Might be relevant
-- Forwarded message --
From: Kenan Wang kw...@wikimedia.org
Date: Apr 5, 2014 4:37 AM
Subject: [WikimediaMobile] Notes from discussions about reverts on mobile
To: mobile-l mobil...@lists.wikimedia.org
Cc: Moiz Syed ms...@wikimedia.org, Kaity Hammerstein
Who are you?
Are you a WikimediaN.
Is ray king is working with wikimedia.
True?
wikimedia said that ray is not related to anyone of their organisation.
Clarify
On 4/5/14, Chad innocentkil...@gmail.com wrote:
Poor non-Wikipedias won't get shorteners then...
-Chad
On Apr 5, 2014 3:22 PM, Steven
Hey,
Sounds reasonable to me -- https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/124130
\o/ Thanks. This will save extension maintainers quite some hassle.
Couldn't you just create a MyExtensionNameSpecialPage class like below
and extend that for your special pages instead of regular SpecialPage
You sure can,
Who are you?
The emails have from headers...
Are you a WikimediaN.
Everyone responding to this thread is a Wikimedian (almost by definition).
Some of the responses are from people who work for the Wikimedia Foundation
(not the same thing as being a Wikimedian), however i am almost certain
Hi!
I was surprised to see that Twitter is now the preferred method of
contacting the Wikimedia Foundation, and that it is much more effective
than long disputes and discussions on mailing lists, Bugzilla and wiki
pages.
Indeed, it is so effective that it leads to the WMF clearly preferring
On Apr 6, 2014 12:47 PM, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
Is ray king is working with wikimedia?
Nope. He does not work for WMF.
He doesn't work for WMF but the answer for is working with Wikimedia? is
Yes, he is.
-Jeremy
___
Wikitech-l mailing
On Apr 6, 2014, at 12:08 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/s/xr32
Hmm, I presume that you were just tossing out a random URL, but that “/s/” path
seems to be configured with some special purpose, sending a 301 redirect
regardless of the remainder of the path. Is that
On Apr 6, 2014 1:53 PM, Daniel Norton dan...@danielnorton.com wrote:
sending a 301 redirect regardless of the remainder of the path. Is that
documented somewhere? (I would expect a 404.)
The apache conf is in a public git repo. (not getting the URL for you atm
because I'm writing from a phone.
On Sun, 2014-04-06 at 18:52 +0200, Tomasz W. Kozlowski wrote:
Hi!
I was surprised to see that Twitter is now the preferred method of
contacting the Wikimedia Foundation, and that it is much more effective
than long disputes and discussions on mailing lists, Bugzilla and wiki
pages.
The
MediaWiki developers:
http://www.php.net/archive/2014.php#id2014-04-02-1 (02 Apr 2014):
The PHP development team announces the immediate availability of PHP
5.5.11.
Several bugs were fixed in this release, some bundled libraries updated
and a security issue has been fixed :
CVE-2013-7345. We
On 6 April 2014 17:52, Tomasz W. Kozlowski tom...@twkozlowski.net wrote:
I was surprised to see that Twitter is now the preferred method of
contacting the Wikimedia Foundation, and that it is much more effective than
long disputes and discussions on mailing lists, Bugzilla and wiki pages.
Daniel Norton wrote:
On Apr 6, 2014, at 12:08 PM, MZMcBride z...@mzmcbride.com wrote:
en.wikipedia.org/s/xr32
Hmm, I presume that you were just tossing out a random URL, but that
“/s/” path seems to be configured with some special purpose, sending a
301 redirect regardless of the remainder of
Le 06/04/2014 21:11, David Gerard a écrit :
I originally went what on earth too, then I went to the bug and
looked at the samples. Here's how the previous font stack rendered in
Chrome on Windows without Cleartype on:
http://i.imgur.com/9QD1ujH.png
Those crazy free fonts is what make me
On Apr 6, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Jeremy Baron jer...@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Apr 6, 2014 1:53 PM, Daniel Norton dan...@danielnorton.com wrote:
sending a 301 redirect regardless of the remainder of the path. Is that
documented somewhere? (I would expect a 404.)
The apache conf is in a public git
Steven Walling writes:
The
idea that we're just responding to the bug based on one report via Twitter
is untrue and absurd.
You are responding to the bug based on reports that come from outside the
Wikimedia universe — and to say otherwise is untrue and absurd in itself.
You saw the
On 2014-04-06, 3:01 PM, Daniel Norton wrote:
On Apr 6, 2014, at 12:57 PM, Jeremy Baron jer...@tuxmachine.com wrote:
On Apr 6, 2014 1:53 PM, Daniel Norton dan...@danielnorton.com wrote:
sending a 301 redirect regardless of the remainder of the path. Is that
documented somewhere? (I would expect
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 2:59 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.netwrote:
You are responding to the bug based on reports that come from outside the
Wikimedia universe -- and to say otherwise is untrue and absurd in itself.
You saw the feedback, Steven, with your own eyes, in January of
You had almost three full months to deal with the problem, and yet you
are
only responding to it when people pointed it out to you on Twitter,
Reddit,
Quora, and wherever else.
/If/ you value feedback from Wikipedians, why don't you act on it?
Tomasz,
We should be having this
Steven Walling writes:
On the general point: you and others seem to be simultaneously angry that
we tried a version without a freely-licensed font *and* that we have tried
versions which did have FOSS fonts, but that had unexpected bugs for some
Windows users. Which is it? Or is that you're
You are clueless, kind sir, so let me get some things straight.
Please keep things civil on list.
--bawolff
___
Wikitech-l mailing list
Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 4:05 PM, Tomasz W. Kozlowski
tom...@twkozlowski.netwrote:
1. I am deeply uncomfortable with the fact that you are choosing un-free
fonts over free ones.
2. I am deeply uncomfortable with the fact that you decided not to respect
the consensus /not/ to choose non-free
On 6 April 2014 19:19, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
Twice now we've tried putting
different freely-licensed fonts first. Both times, Windows users who had
them have told us they either merely disliked them or they have caused
unacceptably poor rendering, particularly for
On 7 April 2014 00:16, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
You are clueless, kind sir, so let me get some things straight.
Please keep things civil on list.
This was in response to Or is that you're just looking for an excuse
to be mad and cause a fuss because we changed the typography at
On 4/6/14, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 April 2014 00:16, Brian Wolff bawo...@gmail.com wrote:
You are clueless, kind sir, so let me get some things straight.
Please keep things civil on list.
This was in response to Or is that you're just looking for an excuse
to be mad and
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 4:24 PM, wctaiwan wctaiwan+li...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think we should prioritise users with font smoothing disabled.
ClearType has been available since at least Windows XP. If there are
legibility issues, we should probably fix it; but if it merely looks
ugly, the
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 8:39 PM, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
I too was surprised at how many users are A) on XP with ClearType off,
which is the default there or B) turn font smoothing off intentionally.
I have no comment on any of the rest of this, but with my Firefox dev
26 matches
Mail list logo
