We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:59 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
--
geni
___
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
2011/12/31 geni geni...@gmail.com:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
They are not blinking in a manner that is even remotely obnoxious. And
they are also used for displaying bilingual messages, which is very
useful for areas in
On 31 December 2011 09:00, Keegan Peterzell keegan.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Login or wait a day?
My understanding is that on any given day we have rather a lot of
users. I'm not sure it is entirely reasonable to expect them all to
log in and that would in any case rather negate the point.
--
geni
On 31 December 2011 09:06, Amir E. Aharoni amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
They are not blinking in a manner that is even remotely obnoxious.
There is a reason that people tend to talk about static plain-text
options when they talk about acceptable web ads. Something blinking
away at the
geni, 31/12/2011 10:22:
And
they are also used for displaying bilingual messages, which is very
useful for areas in which you can't be sure whether people prefer
English or the local language, like India.
Except both versions I was getting were in English.
I guess you mean the set of
Hello,
I am a french woman who want your help about my final draft for a
project - Wikexperience
University -to be deposed in January 2012.
.
Its goals :
- exploring and objectivizing the knowledge drawn from experience, by the
means of a frame to be created in a collaborative and multicultural
Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
I would have thought it was common sense that such things were
inappropriate, I am taken aback that we have
On 31 December 2011 12:01, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
Indeed. Inspiring people to install AdBlock may
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Amir E. Aharoni
amir.ahar...@mail.huji.ac.il wrote:
2011/12/31 geni geni...@gmail.com:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
They are not blinking in a manner that is even remotely obnoxious. And
Message: 1
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2011 01:52:03 +0100
From: Jan Ku?era kozuc...@gmail.com
Subject: [Foundation-l] Wikimedia's secret wikis
To: foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Message-ID:
ca+n47w+4f+kkwrvpvaxqfyfeo1ljpfm7omouayzp4vctmiu...@mail.gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain;
On Wed, 28 Dec 2011 23:16:57 +0100, MF-Warburg mfwarb...@googlemail.com
wrote:
On Incubator we have in this year for the first time compiled an
end-of-the-year review in order to inform people about what is going on
on
Incubator / new wikis.
Great, thanks for the interesting report and to
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right balance.
We're always trying to find the least annoying banners that make the most
money so that we can run
Hi Zack
I have a questions. I donated in the past, so I saw some donation request
emails also came in. Are there likely to be more emails between now and the
end?
I understand the point about efficiency and maximizing the revenue, but a
heads-up before the team tries something new might also be
Hello,
I have make souscription at the list, but I don't receive my own message.
Is it wrong ?
think you for help and good Year 2010 at all
Le 28 décembre 2011 21:54, Erkan Yilmaz erka...@gmail.com a écrit :
the above link does not succeed :-(
correct is:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right balance.
This banner isn't just
On 31 December 2011 14:58, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm pretty sure I raised both these concerns last year when you ran
similar banners and they were never addressed other than to say that
such banners raise a lot of money (which is the point - they are
misleading people
Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote:
Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number
Jay Walsh wrote:
Some notes on this whole process: in the coming year the legal/trademark
team hopes to make the application system much simpler, and also we expect
to start publishing a public list of those orgs who have permission to
reuse the marks in a public setting. Thereby minimizing
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
It's a trade off between doing things that might annoy some people in the
banners vs. reducing the number of days we need to run banners at all. It's
hard to find the right balance.
Not at all. You can always
David Gerard wrote:
On 31 December 2011 12:01, Fae fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Full agreement with geni here. Blinking banners are against the spirit of
the Wikipedia Manual of Style. If this is not clear in the banner
guidelines then this needs to be made explicit.
Indeed. Inspiring people to
Seriously, get over it.
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 8:47 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.comwrote:
On 31 December 2011 15:36, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thomas Dalton, 31/12/2011 15:58:
On 31 December 2011 14:42, Zack Exleyzex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hi everyone -
On 31 December 2011 17:31, Mono mium monom...@gmail.com wrote:
Seriously, get over it.
That's your attitude to the WMF misleading donors? Being honest when
raising funds in incredibly important.
___
foundation-l mailing list
Theo -
We sent the same number of waves of email this year as last year. But we
asked a little less. We asked past donors twice. (Taking out anyone who
donated.)
And we emailed this year's donors and ask them to share our email with a
friend.
That is exactly 9945% fewer emails than any other
Erik Moeller, 30/11/2011 07:03:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:42 PM, Nathan wrote:
[...]
* The budget includes a whopping $14 million on staffing costs (at the
planned 117 number of staff, that is nearly $120k per staff member)
The 2010-11 staffing budget is $13.3M. [5] Staffing costs
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years!
Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was
making. It certainly seems to be the case that the WMF doesn't
consider reducing expenditure,
I almost hesitated sending this knowing it's just feeding fuel to a pointless
flame. However, having been on the receiving end of debates like this - I'm
empathetic to the blight of only hearing from a vocal minority. Plus I think
WMF did a reasonably good job with this fundraiser and feel
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 December 2011 19:28, Zack Exley zex...@wikimedia.org wrote:
Geni - You're being mean. On New Years Eve! Happy New Years!
Neither Geni's meanness or the date are relevant to the point he was
making. It
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 2:16 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarb...@googlemail.com wrote:
On Incubator we have in this year for the first time compiled an
end-of-the-year review in order to inform people about what is going on on
Incubator / new wikis.
The version on-wiki can be found on
On Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 12:59 AM, geni geni...@gmail.com wrote:
We appear to have actual blinking ads. Unfortunate. Still I suppose
the occasion should be marked.
You're a year late to mark it. The year-end fader banner was first
used in 2010, e.g.:
Thank you for the answers.
Jay Walsh, 17/12/2011 19:29:
The languages chosen were a balance between our geographic priorities
(Brazil, Middle East, India) and our widest base of donors and contributors
from other countries. It's imperfect, as always - we want to do more in
the future, but we
Hello all,
I just want to send a note to celebrate the enormous success of the
2011 fundraiser. It used to be the case that I was pretty involved in
the annual campaign. For the last two fundraiser, Zack Exley's been
running the show, and I'm enormously impressed by and proud of what he
and his
On 1 January 2012 00:24, David Levy lifeisunf...@gmail.com wrote:
And when it was pointed out that a reference to Sue Gardner as
Wikipedia Executive Director was inaccurate, Zack's initial response
was We're going to test Wikimedia against Wikipedia in the banner
right now. (In other words,
On 31 December 2011 19:36, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
snip
It got worse. They changed it to Wikimedia Executive Director and
when it was pointed out that it should be Wikimedia Foundation
Executive Director Philippe (who was running the fundraiser last
year) said (on 13
On 1 January 2012 02:23, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Enough, Thomas. After a reasonable explanation of the actions taken today,
you are now dredging up complaints about *last year's* fundraiser. The
actions you're complaining about above were not repeated this year. This
is called
On 31 December 2011 21:40, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2012 02:38, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
Perhaps, Thomas, you might want to reflect that your point of view is not
the only one worthy of consideration. If you have concerns about the
spending
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you who
have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially about
how annoyed some people were by a certain fundraising banner. It seems to
me that
On 31 December 2011 21:46, Thomas Dalton thomas.dal...@gmail.com wrote:
On 1 January 2012 02:42, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote:
I have, Thomas - which is exactly why I commented as I did. It is you
who
have raised the issue of spending in this thread, which was initially
about
how
On 12/31/11 3:21 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
And, not rhetorically at all, the question of how much to raise is one
of the important questions to face us strategically. We are incredibly
lucky that we have the ability, through our tremendous readership, to
raise a substantial amount of money. We
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 12:04 AM, Mark delir...@hackish.org wrote:
Of course, I'm not the best advocate in such situations, because I'm a
bit wary of the direction things are going myself, so tend to give a
sort of sheepish shrug in reply, and an explanation that a substantial
portion of the
41 matches
Mail list logo
