Dear all,
Society of Biology (12 Roger Street, London WC1N 2JU) has contacted
Wikimedia UK with a request to have a introductory Wikipedia training run
for them on Wednesday* 29 August*, 10am-4pm. The event is a result of a
long lasting discussion, which shows there are a couple of people from
wit
If you don't have my notes about the meeting I had with them last
year, it's probably worth me digging these out at some point. Their
request is probably the follow-up to that meeting.
Cheers,
Fae
On 25 July 2012 11:28, Daria Cybulska wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> Society of Biology (12 Roger Street, L
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 thereafter.”
This is incompatible with him r
On 25 July 2012 22:40, geni wrote:
> On a purely technical level looking at the Articles of Association Fae
> can resign. Alternatively its possible that he could be removed by a
> general meeting (although it isn't entirely clear) Since the AGM is 10
> months away an EGM would be required. A fina
We have a board phone call tomorrow evening, where we will inevitably be
discussing this.
If people have views on the matter, please do make them known (in public or
in private, as you feel appropriate), preferably before the meeting so we
can take account of them.
Thanks,
Chris
I was going to say that I was somewhat surprised that WMUK elected someone
who was at ArbCom at the time, but then looked it up and noticed there was
a two week period between Fae's election and the opening of the case.
It seems to me that Ashley was elected on the basis of competence,
experience
It should be kept in mind that the en:wp arbcom is pretty much batshit
insane these days. Hooking WMUK's fortunes to said body strikes me as
ill-advised.
- d.
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
wikimediau...@wikimedia.org
http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/
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
It is in the spirit of the Wikimedia movement that different projects and
communities within the movement make decisions independently, and decisions
on one project need not affect another. Therefore, I'm with David and many
others in the opinion that the en.wp arbcom ban need not imply that Fæ mus
On 25 July 2012 23:12, David Gerard wrote:
> It should be kept in mind that the en:wp arbcom is pretty much batshit
> insane these days.
Your personal disagreement with them does not equate to being "batshit
insane". The reality is that any group exhibiting that tendency
wouldn't survive within w
On 25/07/2012 23:12, David Gerard wrote:
It should be kept in mind that the en:wp arbcom is pretty much batshit
insane these days. Hooking WMUK's fortunes to said body strikes me as
ill-advised.
I'm sorry David, but one can't have an organisation that's so closely
associated with said project
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 of arguments which you have
failed to address.
> Even if it wer
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 of arguments which yo
On 25 July 2012 23:41, Deryck Chan wrote:
> It is in the spirit of the Wikimedia movement that different projects and
> communities within the movement make decisions independently, and decisions
> on one project need not affect another. Therefore, I'm with David and many
> others in the opinion t
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 commonly understood by making even a not very effective attempt
to counter my pos
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 commonly understood by making even a
16 matches
Mail list logo
