cimonav...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 10:44 PM, ??? wrote:
> > I note that the TV shows the scenes after 9pm, or in other words they
> > apply some filter on the content if only based on time.
> >
> >
>
> As a person from a more nordic and perhaps even ruder than brazilian
> cult
en.wp.s...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:37 AM, ??? wrote:
> > So how many times is the button pressed each day? If it gets pressed 4
> > million times a day, and there is only one porn page, then at least one
> > person will have recieved porn. If there are 100 porn pages then 100
Welcome to the problem of Orphan Works. what you have to show is that either of
the following is true?
(i) the author of which is a citizen of India; or
(ii) which is first published in India; or
(iii) the author of which, in the case of an unpublished work, is, at the time
of the making of the
y are mostly stubs and
will pretty well always be so, as a lot of the interesting stuff is local
history which is not available in main stream publications. Other than listing
the pubs, the schools the bus timetable, and whether there is a Londis store,
what else can be said about them? Well take this plac
z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
> > z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
>
> > In comparison $14m does seem highly profligate. Our R&D budget was £10m
> > (approx $16) in 2009, spent almost entirely on software development, and =
> we
>
z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
> David Gerard wrote:
> > Our current markup is one of our biggest barriers to participation.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > * Tim doesn't scale. Most of our other technical people don't scale.
> > *We have no resources and still run on almost nothing*.
> >
> > ($14m might sou
jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
> --- On Fri, 10/12/10, Mariano Cecowski wrote:
> > Problem is, Controlled Viewing is an option to deletionism,
> > but is not being seen as it. The current poll is to set a
> > criteria for the exclusion of material from commons, whereas
> > content hiding is [generally
jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> So I think one reason why we don't see more diversity is that the
> established, predominantly white user base is giving editors from other
> backgrounds a pretty hard time!
>
You could also add in the photo of the bare chested African adolescent that was
proposed
Any one signed up yet?
http://www.ereleases.com/pr/visibility-wikipedia-easier-43135
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> jay...@gmail.com writes:
>
>
> > On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, wrote:
> > > In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> > > risker...@gmail.com writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >> My poin
anyway. Let them POV push
in an area that few will look in.
However, if you want to see POV pushing on drugs trying these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mephedrone
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2C-T-2
where the molecules are being given cute little animations,
someo
On 24/10/2010 14:20, Fred Bauder wrote:
>
>> One would certainly hope that engineers weren't copying data from
>> wikipedia. The issue though isn't the use put by Engineers and Doctors
>> but rather the use put by normal people that are clicking on a search
>> engine's 1st link, and where the site
On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
> The whole point of NPOV and V is that we choose sources the world
> regards as reliable, and we run with them, presenting all sides of the
> debate even if we personally dislike some of it.
>
Another thought occurs, though I suspect I'm wasting my time, o
On 24/10/2010 12:40, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 05:17, wrote:
>> On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15,wrote:
See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes
On 24/10/2010 08:55, SlimVirgin wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 08:15, wrote:
>> See I took Atorvastatin and you wouldn't let the project report that the
>> Stanford Medical Journal reported that it causes more damage to the heart
>> than
>> is acceptable. You want us only to report things once
On 24/10/2010 02:17, Robert S. Horning wrote:
> On 10/23/2010 03:42 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>>
>> If at any moment it can be stood on its head then the information
>> contained in the articles can never be authoritative. Suppose I have a
>> calculator that
On 23/10/2010 22:00, Wjhonson wrote:
>
> But it does have authoritative perspective. That is exactly my point
> and the point at which you railed at, from a position that was
> extreme. Your contention is that we should not report *any* thing in
> our work on a drug except what the manufacturer p
On 23/10/2010 15:15, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht
>> maybe you shouldn't have anything on
On 23/10/2010 15:15, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 10/23/2010 3:40:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> OK this is going to be controversial but have you ever considered taht
>> maybe you shouldn't have anything on
On 23/10/2010 13:46, Fred Bauder wrote:
>> On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
>>>
>>> Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There
>>> is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the
>>> company, no ment
On 23/10/2010 08:02, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
> Look at our article -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atorvastatin There
> is criticism, no mention of how much money the drug is making for the
> company, no mention of how widespread and unquestioned the
> prescription of these drugs is.
On 22/10/2010 08:54, David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 October 2010 08:19, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
>
>> If you are counting votes, please count mine for moderation.
>
>
> +1
>
Are you both asking to be put on moderation or to be banned>
> Seriously, this list is commonly referred to as "troll-l"
On 11/10/2010 15:56, Nathan wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:15 AM, wrote:
>> thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
>>> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>>>
>>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Clos
thepmacco...@gmail.com wrote:
> failed at copy / paste - with apologies, here is the link to the image
> I would think it best to remove permanently;
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Closeup_of_female_masturbation_pastel.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1
>
You are aware that, if i
On 09/10/2010 01:32, SlimVirgin wrote:
>
> Hard to see how he could have been more obvious. And the result? He's
> placed on moderation. :D
>
I believe the phrase is "swallowed hook, line, and sinker" and in this
case it looks like some have leaped into the boat too.
On 05/10/2010 15:23, Liam Wyatt wrote:
> On 5 October 2010 13:39, wrote:
>
>> In a message dated 10/5/2010 6:01:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
>> jayen...@yahoo.com writes:
>>
>>
>>> You're right there. It's a bloody headache finding the words of the
>>> article in amongst all the citation templates
On 04/10/2010 19:43, geni wrote:
>
> The Wikipedia that went from nothing to top ten site was never built
> on verifiable knowledge. It was built on what people happened to have
> in their heads. The whole citation thing outside the more
> controversial areas came later. Don't believe me? This was
On 03/10/2010 07:01, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
> Дана Saturday 02 October 2010 23:51:22 David Gerard написа:
>> On 2 October 2010 22:44, David Gerard wrote:
>>> The problem is how to avoid making rules against stupidity. Because
>>> you can't actually outlaw stupid. Experts already complain about
>>
On 20/09/2010 04:21, Robert S. Horning wrote:
> On 09/19/2010 06:52 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> On 20/09/2010 00:26, Robert S. Horning wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is, so I'm just making a
>>> raw con
t the Humanities problem" through a WikiProject
>> may not work in this case. Getting students and academics involved might.
>>
>> As reported in the press, there is an ongoing WikiProject to improve
>> Wikipedia's Public Policy coverage, through collaboration with un
On 29/08/2010 16:46, David Gerard wrote:
> On 29 August 2010 15:38, Peter Damian wrote:
>
>> The problem is that until someone sits up and notices the serious errors that
>> are propagated through Wikipedia (and which are now becoming part of the
>> folk wisdom of the internet), no one will be bot
nses later. Having such an archive, archived
> by an independent organization, would be indisputable proof of copyright
> status.
Personally I wouldn't rely on a flickr CC license as being in any way
reliable.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Flickr_washing
I've seen
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> I have never had a DCMA report filed against me.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
Then you need to get in touch with them. To find out what is happening
because not being able to post images doesn't seem to be normal blogger
behaviour. When I uploaded a test image a s
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> Blogger is the platform I use now for many years to blog about the subjects
> that are important in my appreciation of a Wiki world. At first I did not
> illustrate my blogposts but thanks to Pfctdayelise I started to pepper my
> blog posts wit
David Gerard wrote:
> On 11 August 2010 19:27, wrote:
>
>> One has to decide where one stands on such issues, does one not?
>
>
> I suggest ignoring the troll henceforth - this poster has only ever
> joined threads on this list in order to try to derail them.
>
>
Ticket booked? Now if I wer
Birgitte SB wrote:
>
> --- On Wed, 8/11/10, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk
> wrote:
>
>> OH I was just pointing out that there is an academic
>> boycott of Israel, of course one is at liberty to break or not
>> participate in such, just like those who t
pate in such, just
like those who turned up at Sun City.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artists_United_Against_Apartheid
One has to decide where one stands on such issues, does one not?
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Nathan wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Abbas Mahmoud wrote:
>> Not only the Middle East, but the Muslim population at large will not dare
>> step into Israeli soil.
>>
>
> That's a pretty broad generalization - hopefully the organizing team
> will still make every effort to include as
David Gerard wrote:
> On 4 August 2010 19:11, wrote:
>
>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2010-July/060076.html
>
>
> No detectable project participation. Thanks for your detailed response.
>
Make note - Gerard clueless.
___
foun
Shane Simmons wrote:
>> The issue is the aggregation and collation of the data and making it
>> available to others. Why would you consider that some one's edit history
>> is any less personal than what they borrow from the library?
>
> ...
>
>> Why so? Editing history reveals your interests, may
David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 23:23, wrote:
>> David Gerard wrote:
>>> On 3 August 2010 22:05, wrote:
>
No ethics here then.
>
>>> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
>>> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
>
>> How is it trolling to simply
masti wrote:
> On 08/03/2010 10:38 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Risker wrote:
>>> On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
>> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
>> have a static IP address. Besides
John Vandenberg wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 7:51 AM, wrote:
>> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>> Hi, wiki-list!
>>>
>>>> No ethics here then.
>>> Excuse me, what is your complaint?
>>>
>>> I don't really get the point you are
David Gerard wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 22:05, wrote:
>
>> No ethics here then.
>
>
> Tell me, have you ever contributed *anything* to this list, or to a
> Wikimedia project, that wasn't trolling?
>
How is it trolling to simply question a few assumptions? And to answer
your question yes.
__
Domas Mituzas wrote:
> Hi, wiki-list!
>
>> No ethics here then.
>
> Excuse me, what is your complaint?
>
> I don't really get the point you are trying to make.
>
> There are few simple things, but apparently you have problems to
> grasp them :)
>
>
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>
>>>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
>>>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
>>>> make publi
Risker wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 16:38, wrote:
>
>>
>> People can edit for years without creating an account, and they may well
>> have a static IP address. Besides simply writing down that data is
>> aggregated does not make it right. If its violation of personal data
>> right for Germans why sh
masti wrote:
> On 08/03/2010 10:04 PM, wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Domas Mituzas wrote:
>>>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
>>>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
>>>> make pub
Risker wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 15:48, Domas Mituzas wrote:
>
>>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with an
>>> individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to make
>>> public statements about a user.
>>
>> we don't associate data with individual, we asso
Domas Mituzas wrote:
>> The issue is when someone aggregates the data and associates with
>> an individual, and then makes publishes it. Or uses that data to
>> make public statements about a user.
>
>
> we don't associate data with individual, we associate data with
> pseudonym.
And? People use
Thomas Dalton wrote:
> On 3 August 2010 19:33, wrote:
>> Currently the data collection and processing doesn't follow its
>> recommended code of good practice of the UKs DPA and may even be in
>> breach of it:
>> http://www.ico.gov.uk/ebook/ebook.htm
>
> That's quite a long document. You could po
Robert Rohde wrote:
> Personally, I don't see any intrinsic problem with different wiki
> communities having different policies about what kinds of auxiliary
> content they will accept (as long as it doesn't interfere with the
> basic mission of the project).
>
> I wi
Sebastian Moleski wrote:
>>
> That's not quite what the rule tries to accomplish. Rather, the point is
> this: personal data being public does not allow anyone to aggregate such
> data in a way such that the result is still tied to individual people (also
> called 'profiling'). Why is that so? Bec
ly censored:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nick_Berg&diff=prev&oldid=4110750
there were once a number of images on that page but now they are gone
and the current page has no images at all:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Berg
The original images have been deleted from the
the choice of what they read or
see. Are you totally incapable of understanding that someone might well
be flipping through works of Delany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_R._Delany#Novels
and not want to suddenly, without warning, to have descriptions of kids
cocksucking on their work or
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I was not aware of the Flickr situation in Germany. Are some of their
> servers based in Germany?
>
> As far as I am aware, the German Bundesprüfstelle für
> jugendgefährdende Medien[1] and the Kommission für Jugendmedienschutz
> (KJM) are limited in what they can do about i
Tomasz Ganicz wrote:
> 2010/7/25 Andreas Kolbe :
>>> From: David Gerard
Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out
>>> the correct parameters for default IP access. Each language
>>> version of any project could make its own determination in
>>> this regard. Arabic, no Mohammed imag
Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> to see its content.
>
> Yes, the devil is in the details, and in working out the correct
> parameters for default IP access. Each language version of any
> project could make its own determination in this regard. Arabic, no
> Mohammed images; India, no sex and kissing; Dutch
Sue Gardner wrote:
> Sorry to top-post.
>
> Google and Flickr actually handle this quite differently though, I
> think, Andreas. Going from memory -- I think that Google defaults to
> a "moderate" setting, but allows users to easily switch to an
> unfiltered setting. As long as they allow cookies
geni wrote:
> On 24 July 2010 18:28, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>> - That IPs are shown a mildly "censored" version, and that seeing the
>> uncensored version of Wikipedia requires registering an account and setting
>> the preferences up accordingly.
>>
>
> And this is where it all breaks down. Once
if I say you must not see X. Where X is some broadly recognized category of
> offensive material.*
>
> Agreed. As our own "Censorship" article states "*Censorship* is the
> suppression
> of speech <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech> or deletion
David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 July 2010 21:01, teun spaans wrote:
>
>> I think I am completely factual. After I wrote this, I went to the
>> questionlist and found the cry "we dont censor" in one of the
>> reactions. Which proves my point, I think. You yourself use that term
>> in your email.
>
>
David Gerard wrote:
> On 22 July 2010 16:32, R M Harris wrote:
>
>> May I just reply to thank Excirial for the excellent suggestions
>> re:formatting contained in his thoughtful reply (I'll look them over
>> carefully) and just to note a couple of things. I'm well aware of the
>> long-standing
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> For wiki-style collaboration I usually use either PBWiki (or pbworks,
> whatever, it's all the sme company) or sites.google.com
>
> Both allow for FREE, private, multi-user, instant, online collaboration
> using a free online smart editing engine
Prodego wrote:
> Yes, that had been mentioned in Excirial's update though. In addition to
> being for edit warring, they are also expected to be temporary.
>
Aye boss that'll learn them, a week in the hole it be.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundati
Prodego wrote:
> As another update to this situation, all admins on acewiki have now been
> desysoped, and the template removed.
>
Well done that will certainly show the natives who wears the boots.
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wik
Excirial wrote:
> *Do you not see the irony in requesting that someone stops using words,
> taken to be a personal attack, whilst at the same time defending the
> continued publication of images taken to be personal attacks on others
> religious beliefs.*
>
> I see the irony that someone speaks ou
ther site containing them doesn't generate a
> problem. Equally i would again point out that we are building an
> encyclopedia, which is an unbiased compendium of knowledge. If we start
> pre-filtering topics and content on a
> WP:ITBOTHERSME<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikiped
Mark Williamson wrote:
> "You" - again, this is not (or at least it should not) be about ME and
> YOU. I did not upload any of those images, I did not vote for (or
> against - I didn't know the vote was taking place) the deletion of the
> Goatse image, I'm merely stating the reason it was deleted.
Mark Williamson wrote:
> "Wiki-list", the huge glaring difference is that the goatse.cx image
> is a pornographic image and we were unable to identify the subject of
> it, which raises potential privacy concerns. Please don't accuse me of
> hypocrisy as I am personally
Excirial wrote:
> *Do you have some special browser button that enables blocking of selected
> images before visiting a page? Or are you advocating the global blocking of
> all images?*
>
> See the FAQ section on
> Talk:Muhammad<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Muhammad&
ohammed images that the ace group are
complaining about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jyllands-Posten-pg3-article-in-Sept-30-2005-edition-of-KulturWeekend-entitled-Muhammeds-ansigt.png
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Everybody_Draw_Mohammed_Day.jpg
using those images has been declared fair-us
Nathan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM, wrote:
>
>> When why aren't they linking to the Mohammed article rather than the
>> specific articles that have piss taking images, or images of him
>> trampling on the 10 commandments, or being tortured in hell?
>>
>> Unless there is evidence to
David Gerard wrote:
> On 17 July 2010 12:40, wrote:
>> John Vandenberg wrote:
>>> in the article about Jesus.
>
>>> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
>>> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
>>> free time on their hands. The image
The [[Piss Christ]] article seems to have no real purpose other than to
display an image that is known to offend. I note that none of the
references in that article actually display the image and are far more
informative of the actual controversy surrounding the image. The
wikipedia article also do
John Vandenberg wrote:
> in the article about Jesus.
>
> If you haven't noticed, the images of Muhammad on the core articles
> relating to Islam are not created by someone who had a bit too much
> free time on their hands. The images of Muhammad that we use are
> images of an object which is held
'll take some scans and add them to:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hi all,
Only wanted to notify you that the Acehnese Wikipedia <
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ôn_Keuë<http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%94n_Keu%C3%AB>>
have plans about boycotting Wikipedia, as they say in this statement <
http://ace.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pola:Lhi_gamba_peukabeh_Na
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/2/2010 3:20:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> Nothing competes with free, why would you pay for an album when your
>> mates just download it for nothing? >>
>
> Gee
Yann Forget wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 2010/7/2 :
>> wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back
to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed work. The
economic costs of simply walking away and not stopping the piracy are
>>>
le
> cost.
Nothing competes with free, why would you pay for an album when your
mates just download it for nothing? Radiohead, a band with an
established loyal following got £1 a copy for their pay-what-you-like
2007 album. BTW did they ever produce a final balance sheet on that
experiment,
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/30/2010 5:36:14 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> If a way of halting the gross infringements can't be done. Then go back
>> to hitting the seeders with $22,000 fines per infringed
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/29/2010 11:21:34 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> There needs to be a deterrent to infringement. If all that happens if
>> you get caught riding the bus without paying fare, is that
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>
> Copyright by default means that anything, however bad or
> trivial, has copyrights; this includes the weekly flyer from your local
> supermarket.
All of those are designed there is some creative input that goes into
them. In some cases, given time, they have a d
David Gerard wrote:
> On 26 June 2010 17:33, wrote:
>
>> I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and there is nothing to
>> suggest such FUD in their letter. They are talking about THEIR copyright
>> and that "these groups simply do not want to pay for the use of *our*
>> music".
>
>
>
David Gerard wrote:
> On 26 June 2010 11:53, wrote:
>
>
> The point of my post was, of course, that ASCAP are attempting to
> apply pressure to Congress to outlaw the licence most Wikimedia
> content is released under (by its creators).
>
I don't suspect that is correct for one moment, and th
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 6/26/2010 2:33:07 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> When service providers are lobbying to promote copyleft they are doing
>> so in order muddy the copyright waters. The amount of copy
Jeffrey Peters wrote:
> David Gerard,
>
> This list is not for your political advocacy.
>
> Now, stop trolling.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122367645363324303.html
>
> The founder of Creative Commons is a very prominent pirate and promoter of
> piracy in addition to CC. That has been es
Andre Engels wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2010 at 2:07 AM, Jeffrey Peters
> <17pet...@cardinalmail.cua.edu> wrote:
>
>> Thank you for clarifying. I put forth another email based on the expectation
>> of the point you just made (so, thus, I am sorry for assuming you were
>> speaking against the law and
Mark Williamson wrote:
> In addition, I have a feeling that article overstates the English
> abilities of the average non-native internet user. Yes, lots of people
> have a very (very!) basic command of English, but that is not the same
> as functional bilingualism. A user may happen to know the na
dger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On 22 June 2010 14:06, wrote:
>
> > There is a major problem with latin names in a number of taxa. It seems
> > that if tehre are 5 consecutive wet days in Summer a couple of researchers
> > put their heads together and concoct new names, move things about, split,
>
teofilow...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> I have discovered a few days ago that someone, probably in good faith
> and unaware of this language policy, created [[:Category:Animals by
> common named groups]] which is a container for English-named
> biological taxa, at the end of 2008.
There is a major prob
Thomas Dalton wrote:
>
> I think everyone in this conversation is aware of that. Jiri said they
> were calling it "Wiki" despite it not actually being a wiki, which
> strongly suggests they are trying to associate it with Wikipedia
> (which is very commonly abbrevia
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk wrote:
>> Ray Saintonge wrote:
>>
>>>>>> And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you
>>>>>> have to declare that a work is free to use commercially?
>>>>
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>> And how are you determining that a work is orphaned? What JuJU do you
>> have to declare that a work is free to use commercially?
>>
>>
> Whether a work is orphaned will vary from one work to another. Do you
> have a specific work in mind? I was just providin
Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
> As an example consider an orphan work last published in the United
> States more than seventy years ago. It would at first glance appear to
> qualify for the shorter libraries and archives rule for republication.
> When it appears at wikisource there is a discussion t
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 5/22/2010 11:41:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
>
>> <> DO
>> have the power, to delete submissions that are considered non
>> encyclopedic, trolling, libelous and etc. There
Mike Godwin wrote:
> wiki-l...@phizz.demon.co.uk writes:
>
> Across the world the "Nobody is home" argument is quickly running out of
>> steam. Google execs sentenced to 6 months in Italy, LimeWire guilty for
>> its user's piracy, and blog owner found liable
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> Your over-broad reading of this law would effectively gut that other
> law which states that a "host" company is not responsible for what
> people are hosting.
>
> Wouldn't it? Unless you're going to support what appears to be an
> unsupportable platform that "child porn
wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> The foundation does not "own and operate" the site in the way that Fox news
> owns and operates their site.
> The foundation merely ensures that the site operates, functions, runs.
> It does not edit the contents of the site. That is the fundamental flaw in
> this argu
1 - 100 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
