What is the current status of qrpedia.org and qrwp.org please? Is the information given by whois up to date?
http://whois.domaintools.com/qrwp.org http://whois.domaintools.com/qrpedia.org
Andreas
On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
On 31/10/12 18:17, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Is the information given by whois up to date?
Always.
Gordo
So is there going to be a change in ownership of qrwp.org at some point, or have those plans been scrapped?
Andreas
The plans have not been scrapped.
On 2 November 2012 16:28, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The plans have not been scrapped.
-- Doug
However given the time so far taken there are only 3 three options:
WMUK doesn't have the ability to handle domain and software back-end WMUK is incompetent The current owner doesn't actually want to transfer it.
Personally I suspect the answer is 1
On 02/11/12 20:22, geni wrote:
On 2 November 2012 16:28, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The plans have not been scrapped.
-- Doug
However given the time so far taken there are only 3 three options:
WMUK doesn't have the ability to handle domain and software back-end WMUK is incompetent The current owner doesn't actually want to transfer it.
Personally I suspect the answer is 1
I have done a few domain transfers (that is ownership). It really does need both parties to cooperate.....
Gordo
P.S. Happy to help out here. I maintain domains for both myself and my clients. I use PAIRNIC and 123-REG.
That's an unfair, and unduly combative way to put it!
The negotiation over these domains has taken an undue amount of time, and it is still unclear exactly why that is so. Criticism (positive) of that seems fair.
But the list you suggest is hugely unfair on a number of levels. :)
Tom
On 2 November 2012 20:22, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2012 16:28, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The plans have not been scrapped.
-- Doug
However given the time so far taken there are only 3 three options:
WMUK doesn't have the ability to handle domain and software back-end WMUK is incompetent The current owner doesn't actually want to transfer it.
Personally I suspect the answer is 1
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
In fact, sorry to be snippy!
What I should have said is: the QRpedia code is available on Google Code ( http://code.google.com/p/qrwp/source/browse) and a quick browse should let you see it is written in PHP, the same language as Media Wiki etc.
Tom
On 2 November 2012 20:29, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.comwrote:
That's an unfair, and unduly combative way to put it!
The negotiation over these domains has taken an undue amount of time, and it is still unclear exactly why that is so. Criticism (positive) of that seems fair.
But the list you suggest is hugely unfair on a number of levels. :)
Tom
On 2 November 2012 20:22, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2 November 2012 16:28, rexx rexx@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
The plans have not been scrapped.
-- Doug
However given the time so far taken there are only 3 three options:
WMUK doesn't have the ability to handle domain and software back-end WMUK is incompetent The current owner doesn't actually want to transfer it.
Personally I suspect the answer is 1
-- geni
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 02/11/12 20:39, Gordon Joly wrote:
On 02/11/12 20:37, Thomas Morton wrote:
What I should have said is: the QRpedia code is available on Google Code
Well, yes, it would be...
Gordo
As opposed to Git (Mediawiki has just transferred from SVN to Git)....
I suppose there was a reason to use Google?
Gordo
I grabbed the source, Luke...
svn checkout http://qrwp.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/ qrwp-read-only
Gordo
Its good to see people who are supportive. Thank you to those who are supporting and defending WMUK
On 2 November 2012 20:48, Gordon Joly gordon.joly@pobox.com wrote:
I grabbed the source, Luke...
svn checkout http://qrwp.googlecode.com/**svn/trunk/<http://qrwp.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/>qrwp-read-onlyGordo
______________________________**_________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-lhttp://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
On 2 November 2012 20:29, Thomas Morton morton.thomas@googlemail.com wrote:
That's an unfair, and unduly combative way to put it!
No it isn't. I can provide examples of unfair, and unduly combative way to put it if you would like
The negotiation over these domains has taken an undue amount of time, and it is still unclear exactly why that is so. Criticism (positive) of that seems fair.
Yeah you realise that's actually worse than my list right? Given the value of the property involved and the time taken if the issue is negotiations overunning then incompetence is less of viable option.
But the list you suggest is hugely unfair on a number of levels. :)
If you can come up with alternative options you are free to list them.
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org