On 23 February 2011 02:49, Gnangarra gnanga...@gmail.com wrote:
The wording of templates has been distilled down to the simplist cleanest
coldest plainest language possible to facilitate multilingual nature of
Commons and that comes across as being agressive and unfriendly.
And it still
Now that's constructive.
I would love to see something like that on Commons. But surely this is
not the first time this is suggested, and this has been rejected for a
reason?
Guillaume
Le 23/02/2011 15:58, Paul Houle a écrit :
As someone who develops media collections, I've been thinking
Not sure if anything as described below has ever been suggested, let alone
rejected. Wikimedia projects usually do not work in the same way as Paul
has indicated in the example for Flickr. Ownership is the main
difference, I think, but ways of using and embedding the resources are
also very
Why is and why should Ownership be such a big deal, what ever the re-use
license the author is still the image owner and always will be.
Commons best resource is always going to be our contributors because they
make Commons unique we should be encouraging that resource, but we dont
infact we
Hi Kevin,
Op 23 feb 2011 om 04:07 heeft Kevin Morgan morgankev...@gmail.com
het volgende geschreven:\
If the category field is a text field then that will likely lead to
categories being created that do not link to the index. Instead a drop
down menu or search feature should be used.
Did
On 2/23/2011 10:04 AM, Eusebius wrote:
Now that's constructive.
I would love to see something like that on Commons. But surely this is
not the first time this is suggested, and this has been rejected for a
reason?
Commons has a different purpose than Flickr.
On Flickr I feel free
Would it be that hard to keep track of users' contribution levels, and
Yes. It actually would be.
1) you need to program bots to be aware of users' contribution levels
2) You need to write, maintain and translate multiple levels of messages.
Boils down to my main point (don't worry David Gerard
On 23 February 2011 19:48, Daniel Schwen li...@schwen.de wrote:
Boils down to my main point (don't worry David Gerard did not read it either):
For someone going on (and on) about how thick-skinned everyone else
should be, you're remarkably thin-skinned yourself.
(This is, of course, a
For someone going on (and on) about how thick-skinned everyone else
should be, you're remarkably thin-skinned yourself.
Well, you are not a bot, are you? And you chose to invest the little
time you might have in writing something entirely unproductive yet
maximally dickish.
So that is kind of
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:02 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2011 19:48, Daniel Schwen li...@schwen.de wrote:
Boils down to my main point (don't worry David Gerard did not read it
either):
For someone going on (and on) about how thick-skinned everyone else
should
On 2/23/11 11:48 AM, Daniel Schwen wrote:
Would it be that hard to keep track of users' contribution levels, and
Yes. It actually would be.
1) you need to program bots to be aware of users' contribution levels
2) You need to write, maintain and translate multiple levels of messages.
Boils
On 23 Feb 2011, at 20:21, Bryan Tong Minh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:02 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 23 February 2011 19:48, Daniel Schwen li...@schwen.de wrote:
Boils down to my main point (don't worry David Gerard did not read it
either):
For someone going on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/11 15:39, Michael Peel wrote:
One potential improvement could be getting bot messages translated and made
friendlier via translatewiki.net, so that the burden of maintaining all of
the different language versions of the same message is
Exactly as you say, it's a vicious cycle -
That is what I said
do things that discourage
people from participating, then say that nothing can be changed because
the people aren't available.
That, however, is not what I said.
The root of the problem (as far as i see it) is not that any one is
On 23 February 2011 21:26, Daniel Schwen li...@schwen.de wrote:
That is kind of easy to say. It is not like commons currently has much
of a choice. Without the help of countless bots there would be no way
to deal with the workload.
It is entirely unclear that the work the bots do - which
Hear hear. Great post.
On Feb 23, 2011, at 9:40 AM, Paul Houle wrote:
On 2/23/2011 10:04 AM, Eusebius wrote:
Now that's constructive.
I would love to see something like that on Commons. But surely this is
not the first time this is suggested, and this has been rejected for a
reason?
On 23 Feb 2011, at 21:17, C Li wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 23/02/11 15:39, Michael Peel wrote:
One potential improvement could be getting bot messages translated and made
friendlier via translatewiki.net, so that the burden of maintaining all of
the
On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Maarten Dammers maar...@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi Kevin,
Op 23 feb 2011 om 04:07 heeft Kevin Morgan morgankev...@gmail.com
het volgende geschreven:\
If the category field is a text field then that will likely lead to
categories being created that do not link to
Have you ever taken the possibility into consideration, that Billy
does not want the 'praise' and 'recognition'?
Maybe he is just happy with the fact that his pictures are being used.
This is all just speculation. And a single person is anecdotal evidence at best.
I do not quite understand the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 23/02/11 16:33, Michael Peel wrote:
I believe that it would be an appropriate place to translate standard bot
messages on Commons as well, if the Commons community wants that.
But there are no standard bot messages, since each bot is assumed
On 23 February 2011 17:40, Paul Houle p...@ontology2.com wrote:
If you wanted to encourage a 'game mechanic' in Commons, I think
you'd want to make it first of all a friendly competition to 'catch them
all' and secondarily a competition to get better quality photographs. I
think the
21 matches
Mail list logo