On 6/28/06, Brion Vibber <brion(a)pobox.com> wrote: Ah, pity. Also, what's OAI? I just sort of envisaged a "is this image fair use? No? [[Move it to Commons]]!" kind of link appearing on images in the various Wikipedias. It doesn't seem like something that should be inherently restricted, either, since the action can be carried out manually by anyone... Steve

"Simetrical" wrote: The case is that if someone is 'trusted' it's likely he will be an admin. It's not a problem of conspiracy and secretness.

On 28/06/06, Steve Bennett <stevage(a)gmail.com> wrote: http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/trunk/extensions/OAI/ Take a look and make an educated guess. Rob Church

On 6/28/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote: You should really modify the default edit summaries on those to link back to the tools. Otherwise they won't ever be very widely used.

On 6/29/06, Magnus Manske <magnus.manske(a)web.de> wrote: Nah, it's what everyone does (at least on enwiki, don't blame me if they yell at you on de :P). No one would know about Lupin's popups or AWB or VandalProof if they didn't add a plug to default edit summaries.

On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 08:30:52AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenCola Cheers, -- jra -- Jay R. Ashworth jra(a)baylink.com Designer Baylink RFC 2100 Ashworth & Associates The Things I Think '87 e24 St Petersburg FL USA http://baylink.pitas.com +1 727 647 1274 A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?

Brianna Laugher schrieb: Suggestion: 1. Copy image to commons (using my tool of course;-) and add a {{MovedToCommonsCheckPlease}} tag 2. Add {{NowCommons}} tag to the original image description 3. Delete image at the source wiki once the MovedToCommonsCheckPlease tag has been removed on commons Magnus

Brianna Laugher schrieb: Maybe this is a misunderstanding; I didn't propose to "dump everything into commons on sight", but to ease the transition for both parties (if there are indeed two, and not just the big happy wikimedia family;-) IMHO my suggestion makes it easy for the wikipedia "party" to transfer an image believed to be suitable to commons, easy for the commons "party" to find such an image (via template and included category), easy to approve (remove the template) or disapprove (delete), and again for the wikipedia "party" to finalize the move (delete if approved on commons). As for "verifying the source" - a picture of a building with "took this myself, GFDL" is as easy/hard to verify for someone on wikipedia as it is for someone on commons - either believe it or ask the original uploader yet again (pointless IMHO). Of course, obvious non-free image should not be uploaded to the commons in the first place. Finally, when it comes to judgement about the "freeness" of an image, I would imagine that people from commons have more experience with that kind of thing than the average wikipedia person. OTOH,a wikipedia user might know the original uploader and place better judgement on wether his/her claims of GFDL etc. are likely or not. Magnus

On 03/07/06, Raimond Spekking <raimond.spekking(a)gmail.com> wrote: At en.wiktionary, imports go now directly into our Transwiki: namespace. Very useful. Less useful is that imports are restricted to sysops. Usually, it is the Wikipedians who volunteer for doing the transwikis, so they should actually have access to Special:Import, not the Wiktionary sysops. Cheers, Wildrick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Vildricianus