Wikimedia project
supporting disruption of another, decisive action doesn't seem entirely
uncalled for. The message sent is pretty clear: this sort of behavior won't
be tolerated.
Is that a bad message to send?
--
Luna Santin
<http://en.wikip
d
> it is completely unrestricted.
>
Wow! Many thanks to Google, and congratulations to Wikimedia!
--
Luna Santin
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Luna_Santin>
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: htt
Congrats to the winners, and thanks to all those who had the courage to
stand up and offer themselves as candidates.
-Luna
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo
have said anything, if
it weren't already under discussion -- I didn't mind it one bit.
While I am tabulating suggestions, looks like one decent idea got lost in
another thread, forked from this one:
- Consider excluding blocked accounts from the email list.
-Luna
ng bot accounts
- If possible, try to get these out a bit sooner. I know it's hard.
Either way, thanks are due to those who handled this. So, thank you.
-Luna
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https:/
that decision are the people working on that wiki.
-Luna
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
ing euphemism, "Experience may change during online play." This
sounds like a similar idea to me.
Accepting the article at face value, I'm just confused why it seems to have
taken so much trouble to get Apple to say so.
-Luna
___
foundation-
, meet the needs of all of our projects.
-Luna
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
