assert that it is a trademark representing
Mediawiki. It is also unclear who would be in the position to
authorize the use of such a trademark, i.e. who would own the rights
to the mark.
-Robert Rohde.
PS. Since when did the f
better analogy would be
to think of Knol as the next Geocities.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 12:34 AM, John Vandenberg wrote:
> I had forgotten that my bot gave me a second vote.
Is that a joke?
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mail
I would like to note that it isn't just internal naming schemes and/or
industry conventions that matter. Brion is also engaged in a
significant amount of interaction with external communities, including
the volunteer developers and the Mediawiki user base. In that
context, I think a de
s a new boss). By contrast large corporations often have
many people who are titled "Senior" this-or-that but are still
relatively unimportant.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
make
> sense to build a different project for those works.
Not so. More printed works have been published in the last 70 years
than the whole of human history preceding them.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.
on of that. It seems unlikely in most cases.
Besides which, there are many things we can be doing (such as
improving the editing interface and documentation) that should widely
benefit most groups of potential new editors.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation
ks
into an interdependent whole should logically and legally be
considered a derivative work rather than merely a collection of
"separate and independent works" (quoting the license definition of a
collection). Where the line between collection and derivative lies
however tends to be
ng based on
higher order bytes in the IP address and assuming those are fairly
stable (e.g. using BBB mod 4 where the address is AAA.BBB.CCC.DDD).
Neither approach is foolproof or totally without bias, but one can do
fairly well.
-Robert Rohde
___
f
tage over whichever one you test last. Probably the
easiest way to get a reasonable distribution is to vary which button
people see based on their IP.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ase people wanted to take
similar steps on other wikis.
Hopefully though some form of CentralNotice will be restored shortly.
-Robert Rohde
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 2:07 AM, Philippe
Beaudette wrote:
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen,
>
> As you may be aware, there is concern that the siten
something we can justify
rushing through.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
age preference based on the wiki they are reading.
Obviously one would need a strategy for graceful language fallbacks
when a user's preference was unavailable, but we have to do that in
many other scenarios anyway.
Making many languages available is a good thing, but formatting the
page to hi
images appear to be 3 or 4 times
larger in linear dimension than the largest view they currently make
available.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Is it because they are potentially PD in the UK, but it's unclear?
See:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag/Straw_Poll
Especially the introductory comments. This has been handled as a special case.
-Robert Rohde
__
different if 300 people were involved from the very
beginning, but you aren't going to greatly alter the shape of things
by involving an extra 300 people in this way after the fact.
-Robert Rohde
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@l
hich you or anyone from the Wikiemedia Foundation have
stored them) all images that you have derived from our client’s
website" would really require not just the admin bit, but rather
someone at the WMF going in and erasing the files directly so that
they can never be undeleted
initively not PD in the UK. It's not a
sure thing, and comptent legal representation would no doubt make an
important case out of it, but my reading of the commentaries in this
area would such suggest that a victory by the NPG is entirely possible
(and perhaps more likely than not) assu
On Tue, Jun 30, 2009 at 8:16 PM, Robert Rohde wrote:
> An idea that has been toyed with a couple of other places is to allow
> defined blocks and references to them in article text. For example:
>
> An article might start:
>
>
> Thomas Jefferson was the third president...
1 - 100 of 216 matches
Mail list logo
