Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-04-01 Thread Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Cary Bass wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Levy wrote: > >> Pedro Sanchez wrote: >> >>> Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very sensical. >>> >>> And who cares about purported reach to the whole world and all >>> that fancy words let's bother them

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-04-01 Thread Ian A. Holton
May I point out that Alex, also known as majorly or Al Tally, is a respected member of the British Wikimedia crowd and not just a one off prankster using a made up e-mail address. Also, this made me laugh and I would have thought that a prank with cultural significance (due to the date), that is re

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-04-01 Thread Brian
I've just finished coding up Non-Free Content Bot which spiders Google Images and uploads 10 per second to commons with no license information. I wrote the bot using MediaWiki's turing complete template language. Given that Google Images has 916,000,000 images I anticipate it will take 2.90269084 y

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-04-01 Thread Cary Bass
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 David Levy wrote: > Pedro Sanchez wrote: >> Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very sensical. >> >> And who cares about purported reach to the whole world and all >> that fancy words let's bother them with our idiotic pranks >> becuase we are

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-04-01 Thread Birgitte SB
--- On Wed, 4/1/09, Marcus Buck wrote: > From: Marcus Buck > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Wednesday, April 1, 2009, 10:16 AM > Birgitte SB hett schreven: > > Right, it obviousl

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-04-01 Thread Ray Saintonge
Pedro Sanchez wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> This is a (predominantly) English-language mailing list, so using >> those traditions used in the English-speaking world seems to make >> sense to me. >> > Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very sen

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-04-01 Thread Marcus Buck
Birgitte SB hett schreven: > Right, it obviously "the pompous English majority" conspiring here because > you received a prank from every English speaker on the list. > > If the list were in Spanish so every immature youth in Latin America with too > much time on their hands could access it witho

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Birgitte SB
--- On Tue, 3/31/09, Pedro Sanchez wrote: > From: Pedro Sanchez > Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons > To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" > Date: Tuesday, March 31, 2009, 9:48 PM > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:45 PM, > Thomas Dalton wro

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread David Levy
Pedro Sanchez wrote: > Of course, wasting resources on april 1st is very sensical. > > And who cares about purported reach to the whole world and all that fancy > words > let's bother them with our idiotic pranks becuase we are majority and > thereforewe have the right to do so > > Very good attit

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Pedro Sanchez
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:45 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > > This is a (predominantly) English-language mailing list, so using > those traditions used in the English-speaking world seems to make > sense to me. > > ___ > foundation-l mailing list > foundat

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Thomas Dalton
2009/4/1 Pedro Sanchez : > On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> 2009/4/1 Pedro Sanchez : >> > you'd be annoyed if you started getting lots of bogus messages and silly >> > jokes on december 28 >> >> Yes, because December 28 isn't the traditional day for such things. As >> long

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Pedro Sanchez
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:40 PM, Thomas Dalton wrote: > 2009/4/1 Pedro Sanchez : > > you'd be annoyed if you started getting lots of bogus messages and silly > > jokes on december 28 > > Yes, because December 28 isn't the traditional day for such things. As > long as it is just one day a year, it'

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Thomas Dalton
2009/4/1 Pedro Sanchez : > you'd be annoyed if you started getting lots of bogus messages and silly > jokes on december 28 Yes, because December 28 isn't the traditional day for such things. As long as it is just one day a year, it's a bit of fun. If people started doing it on random days, obvious

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Pedro Sanchez
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Al Tally wrote: > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:59 AM, David Levy wrote: > > > > April's fools alredy? *sigh* > > > > Apparently. As I have no desire to have my time wasted by such abuse > > of the mailing list, I've created a filter to delete any future > > e-mails f

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Al Tally
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:59 AM, David Levy wrote: > > April's fools alredy? *sigh* > > Apparently. As I have no desire to have my time wasted by such abuse > of the mailing list, I've created a filter to delete any future > e-mails from Al Tally (with whom my interactions have been uniformly > n

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread David Levy
> April's fools alredy? *sigh* Apparently. As I have no desire to have my time wasted by such abuse of the mailing list, I've created a filter to delete any future e-mails from Al Tally (with whom my interactions have been uniformly negative). ___ foun

Re: [Foundation-l] Non-free content on Commons

2009-03-31 Thread Pedro Sanchez
On Tue, Mar 31, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Al Tally wrote: > Hi all > > I just came across this[1] policy on Commons, which states that from today, > non-free content is going to be allowed to be uploaded on Commons. I'm > rather shocked that this was pushed through without any notice here, or > anywhere, a