Wikipedia-l June 2002

wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org

37 participants
155 discussions

Delendae Imagines
by Pierre Abbat 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

mai06.jpg - rear view of someone's legs bewegend!.jpg - badly illuminated picture of two heads Get%2520QuickTime%2520Pro - "hiho" slam1.au - some sort of closing sound BtnPlayer.class - ? Other stuff by Haolegirl phma

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Can someone ban Jokerman?
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

Speaking of which, the old software used to have a function where you could hover over a username and the IP address would show up (.xxx at the end for most, but I imagine sysops would see the full thing). That's bring that back, mmmmkay? Also: how about a feature to limit the size of files uploaded? That would take care of most mp3s, and certainly also *.wma. And Omanash at least has a static IP since he just uploaded something over 650 MB. kq You Wrote: >Only if someone knows his IP address, and if it's static. > 0

2 1

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Can someone ban Jokerman?
by koyaanisqatsi＠nupedia.com 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

Only if someone knows his IP address, and if it's static. You Wrote: >Jokerman9001 has contributed nothing and is continually uploading garbage. >Can he be banned? > >phma >[Wikipedia-l] >To manage your subscription to this list, please go here: >http://www.nupedia.com/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l >0

1 0

Can someone ban Jokerman?
by Pierre Abbat 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

Jokerman9001 has contributed nothing and is continually uploading garbage. Can he be banned? phma

1 0

Invariant Sections
by d.n.mckee 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

Maveric149 sez: If we do go (or already are) "invariant free" this may have the side-effect of reducing the amount of external text's we can obtain (esp. from many governments and most US states). Many times all the author/owner of external text requires is recognition for their work -- which isn't possible to ensure without an invariant section. But then, Axel is right in stating that there are larger issues at stake than making our job of creating new articles easier. But we are recognising their work. They often don't require that people copying from us (or, even editing our work) need to recognise their work. Is there a problem here? The edit problem could be remedied by having invariant sections per article: but this is likely to be abused. Someone will put in an invariant section with a porn ad. Dragon.

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] Re: The case against "invariant sections"
by Guardian Tor 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

> On Saturday 15 June 2002 12:01 pm, Axel wrote: > > The FOLDOC computing dictionary has been licenced to us under GFDL > > without invariant sections. We have incorporated many articles from > > them. Two weeks ago, somebody asked me whether the material from our > > TeX article (http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/TeX), which was originally > > based on FOLDOC's but has since grown considerably, could be > > reintegrated into FOLDOC. The answer is: only if they put our > > Wikipedia table into the FOLDOC entry, which they are unlikely to do > > because it doesn't really fit with their article formatting. > > Uh oh, if this is true then this is evil (TM). We should be not be limiting > the exchange of wikipedia text in this way -- especially with somebody else > using the same darn license. They let us use their initial text, we shouldn't > be placing unnecessary restrictions on the use of our material (especially > when we are, like Axel mentions, the obvious leader of the Open/Free Content > movement). All we should do is ask them to link to the wikipedia version of > the text -- not require this by insisting on the use of invariant sections or > by any other means for that matter. This is a rather old issue that never quite got resolved. There was quite a bit of opposition to the table idea (which was taken from dmoz), and it was generally agreed that while a linkback should be required, we should not require the big (and ugly) dmoz-style table. The problem is that once this agreement was reached, the issue kind of faded into the background. I think we should get this firmly resolved. -- _______________________________________________ Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze

1 0

Re: [Wikipedia-l] The case against "invariant sections"
by Guardian Tor 16 Jun '02

16 Jun '02

I completely agree. - Stephen Gilbert > I'm in favor of linkbacks (it's just polite) but not invariant sections, and especially not a table with any specific format. My 2 cents, or maybe less. > > kq0 ________________________________ Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia http://www.wikipedia.com -- _______________________________________________ Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/ Free OperaMail at http://www.operamail.com/ Powered by Outblaze

1 0

Delendae Imagines
by Pierre Abbat 15 Jun '02

15 Jun '02

5000naked_2.jpg - a gathering of people khart.jpg - some scene at a seashore Anything else by Manj nf01511.jpg - "THE GRAMMY AWARDS" and a picture of someone phma

1 0

Delenda Imagines
by Pierre Abbat 15 Jun '02

15 Jun '02

NorthCarolina1.htm - illegible black-on-blue gibberish eye.htm - "PI CT UR ES" Anything else by Jokerman9001 dust_1280_final_low.jpg - apparently a scene from a video game "Artist - WARDI 3.wma" - unknown file format, but includes "Track", "AlbumTitle", probably a sound recording untitled.bmp - fragmented picture, hard to make sense of lalo and bro.bmp - picture of two faces - BMPs should not be allowed, since they're uncompressed and don't work in browsers aNUK - this is actually a JPEG, and shows the words "Nintendo UK", but with no extension it displays as gribble BTW, is there a way to find the article about a picture? phma

1 1

Re: meta upload
by Daniel Mayer 15 Jun '02

15 Jun '02

http://meta.wikipedia.com/wiki.phtml?title=special:Upload Yikes! I just checked some of the newer meta uploads and came across some rather humorous, yet totally inappropriate and copyright infringing, toon porn along with other rubbish. For some reason I can't log-in to the meta so I don't know if I have sysop powers there (I probably don't). Can somebody who does have such powers delete this stuff? It also might be a good idea to grant sysop's the ability to do their thing over at the meta too -- just to prevent this sort of thing from getting out of control (there would be little reason to delete or move many, if any, pages pages there, but being able to delete inappropriate uploads would be nice). BTW, is it really necessary to have two upload utilities in the first place? Both upload pages have instructions in English and do the same thing. Shouldn't we have one central upload utility for the whole project with maybe a couple of other ones for each of the most active non-English wikipedias that have syops of their own? maveric149

3 2

← Newer
1
...
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

Wikipedia-l June 2002