Emily Monroe wrote:
>> I suspect that'd mean the arbcom, who are quite busy enough ... but
>> hmm.
>>
> How about appointed by arbcom from a pool of people who were voted in
> with a super majority?
>
>
Voting is evil. It starts by requiring people to run for the position,
and that al
Matt Jacobs wrote:
> Having been bitten multiple times, I can definitely say the unfriendly
> atmosphere has been a problem for a while now. Editors/admins who are
> regularly rude to others are not only tolerated by most of the community,
> they often have a group of supporters around them always
Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Matt Jacobs wrote:
>
>> Having been bitten multiple times, I can definitely say the unfriendly
>> atmosphere has been a problem for a while now. Editors/admins who are
>> regularly rude to others are not only tolerated by most of the community,
>> they often have a group
David Goodman wrote:
> Having various reference techniques is very useful for people writing
> articles, who can choose whatever they feel comfortable with; having
> multiple simultaneous techniques is not quite as helpful for people
> trying to make small edits and fixes in articles, or adding
>
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> David Goodman wrote:
>> Having various reference techniques is very useful for people writing
>> articles, who can choose whatever they feel comfortable with; having
>> multiple simultaneous techniques is not quite as helpful for people
>> t
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:29 AM, David Goodman wrote:
> The best PR we can do is to improve the improvable articles, and
> explain to the authors of the others why the subjects are not suitable
> for Wikipedia, or why the subjects might be, but the submitted
> articles are not capable of being us
Emily Monroe wrote:
> Yeah, it does seem to me that the more "spammy" the article, the more
> likely the person simply doesn't know of Wikipedia's COI, spam, and
> notability requirements. It's not that they are writing in bad faith,
> they really don't know that, for example, just because their
George Herbert wrote:
> People who are causing a problem but have "aware friends" - people who
> know them and know AN and ANI and policy ok - rarely get driven off.
> Their friends post an ANI thread if they're blocked excessively, or go
> to the admin and advocate moderation, or go to another adm
Jay you are confusing "source-based research" with "original research".
If you research something to *confirm* it by researching in sources, you are
not doing original research.? If you research it by repeating experiments then
you would be.
I doubt that any textbook author confirms their sourc
So, every time I post a new topic, I will go on moderation?
___
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_intervals_in_5-limit_just_intonation
"Steve Bennett" wrote in message
news:b8ceeef70909172024q121c6b6co8ef07b31e5bf8...@mail.gmail.com...
> Ok, that post was totally off topic. You're on mode
Sorry, guys. This is not good enough. You *must* manually reject.
Your mail to 'WikiEN-l' with the subject
Re: "Well known"
Is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval.
The reason it is being held:
Post to moderated list
Either the message will get posted to the
>
>
> Date: Fri, 18 Sep 2009 17:47:57 -0500
> From: Emily Monroe
> Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Newbie and not-so-newbie biting
> To: English Wikipedia
>
>
> > Editors/admins who are regularly rude to others are not only
> > tolerated by most of the community, they often have a group of
> > supporters
Durova wrote:
> A new creative copyright is generated each time a tourist stands beneath the
> Venus de Milo and takes a snapshot due to the inherent creative decision in
> choosing angle and lighting when photographing three dimensional artwork.
>
No, the copyright is not generated until the p
2009/9/18 Jay Litwyn :
> So, every time I post a new topic, I will go on moderation?
Every time you post a new topic which is not relevant to this mailing list, yes.
___
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing
The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin
oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other
active people here. There are people I watch, and people who watch me.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
On Sat, Sep 19
Durova wrote:
> You're starting to touch on the vigorous debates that a few media editors
> have and which hardly anyone else understands. Let's frame the terms of
> discussion properly, though: you begin from the debatable presumption that
> restoration and creative input are mutually exclusive c
David Gerard wrote:
> I suspect (as you've noted) that copyright may not be the right tool
> for the job. (It would undoubtedly encourage restorations, but the
> cultural price may not be appropriate. But that's getting more to the
> philosophical.)
>
Copyright law is already pretty screwed up;
Carcharoth wrote:
> Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
> It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws
> and other ethical and moral concerns beside US copyright laws. If you
> look at everything only through the lens of US copyright law,
On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Carcharoth wrote:
>> Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
>> It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws
>> and other ethical and moral concerns beside US copyright laws. If you
>> l
Carcharoth wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
>
>> Carcharoth wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. But that doesn't mean ignoring other ways to recognise work done.
>>> It's not a black-and-white copyright-only issue. There are other laws
>>> and other ethical and moral concerns b
Thanks for the kind words, David.
With digital restoration, often one encounters elements about the original
that are unknowable. A couple of examples follow.
Segregated drinking fountain, North Carolina, 1938:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Segregation_1938.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/w
David Goodman wrote:
> The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin
> oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other
> active people here. There are people I watch, and people who watch me.
>
>
Perhaps so. And maybe I should have taken steps to bec
Here's the "after" link for the second example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lynching2.jpg
After all the work was done it was startling to pull back and view at
thumbnail. It's possible to look at the unrestored file and seek visual
reminders of "this was long ago"; restoration takes away t
On 19 Sep 2009, at 21:47, Ray Saintonge wrote:
> Credit to "Wikipedia" is about as much as you can realistically
> expect.
> For the many who don't even realize that they can edit themselves
> Wikipedia is only one monolithic entity. The thought process that
> distinguishes individual Wikipedia
Actually this isn't a copyright discussion.
http://www.slsa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=581
"To ensure that publication of material from its collections receives due
acknowledgment and promotion, the Library requires that permission to
publish is obtained prior to publication."
"All requests for pe
I agree from this, and your previous post, that restoring historical images
can be a difficult process, particularly when the images themselves may have
originally been pure factual journalism rather than having a polemical
purpose, although in my experience, that is more allied to the commentar
Restoration is inherently interpretive. Consider something simple: a
newspaper cartoon in black and white. There are many possible whites; which
do you select? Do you retain or eliminate paper grain? Older illustrations
are often imperfect by a few tenths of a degree, so when the border isn't
q
27 matches
Mail list logo
