On 19/09/12 07:59, Doug Weller wrote:
I see a request to block Roger's User:Victuallers account as it is in
contravention of our Username policy on promotional names -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Promotional_names
Normally for an account this old (2007) we might not as
http://uk.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Declarations_of_Interest&curid=3590&diff=28844&oldid=28362
In this edit (which I believe is by Roger while logged out), it is
claimed that there is no paid editing involved with Roger's work on
Gibraltarpedia.
Roger, if that is the case, could you please
Name change of my user account? That is an odd request. I did look at the
policy and it says
Talk to the user
If you see a username that is problematic but was not obviously created in
bad faith, politely draw the user's attention to this policy, and try to
encourage them to create a new account w
Roger,
I would ask that you resign from the board. As it is, it will look as
though your directorship in WMUK is a factor in enabling you to get
consultancy work for yourself, your company and your associates, and I
can't see how either the appearance or the reality of that would be
compatible wit
To list as well. Bugger this, I'm changing it back now.
-- Forwarded message --
From: David Gerard
Date: 19 September 2012 14:21
Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] Paid editing by Roger Bamkin
To: Andreas Kolbe
On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I would ask that yo
Good grief, the only way that someone could come to that conclusion
from what you've quoted is if they had a rather severe case of
paranoia or were overly fond of conspiracy theories. Teaching people
how to use Wikipedia, what villainy and wickedness! I'm not surprised
that Roger isn't dignifying
Hi Roger,
Thanks for responding to some of the points!
> I realise that this is a very interesting debate but do try and remember
> that these facts that are being discovered are public knowledge. The
> project was announced at Wikimania, no less, with a video that set out the
> projects plans an
I am pleased to announce a backstage pass event, on 4 November, at the
Royal Birmingham Society Of Artists Gallery:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/en:Royal_Birmingham_Society_of_Artists
Due to the small size of the gallery and its archives, there are only
eight places.
If you would like to atte
This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do
have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points
On 19 September 2012 14:37, Thomas Morton wrote:
> Hi Roger,
>
> Thanks for responding to some of the points!
>
>> I realise that this is a very interesting debat
On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
> I would ask that you resign from the board.
>
Perhaps it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway. I've edited
Wikipedia articles on and off for a few years, but after attending a couple
of absolutely splendid local outreach events I was
On 19 September 2012 15:43, Nicholas Jackson
wrote:
> I suppose my question is: does this sort of politicking actually serve the
> aims of Wikimedia UK at all, and if not could it perhaps stop soon?
This would require Wikipediocracy not to be a haven of trolls, nutters
and stalkers whose missio
>
> This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do
> have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points
>
We all have other things to do. I am trying to shine some light on an
obscured situation as it concerns me. The ethics of what we do is
important. I don't
On 19 September 2012 15:43, Nicholas Jackson
wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 14:13, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
>
>> I would ask that you resign from the board.
>>
>
> Perhaps it's not my place to say this, but here goes anyway. I've edited
> Wikipedia articles on and off for a few years, but after attend
On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton wrote:
> It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just
> didn't know about it.
You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be
corruption, unless stated otherwise daily. This is a weird assumption
in the real
On 19 September 2012 16:11, David Gerard wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 16:01, Thomas Morton
> wrote:
>
> > It *appears* Roger's interactions have indeed been ethical here - we just
> > didn't know about it.
>
>
> You appear to be claiming that the default assumption should be
> corruption, unles
Hi Nick,
Nice to meet you. What a pleasure it is to meet someone who assumes that we
all trying to do something clever and difficult in the best possible way.
Maybe you'd like to stand for the board?
Thanks for making me smile and appreciate that some people do appreciate
what we do. As David say
I'm a little lost as to what criminal activity I was alleging :-s
Corruption is not inherently criminally illegal :-)
But, sure... I retract "corrupt" and insert "rotten" instead.
Tom Morton
On 19 Sep 2012, at 17:16, James Forrester wrote:
> On 19 September 2012 08:01, Thomas Morton
> wrote
On 19 September 2012 15:33, Roger Bamkin wrote:
> This is a one stop shop Tom, I'm going to respond to your points but I do
> have other things to do so don't bother bouncing more points
I'm afraid being busy doesn't excuse you from being accountable. While
you may not value this conversation, if
Hi Tom, being busy means I don't have time to answer every email
immediately. As you can see I try and get there eventually.
Actually I think you'll find that questions can be both rhetorical and
facetious. However if I am creating or editting Wikipedia articles then you
can be sure that I am not
On 19 September 2012 20:46, Roger Bamkin wrote:
> Hi Tom, being busy means I don't have time to answer every email
> immediately. As you can see I try and get there eventually.
>
> Actually I think you'll find that questions can be both rhetorical and
> facetious. However if I am creating or editt
Tom, I'm not criticising you. I very often edit wikipedia to de-stress or
whilst trying to resolve more difficult problems. The problem of
demarcation can be a tricky one as to which task you are doing if you
resolve one problem whilst doing another. If its a pure 9 to 5 job then it
can be simpler,
Roger, you're not getting it. Gibraltar are paying you to help get lots of
good articles about their country on Wikipedia. When you edit articles
about Gibraltar, as you have been doing, then regardless of what time it is
when you do it or your motivations for doing it, you are doing your paid
job.
Tom, Roger has clearly stated already in this thread:
"The project does not involve me in being paid to create articles. I am
creating plaques based on QRpedia, I am supplying training and I am
encouraging people to use and edit wikipedia (and open street map et al)."
You really can't tell him th
In-Reply-To:
> It has made me unpopular; I get an appreciable amount of hate mail
> and
> anonymous threats. Following the Fae incident this ramped up
> somewhat. I
> get cold shouldered by others in our community because I am
> critical.
Does no one else think that this comment by Tom M shoul
Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2012-September/122066.html
---o0o---
Roger's been providing a couple of responses on the UK mailing list
(which is publicly archived):
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2012-Sep
I've only been half following this, but
On Thu, 20 Sep 2012, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
Erik Möller has posted some comments on Wikimedia-l:
- My understanding is that qrpedia.org is still under individual
control, rather than chapter control. Is that correct? If so this is a
bit problematic, and it
26 matches
Mail list logo
