http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/20/arts/20funny.html
One error on licensing. Claim that Wikipedia requires you to give up
your copyright unchallenged. Otherwise, pretty good! And should have
the right effect in terms of promo photo donations.
- d.
> From: stevertigo <stvrtg(a)gmail.com>
> I have been blocked from posting to foundation-l. No explanation has
> been given.
But you know why, right?
It's because it was felt that the issue you kept returning to was not
relevant for the Foundation mailing list. You wouldn't accept that,
continued to post about it, so someone's obviously decided to block
you so that you cannot continue.
I suspect that issue (regarding the creation of a new mailing list for
dispute resolution, if I recall correctly) won't fall under the scope
of wikien-l either.
bodnotbod
Wherever he is and whatever kit he has with him or has thrown away,
according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimbo_Walesdescribing
Jimbo Wales as retired would not be in accordance with the way we
usually define a Wikipedian as retired.
WereSpielChequers
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 1:05 AM, Carcharoth<carcharothwp(a)googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Eh. I created my account in January 2005.
> Ah. '05 was the point I realized that people here were becoming
> corrupt and jaded. Myself included.
>
> > Yes. A link here to those founding principles would be good:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jimbo_Wales/Statement_of_principles
>
> We have so many different principles lists now, I can't keep track.
>
> > You might want to ask Jimbo his views on that. It could be a valid
> > viewpoint, but I don't think describing Jimbo as "retired" is entirely
> > accurate.
>
> I'm pretty sure it is. I mean he hasn't posted here in ages. This is
> after all the way he communicates with the people. And I thought he
> was going on some year-long off-the-grid sailing trip anyway - threw
> his satellite modem overboard and everything.
>
> -Stevertigo
>
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:33:45 -0700, stevertigo wrote:
> Wales, who was for a long time our
> most upstanding proponent of openness, and who made it a point to deal
> personally and openly with nearly every issue that came up - on this
> very list, as a matter of fact - would be quite unhappy with this
> trend.
What Would Jimbo Do?
--
== Dan ==
Dan's Mail Format Site: http://mailformat.dan.info/
Dan's Web Tips: http://webtips.dan.info/
Dan's Domain Site: http://domains.dan.info/
I tried twelfth-dimensional thinking for a while, but my pineal gland
started to protrude from my forehead, so I had to stop.
Protruding Pineal Glands are not very attractive.
In a message dated 7/27/2009 11:41:19 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes:
Eh. I understand what you are getting at, but keep in mind that
"wave-particle duality" is just a kludge - one that comes from low
dimensional thinking.
**************A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect your
score. See now!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823322x1201398723/aol?redir=htt…
D=62&bcd=JulyBadfooterNO62)
If by "light" you mean the wave portion, than I'd probably agree with you,
that it's not "matter". However "light" is also a photon, which as a
particle, I would have to say is "matter", massless or no.
I seem to recall however this little thing called the particle-wave duality
of nature. That is every particle is also a packet of energy with a
wave-form and you could think of it as if they are constantly switching from a
particle to a wave and back again. At any rate, when the total amount of
matter in the universe is calculated, don't they include as well loose
electrons and photons in that equation? As well as neutrinos for that matter.
I'd still be interested in an authority you could cite that specifically
states that other than energy and matter there is this third entity that is
neither one, which you seem to be claiming.
In a message dated 7/27/2009 7:20:06 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
stvrtg(a)gmail.com writes:
Well not all things are "matter." Light, for example.
**************An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy
Steps!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823322x1201398723/aol?redir=htt…
yExcfooterNO62)
Why couldn't a person simply scan userspace using all sorts of searches on
"the" and "and" and so on, and simply repost the entire contents with deep
links to an external indexed page?
No indexing and then allowing internal searches anyway seems like hiding an
elephant behind a bucket.
**************A bad credit score is 600 & below. Checking won't affect your
score. See now!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222377105x1201454426/aol?redir=htt…
D=62&bcd=JulyBadfooterNO62)
It has to do with license compatibility - Commons has a strict policy that all material be available under a free license that includes commercial use. Would he, his heirs, or his estate object if the photo of the poem was modified to be used in a fast-food ad or for a hate group?
And while en.wiki does allow fair use, having the entirety of the poem is likely a stretch of our policies - so it should be removed from the article too.
-Elias Friedman (elipongo)
------Original Message------
From: Dan Dascalescu
Sender: wikien-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To: English Wikipedia
ReplyTo: English Wikipedia
Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] If anyone ever says Wikipedia is too deletionist
Sent: Jul 26, 2009 03:52
> No, it just pushed my personal "wtf" button
Here's something that pushed my WTF button:
Why was a photograph of a public monument of Martin Niemoeller's poem
"First they came", removed from Wikipedia?
Here is a small version of the photograph:
http://www.oicu2.com/afc/Martin_Niemoeller.jpg
And here is the article's revision history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_they_came...&action=history
I contacted the deletionist at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kameraad_Pjotr#Martin_Niemoeller
Really, honestly, do some Wikipedia admins have nothing better to do
than delete photographs of public monuments on grounds of the poems
they represent not being in the public domain, while the very article
page reproduces the poem in its entirety?
Aside from that, let's have a bit of common sense: does anyone
sincerely think that if Martin Niemoeller were alive, he'd object to
the image of that monument being on Wikipedia? Does anyone think that
any of Niemoeller's heirs would object? WTF?!
--
Dan
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> The other day I ran across what is perhaps for me, one of the most bizarre situations with references I've yet to encounter.
>
> Webster's has produced a book.? I found it in some random Google books searches I was doing on a subject.? It states certain facts and a few of them I knew to be without evidence, which made me wonder where they'd come from.? After a few minutes of scanning back-and-forth I realized that their source citation, which is only cited as (WP) stands for.... Wikipedia.
>
> Checking the Wikipedia article on the same subject, that "fact" is no longer present.
>
> I hope we can all see what horror Webster has now unleashed upon us, by this act of intellectual graffiti, not to mention amateurish citation.? They need to be taken to the woodshed.
>
> This is not published by the "real" Merriam–Webster, but Icon Group
International. That is company that computer generate enourmous numbers of
useless books that fill up Google Books. These "Webster’s Quotations, Facts
and Phrases" books that are made from excerpts of Wikipedia articles are
especially annoying, as people who don't check their sources properly create
circular references. I search for these occasionally and remove them from
articles.
