Fiction articles do not deserve to be exiled into someones userspace. Them
being in the article namespace is not disruptive as stub articles are not
banned. If I am wrong in my assessment then all stub articles should be
moved to someones userspace. I wager even the attempt of applying such a
stand
Andrew Gray wrote:
> [posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to
> wikisource-l, perhaps?]
>
> I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping
> those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a
> given 20th-century work is in copyri
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:03 PM, Andrew Gray wrote:
> 2009/1/12 geni :
>
>>> I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping
>>> those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a
>>> given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US.
>>
>> We don't use the
2009/1/12 geni :
>> I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping
>> those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a
>> given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US.
>
> We don't use the copyright not renewed clause stuff and commons'
> general supp
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 8:25 PM, Ken Arromdee wrote:
> rcasm>
> That's a blog, so it doesn't count.
>
>
> While we've discussed this, there are some new points, and I think the
> canvassing problem is one of the worst. It ends up meaning that the people
> who are affected by a change never get t
rcasm>
That's a blog, so it doesn't count.
While we've discussed this, there are some new points, and I think the
canvassing problem is one of the worst. It ends up meaning that the people
who are affected by a change never get to participate in the decision,
because it's impossible to inform th
Wikipedia's War on Gaming History and Threshold RPG
Article by Michael Hartman (4,659 pts )
Published on Jan 10, 2009
Wikipedia is currently dominated by a powerful deletionist movement. MUDs
and Gaming History are frequent targets, and Threshold RPG recently found
itself in the Wikipedian crossha
That was an interesting read. Will read the full version soon. Especially
since I encountered some images a while ago where it was stated that the
copyright was not renewed. For people interested (and I would be glad to
have more opinions) see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
>I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list
>centered around whether a certain Japanese
>word was indeed mistranslated, and created
>a metric mailing-list load of discussion on one
>of the wikipedia mailing-lists...
It was similar to the mud
Oh, but in no part in the article I put that it was a translation, I
just said it was an interview with Rockaxis.
--
Alvaro
On 12-01-2009, at 12:43, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
wrote:
> Alvaro García wrote:
>> It's a joke, right?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>>
>
> Sadly, no.
>
> I seem to recall th
On Jan 12, 2009, at 10:43 AM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
> Alvaro García wrote:
>> It's a joke, right?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Alvaro
>>
>>
>
> Sadly, no.
>
> I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list
> centered around whether a certain Japanese
> word was indeed mistranslated, and created
> a met
See? Even if I put the formalsource for my Waters interview, it would
be put as "unverifiable"
--
Alvaro
On 12-01-2009, at 12:19, Philip Sandifer wrote:
>
> On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
>
>> Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have
>> reliable
>> so
Alvaro García wrote:
> It's a joke, right?
>
>
> --
> Alvaro
>
>
Sadly, no.
I seem to recall the issue on this mailing list
centered around whether a certain Japanese
word was indeed mistranslated, and created
a metric mailing-list load of discussion on one
of the wikipedia mailing-lists...
On Jan 11, 2009, at 8:56 PM, David Gerard wrote:
> Well, not really. If they don't believe a given item can have reliable
> sources - the sort of rabid nutters who brag about deletion tallies on
> their user pages - then they just won't accept anything. I speak here
> from observation of the phen
Because it's Wikipedia, they would go and say that the source isn't
verifiable and that the magazine isn't known.
Because anyway, I put "On an interview in the X/ Rockaxis edition,
Roger Waters stated that..."
--
Alvaro
On 12-01-2009, at 4:08, wjhon...@aol.com wrote:
> The source is the
On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 6:14 AM, geni wrote:
> We don't use the copyright not renewed clause stuff and commons'
> general support for Must be PD in the country of origin as well as the
> US means we mostly dodge the issue.
We have in some cases used non-renewed that I've seen, but rarely.
Only ca
2009/1/12 Andrew Gray :
> [posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to
> wikisource-l, perhaps?]
>
> I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping
> those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a
> given 20th-century work is in co
[posted to commons-l and wikien-l; someone may want to forward it to
wikisource-l, perhaps?]
I've just run across this article, which might be of use in helping
those who work on the eternal problem of determining whether or not a
given 20th-century work is in copyright in the US.
http://www.dlib
18 matches
Mail list logo
