very odd. and your message, on the inbox screen, listed as not having
an author.
On an unrelated note, here's a banner I made for wikipedia. Laugh if
you must, just don't tell me about it. ;-) I'm not sure if the
concept comes across; I'm not a graphic artist.
attachment below
KQ
You Wrote:
>I haven't gotten any such blank e-mails from wikipedia-l. Very strange.
>There also isn't anything in the archives:
>
>http://www.nupedia.com/pipermail/wikipedia-l/2001-September/date.html
>
>--Larry
>0
this (below) is the second blank email I've gotten, only this time
it's supposedly from me. but I didn't send it. anyone have any idea
what's going on?
You Wrote:
>0
There was some discussion of this (potentially restricted speech) at
[[Wikipedia Cookbook/Talk]].
>[1] BTW, I've now searched for all four terms, and found nothing
> concrete.
Also, Dr. David Touretzky at carnegie-mellon is knowledgeable about
both DeCSS and Adobe encryption and various other first amendment
issues ignored by the DMCA (and, it seems, the Church of Scientology);
his arguments seem generally lucid and measured; you can visit his
page at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ if you care to.
0
On Wednesday 04 September 2002 04:57 am, you wrote:
> The Internet is full of kooks. Do they all deserve equal time? Do they all
> deserve legitimacy?
>
> Danny
Of course not -- both you and I have deleted or moved to the meta much of
this type of hopelessly POV or idiosyncratic material (and have edited the
hell out of less POV or idiosyncratic material).
The question here is if one particular kook is reformable or is irrevocably
stuck in her own POV world and therefore will be a continued drain on user
resources. I still haven't seen any evidence other than her joining the list
that she can reform. But joining the list is a major first step.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
Chemical structure diagrams seems like something there ought to be a
specialized free program to generate. If we standardized on such a
program, the article source should contain whatever input file to
that program was used and we can use its output (in PNG, or EPS
rendered in PNG) in the articles themselves. I don't think HTML is
adequate for the task. We'll need something similar for mathematical
equations as well at some point (though complex HTML with special
characters is a possible alternative there).
You Wrote:
>posted to the Wikipedia-l mailing list at:
>http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>>> I was trying to show a triple bond on the
>>> http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Acetylene page. How is
>>> in normally
>>> shown using ascii text to html markup?
>>
>>There might be something in extended (ISO) character
>>set that would work,
>>but I'm not terribly familiar with those so far.
>>
>>A broader question revolves around support for images
>>on Wikipedia--many of
>>us could probably draw diagrams that would enrich the
>>content of pages, like
>>the chemistry-related pages, dramatically. We could
>>develop them and
>>release them under GDFL terms, and it would seem a
>>shame to limit their
>>availability and redistribution to off-Wiki linking.
>>
>>I mean, after all, dead-tree encyclopedias and even
>>some dictionaries have
>>illustrations. It's an interesting challenge, working
>>within the confines
>>of a primarily-text medium (Lynx is my primary
>>browser, after all), but at
>>some point, the *pedias should support pictures.0
Jimmy Wales <jwales(a)bomis.com> napisał:
>Nevermind, it was easy. There might be some weirdness, please report if you see any.
hmm, yes, hmm, I still get the old _wiki.cgi?search=blahblah_ search. hmm .....
wojpob
----
wojtek lukasz pobratyn
http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/WojPob
--
OnetKomunikator - porozumiesz sie
z innymi [ http://ok.onet.pl/instaluj.html ]