Hello,
It sounds nice in theory. But knowing the current limitations of object
recognition and our category/tagging system on Commons, I don't see how
it could really help to improve the project. For example: We don't tag
every object in the background since it is much better for the user to
Yes you are right. It only hits images with present EXIF data that has
wrong rotation values. Therefore all images uploaded with wrong EXIF
data have to be tagged by a template so that the bot can through the
pages and correct the EXIF tag to have the right value.
I'm counting myself to the
Am 17.10.2011 12:47, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
Note: This foundation-l post is cross-posted to commons-l, since this
discussion may be of interest there as well.*
*
*
*
* From:* Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
*
* It is a in house made problem, as i explained at brainstorming [1
Am 17.09.2011 05:54, schrieb Neil Kandalgaonkar:
UploadWizard is currently not used by experienced uploaders for a number
of reasons, among which is that they can't use some custom wikitext
licenses. We'd like to address that.
I made a mockup of a possible implementation. Comments welcome,
the same question?
Greetings from
Tobias Oelgarte
[1]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter
[2]
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Einf%C3%BChrung_pers%C3%B6nlicher_Bildfilter#Auswertung
Am 16.09.2011 11:42, schrieb Rama Neko:
What motives this rejection? Has the nature of the filter been
understood? Do people fear a creep towards censorship? Something else?
-- Rama
___
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Damn. More kittens smashed at ground of the talk page, buried by the
annoyed user. Great and important feature we haz now!
Greetings from
Tobias
Am 22.08.2011 20:26, schrieb Maarten Dammers:
WikiLove just got enabled at Commons :-D
Maarten
___
Am 17.05.2011 15:26, schrieb Andreas Kolbe:
--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin /cr...@halo-17.net/*wrote:
From: Craig Franklin cr...@halo-17.net
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Photo of the Day on
Wikimedia Commons
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List
. So lets put some honey on the mainpages and install an leading to
a fly-donor-trap at the end. Is that really all you care about?
Am 17.05.2011 17:17, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/17/2011 7:05 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes.
Nothing
The Diva comment is far older then this recent development. It has
nothing todo with this current case.
Am 17.05.2011 17:24, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
I've never denied not being a Diva ;-)
-Sarah
On 5/17/2011 9:26 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
--- On *Tue, 17/5/11, Craig Franklin
Any proof for this imputation?
Am 17.05.2011 17:53, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 17 May 2011 23:44, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Or did we start we start with the intention to create a project in
that everyone can participate
2011 19:05, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
If we buy this contributions with a loss of liberty. Then yes.
Nothing is as worthy as liberty.
While we are at it
do appreciate the denial of liberty for people who break the law?
do
Am 17.05.2011 18:07, schrieb Cary Bass:
On 05/17/2011 09:03 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other
thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide, but you
can look away if you don't like to see an image. Absolutely
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Laws are the one thing, liberty without harm to others the other
thing. You can't jump from a plane that is used for suicide
Am 17.05.2011 18:36, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:22, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Am 17.05.2011 18:16, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 18 May 2011 00:03, Tobias Oelgarte
tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
.
Tobias Oelgarte
Am 16.05.2011 16:24, schrieb Chris McKenna:
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
The image is also not artistically, historically, or culturally significant,
unlike all the other examples you cited.
Please cite your sources for the (lack of) artistic, historic, or cultural
the image its about where its displayed.
On 16 May 2011 22:32, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Just logged in, so please bear with the possible wrong entry place.
I strongly disagree with the removal. Not because
Could you explain what you mean with GLAM? Not anyone is used to such terms.
Greatings from Tobias Oelgarte
Am 16.05.2011 16:52, schrieb Gnangarra:
On 16 May 2011 22:46, Tobias Oelgarte tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com
mailto:tobias.oelga...@googlemail.com wrote:
Do it in your freetime
Am 16.05.2011 17:20, schrieb geni:
On 16 May 2011 15:55, Chris McKennacmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it is not
pornographic.
A semi-naked women posing in a position that accents her secondary
sexual characteristics is not sexual?
A picture
Am 16.05.2011 17:38, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/16/2011 9:04 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 10:56 AM, Chris McKenna cmcke...@sucs.org
mailto:cmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
Am I alaone in completely failing to understand what the fuss is
about?
The image is not
Am 16.05.2011 18:03, schrieb Sarah Stierch:
On 5/16/2011 10:32 AM, Tobias Oelgarte wrote:
Reading the words of Sarah Stierch, someone could assume that a picture
of a naked male is fine. Do we get more female contributers by treating
them as some special, out of the oridinary? At the last
Am 16.05.2011 19:17, schrieb Paul Houle:
On 5/16/2011 10:55 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Pornography is defined as:
The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter, especially with the sole
intention of sexually exciting the viewer.
The subject matter of this image is not sexual. Therefore it
Am 16.05.2011 21:07, schrieb Cary Bass:
On 05/16/2011 11:57 AM, Chris McKenna wrote:
Nor is it the mission of Commons to pander to the sensibilitites, no
matter how common (and outside the US they really aren't at all)
Pander is a word doesn't in the least bit describe what anyone is
Am 16.05.2011 22:05, schrieb Stan Shebs:
On 5/16/11 12:43 PM, Chris McKenna wrote:
As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who
want to censor images that they do not like or that they think other
people will not like; and those that want to actively stand up for the
Am 16.05.2011 22:39, schrieb Nathan:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:43 PM, Chris McKennacmcke...@sucs.org wrote:
I don't know where you get the impression that anyone here is promoting
any sort of lackadaiscial attitude?
As far as I read the arguments we have two groups of people, those who
want
25 matches
Mail list logo
