no literary tradition, and the only written material is linguistic
studies by outsiders.
--
Mark Wagner
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
on tape, remote servers, or magic pixie dust.
--
Mark Wagner
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 11:33, Still Waterising
stillwateris...@gmail.com wrote:
I can accept that Commons may not fit under the definition of
secondary producer. However, when Wikipedians choose a sexually
explicit image from Commons, the crop it and add a caption, this may
fall under the
On Sat, May 8, 2010 at 18:20, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@yahoo.com wrote:
Given that several Commons admins had dropped out, and bearing in mind the
clean-up campaign called for by the board and Jimbo, I put in an RFA at
Commons, saying I would help clean up pornographic images *that are not in
On Fri, May 7, 2010 at 15:15, Ting Chen wing.phil...@gmx.de wrote:
For me, this statement is at the first line a support for Jimmy's
effort. It is a soft push from the board to the community to move in a
direction.
The problem is that what Jimmy is doing on Commons isn't a soft push.
It's a
one was clearly
vandalized the first time I looked at it, so I'd say a thousand
samples is probably too small to get any sort of precision on the
vandalism rate.
--
Mark Wagner
[[User:Carnildo]]
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l
On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 14:35, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
Brian wrote:
That is against the law. It violates Google's ToS.
I'm mostly complaining that Google is being Very Evil. There is nothing we
can do about it except complain to them. Which I don't know how to do - they
2009/6/15 Nikola Smolenski smole...@eunet.yu:
Дана Monday 15 June 2009 23:20:10 Brian написа:
I'm not going to get into any more of a tit-for-tat with you (seriously -
its my last post), but I do not claim to have legal counsel. As you would
expect, however, both CC and WMF do. The best you
On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 13:44, Sage Ross ragesoss+wikipe...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't have much to add, but I want to voice my strong agreement.
Some sort of serious effort to reach out to the many users who don't
share the outlook of our more-libertarian-than-the-general-population
community
On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 08:29, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
However, most information isn't lost because of disaster, it is lost
because people don't think they need it any more and delete/destroy
it. Can we trust whoever is around in the future to continue to
preserve the
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 18:40, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:36 PM, Mark Wagner carni...@gmail.com wrote:
I just hope you guys settle down on something soon. I'm tired of
playing whack-a-mole with the sitenotices.
Hmm? This is the only time we changed
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 13:30, Casey Brown cbrown1023...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2009 at 10:09 AM, Brianna Laugher
brianna.laug...@gmail.com wrote:
Could we please have both at once
We now have a combined notice running. Hopefully, this is a better
way of doing it (even though it's
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 15:48, Brian brian.min...@colorado.edu wrote:
One of the academics I am speaking of wrote the textbook on natural language
processing. He has a 3TB raid cluster. Of course, for about a thousand
dollars you can create a bigger raid cluster than that using the new 2TB
13 matches
Mail list logo
