On Wed, January 5, 2011 10:02 pm, George Herbert wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Virgilio A. P. Machado <vam(a)fct.unl.pt>
wrote:
>> Is this supposed to be funny?
>>
>> Time to address this matter to the list moderators.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Virgilio A. P. Machado
>
>
> Neither of these was funny; both were backhanded insults to you.
>
> That said - I am not sure what role you think foundation-l should be
playing in your being banned from meta.wikimedia.org. You're claiming
the snide responses are off topic and inappropriate. The original
request was off topic and inappropriate as well, though not snide.
>
> I am completely not up on the politics on Meta, or the other Wikis
you've been banned or long term blocked on, but as a general rule people
who are being blocked or banned across multiple wikis are behaving in a
way that causes the blocks, even if there are aspects of some of the
blocks which are imperfect admin response. There seem to be a number of
people on Meta who thought you were behaving
> inappropriately.
>
> Even if the blocks were abusive and inappropriate, foundation-l isn't a
block appeal channel.
>
>
> --
> -george william herbert
> george.herbert(a)gmail.com
A sensible answer and commentary is deeply appreciated. Please accept this
user's apologies for not answering in the proper order, something quite
out of character. Notifications are received by mail in almost a random
order, and comments were being answered through that channel.
It is not up to a mere user to decide if some list members are being
uncivil. That's the responsibility of the moderators. It has been said
several times, and it may be necessary to repeat it many more times until
others eventually get it. The person that can offend or intimidate another
has not been born yet. Nobody can offend or intimidate another, for the
same reason that that person will not be happy or do as it pleases for the
rest of his/her life, just because someone tells him/her so. Nobody has
that much power.
The only role that the Foundation-l was expected to play in the
unfortunate events unfolding on Meta was, exactly as stated, to be a
communication venue with "women and men of good faith who are members of
this mailing list" so that they could provide whatever assistance they
deemed appropriate and were capable of providing, mainly helping with
answers to the six items listed a) through f). So far, nobody as provided
that kind of assistance.
A request for assistance is never off topic, anywhere, under any
circumstances. If that concept is difficult to grasp, there's no
difficulty whatsoever in expanding and explaining it, in as much detail as
required.
There was no clue that the events of Foundation wikis could be a matter of
politics. They were always seen as matters of policies and procedures, not
quite the same thing.
Lets put some of the bans that were mentioned in the proper perspective.
brwikimedia and ptwikimedia are the wikis of the Brazilian and Portuguese
chapters, that, like the Portuguese Wikipedia are run by the same usual
suspects. Please note that according to a recent news item there's about
30 Portuguese active editors (Population: about 10 million).
The work on Meta was being done in an orderly manner until the disruption
provoked and caused by the same usual suspects mentioned above. That's the
only reason for "being blocked or banned across multiple wikis."
The user is the same. Trouble only started after the interference of the
usual suspects of the Portuguese Wikipedia on Meta. Their votes can be
seen popping up on the RfA. There has never been a single block on any
other Wikimedia project where these editors do not have any influence. The
obvious conclusion is that the hostile behavior stays with the usual
suspects, not this user.
The unintended consequence is that the usual suspects have granted a
single user a disproportionate power and influence: the power of one.
There is no block appeal made on this list. If there is, please quote the
sentences where it is made. What was made was a request for assistance "to
all women and men of good faith who are members of this mailing list,"
because of a strong, unshakable and unflinching belief that such persons
exist. There is only some doubt if they have been reached yet.
Sincerely,
Virgilio A. P. Machado
The other day, I read the [[:en:Wikileaks]] article on Wikipedia. What
it said was, more or less, that Wilileaks is a leaks website that used
to be a wiki. And I wondered : how long will it take before we read
somewhere : Wikipedia, the Pedia that used to be a Wiki ?
Sooner than you might think.
Just yesterday, someone reported a mistake at the French village pump
: a castle was located at the wrong location on the new
toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers map tool. That castle, called
"Pierrefonds Castle", should be located in the Pierrefonds town, not
in Senlis town, like the Windsor castle is located in the town of
Windsor to the exclusion of any other English town.
I thought this was the time to show the power of a wiki : a cool
website everybody can edit, especially useful to instantly correct
straightforward mistakes like that one.
The toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers software is cute enough to
provide "source: ru" at the bottom of the little popup window that
pops up when you click on the wrongly located castle. I instantly
corrected the wrong coordinates on the Russian language version of
Wikipedia (1) which had the mistake.
We are more or less 24 hours (19 hours, exactly) after I corrected the
mistake, but the toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers is still wrong.
This is not what a wiki is supposed to be.
There are 2 potential reasons. A) The Russian Wikipedia uses "Flagged
revisions" and my newbie edit might be ignored by whoever wants to
ignore it because it is flagged as a non-flagged newbie edit.B) the
toolserver.org/~kolossos/openlayers software might be too slow to
perform updates.
Whatever the reason, this is evidence that Wikipedia is changing into
something that is not a wiki.
I am wondering if the whole problem is not the sheer idea of having
"developers" doing their job : "developping". Developping means
changing. If you change a wiki, you have 99% of chances that what it
changes into is not a wiki.
This was my first anti-developer rant of 2011. Happy new year everybody.
(1) http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%D0%9F%D1%8C%D0%B5%D1%80%D1%84%D0…
Chinese Wikipedia is just planning for change the logo in the mid January.
Discussion is going on in VP, and the logo is
http://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hk/File:10piece-chinese-L_k_2.svg . Chinese Wikipedia
is also using JavaScript on common.js to use the logo stored in local but not
commons.
Some celebrate work will also be done on Chinese Wikipedia soon. Thank you.
(Cross post to foundation-l & wikix-l)
HW
[crossposted to foundation-l and wikitech-l]
"There has to be a vision though, of something better. Maybe something
that is an actual wiki, quick and easy, rather than the template
coding hell Wikipedia's turned into." - something Fred Bauder just
said on wikien-l.
Our current markup is one of our biggest barriers to participation.
AIUI, edit rates are about half what they were in 2005, even as our
fame has gone from "popular" through "famous" to "part of the
structure of the world." I submit that this is not a good or healthy
thing in any way and needs fixing.
People who can handle wikitext really just do not understand how
offputting the computer guacamole is to people who can cope with text
they can see.
We know this is a problem; WYSIWYG that works is something that's been
wanted here forever. There are various hideous technical nightmares in
its way, that make this a big and hairy problem, of the sort where the
hair has hair.
However, I submit that it's important enough we need to attack it with
actual resources anyway.
This is just one data point, where a Canadian government office got
*EIGHT TIMES* the participation in their intranet wiki by putting in a
(heavily locally patched) copy of FCKeditor:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2010-May/034062.html
"I have to disagree with you given my experience. In one government
department where MediaWiki was installed we saw the active user base
spike from about 1000 users to about 8000 users within a month of having
enabled FCKeditor. FCKeditor definitely has it's warts, but it very
closely matches the experience non-technical people have gotten used to
while using Word or WordPerfect. Leveraging skills people already have
cuts down on training costs and allows them to be productive almost
immediately."
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2010-May/034071.html
"Since a plethora of intelligent people with no desire to learn WikiCode
can now add content, the quality of posts has been in line with the
adoption of wiki use by these people. Thus one would say it has gone up.
"In the beginning there were some hard core users that learned WikiCode,
for the most part they have indicated that when the WYSIWYG fails, they
are able to switch to WikiCode mode to address the problem. This usually
occurs with complex table nesting which is something that few of the
users do anyways. Most document layouts are kept simple. Additionally,
we have a multilingual english/french wiki. As a result the browser
spell-check is insufficient for the most part (not to mention it has
issues with WikiCode). To address this a second spellcheck button was
added to the interface so that both english and french spellcheck could
be available within the same interface (via aspell backend)."
So, the payoffs could be ridiculously huge: eight times the number of
smart and knowledgeable people even being able to *fix typos* on
material they care about.
Here are some problems. (Off the top of my head; please do add more,
all you can think of.)
- The problem:
* Fidelity with the existing body of wikitext. No conversion flag day.
The current body exploits every possible edge case in the regular
expression guacamole we call a "parser". Tim said a few years ago that
any solution has to account for the existing body of text.
* Two-way fidelity. Those who know wikitext will demand to keep it and
will bitterly resist any attempt to take it away from them.
* FCKeditor (now CKeditor) in MediaWiki is all but unmaintained.
* There is no specification for wikitext. Well, there almost is -
compiled as C, it runs a bit slower than the existing PHP compiler.
But it's a start!
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitext-l/2010-August/000318.html
- Attempting to solve it:
* The best brains around Wikipedia, MediaWiki and WMF have dashed
their foreheads against this problem for at least the past five years
and have got *nowhere*. Tim has a whole section in the SVN repository
for "new parser attempts". Sheer brilliance isn't going to solve this
one.
* Tim doesn't scale. Most of our other technical people don't scale.
*We have no resources and still run on almost nothing*.
($14m might sound like enough money to run a popular website, but for
comparison, I work as a sysadmin at a tiny, tiny publishing company
with more money and staff just in our department than that to do
*almost nothing* compared to what WMF achieves. WMF is an INCREDIBLY
efficient organisation.)
- Other attempts:
* Starting from a clear field makes it ridiculously easy. The
government example quoted above is one. Wikia wrote a good WYSIWYG
that works really nicely on new wikis (I'm speaking here as an
experienced wikitext user who happily fixes random typos on Wikia). Of
course, I noted that we can't start from a clear field - we have an
existing body of wikitext.
So, specification of the problem:
* We need good WYSIWYG. The government example suggests that a simple
word-processor-like interface would be enough to give tremendous
results.
* It needs two-way fidelity with almost all existing wikitext.
* We can't throw away existing wikitext, much as we'd love to.
* It's going to cost money in programming the WYSIWYG.
* It's going to cost money in rationalising existing wikitext so that
the most unfeasible formations can be shunted off to legacy for
chewing on.
* It's going to cost money in usability testing and so on.
* It's going to cost money for all sorts of things I haven't even
thought of yet.
This is a problem that would pay off hugely to solve, and that will
take actual money thrown at it.
How would you attack this problem, given actual resources for grunt work?
- d.
The bidding process for Wikimania 2012 is now open for business!
==DEADLINES==
Timeline: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Bids
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2011/Bids>
Important dates:
* February 6, 2011 (0:01 UTC): Bidding creation ends. List of running
cities announced.
WHAT THIS MEANS: if you want to bid, create a page on Meta (see below)
and add your city to the list. Your bid does not have to say anything
beyond "we're bidding!" at this point. New bids will not be accepted
after this date, however.
* March 18, 2011 (0:00 UTC): Bidding ends. All major information on
bidding pages must be finalized.
WHAT THIS MEANS: your bid must be complete! all information about your
proposed venue, accommodation, key team, etc. should be posted. Minor
changes (updated information, background information) will be accepted
after this date, but the critical parts of the bid should be finished.
* March 18 - April 3: Refining of bids and answering questions.
WHAT THIS MEANS: you can clarify unclear parts and add updated
information. Suddenly divulging a new venue is not ok, though.
* April 3: Question & Answer from jury ends
* March 18 - April 10: Jury deliberation.
* April 11, 2011: Announcement of host city to public.
The early timeline means that (if followed) hopefully representatives
of the winning bid will be able to attend this year's Wikimania in
Gdansk, which is very helpful for organizers.
==HELPFUL INFORMATION==
To file a bid, follow these directions:
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Official_requirements_for_bid…
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2011/Official_requirements_for_bid…>
The criteria for bids, with a few minor changes from last year, are here:
* http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Judging_criteria
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2011/Judging_criteria>
==UNOFFICIAL ADVICE==
Previous winning bids can be found linked on
Meta:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania
All winning bids have shared certain characteristics: a strong
community-based team with defined roles and leadership, a thoughtful
budget, careful consideration of the spaces Wikimania will be in, an
attention to detail and to all of the criteria, and a willingness to
improve on the last conference.
That page also has links to the suggestions for improvement that
people have made after each conference. These follow patterns too and
can be helpful to review.
As a bid team, it can be helpful to articulate -- both for yourselves
and the jury -- what you want Wikimania to be and what you envision it
being for the community.
All members of the community should feel free to discuss and analyze
bids as they are developed; this is not a sealed process. Members of
the jury have to carefully review each bid, and having any unclear
areas pointed out and discussed (and fixed) ahead of time can be very
helpful.
Finally, if you have any questions or suggestions or comments on the
bidding process, as always, post them to the talk
page:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimania_2012
If you have any questions for the Wikimania jury specifically, please
email them to myself or to James Forrester and we will pass them along to
the private jury mailing list. All private communications with the
jury are confidential.
best regards, and good luck --
Joseph Seddon
Wikimania 2012 jury moderator (non-voting)
on behalf of the 2012
jury:http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2012/Jury
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2011/Jury>
Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sender: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 12:00:05
To: <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: foundation-l Digest, Vol 82, Issue 7
Send foundation-l mailing list submissions to
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
foundation-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
foundation-l-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of foundation-l digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Wikimania 2010 videos (Mike.lifeguard)
2. Re: Wikimania 2010 videos (Erkan Yilmaz)
3. Future donation drive suggestion (Chris Lee)
4. Re: Future donation drive suggestion (Chad)
5. Re: Future donation drive suggestion (MZMcBride)
6. Re: Future donation drive suggestion (Anthony)
7. Re: Wikimania 2010 videos (KIZU Naoko)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2011 17:49:14 -0500
From: "Mike.lifeguard" <mike.lifeguard(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2010 videos
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <4D2100EA.6070006(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Now that registration is open for Wikimania 2011, I wonder why the
videos from Wikimania 2010 are not uploaded somewhere yet.
Could the 2010 organizers please comment on this state of affairs?
- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk0hAOoACgkQst0AR/DaKHvrkgCfc5hjal43X+LQOmj7SXcLtKVU
7UAAn131m23QbZ7hS5DiwYZ/Ti4S/t9r
=qoEt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 00:30:09 +0100
From: Erkan Yilmaz <erkan77(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2010 videos
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTins3PdBh4sYAcE6mEk2Ho3z1UfqoA6nGeOTidg2(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
+1
last info I read was:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2010-October/002437.html
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard(a)gmail.com>wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hello,
>
> Now that registration is open for Wikimania 2011, I wonder why the
> videos from Wikimania 2010 are not uploaded somewhere yet.
>
> Could the 2010 organizers please comment on this state of affairs?
>
> - -Mike
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAk0hAOoACgkQst0AR/DaKHvrkgCfc5hjal43X+LQOmj7SXcLtKVU
> 7UAAn131m23QbZ7hS5DiwYZ/Ti4S/t9r
> =qoEt
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
Find me at:
Systems Thinking World Group:
http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2639211&trk=anet_ug_hm
**********************************************************************************************
This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in
error)
please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail.
Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material
in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
Diese eMail enthaelt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschuetzte
Informationen.
Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese eMail irrtuemlich
erhalten
haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese
Mail.
Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht
gestattet.
**********************************************************************************************
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 22:41:24 -0500
From: Chris Lee <theornamentalist(a)gmail.com>
Subject: [Foundation-l] Future donation drive suggestion
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTi=Gs+oWVhV63fiziYS-qkxn1B2oLaGA0AM1T4iq(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hello,
I received an email earlier today, in which the person who was the subject
of an article I wrote last year decided to make a donation to the WMF.
Excerpted from the email:
"Has it occurred to the people running Wikipedia that some people might
think Wikipedia is affiliated with Wikileaks?
It would be an easy mistake to make, and even I balked because I am totally
anti-Wikileaks.
I found a page Wiki stating you were not affiliated, but you should really
include that info with your donation requests.
I suspect thousands of would-be donors did not donate because they were not
totally sure and didn't want to take the chance.
Please pass this piece of info onto the people in charge, because I think
it's a really important point to stress!"
Regardless of how I feel on the matter, this person does make a good point.
I have come across many people who view Wikileaks as irresponsible and
dangerous. Calling out our non-affiliation with Wikileaks on the donation
page seems fairly drastic. However, because this may be a common
misconception, clarification should be made *somewhere*.
Chris
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2011 22:55:52 -0500
From: Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future donation drive suggestion
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTikmGsehvB_iOGukO3rQHU3r8=zz_u4LHuzMjSHh(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 10:41 PM, Chris Lee <theornamentalist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Regardless of how I feel on the matter, this person does make a good point.
> I have come across many people who view Wikileaks as irresponsible and
> dangerous. Calling out our non-affiliation with Wikileaks on the donation
> page seems fairly drastic. However, because this may be a common
> misconception, clarification should be made *somewhere*.
>
A blog post on the subject was posted back in early December.
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/12/09/what?s-in-a-name-in-the-case-of-?…
-Chad
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2011 00:10:09 -0500
From: MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future donation drive suggestion
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID: <C946C461.E42F%z(a)mzmcbride.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Chris Lee wrote:
> Regardless of how I feel on the matter, this person does make a good point.
> I have come across many people who view Wikileaks as irresponsible and
> dangerous. Calling out our non-affiliation with Wikileaks on the donation
> page seems fairly drastic. However, because this may be a common
> misconception, clarification should be made *somewhere*.
It's in the FAQ: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/FAQ/en
If you feel it should be elsewhere on wikimediafoundation.org, leave a note
at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback (which has its
own obnoxious banner about WikiLeaks currently) and I can update the site as
appropriate.
MZMcBride
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 01:49:26 -0500
From: Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Future donation drive suggestion
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimNXNMEBRpT+_JxPi-JMdP4BpY=G56n5j-mM3FA(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> "Has it occurred to the people running Wikipedia that some people might
> think Wikipedia is affiliated with Wikileaks?
> It would be an easy mistake to make, and even I balked because I am totally
> anti-Wikileaks.
The bigger question is whether or not it has occurred to Julian
Assange. Since people keep confusing the two, and some want to donate
to one and not the other, maybe in his next fundraiser Assange can
refer to himself as the Wikipedia Executive Director.
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2011 17:55:16 +0900
From: KIZU Naoko <aphaia(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Wikimania 2010 videos
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
<foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTimYZnQ8GZyo1toT+pnxNATjfRXPrS2+u9tu6EHP(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Thirded
On Mon, Jan 3, 2011 at 8:30 AM, Erkan Yilmaz <erkan77(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> +1
>
> last info I read was:
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimania-l/2010-October/002437.html
I say so, because the quality of stream was amazing so that sometimes
it gave a much clearer view of slideshow than with my own eyes. They
deserve more wider publication than just being watched at that moment.
I'm looking forward to watch these videos really.
>
> On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mike.lifeguard <mike.lifeguard(a)gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Now that registration is open for Wikimania 2011, I wonder why the
>> videos from Wikimania 2010 are not uploaded somewhere yet.
>>
>> Could the 2010 organizers please comment on this state of affairs?
>>
>> - -Mike
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
>>
>> iEYEARECAAYFAk0hAOoACgkQst0AR/DaKHvrkgCfc5hjal43X+LQOmj7SXcLtKVU
>> 7UAAn131m23QbZ7hS5DiwYZ/Ti4S/t9r
>> =qoEt
>> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Find me at:
>
> Systems Thinking World Group:
> http://www.linkedin.com/groups?home=&gid=2639211&trk=anet_ug_hm
>
> **********************************************************************************************
> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information.
> If you are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in
> error)
> please notify the sender immediately and destroy this e-mail.
> Any unauthorised copying, disclosure or distribution of the material
> in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.
>
> Diese eMail enthaelt vertrauliche und/oder rechtlich geschuetzte
> Informationen.
> Wenn Sie nicht der richtige Adressat sind oder diese eMail irrtuemlich
> erhalten
> haben, informieren Sie bitte sofort den Absender und vernichten Sie diese
> Mail.
> Das unerlaubte Kopieren sowie die unbefugte Weitergabe dieser Mail ist nicht
> gestattet.
> **********************************************************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
KIZU Naoko / ????
member of Wikimedians in Kansai ?/ ????????????? http://kansai.wikimedia.jp
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
End of foundation-l Digest, Vol 82, Issue 7
*******************************************
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hello,
Now that registration is open for Wikimania 2011, I wonder why the
videos from Wikimania 2010 are not uploaded somewhere yet.
Could the 2010 organizers please comment on this state of affairs?
- -Mike
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAk0hAOoACgkQst0AR/DaKHvrkgCfc5hjal43X+LQOmj7SXcLtKVU
7UAAn131m23QbZ7hS5DiwYZ/Ti4S/t9r
=qoEt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
