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
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
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
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.
> 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
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
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
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
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