Hi,
While its maybe not something for the whole community. Since only Staff can
edit Wikimedia Foundation website I believe this will be the correct place to
post this.
I feel that the staff images on the Foundation site should show the staff in a
good way where nobody can have a problem with
News and notes: Wikimedia Board appoints world expert in women's issues, global
south
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-07-10/News_and_notes
Op-ed: It's time to stop pretending the English-language Wikinews is a viable
project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:W
Hi, a few things...
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:16 PM, Eddy Paine wrote:
> Hi,
> While its maybe not something for the whole community. Since only Staff
> can edit Wikimedia Foundation website I believe this will be the correct
> place to post this.
>
There are volunteers that can also edit the W
I don't see any problem with it. I'm not sure how it is somehow more
unprofessional than "absentee" (for lack of a better term) pictures being
labeled "Cloak of invisibility?" Or the picture of Rory as "mascot"?
Further, what does "all but neutral" mean?
Really, aren't there better things to do t
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Or the picture of Rory as "mascot"?
The real issue here is that the Legal Department has a stuffed animal
mascot, while WMF engineering/product has absolutely no animals of any
kind. I would put up a photograph of Tux, but I'm worried Rory w
Dan,
A placeholder for people without pictures shouldn't be a problem. Thats common
use. And they are all the same so thats a OK thing.
The picture of Rory is a picture of Rory. It even says its a mascot and I agree
with Erik we need Tux for Engineering.
And no, we are not in the 1950's but a
Funny thing is, at my work I'm trying to get my staff to take crazy
picture for our public staff page. Pictures with stupid/crazy objects,
cosplaying, playing games, etc.
Because I believe my staff are not well represented by ID Card photos
(those are great for passports, but to provide an insight
You realize we have a page on Tattoos that shows just how prevalent they
are throughout the world, yes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tattoo
Also, I think you missed my sarcasm about Rory and the invisibility cloak.
They're non-issues, just as Brandon's photo is a non-issue.
-Dan
Dan Rosenthal
We are not Coopers and Lybrand - we are real people. If somebody really
objects to an image then their complaint should be taken seriously but
let's not try and second guess the world.
Jon Davies - WMUK
PS I am trying to get my staff to take photos where they don't all appear
to be a bit crazed..
On 12 July 2013 09:02, Dan Rosenthal wrote:
> Really, aren't there better things to do than play morality police because
> someone "might" be upset about some ink? This isn't the 1950's. Who is
> upset, and why?
DFTT.
- d.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing l
On 12 July 2013 09:11, Erik Moeller wrote:
> The real issue here is that the Legal Department has a stuffed animal
> mascot, while WMF engineering/product has absolutely no animals of any
> kind. I would put up a photograph of Tux, but I'm worried Rory will
> eat him.
>
If you're going to add a
2013/7/12 Thehelpfulone :
> On 12 July 2013 09:11, Erik Moeller wrote:
>
>> The real issue here is that the Legal Department has a stuffed animal
>> mascot, while WMF engineering/product has absolutely no animals of any
>> kind. I would put up a photograph of Tux, but I'm worried Rory will
>> eat
I think what's really offensive here is the implication that having a tat
means that you're not professional. I don't have any ink myself, but I
respect the choice of those who do.
To be honest, I like the occasionally goofy pictures and profiles on the
WMF staff page; it shows that there are rea
What Craig said. I can think of 3 staffers on my *team* with tattoos. If
people have a problem with ink - more accurately, if we have people who are
willing to judge the worth, value and professionalism of others based
purely on the presence of tattoos - I don't particularly mind how we come
off to
Hi,
I didn't say that people with thats are not proffesionals. I have multiple
myself also.
I am saying that the page has a lay-out with pictures that all fit together and
are specially made for that page. I believe you shouldn't destroy the lay-out
or style by adding "personal" pictures. Othe
Sure; there are countries with taboos around, for example, tattoos.
However, given that we run many encyclopaedias containing articles on
pretty much everything, taboo or no taboo (including ink!), anyone easily
offended is /going/ to be. There's a saying about horses and doors that
applies here.
Its more like making a statement on your official homepage.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:30 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
> Sure; there are countries with taboos around, for example, tattoos.
> However, given that we run many encyclopaedias containing articles on
> pretty much everything, taboo or no ta
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[Replies inline with quoted message(s)]
On 7/12/2013 4:10 AM PDT, Eddy Paine wrote:
> ...and there are still enough countries where tats are not accepted yet. So
> it can be wise to try to minimise the things on pictures that can be
> offensive for
There are countries where women showing her shoulders or nude head are not
accepted yet. I think the staff should complaint only about what is accepted
where they are (so they wont be arrested).
Castelo Branco
Em 12/07/2013, às 08:10, Eddy Paine escreveu:
Hi,
I didn't say that people with
Hi,
The report covering Wikimedia engineering activities in June 2013 is now
available.
Wiki version:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_engineering_report/2013/June
Blog version:
https://blog.wikimedia.org/2013/07/12/engineering-june-2013-report/
We're also proposing a shorter, simpler an
On 12 July 2013 14:01, Michel Castelo Branco
wrote:
> There are countries where women showing her shoulders or nude head are not
> accepted yet. I think the staff should complaint only about what is
> accepted where they are (so they wont be arrested).
>
> Tattoos fine, leaking PRISM details bad.
On 07/12/2013 07:10 AM, Eddy Paine wrote:
> Secondly we are a world wide organisation, and there are still enough
> countries where tats are not accepted yet.
Then surely, we must err on the side of conservatism!
Let's make certain that every woman on staff has a picture in a burka.
-- Marc
_
It is the twenty-first century and people like me have tattooed the logo of
Wikipedia in the arm. It's considered wrong for conservatives too?
2013/7/12 Oliver Keyes
> On 12 July 2013 14:01, Michel Castelo Branco
> wrote:
>
> > There are countries where women showing her shoulders or nude head
First, I want to make clear that I express no opinion on the ink
conversation. I respect the diverse points of views in our community. I
understand that everyone has their own stripes.
That said, I am deeply saddened and frankly shocked by allegations voiced
by certain people in this thread that s
Stripes. Yeah, right. Clearly, Rory is wearing tats of their own. Totally
covered in 'em! I'm calling foul. "Delicious, organic friends"... I wanna
see a photo of Tux to verify life. Something's not right here.
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Rory wrote:
> First, I want to make clear that I e
On 7/12/2013 3:22 PM, Rory wrote:
I am really hungry now. (I’m not allowed to eat legal interns anymore.[4])
Tux, let’s get together soon, real soon, maybe over lunch.
Rory, if you're that desperate, may I suggest you scrounge around in
your slippers? I'm sure you could find some tasty crumbs
And what happened to 'assume good flavor'... I mean faith! Assume Good
Faith! I am sure that Rory has only the best intentions. But it is true
that his message could be misinterpreted.
I think we should all take a step back and try our very best not to eat
each other. I'm sure that if they don't m
Hello, everyone.
We could use some fresh b--- er, volunteers! -- in the Grant Advisory
Committee (GAC). As you may know, the GAC are community volunteers who are
explicitly invited[1] to review and evaluate grant proposals made in the
Wikimedia Foundation Grants Program[2], and offer advice to bo
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:54 PM, phoebe ayers wrote:
> And what happened to 'assume good flavor'... I mean faith! Assume Good
> Faith! I am sure that Rory has only the best intentions. But it is true
> that his message could be misinterpreted.
>
> I think we should all take a step back and try ou
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM, James Salsman wrote:
> Would publicizing these free and open secure alternatives to commercial
> applications known to be under surveillance -- https://prism-break.org/ --
> be sufficiently aligned with out values?
Our values? ...
Our practise. No.
SSL is mandat
30 matches
Mail list logo
