Re: [Wikimediauk-l] AGM location - please vote!

Until last year the venue had always alternated between London and not-London. It seems to me, therefore, that not-London is a priority for this year. On 18 March 2016 at 11:53, Lucy Crompton-Reid < lucy.crompton-r...@wikimedia.org.uk> wrote: > Dear all > > I have previously emailed regarding thi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Deadline for Members' Resolutions

I haven't seen any notification of who has been selected by the Board to serve as Teller(s) this year - did I miss this? On 19 Jun 2015 18:17, "rexx" wrote: > The deadline for members' resolutions for this year's AGM is just a week > away on 26 June. > > See https://wikimedia.org.uk/wiki/2015_Ann

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Restructure and CEO appointment update

With one hand tied behind his back, unless the Foundation has an unexpected change of policy. On 12 May 2015 17:14, "rexx" wrote: > The CEO will do it. From http://prospect-us.co.uk/jobs/details/hq00156774 > you can see: > > *"The Chief Executive will also lead on our funding relationships, > par

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK update, 24 March 2015

It is troubling to read that overspend on an event was not known about until four months after the event finished. On 29 Mar 2015 10:00, "Michael Maggs" wrote: > Tom, the board has not 'allowed' anything to happen. As we made clear, > action was taken immediately the Wikimania overspend became kn

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] List participation

I suggest adding "number of sarcastic comments on the list" as a new KPI. Something the whole community can get behind. On 9 Mar 2015 13:43, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > On 06/03/15 11:08, HJ Mitchell wrote: > > > > As long as the board keep their heads in the sand > > it'll all be all right. > > > Not

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [GLAM] Wikimedian in Residence 2014 review - update

That was not a personal attack. On 1 Jul 2014 21:59, "Michael Peel" wrote: > Please don't make personal attacks. :-( > > Mike > > On 1 Jul 2014, at 21:55, James Farrar wrote: > > > Andy, please don't be a tit. > > > > On 1 Jul 2014 20:

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [GLAM] Wikimedian in Residence 2014 review - update

Andy, please don't be a tit. On 1 Jul 2014 20:39, "Andy Mabbett" wrote: > On 1 July 2014 20:12, Joe Filceolaire wrote: > > > All of you stop this. > > I note your instructions, and will act according to their authority. > > -- > Andy Mabbett > @pigsonthewing > http://pigsonthewing.org.uk > > ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Kings Cross event

Icy what you did there. On 20 Jun 2014 11:19, "Richard Symonds" wrote: > Yeah, a very slippery slope. > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK > 0207 065 0992 > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Reg

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK soon move to an employee controlled website

A charity is to have a website controlled by employees under direction from the trustees who are elected by the members? How awful. On 10 Jun 2014 16:02, "Fæ" wrote: > Do any fellow unpaid volunteers have a view on the changeover of the > charity from using the volunteer controlled wiki as a fro

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Armenian wiki video

> treat all contributors here equally. > > As Harry mentions, there have been many posts far worse than mine on > this list, yet moderators have not felt the need to step in before. > > Fae > > On 13 April 2014 15:54, James Farrar wrote: > > No, Fae, I don't

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Armenian wiki video

No, Fae, I don't think that is obvious at all. It came across as snarky and bitchy and Richard was well within his rights to call you on it. On 13 Apr 2014 15:52, "Fæ" wrote: > Sure Harry, however I think it obvious that my email was not intended > to be rude. Considering how rarely we see modera

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Amazon Tax avoidance

That's outrageous. Why are we wasting money? On 28 Nov 2013 02:32, "rexx" wrote: > About £200,000 per year. It's a pity Amazon isn't as publicly spirited as > WMUK. > > -- > Rexx > > > > On 27 November 2013 21:38, James Farrar wrote: > &

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Amazon Tax avoidance

How much more tax than legally required does WMUK pay? On 21 Nov 2013 09:04, wrote: > Hi all, > > > Can I go ahead and announce that WMUK will provide a Kobo and two Amazon > > vouchers? (About £70 worth of prizes in total.) > > Has the Amazon Tax avoidance been sorted Out? > > http://www.bbc.co

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership recruitment

The total number of votes can be inferred as the resolutions were voted on by the same people who participated in the Board election, so 44. My past experience is that when a show of hands produces overwhelming support, it's not deemed necessary to count the "aye" hands. It can even be counterprod

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership recruitment

It's worth noting that a privilege granted to the membership is something with which we have to be happy saying "sorry, you can't do X, you're not a member". On 28 June 2013 18:12, Katherine Bavage wrote: > The page I linked to in my opening email - > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Membership/Prom

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimania-l] [Wikimedia-l] Selection of winning bid for Wikimania 2014: London

I believe that you were not deliberately being snarky. On 8 May 2013 10:48, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 08/05/13 10:25, James Farrar wrote: > >> Do you think it might be possible to let a comment from someone who is >> plainly not a native speaker of English pass without a sn

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [Wikimania-l] [Wikimedia-l] Selection of winning bid for Wikimania 2014: London

Do you think it might be possible to let a comment from someone who is plainly not a native speaker of English pass without a snarky comment about semantics? On 8 May 2013 08:19, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 01/05/13 19:45, Fhaidel Dominguez wrote: > >> Hosting a Wikimania must not be an easy challa

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

And I'm sure that if we do anything in the tiniest way different from your interpretation of them you won't hesitate to let us know in your inimitable helpful and friendly fashion. On 12 Apr 2013 17:12, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > On 12 April 2013 16:24, James Farrar wr

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

Really, you're looking for problems where none exists. If we end up in a situation where nothing defines the number of directors, that's a problem that needs rectifying before an election process can begin. But in any other situation we know how stuff is supposed to work even if the language can

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

Look, if you want to argue that election rules apply to non-elected directors, that's your privilege. On 12 April 2013 10:33, Thomas Dalton wrote: > Titles of legal documents rarely mean anything. > > On 12 Apr 2013 08:54, "James Farrar" wrote: > > > >

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

Yes, they do say that. In the name. Election rules. On 12 April 2013 00:11, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 12 Apr 2013 00:03, "James Farrar" wrote: > > > > The election rules only apply to elected directors, surely. > > That's not what they say, thou

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Issues with EGM resolutions

The election rules only apply to elected directors, surely. On 11 Apr 2013, at 23:37, Thomas Dalton wrote: > > On 11 Apr 2013 23:08, "Deryck Chan" wrote: > > > > On 11 April 2013 18:48, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> > >> There are several combinations that result in problems. Pretty much > >> a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimania 2014 in London.

Perhaps I'm being particularly dumb this early in the morning, but I can't actually see why these semantics matter - certainly compared with, for example, delivering a high-quality bid. On 19 March 2013 08:26, Charles Matthews wrote: > On 18 March 2013 23:16, Thomas Dalton wrote: >> On 18 March

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Verifying membership applications - Suggestions and comments

On Nov 20, 2012 12:58 PM, "Damokos Bence" wrote: > > Sorry to chime in from outside, but why is checking the address so important? > How many people in the UK do not have some form of government ID (passport, drivers licence, etc., I know the UK is not big on ID cards)? That's an impressive under

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Anyone interested?

That would be consistent with common usage... :) On Nov 20, 2012 9:33 AM, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > On 20/11/12 09:30, Jon Davies wrote: > >> No but they seem nice people. IF you can spare the time I'll send you the >> details. >> >> Yes, but they put the definite article before "Strand" > > :-

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] PR industry blames 'cumbersome' Wikipedia (Andreas Kolbe)

On 16 November 2012 22:13, David Gerard wrote: > On 16 November 2012 21:11, Joe Filceolaire wrote: > >> The CIPR guidelines are not aimed at those people. They are aimed at the PR >> pro but WP noob who has been told by his boss to fix something on WP. The >> CIPR guidelines give him something fr

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

For their reasons, of course. A claim of protection implies a wilful act. On Oct 8, 2012 12:15 PM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > On Oct 8, 2012 11:43 AM, "James Farrar" wrote: > > > > Do *you* have any evidence for that? > > For their actions, or their r

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

Do *you* have any evidence for that? On Oct 8, 2012 10:45 AM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > It is clear that the board protected Roger. It is not clear that they did > so because of an overfamiliarity among the board. I think they probably > thought they were just being supportive colleagues. > On Oct

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Proposal of trustees collective responsibility

On Oct 6, 2012 6:32 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > > I don't know where the idea " It may also be used to ensure all trustees vote the same way in a public vote" comes from. I guess it means that Trustees can be bound to vote one way at a general meeting. This doesn't immediately raise a red flag a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

I missed a bit... On 1 October 2012 18:31, Alison M. Wheeler wrote: > I have seen almost entire committees wiped out in this way despite - once > you looked at the lower-preference votes - them retaining wide support. > The two-year term mitigates aginst this. __

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

Well, certainly at some point the Board will call an EGM and so I strongly suggest anyone with alternative systems to be discussed mention them soon. As it stands we'll be choosing between Approval, STV and Schulze. On 2 October 2012 14:32, Gordon Joly wrote: > > This could run and run! How abo

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

- and aim to do it by > electronic voting as much as possible. > > Regards, > > Andrew > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar wrote: > OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV. > > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

Then the statement should have been more honest... On Sep 29, 2012 9:41 PM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > I think it is fairly obvious that this was a WMF decision. > On Sep 29, 2012 9:33 PM, "James Farrar" wrote: > >> Whoever decided that UK donations to

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

As any fan of Yes Prime Minister knows, "irregular" means there's been a crime but you can't prove it. ("Malpractice" means there's been a crime and you can prove it.) On Sep 29, 2012 9:21 PM, "Andrew Turvey" wrote: > Hi Jan-Bart, > > Don't worry, I understand, "irregular" is often used as a euph

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

xt few decades that will lose the movement > several times as much as the foregone Gift Aid money. > > However the WMF doesn't have a formal membership structure, or at least > not one I'm aware of. So were you suggesting that WMUK has been throwing > away money? > > WSC >

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

serious situation rather than simply moving on. > > Jan-Bart de Vreede > Vice Chair > Board of Trustees > Wikimedia Foundation > > > On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:06, James Farrar wrote: > > As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, > feeli

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

ather than simply moving on. > > Jan-Bart de Vreede > Vice Chair > Board of Trustees > Wikimedia Foundation > > > On 29 sep. 2012, at 17:06, James Farrar wrote: > > As best as I can tell, the WMF doesn't trust any chapter to raise funds, > feeling threatened by any sl

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

rday, 29 September 2012, 14:59 > *Subject:* Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation > > Can someone here please explain this issue succinctly? > Thanks. > Doug > > On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Thomas Dalton > wrote: > > > > On Sep 29, 2012 1:40

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

y very confused either because they can't gift-aid their donations, > or because two "Wikipedia organisations" are asking for their money at the > same time. > > On 28 September 2012 22:50, James Farrar wrote: > >> Well, there goes my donation. >> On Se

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Joint statement with the Foundation

Well, there goes my donation. On Sep 28, 2012 9:16 PM, "David Gerard" wrote: > On 28 September 2012 21:14, Chris Keating > wrote: > > > I'd like to draw to your attention this joint statement with the > Foundation > > which I have just, with the authority of the Board, posted on our blog > > reg

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Board news

A victory for the trolls who wish the project ill. On Sep 20, 2012 5:57 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > Dear all, > > We have posted two items on the Wikimedia UK blog today, one announcing > the appointment of Saad Choudri as a co-opted Trustee, the other announcing > the resignation of Roger Bamki

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sep 20, 2012 4:27 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 4:19 PM, James Farrar wrote: >> >> >> On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: >> > >> > Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is h

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin

On Sep 20, 2012 12:21 PM, "Andreas Kolbe" wrote: > > Regardless of whether there is impropriety or not, it is hardly possible to claim that the appearance of impropriety has been avoided. For someone in the public eye, no matter how properly they behave, a person with an axe to grind can always s

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

On 17 September 2012 23:57, Deryck Chan wrote: > James, > > "Should some Directors appointed under these Rules be required, under > Article 16.2, to retire at the next Annual General Meeting, those Directors > shall be those who received the fewest first preferences. In the event of a > tie, a te

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

On 18 September 2012 09:43, Deryck Chan wrote: > > On 18 September 2012 08:50, Jon Davies wrote: > >> +2 >> >> >> On 18 September 2012 08:43, David Gerard wrote: >> >>> On 17 September 2012 23:40, James Farrar wrote: >>> >>&

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

On 18 September 2012 03:03, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar wrote: > >> OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for >> STV. >> >> >> http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:LondonSt

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

On 17 September 2012 23:29, Katie Chan wrote: > On 17/09/2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote: > >> Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is >> that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the >> current system. I inte

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

eived. I'm not at work tomorrow so will do my best to monitor email/talk pages. J. On 17 September 2012 23:03, James Farrar wrote: > Certainly my sense of the various discussions over the past 18 months is > that there's near-consensus on STV as the best alternative to the curre

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

lfil our > commitment to having a new process in place by the next AGM. > > All contributions are welcome. > > -- > Doug > > > > On 17 September 2012 22:24, James Farrar wrote: > >> Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start >> ma

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] WMUK board election process

Now that I am no longer in the process of getting married, I can start making some progress on this. On Sep 17, 2012 9:48 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Lodewijk wrote: > >> Chris, if I may at least ask for a very short clarification of the no: >> are you confirming

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Call for an EGM

EGMs are normally supposed to be one subject only, I think, even if they're not required to be. The reason the motion hasn't been drafted is that I've been too busy planing a wedding and running a baseball team, and working, I'm afraid. I promise to get around to it in the autumn. We will need a

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Board] Statement regarding Ashley Van Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK

On Aug 1, 2012 6:55 PM, "WereSpielChequers" wrote: > > Fox are part of News International aren't they? No. They're part of News Corp. > So a sister company to Page3.com is getting on a high horse re porn and directing people to a homophobic website. Page 3 is not homophobic and describing it as

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] [WMUK Board] Statement regarding Ashley Van Haeften, Chair of Wikimedia UK

A test of the old saw about bad publicity... On Aug 1, 2012 11:56 AM, "Richard Symonds" wrote: > It'll take a month to get full figures, but so far the effect is > negligible - in fact, I believe donations may have gone up slightly over > the past few days... > > Richard Symonds > Wikimedia UK >

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] (no subject)

ichard Symonds, Wikimedia UK >> >> On Jul 26, 2012 11:00 PM, "James Farrar" wrote: >>> >>> On 26 July 2012 22:58, Thomas Dalton wrote: >>> > On 26 July 2012 22:54, Deryck Chan wrote: >>> >> May I propose a toast... >

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] (no subject)

On 26 July 2012 22:58, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 26 July 2012 22:54, Deryck Chan wrote: >> May I propose a toast... > > Ah, now there I have to agree with Mr Mulla. If you're going to have > toast, it really does have to be butter... We've got into a bit of a jam...

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 26 July 2012 00:14, geni wrote: > On 25 July 2012 23:57, James Farrar wrote: >> Deliberately so; given my position it is inappropriate for me to take >> sides on the matter. > > They you probably shouldn't have made you initial post. Within English > as its commo

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 23:55, geni wrote: > On 25 July 2012 23:35, James Farrar wrote: >> That is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact (though portrayed as one). > > Within common English it is an accepted way of stating a firmly held > opinion and it was backed up by a number

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] The situation with the chair

On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni wrote: > Those who read the signpost or follow arbcom for whatever reason will > know that “Fæ is indefinitely banned from the English Language > Wikipedia. He may request reconsideration of the ban six months after > the enactment of this remedy, and every six months t

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Russian Wikipedia blackout.

It's interesting to the community to learn that other countries and languages have similar problems to those that have affected us here. And not everyone on this list is subscribed to the main Wikimedia list. On 10 July 2012 10:22, WereSpielChequers wrote: > It is being discussed on the Wikimedi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Yes, another charity wants your money

I believe the record for consecutive "and"s is seven... On Jul 9, 2012 8:03 PM, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > On 09/07/12 20:01, Gordon Joly wrote: > >> On 09/07/12 15:46, Brian McNeil wrote: >> >>> >P.S. Nobody in their right mind would use an ampersand in their legal >name in the age of the web,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Piece by Jimmy Wales on front page f Today's Guardian

Wow, how easily recent history is forgotten. On Jun 25, 2012 12:02 PM, wrote: > > > From: Gordon Joly > > > > I mean,_linking to_ online TV is considered a copyvio? Next thing you > > > know, being able to remember any details of a TV show you watched last > > > week will be considered a copyvi

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Wikimedia UK appoint fundraiser

On 11 June 2012 09:45, Gordon Joly wrote: > And the charity has a new name! How does that affect fund raising? I asked > at the AGM why "Wikimedia UK" was chosen in favour of "Wikimedia UK Ltd". > Small point I guess but then I am pedant. > For those who weren't there, I think the answer to

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] (semi-OT) WMUK should probably not do any balloon releases, OK?

The evidence suggests that were we to try it we'd soon hear what a bad idea it was... On 24 May 2012, at 18:02, David Gerard wrote: > http://www.civilsociety.co.uk/fundraising/news/content/12473/charities_in_twitter_storm_over_balloon_releases > > > - d. > > ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Election and resolution results

Because I do not have access to the membership email list. No doubt Richard will send it to the membership email list at the earliest possible opportunity. Thank you for your most constructive comments. On 12 May 2012, at 21:26, Gordon Joly wrote: > On 12/05/12 18:50, James Farrar wr

[Wikimediauk-l] Election and resolution results

, Michael Peel, Ashley Van Haeften, Joscelyn Upendran,John Byrne, Roger Bamkin and Doug Taylor have been duly elected to serve as Directors of Wikimedia UK. James Farrar For and on behalf of the Tellers ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] 'twas the night before the AGM...

. James Farrar For the Tellers On 11 May 2012 20:07, wrote: > I am currently on a train home; when I get there I will send a confirmatory > email to everyone from whom the Tellers have received a proxy instruction to > avoid any doubt. > > If you think you have sent a proxy instruc

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] 'twas the night before the AGM...

...@wikimedia.org.uk or post to this list and I shall look into it for you. For the Tellers, James Farrar. On 11 May 2012, at 19:45, HJ Mitchell wrote: > Erm, 21:00 tomorrow is 21 hours and 1 minute past the deadline... > > > Harry > > From: James Forrester &

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Post AGM pub

2012, at 10:18, Stevie Benton wrote: > Would that get us into the marvellous Holland Club where I used to while away > the time when I worked at Imperial? > > On 10/05/2012 23:11, James Farrar wrote: >> >> I have life membership at ICU. Not sure I can get us all in the bar th

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Post AGM pub

I have life membership at ICU. Not sure I can get us all in the bar though... On May 10, 2012 10:25 PM, "Deryck Chan" wrote: > I think so - "any recommendations for a pub near the Science Museum for > everyone to retire to after the AGM" - and I suppose if someone wants a > post-AGM activity whic

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] What I did at work today: Richard

On 9 May 2012 09:09, Thomas Morton wrote: > > On 9 May 2012 09:03, Jon Davies wrote: >> >> Richard IS complying with the Working Time Directive but I am using the >> Albanian prisons version from 1956. >> >> Sometimes I don't even chain him to the desk - too soft? I just can't help >> it. > > > I

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Ob Comments about our Chief Exec

On the general point, it is my opinion that the Charity is a subset of the UK community; much as with a square and a rectangle, all that is Charity-related is ipso facto UK community-related; but not all that is UK community-related is necessarily Charity-related. There's probably a technical term

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

On 17 April 2012 20:14, joseph seddon wrote: > > I think that simply stating "If there is a reasonably well-developed open > source alternative, use it." isn't good enough. GIMP is a reasonably > well-developed open source alternative but its not fit for purpose as a > viable alternative for alot

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Adobe Creative Suite software license

Not bring the industry standard probably makes them not fit for purpose, to be honest. On Apr 17, 2012 1:18 PM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > On 17 April 2012 13:13, Fae wrote: > > On 17 April 2012 13:05, Thomas Dalton wrote: > >> Is there not a free/open source alternative for creative publishing?

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] List archives

You've still not really learnt how to press your case, have you? On Apr 10, 2012 7:30 PM, "Edward at Logic Museum" wrote: > ** > I don't know whether is was made so as a result of my strenuous complaints > about the libellous and untrue and vicious allegations made about me by > WMUK management,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] List archives

The chapter doesn't in any sense control this list, does it? As you note, the chapter is a subset of the UK community, and this list exists for the latter not the former. As such, holding the chapter liable for actions of the list admin(s) would not be entirely rational. On Apr 6, 2012 12:49 AM,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] List archives

The counter-argument is, of course, if the archives are trivially available, what is the problem? On Apr 5, 2012 11:20 PM, "Thomas Dalton" wrote: > On 5 April 2012 23:10, Thomas Morton wrote: > > Well; someone just told me I was mistaken and that wasn't the reason. > Sorry! > > Perhaps that some

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] anyone with super powers?

Jon, I have some decent OCR software at work - will try running it through that this afternoon/evening. Do you have a deadline? On 4 April 2012 07:50, Jon Davies wrote: > Thanks for trying - all my fault - accidentally erased two thirds of the > document :( > > Quoting Thehelpfulone : > > It's

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] London Bid for Wikimania 2013

On 31 March 2012 22:57, Thomas Dalton wrote: > On 31 March 2012 22:42, HJ Mitchell wrote: > > Without commenting on any other point or expressing any other opinions > wrt > > either bid, I don't think the board has let us down at all (and I'm > hardly > > known for speaking up in defence of the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Draft five year plan

Ugh, margarine :) On Mar 28, 2012 10:41 PM, "Thomas Morton" wrote: > Flora! > > :) > > On 28 March 2012 22:35, wrote: > >> ** >> Fora for me too! >> >> --Original Message-- >> From: Thomas Dalton >> Sender: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org >> To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.or

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] First QRpedia deployment in a church

The difficulty there would be in finding a particularly appropriate location for the code. All possible locations would seem to be equally valid... On Mar 23, 2012 4:29 PM, "Jon Davies" wrote: > Should you do one to: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**God > Quotin

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Test message

On 10 January 2012 23:06, Edward at Logic Museum wrote: >>>It's difficult to see how you can expect to be taken seriously, having > not even the courtesy to refer to Richard by more than an unadorned > surname (the height of rudeness, as I'm sure you are aware), seeming > not to have read the emai

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Test message

On 10 January 2012 22:33, Edward at Logic Museum wrote: > Symonds: >>>Bear in mind that everyone concerned is a real person, so we need to keep >>> discussions like this private to avoid anyone being outed, or accused of >>> misbehaviour, in a public forum. > Yes, bear in mind that I am a real per

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership secretary

Perhaps someone just went off the number of members in the room, not realising that those present by proxy counted towards quorum. Speaking as a Teller for the three meetings in question, I never really had any concerns about quorum at any of them, above and beyond the normal level where it's the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fundraiser update - and SMS donations

I'm amazed it's actually free - Just Giving take a hefty cut of donations (6% IIRC) as well as charging charities a monthly fee. Which is why I won't use them. On Nov 30, 2011 5:40 PM, "Chris Keating" wrote: > > >> Hi Chris, if I remember rightly that's about half our annual target - are we halfwa

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fundraising testing

We could ask a translation service. Just need to make sure we don't put up "I am currently out of the office"... ;) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7702913.stm On 16 Nov 2011 09:23, "WereSpielChequers" wrote: > Great, and good to see that we now have "Wikimedia UK is the operating > name of Wiki UK,

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] We've done it!!

This is fantastic news: congratulations everyone! On 6 Nov 2011 21:12, "Chris Keating" wrote: > On Thursday we finally heard back from the Charity Commission that they > have agreed to register us as a charity, number Registered Charity, > No.1144513. > > Thank you all very much indeed for your s

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Phone hacking, a Wikinews special

On 22 July 2011 00:59, Brian McNeil wrote: > Pass the popcorn! I'll take this over Corrie anyday. I would. Just. But only because I hate Corrie. I was turned off the whole story when it turned into a Murdoch witch-hunt and everybody ignored what all the other newspapers were doing. ___

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

I believe the applicable case law is Arkell v. Pressdram. On 21 May 2011 20:10, "Brian McNeil" wrote: > On Sat, 2011-05-21 at 19:49 +0100, James Farrar wrote: >> I heard an except from an interview with Jimbo on BBC London radio >> this afternoon; paraphrasing, his atti

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Info: Press interest in Wikipedia articles for 'super-injunction celebrities'

I heard an except from an interview with Jimbo on BBC London radio this afternoon; paraphrasing, his attitude was because the name has been named in reliable US sources, US editors will ensure it stays in enwiki. On 21 May 2011 18:40, "Gordon Joly" wrote: _

[Wikimediauk-l] Election rules review

Ladies and gents, Following discussions at the AGM, I have been invited to conduct a review of the election rules. Please make any comments you have at http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Election_Rules. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikime

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Hello from the new Board!

I trust you're not advocating tokenism. On 20 Apr 2011 11:44, "Gordon Joly" wrote: > On 19/04/2011 22:43, Chris Keating wrote: >> >> The new Board is: >> >> Roger Bamkin (Victuallers) - Chair >> Andrew Turvey (AndrewRT) - Treasurer >> Michael Peel (Mike Peel) - Secretary >> Chris Keating (The Land

[Wikimediauk-l] Election of directors - Candidate statements and ballot paper

~ Ballot Paper Write "YES" or "NO" beside name of each candidate. Roger Bamkin [ ] John Byrne [ ] Thomas Dalton [ ] Chris Keating [ ] Michael Peel [ ] Martin Poulter [ ] Andrew Turvey [ ] Ashley Van Haeften [

[Wikimediauk-l] Board elections - Statement of Persons Nominated

Turvey Ashley Van Haeften Steve Virgin A further email, including candidate statements and voting instructions, will be sent within 72 hours. James Farrar Teller, Wikimedia UK ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Membership Fee Cut

The AGM sets the fee but, in my experience of other organisations, I'd expect it to be a rubber-stamping of a Board recommendation unless the Board went rogue. On 24 February 2010 09:00, Gordon Joly wrote: > > > Membership fees are a matter that concerns the Members. > > The Board can set the

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: Charity application rejected

With the most basic error! 2009/4/27 Peter Coombe : > And it's in. Good old Andrew Orlowski. > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/27/wikipedia_charity_not/ > > Pete / the wub > > 2009/4/27 Andrew Turvey : >> I can't see anything (yet) at http://www.theregister.co.uk/ >> >> - Original Message

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Politician praises Wikipedia

2009/4/27 David Gerard : > 2009/4/27 Andrew Turvey : > >> As David Cameron's such a fan, should we sent him a membership form! :) > > > And Gordon Brown and Nick Clegg, of  course ;-) > > Keeping resolutely nonpartisan is important, of course. When they praise Wikipedia in a speech :-) If we ha

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: [WikiEN-l] Politician praises Wikipedia

Heh! :-) 2009/4/27 Andrew Turvey : > As David Cameron's such a fan, should we sent him a membership form! :) > > - Forwarded Message - > From: "James Farrar" > To: "English Wikipedia" > Sent: Sunday, 26 April, 2009 19:45:50 GMT +00:00 GMT Brit

[Wikimediauk-l] New Board elected

a more than creditable performance. James Farrar Teller, Wikimedia UK ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Law advice

2009/4/25 Virgin, Steve : > > He is also a former labour party 'attack dog' from 1997 when they were > popular so he may know some people in govt too. Given recent revelations, is he the sort of person we wish to have connections with? ___ Wikimedia UK

  1   2   >