Ok. I would like to put on 2 Fundraising Events in the Santa Barbara Area, A
show and a dinner and show. And All i need is a nice Press Release and a
Media kit , Just a Website. And all of the expenses will be donated before
the expenses need need to be paid for
A little Background on me, I am a Stage Hypnotist, I Specialize in putting
fundraising events on for non-profits. There is no financial investment on
your part.
How it works.
1. I will get Company's to sponsor the event. They will donate money and in
return they will have their ad's in the Souvenir program. of the event. So
Everyone that goes to the 2 events will have there ad. There are multiple
levels so Big and small companys can donate toward the event.
2. I will sell tickets to the dinner, depending on the initial response The
Dinner tickets will be around $100. and the Show tickets will be around $7.
I would expect a fairly large attendance given that the name of Wikipedia is
well known.
Every single dollar that the tickets generate will go directly to
Wikimedia. Because all of the expences have already been covered by the
souvenir program.
What I need to make this happen
A press Release stating that Wikimedia is doing a Dinner theater and a
Stage Hypnosis Show, and describing that it has a Souvenir program so
Corporations and businesses can donate, and receve the benifit of
advertising in exchange. And it should have a phone number to call for more
information. They can call me at 805-722-7986
I will also need 1more Press Release talking about the dates the show's are
to attend.
It would also be nice to have a Email address @ wikipedia or wikimedia or
something like that.
I don't want to make any promises but i would not be surprised if i can get
upwards of $25,000
It will take about a month to get everything in order.
What do you guys think?
Brian Carpenter
The Talisman
Give me a call if you have any questions.
805-722-7986
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brian / Talisman <mindandme(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 7:57 PM
Subject: I can get a Press Release in the Collage Newspaper
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
If someone can write up something about Wikiversity. And that it needs
content and Money(possible for things like tutoring existing classes of the
University of California CA and the Community Collage of Santa Barbara. I
can probably do a good job in getting it in at least 2 newspapers.
The Independent It covers most of Santa Barbara County
The Daily Nexus Most readership is UCSB And SBCC.
I might also be able to get on the public radio and possibly the local News
Channels. I would want to get on bigger TV shows like Letterman or Leno.
I May have some connections, These people are looking for speakers and
people to talk with a lot.
I know I am new here But I really want to help start a Education
Revolution. And I think Wikimedia is a vehicle to do it with.
I can also Hold Local Fundraisers hear in Santa Barbara. Montecito CA is
just next door and it is one of the Richest places in the US. Many many
Actors live here. Oprah's 32 million Dollar home is here.
We can get some serious money here. I used to do Fund raisers for smaller
organizations.
I want to hold a Dinner, where participants pay money for the dinner and
they get good food and a show. This is a really good way of raising
funds. And it is the preferred method of really really Rich people.
Thanks
Brian Carpenter
If someone can write up something about Wikiversity. And that it needs
content and Money(possible for things like tutoring existing classes of the
University of California CA and the Community Collage of Santa Barbara. I
can probably do a good job in getting it in at least 2 newspapers.
The Independent It covers most of Santa Barbara County
The Daily Nexus Most readership is UCSB And SBCC.
I might also be able to get on the public radio and possibly the local News
Channels. I would want to get on bigger TV shows like Letterman or Leno.
I May have some connections, These people are looking for speakers and
people to talk with a lot.
I know I am new here But I really want to help start a Education
Revolution. And I think Wikimedia is a vehicle to do it with.
I can also Hold Local Fundraisers hear in Santa Barbara. Montecito CA is
just next door and it is one of the Richest places in the US. Many many
Actors live here. Oprah's 32 million Dollar home is here.
We can get some serious money here. I used to do Fund raisers for smaller
organizations.
I want to hold a Dinner, where participants pay money for the dinner and
they get good food and a show. This is a really good way of raising
funds. And it is the preferred method of really really Rich people.
Thanks
Brian Carpenter
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com>
Cc: Kat Walsh <mindspillage(a)gmail.com>
I should add that I'm all for making the logos available from some central
location for WMF and chapters to use. I just don't think they should be
lumped together with Commons -- that's a recipe for misunderstanding.
--m
On Aug 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
Some guy nommed all the WMF logos on Commons for deletion because they were
"not free" (Commons only accepts freely-licensed images). You can see the
full convo in the Foundation-l archvies.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Has anyone asked Mike's opinion on the discussion? Last I checked he was
working on trademarks (and probably logos too). I'm sure he'd find this
somewhat interesting.
On 8/25/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Brian wrote:
> > I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an
> issue,
> > it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of
> certain
> > digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> > permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> > projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
> >
>
> Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
> licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
> trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
>
> (They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
> but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
>
> See: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
> discussions about consistency.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mike Godwin <mgodwin(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com>
I'd prefer, I think, for Wikimedia Foundation logos and visual trademarks to
be removed from Commons. The potential for misunderstanding otherwise is
pretty limitless.
None of us wants to be dealing with a case where someone used the Wikipedia
icon on a product, when we challenged it, they said "Hey, it's FREE."
Of course, all trademarks are subject to fair use and other limitations on
exclusive use, so we're not flatly forbidden reproduction of the
iconography. We're just saying it's not "free" in the sense that content in
Commons is supposed to be free.
--Mike
On Aug 25, 2007, at 11:03 AM, Casey Brown wrote:
Some guy nommed all the WMF logos on Commons for deletion because they were
"not free" (Commons only accepts freely-licensed images). You can see the
full convo in the Foundation-l archvies.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Casey Brown <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com>
Date: Aug 25, 2007 11:02 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia logos on Commons
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Has anyone asked Mike's opinion on the discussion? Last I checked he was
working on trademarks (and probably logos too). I'm sure he'd find this
somewhat interesting.
On 8/25/07, Delirium <delirium(a)hackish.org> wrote:
>
> Brian wrote:
> > I think Erik really got to the heart of the issue. If this _were_ an
> issue,
> > it boils down to the fact that you need to have legal protection of
> certain
> > digital media that is somewhat stricter than your philosophy usually
> > permits, and finding a way to tackle that problem in all open source
> > projects is the place to do this, perhaps with a new type of license.
> >
>
> Well, the way the Debian project solved this is by [gasp!] just freely
> licensing their logo, as far as copyright goes, but retaining a
> trademark that they can use to prohibit misleading uses.
>
> (They do also have a "this logo is for official Debian use only" logo,
> but it's not the common one that is usually associated with the project.)
>
> See: http://www.debian.org/logos/
>
> IMO this is a much better way of handling it without inviting obvious
> discussions about consistency.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
--
Casey Brown
Cbrown1023
---
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent
to
this address will probably get lost.
I don't think that any of the messages posted to this forum have really
addressed the reason behind the deletion request.
The Wikimedia Foundation has stated in
Foundation:Resolution:Licensing_policy that "All projects are expected to
host only content which is under a Free Content License". This is why, for
example, we are not allowed to display the Firefox logo in the user space
(because it is not free enough for Wikimedia).
Furthermore, in the Foundation-endorsed freedomdefined:Definition, it states
"In most countries however, these freedoms are not enforced but suppressed
by the laws commonly named *copyright laws*. They consider authors as
god-like creators and give them an exclusive monopoly as to how "their
content" can be re-used. This monopoly impedes the flourishing of culture,
and it does not even help the economic situation of authors so much as it
protects the business model of the most powerful publishing companies."
Now, why should copyright held by Wikimedia be any less evil than copyright
held by others? Given this anti-copyright stance of the foundation, it is
only fair that all non-free content be removed from the Commons, no matter
who owns the copyright.
On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 David Gerard wrote:
> On 24/08/07, Robert Brockway <robert(a)timetraveller.org> wrote:
>
> > Morning. The Australian foreign minister, Mr Alexander Downer, has been
> > quoted as stating that Wikipedia is "anti-government".
> It's fairly clear he was floundering and didn't have a clue.
In my opinion the real problem is the question made by the journalist.
It is not understandable and definitively incorrect. I would have
replied saying that the question was not understandable, but
politicians need to be more polite and diplomatic (although he said
that there was some problems in the question, even if in a polite way.
I can not do anything else than agree with his point that if anybody
could edit Wikipedia, than why reclaim if a person inside a
governmental agency has done it.
Of course there is the problem of self-promotion, but this is a
problem that can occur in any other fields.
There is then the problem if it is acceptable that people are paid
with citizen money to edit on wikipedia (but this is a problem that is
completely outside wikipedia).
I would not consider very serious his expression "a bit
anti-government.". First of all we would need to understand what he
means with this. Perhaps he is used that statements are written as
written by government, and that somebody could change the government
words is strange to him.
But one point he rose is rather interesting: "But I know they have
editorial control"
While at the beginning of Wikipedia, if I have understood correctly,
it was thought that the errors would be correct by the next editors,
it was later created an organized system of checking. Could it be
considered an editorial control, or at least an "internal" control?
And how this relate to the thought at the beginning that everybody
should be free to write?
AnyFile
Morning. The Australian foreign minister, Mr Alexander Downer, has been
quoted as stating that Wikipedia is "anti-government". He also seems to
be quite misinformed about how Wikipedia works. Perhaps the Foundation
should contact Mr Downer's office to correct these misunderstandings.
Reference:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22300575-2,00.html
Cheers,
Rob
--
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine..."
-- RFC 1925 "The Twelve Networking Truths"
Discovering a backlog of requests on Meta spam blacklist Aphaia & I have
put some work into clearing this and now have it under control (I
hope!).
However in the course of this I have learnt a lot and some (to me)
Foundation level questions arise.
The policy at Meta has been only to blacklist those sites with
persistent cross wiki records of link placement. However some of the
sites that have been requested for blocking are fairly obviously
undesirable whether they currently are troubling just one wiki or many
(porn being the obvious example but there are plenty more that I think
consensus on undesirability would be found).
So should we be rejecting requests for such sites saying that they
should use their own local lists? I am aware that preventative blocking
of anything or anyone can be frowned on (personally if I can see trouble
coming I prefer to take action before it arrives rather than clean up
afterwards). It may be that, in asking en wp for example to block
locally, we are merely missing the opportunity to avoid problems across
wikis in the near future. Spammers are adept at exploiting any opening
that they can.
There has been a tendency to treat the Meta blacklist as a place of last
resort - I question whether a more thoughtful approach to keeping
Foundation sites clean might not be desirable?
Herby
[[user:Herbythyme]] most places
--
Herby
herbythyme(a)fmail.co.uk
--
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.
