When asked by anyone, I always recommend New York as a meeting location, but
I may be biased.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Feb 3, 2010 at 7:22 PM, Michael Snow wrote:
> I don't recall if I'd updated this publicly before, but we ended up
> changing the location of the February b
After reading the post below, I have nothing to add to today's
extensive dialog about men's and women's participation, but I have
decided to block Greg Maxwell indefinitely for hate speech against
blondes.
Newyorkbrad
On 6/16/10, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 1
Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
one of these countries were ACTUALLY to request that the file be
deleted due to a copyright issue, we would grant the request rather
than rely on an omission or incompatibility in the copyright treaty
regime?
Newyorkbrad
On 2
cribe below would be an example of the latter, and in
my view a well-nigh indefensible one.
Newyorkbrad
On 2/23/12, Robert Rohde wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Newyorkbrad wrote:
>> Can we agree that if the creator of a (reasonably recent) work from
>> one of these cou
(Caution: the facts of the case are unpleasant.)
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
majority challenged him -- probably because the
citation and the cited fact were relatively peripheral to the opinion.
Newyorkbrad
On 3/20/12, Techman224 wrote:
> Probably didn't read
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer and
> http://en.wikipedia.
I'm glad I finally found you. I have a silly walk, and I'd like to apply
for a government grant to help me develop it.
Newyorkbrad
2011/8/23 David Richfield
> Wow, if all it takes to get exemption from road tax is a quick edit, I
> can guess there will soon be a number of h
I did, but it was deleted. The deletion summary was "that's not *particularly
*silly"
Newyorkbrad
2011/8/24 David Richfield
> 2011/8/24 Newyorkbrad :
> > I'm glad I finally found you. I have a silly walk, and I'd like to apply
> > for
rther background on
this that anyone should have? Is this a pending issue requiring resolution,
or the restatement of a long-settled matter? And, something I should
already know the answer to but just realized I don't, who within the
foundation or community makes this type of decisions, anyway?
N
tion pages will
recognize the "Mantanmoreland" and "MZMcBride 2" cases as examples.)
I am not clear, however, on why this issue of such such importance to the
thread-creator.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 6:08 PM, FT2 wrote:
> I was thinking of anot
I agree that this factual error should be corrected (as we have told it is
being corrected), but raising what was perfectly likely to have been an
innocent error to the level of being morally wrong, without having even
asked first, seems rhetorically excessive.
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at
ntact to a greater extent than by submitting it elsewhere. If one
believes it's important that one's writing be presented as submitted,
without change, then Wikipedia is not the right forum for it, regardless of
the merits of the content.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Mar 4, 2011 at 8:27 AM,
idea
what the post below means, which is something I'd like to change as it
sounds somewhat important.
Newyorkbrad
On Sat, Mar 5, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Teofilo wrote:
> Mexico switched from PD to CC-BY-NC-ND in 2006 (1)
> Argentina from CC-BY-SA to CC-BY-NC some time in 2009-2011 (2)
> B
For anyone interested who hasn't already seen it, here's a link to Judge
Chin's opinion rejecting the proposed settlement in the Google Books case:
http://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/cases/show.php?db=special&id=115
Newyorkbrad
___
founda
particularly concerning and I would not be averse to Foundation-level
intervention at this time.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Aaron Adrignola
wrote:
> >
> > -- Forwarded message --
> > From: "Scott MacDonald"
> > To: "'Wikimedia
ote, I don't
think that WQ User:Cato had been identified as Poetlister at the time he was
made a checkuser there.
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
aims to create. My view is that if we can't
come to a consensus quickly on this matter, it ought to just be handled and
announced, either by one or more stewards or by the Office acting as such.
Newyorkbrad
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Risker wrote:
> On 3 June 2011 22:03, Thomas
of three-dimensional objects displayed sufficient
originality to be independently copyrightable, because they were not
"slavish copies" of the originals (the standard from the familiar Corel v.
Bridgeman decision).
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation
By that logic, a book, which costs money to buy, would never be a
"verifiable source" either.
We might *prefer* to cite free (gratis) accessible sources over others, all
things being equal, but the fact that a source is behind a paywall does not
negate verifiability.
Newyorkbrad
On M
If we're going to have a thread, let's focus on the substance of the
article. This is a digression.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:04 PM, Gerard Meijssen
wrote:
> Hoi,
> I wonder if the WSJ can be found in the British Australian Canadian New
> Zealand libraries
calling without producing
much, if any, usual output. I suggest in the strongest terms that this not
happen.
Newyorkbrad
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
which database dumps have been utilized for
purposes such as harvesting oversighted edits in userspace and utilizing the
information for purposes of harassment. I am not sure whether there is
value to providing dumps of other than the content spaces. Comments?
Newyorkbrad
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at
Actually, I was thinking primarily of userspace.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Feb 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> 2009/2/23 Newyorkbrad (Wikipedia) :
>
> > However, one question that I have is whether the dump includes, or should
> > conclude, all namespaces, or only arti
this if
nothing happens and little attention is paid by anyone?
Newyorkbrad
On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Hello,
>
> The relicensing process is underway. This means we have only 2 months
> to help GFDL wikis that want Wikipedia compatibility to follow suit.
> The clause t
the power to extend it if needed?
Newyorkbrad
On 5/27/09, Samuel Klein wrote:
> Brad : the practical implications are that we will lose the ability to
> copy work from a set of familiar collaborative sites -- many of which
> chose their license specifically to facilitate long-term exchan
Is an Elections Committee being appointed, or has one been?
Newyorkbrad
On 5/27/09, effe iets anders wrote:
> Hm, that was also the information I got :)
>
> Besides that, I personally feel that one week in the middle of the
> vacation is somewhat short for an internet election.
Would a 10-day period (including two weekends) be possible?
Newyorkbrad
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 12:16 PM, philippe wrote:
> Ah, OK, sorry for my misunderstanding of the question.
>
> Indeed, we had that same discussion amongst the committee. In the
> end, the vote timing
You know ... I can't think of a single instance in which I've ever seen
Wikipedia content reused in which the GFDL was followed. In EVERY instance,
the attribution has either been messed up or omitted altogether.
I'm not saying this is a good thing, of course.
Newyorkbrad
On Th
made.
Newyorkbrad
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 8:27 AM, David Gerard wrote:
> I was going to call NPG this morning first thing (as a volunteer, to
> see what could be reasonably done to avert a public battle - our own
> museum/gallery liaison volunteers can really, really do without a
> public battle
29 matches
Mail list logo
