Thanks Fæ, those reports are very interesting from my perspective.
However, even though the number of thanks received may be more reliable
than the usual edit count, none of them could ever measure the
invaluable impact of our contributors :-)
Il 23/02/2015 16:57, Fæ ha scritto:
https://meta.
Il 02/01/2015 13:41, Ricordisamoa ha scritto:
Il 02/01/2015 12:45, Andy Mabbett ha scritto:
On 2 January 2015 at 10:46, Ricordisamoa
wrote:
Honestly, I don't think it is easier to type {{subst:url to diff}} than
[[Special:Diff]].
It's not a matter of which is eaier to type. It's a matter of
Congratulations and all the best!
2015-02-25 0:32 GMT-06:00 Edward Galvez :
> Congratulations Astrid!
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Vishnu wrote:
>
> > Many congratulations, Astrid and WMNO!
> >
> > Wishing you all many more successes.
> >
> > Best,
> > Vishnu
> >
> >
> > On 02/23/2015 1
Congratulations Astrid!
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:57 PM, Vishnu wrote:
> Many congratulations, Astrid and WMNO!
>
> Wishing you all many more successes.
>
> Best,
> Vishnu
>
>
> On 02/23/2015 10:10 PM, Katy Love wrote:
>
>> Congratulations, Astrid and Wikimedia Norge!
>>
>> Astrid, you have bee
The Affiliations Committee (AffCom) will be releasing more details about
the changes to the Wikimedia User Group (WUG) Renewal Process, but I did
want to share some info in this conversation that has already been posted
on Meta[1] and will be discussed more in an upcoming blog post.
In this specif
Hello, how are you guys?
Cornelius Kibelka send me the link of this thread, by mistake, in one
discussion on Meta.[1]
And the Carlos Colina's answer is, lets say, "wow! It's super freak
weird!!!", because in the WMBR mailing list, one volunteer "asked" who send
the request and one of the "proposa
24.02.2015, 18:25, "Austin Hair" :
> I moderated Nemo when, after protesting the fact that Odder was still
> moderated (more on that later), he started forwarding messages for
> him. Before I had any chance to clear the matter up, he sent that
> message and quit in a huff.
>
> I was willing to unmo
Hi,
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 10:04 PM, MZMcBride wrote:
> WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >One of the areas that I would like to see the foundation putting in money
> >is for the running and maintenance of wanted orphan bots.
>
> I think specific examples might help here.
... and specific requests a
After thinking about John's response, I've realized that those works should
go into public domain (actually, under CC-BY, as Serbian laws don't
recognize PD outside strictly defined "works not created by author" in the
sense of laws and other similar works; it's been explicitly stated that
"moral r
When was odder put on moderation, and what for?
On 24 Feb 2015 14:49, "Federico Leva (Nemo)" wrote:
> John Mark Vandenberg, 23/02/2015 21:59:
>
>> Which email ? the crowdfunding email?
>>
>
> Yes, because odder is in moderation (like many others, it seems).
>
> Nemo
>
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Milos Rancic wrote:
> I would actually say: Is there a point to have a prescriptive work
> without ND clause?
Course there is. The text of the CC licenses, for example, is under CC0;
"Creative Commons" is trademarked and that trademark is used to prevent
misuse
Thanks for your replies, and for John's very kind offer. As this involves
various inactive and semi inactive bot operators I will give John an off list
response re that.
On MzMcBride's points, I don't know the relative costs of employing programmers
in San Francisco v other parts of the world.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Austin Hair wrote:
> With more and more Wikimedians engaging in crowdfunding, I suppose we
> can talk about whether the mailing list for Wikimedia movement
> organization is the place to advertise in this way. For my part, I
> don't think a simple (i.e., without
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Cristian Consonni
wrote:
> 2015-02-24 15:52 GMT+01:00 Lane Rasberry :
>> On English Wikipedia I have met with resistance in documenting crowdfunding
>> projects. I would like clarity on the extent to which the Wikimedia
>> community feels that it is acceptable to d
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 6:49 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo)
wrote:
> Federico Leva (Nemo), 22/02/2015 18:41:
>>
>> Moderators of this list are crazy, I was apparently put on moderation by
>> Austin without expiry for forwarding a Commons-l message.
>> I'll unsubscribe in 24 hours if I'm not unmoderated
Hopefully this was just an error than. When is Nemo being un-moderated?
--
James Heilman
MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian
The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine
www.opentextbookofmedicine.com
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia
2015-02-24 15:52 GMT+01:00 Lane Rasberry :
> On English Wikipedia I have met with resistance in documenting crowdfunding
> projects. I would like clarity on the extent to which the Wikimedia
> community feels that it is acceptable to discuss crowdfunding in Wikimedia
> community information channel
I largely agree with Risker.
I was not involved in the last consultation. I'm taking a wait and see
approach with this one.
My hard-earned experience on this mailing list is that an approach of
problem solving rather than stone throwing tends to get more cooperation
and better results. I still ge
On 24 February 2015 at 01:25, ido ivri wrote:
>> Today, we're kicking-off a two-week community consultation about the future
>> of Wikimedia.
> Why only these two questions? And why only two weeks? I fear this is not
> really a consultation but a survey.
+1. With a two week window once every "X y
On 24 February 2015 at 09:19, MZMcBride wrote:
> Maggie Dennis wrote:
> >You could be on to something there, Craig. :) I think it's fair to say
> >that somebody might change his mind in five years for all kinds of
> >reasons - including being asked nicely. This process is obviously geared
> >to d
Hello,
On English Wikipedia I have met with resistance in documenting crowdfunding
projects. I would like clarity on the extent to which the Wikimedia
community feels that it is acceptable to discuss crowdfunding in Wikimedia
community information channels.
I posted about this on the talk page
<
2015-02-24 14:55 GMT+01:00 Nathan :
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
> wrote:
>>
>> Which email ? the crowdfunding email?
>> Austin, do the list admins have another perspective to justify their
>> action?
[...]
> I'd like the answer to this question too.
It does seem the c
On 24 February 2015 at 13:55, Nathan wrote:
> I'd like the answer to this question too.
Could there be some transparency please? I believe it would be a good
time for the list mods to publicly decide how appeals to moderation or
list-bans should work in a way that is credibly non-partisan to the
Maggie Dennis wrote:
>You could be on to something there, Craig. :) I think it's fair to say
>that somebody might change his mind in five years for all kinds of
>reasons - including being asked nicely. This process is obviously geared
>to differ widely from the last. Hopefully it will be a good app
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 3:59 PM, John Mark Vandenberg
wrote:
>
> Which email ? the crowdfunding email?
> Austin, do the list admins have another perspective to justify their
> action?
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
I'd like the answer to this question too.
25 matches
Mail list logo
