Hi, Mark,
I'm a native speaker of Kapampangan, and would be willing to write much of the content of the Wikipedia myself. It's an excellent opportunity for my language to have a presence in this esteemed cyberspace institution.
I don't have collaborators yet, but I can find enough to satisfy the requirements, and will inform the group the moment I get the minimum number. There are several active Kapampangan Internet fora and sites.
Edwin
Message: 7
Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2005 18:10:45 -0700
From: Mark Williamson
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Request for Kapampangan Wikipedia
To: wikipedia-l(a)wikimedia.org
Message-ID: <849f98ed05061118102855347e(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Hi Edwin,,
Just wondering but do you speak Kapampangan yourself?
And would you be willing to write much of the content on the
Kapampangan Wikipedia yourself?
Is there anybody else col-laborating with you?
Mark
---------------------------------
Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es
I have some concerns about the interaction of trademark and copyright
law when certain military crests are reproduced on the Wikipedia.
>From what I understand the GFDL is intended to be a license dealing
with copyright. It says concerning this matter:
"You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either
commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the
copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies
to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no
other conditions whatsoever to those of this License. You may not use
technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further
copying of the copies you make or distribute. However, you may accept
compensation in exchange for copies. If you distribute a large enough
number of copies you must also follow the conditions in section 3.
You may also lend copies, under the same conditions stated above, and
you may publicly display copies."
However, not all of the information that we deal with is covered
simply by copyright law. A lot of it is covered by trademark law. I
understand that US trademark law has a defence similar to fair use
under copyright law. From the British point of view the Trademarks Act
1994 states that for registered trademarks:
"10. - (1) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in
the course of trade a sign which is identical with the trade mark in
relation to goods or services which are identical with those for which
it is registered.
(2) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the
course of trade a sign where
because -
(a) the sign is identical with the trade mark and is used in
relation to goods or
services similar to those for which the trade mark is registered, or
(b) the sign is similar to the trade mark and is used in
relation to goods or services
identical with or similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
there exists a likelihood of confusion on the part of the public,
which includes the likelihood of association with the trade mark.
(3) A person infringes a registered trade mark if he uses in the
course of trade in relation to goods or services a sign which -
(a) is identical with or similar to the trade mark, and
(b) is used in relation to goods or services which are not
similar to those for which the trade mark is registered,
where the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the
use of the sign, being without due cause, takes unfair advantage of,
or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the
trade mark.
(4) For the purposes of this section a person uses a sign if, in particular, he-
(a) affixes it to goods or the packaging thereof;
(b) offers or exposes goods for sale, puts them on the market or
stocks them for those
purposes under the sign, or offers or supplies services under the sign;
(c) imports or exports goods under the sign; or
(d) uses the sign on business papers or in advertising.
(5) A person who applies a registered trade mark to material intended
to be used for labelling or packaging goods, as a business paper, or
for advertising goods or services, shall be treated as a party to any
use of the material which infringes the re gistered trade mark if when
he applied the mark he knew or had reason to believe that the
application of the mark was not duly authorised by the proprietor or a
licensee.
(6) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this section shall be
construed as preventing the use of a registered trade mark by any
person for the purpose of identifying goods or services as those of
the proprietor or a licensee.
But any such use otherwise than in accordance with honest practices in
industrial or commercial matters shall be treated as infringing the
registered trade mark if the use without due cause takes unfair
advantage of, or is detrimental to, the distinctive character or
repute of the trade mark."
The reason for my interest in trademarks over this matter is
specifically related to military units. There are a number of RAF
squadron and command logos that have been used on pages about those
units. Looking at the license terms of the site they come from, it
appears that they might be a copyvio. They come from the RAF Marham
website, which uses the Crown copyright notice about being freely
reproduced subject to being used accurately, not in a derogatory
manner and with an acknowledgement of source. The rub comes in the
terms and conditions of use for the actual crests themselves. The
terms state:
"This is a gallery of Squadron, Station and Section crests and RAF
badges available for personal use only, to anyone interested in crests
and badges. If you publish them on your website then please place a
link to this website, or include a reference to this website in your
literature."
I wrote an email to them pointing out the apparent dichotomy between
saying personal use only and talking about being published on websites
and asking them to clarify the policy. The reply was not particularly
helpful and said:
"The Gallery of Crests was initially created due to the large amount
of requests that we received for ex-Servicement looking for their
Squadron or Station Crests. This Gallery is primarily intended for
their use, not for use for financial gain. I believe the information
provided (below) will answer your questions."
The information that is referred to in that paragraph is links to the
RAF Marham copyright notice, the OPSI copyright guidance pages and the
MOD trademark use pages. Given what they have said I get the
impression that the usage restrictions they are referring to are from
trademark law. The MOD policy on the reuse of armed forces insignia
for reference purposes is as follows:
"Trade Mark law protects the identity of goods and services, allowing
distinctions to be made between different undertakings. Trade marks do
not necessarily need to be registered with the Patent Office in order
to be protected, although many MoD trade marks are. In the context of
the MoD, "trade marks" include all badges, crests, heraldry, logos and
other insignia used by the Armed Services and other MoD sections,
together with their names, mottoes and the names of any services they
provide.
These signs embody the reputation of the units they represent, and as
such their use is very tightly controlled under trade mark law.
Unauthorised reproduction is treated as a serious matter, as it can
amount to the appropriation of an organisation's reputation.
If you wish to reproduce insignia purely for as an illustration for
reference purposes, please contact the Directorate directly, at the
address below."
The address of the Directorate refered to is:
Directorate of Intellectual Property Rights,
MOD Abbey Wood #2218,
Bristol,
BS34 8JH
Tel: 0117 9132862. Fax: 0117 9132929.
E-mail ipr-cu(a)dpa.mod.uk
It seems to me that it would be a good idea to get in touch with them
over this matter and find out what their policy with respect to the
Wikipedia is. It is nice to have good quality illustrations of the
crests from the RAF Marham website, but even if they do turn out to be
copyvios, we need to sort out the issues with respect to trademarks.
David Newton
Dear fellow list subscribers,
Following on the discussion on the two or even four written and standardised
variants of Norwegian, I would like to see how much two language varieties
must differ from one another to be apt for a new wikipedia. Don't get me
wrong: my intention is NOT to dispute the validity of two coexisting
Norwegian wikipedias. Those variants have a long history and tradition of
mutual incompatibility. I just think all of us agree that somewhere it has
to stop - or should we wish a Texan wikipedia? "e freea cundent engcyclep~e
thad annywun can eddit"? - but we might disagree where. Probably you held
this discussion many times before, but I am a relative newbe on this list.
Now I would like to pose my question in a casuist way: Could requests for
wikipedias in Zeelandic and Town Frisian be granted. Neither is generally
considered a seperate language (those some linguists do call them
languages), but Zeelandic is a clearly bordered regional language which
differs about as much from Dutch proper as Nynorsk from Swedish (as far as I
can judge) and is, when spoken, very problematic to be understood for Dutch
speakers, while Town Frisian is a mixed language with a 16th century
Hollandic vocabulary and Frisian grammar and phonetical principles.
Moreover, it goes without saying that these variants (to avoid both the term
"language" and "dialect") are not allowed on nl:, being a standardised
language.
I don't necessarily support requests for wikipedias in those (thogh I would
be willing to contribute), but I would like to know where the community
draws the borders.
Thanks for reading this,
Wouter
_________________________________________________________________
Gebruik MSN Webmessenger op je werk en op school
http://webmessenger.msn.com/
This looks like the most promising request for a new Wikipedia in months. I hope one of our developers will find the time to install it pretty soon. Good luck for your project!
Boris
______________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://f.web.de/?mc=021193
Sir/Madam:
I wish to request for the inclusion of the Kapampangan language in the List of Wikipedias preliminary to the creation of a Wikipedia for Kapampangan.
Kapampangan (ISO language code "pam"), described in ethnologue.com as a "language of wider communication," is the seventh largest of the eight major languages of the Philippines. It is spoken by over two million people (as of the 2000 census) in the provinces of Pampanga (where it is the language of about 90% of the population), Tarlac (about 40%), and adjoining areas of Bataan and Nueva Ecija. There are substantial numbers of Kapampangans in other parts of the Philippines including Metropolitan Manila, as well as in the United States, Canada and Australia.
Alternate names for Kapampangan listed by ethnologue.com include Pampango, Pampangueño, and Kapampangan. According to the same site,
its classification is: Austronesian, Malayo-Polynesian, Northern Philippine, Bashiic-Central Luzon-Northern Mindoro, Central Luzon, Pampangan
Thank you!
Edwin
---------------------------------
Correo Yahoo!
Comprueba qué es nuevo, aquí
http://correo.yahoo.es
On Thu Jun 2 21:12:41 UTC 2005, kelvSYC wrote:
> I'm here to post a warning of a vandal that spans multiple projects.
> Here's a synopsis of how it went down from my POV:
> [[b:User:Ivyboy]] and possible sockpuppet [[User:Dittoboy]] have been
> causing disruptive behavior while trying to impersonate
> [[User:Bulbaboy]] on at least en.w and en.b and possibly others. I
> was alerted to this when I saw the user trying to wikify a copyvio
> page (ripped from GameFAQs), then trying to delete subsequent vfd and
> copyvio notices and discussion from [[b:WB:VFD]] and the pages in
> question.
>
> As I was the person who took notice, I had to let another admin do
> the work. [[User:User142]] and [[User:Frazydee]] (also an admin)
> have also been involved in this situation (as well as, of course,
> [[User:Bulbaboy]]). Ivyboy and Dittoboy have since resorted to
> vandalism in various parts of en.w and en.b, ostensibly in an attempt
> to prevent users at their university, [[Bar Ilan University]] in
> Israel, from accessing the Wikimedia projects (it's also to note that
> User142 also attends the university).
I have a number of comments:
1) Yestersay, [[User:Dittoboy]] started vandalising the other 7 wikis.
After having been blocked indefinitely from Wikibooks, and periodicly
signing in and clicking "Edit" in order to make sure no one else can do so
from [[Bar Ilan University]], he came up with a new method of getting
himself blocked. This method is simple - vandalise the user pages and talk
pages of admins, and one of them will decide to block him. This method
worked.
2) I think that [[b:User:Ivyboy]] and [[User:Dittoboy]] are NOT the same
person. Until after [[b:User:Ivyboy]] was blocked at Wikibooks, it looked
like he just wanted to get up that stolen walkthrough and make it look
like he was [[User:Bulbaboy]]. His goodbye message, which warns about his
"friends", is different - I think [[User:Dittoboy]] tried to convince him
to try and block [[Bar Ilan University]], but [[b:User:Ivyboy]] refused.
He decided, however, to leave a message with [[User:Frazzydee]], saying
that he wasn't defeated (even though he was!). [[User:Dittoboy]] was
clearly a vandal from the beginning.
3) [[User:Dittoboy]] at Wikibooks didn't say why he was doing what he was
doing - he vandalised the page of [[User:Jimmy Wales]] and a few other
pages, and reported himself on the Vandalism in Progress page. He later
reported himself on same page at Wikipedia. When I reverted that, he tried
a different method - he blanked most of the page, left a request to be
blocked so he can block Bar Ilan, with the title "Important Message To All
Administrators At Wikimedia". His edit comment was: "IF DELIBERATE
VANDALISM OF THIS PAGE IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO YOUR BEING **BLOCKED** FROM
EDITING WIKIPEDIA WITHOUT WARNING, THEN BLOCK ME". This is clearly copied
from a comment on the page, with the word IF stuck before it and 3 words
added after it. He left that comment on the page, as the Backlog tag to
attract them to it. A user named Kelly Martin asked him not to vandalise
Wikipedia saying "If you do continue, your account and/or IP will be
blocked." His response was to replace her page with the message he was
placing everywhere ("I've been vandalising, and will continue vandalising,
pages in order to be blocked indefinitely. After that, I can keep Bar Ilan
University blocked indefinitely, in accordance with a political boycott
which I am forcing on Wikipedia against Bar Ilan University.") with a
different title: "I think you understand what I'm trying to do" (I just
added spaces where I think Dittoboy meant to put them)
User142
On 7 June, 2005 at 3:00AM Eastern Standard Time (9:00AM Paris/Berlin
time) we will be moving the bulk of the servers to a new facility across
the street.
I assume we will try to set up a sensible "downtime" page on the paris
squids or something. But the site will absolutely be down for awhile.
The colocation facility is providing staff to do the move, and we are
also supplying myself, Chad, Terry, and possibly Michael Davis and
possibly a friend of Chad's -- all to make this go as quickly as possible.
--Jimbo
I was doing a little googling this morning while the wiki was down, and came
across a reference to a site, www.biography.ms.
The entire site is simply a bad scraping of the wikipedia, with all
attributions removed.
Maury