On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Nathan, like I said, I am not Lila, and I am in no way associated
with the WMF. Also, Lila is not technically my wife. :) I honestly
don't see what my personal relationships have to do with these issues
...
If this were true, then Wil could
Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
under his skin...
What amazes me isn't anything about his behavior (he has yet to make a
point that we haven't all talked through a zillion times,
On 24/05/2014 03:31, Marc A. Pelletier wrote:
*On a surprisingly large number of occasions, the criticism there
has led to exposing serious problems that desperately needed fixing, and
some of the commentary can be downright painfully precise when pointing
out the movement's gaffes.
Thanks
Just joined this list and not sure my 1st message got through
This is to let everybody know that the
Fund Dissemination Committee Advisory Group
aka the FDC AG
will be meeting Sunday thru Monday
The purpose is to review the set up and operations of the
Funds Dissemination Committee and give a
Ha! Awesome stuff. I wish I could find the one of CJ telling Will that his
one and only task is to never let the press corps see that they've gotten
under his skin...
Hi Pete. What are you referring to here?
Thanks.
,Wil
___
Wikimedia-l mailing
Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.
If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
Not for your own professional interests, mind you, but because Lila's
a person like the rest of
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
...
I just ask for a chance to
show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
that chance?
...
Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English
I just ask for a chance to
show you guys that I can be a productive member of the WP community in
my own way as myself and nobody else. Fae, will you please give me
that chance?
...
Sure. Give me a link to some articles on the English Wikipedia you
have created, at least one being a
I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've seen of
her in public. (:
However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that you're
going to create drama with what you're doing here, and make Lila's and WMF's
jobs more complicated. I am assuming good
Look, we have quite enough non-constructive passive-aggressive stuff going
on here without it being added to with thinly veiled threats like this.
Please stop.
I think the main issue that people have here is that Sue was very private
about her private life, at least in public. Now we have the
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
OK, excellent. I will do my best and get back to you. Is it cool with
you if I do audio instead of photos or videos?
Certainly, Commons is massively under-represented with audio files.
Check out my audio projects at
On 24 May 2014 08:24, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
Hi Pete, you do realize that Lila reads this list, right? That seems
rather candid for someone who works so closely with the WMF.
If that was not for public eyes, you might consider a public apology.
Not for your own professional
Wil Sinclair wrote:
I personally care more about the message than the messenger
If only more people thought that way! Sometimes I feel like I have to
explain things to people like they were five because I confused them
with technical topics several years ago. People tell me to shut up all
the
Hey what happened to disclaiming any relevant link between the two of you?
Not exactly consistent with you canvasing for an apology on her behalf. Of
course it is somewhat alarming that you are suggesting that our new ED
can't handle robust criticism but I personally prefer to trust the
Craig, I was trying to be kind. If you consider that a threat, then I
apologize to you, Pete, and the whole list.
I think at this point words have served us about as well as they ever
will. Some of you don't like the fact that I've participated on
Wikipediocracy. Others are uncomfortable because
On 24/05/2014, Wil Sinclair w...@wllm.com wrote:
...
Others are uncomfortable because the incoming ED has a
partner who is active in the community, and that is a new thing.
No, churning politics off-wiki and then bringing issues raised
off-wiki on-wiki, is not being active in the community,
Hello friends,
The Funds Dissemination Committee meets twice annually to help make
decisions about how to effectively allocate movement funds to achieve the
Wikimedia movement's mission, vision, and strategy. [1]
On behalf of the committee, I am pleased to announce that Round 2 2013-2014
Hi Dariusz ( Everyone)
On behalf of the Board of Trustees allow me to once again thank the FDC and
involved WMF Staff members for all the work that has gone into this round. I am
looking forward to discussing the future of the FDC with you and all the others
in the coming days as we convene
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 8:51 AM, ENWP Pine deyntest...@hotmail.com wrote:
I will say, in Lila's defense, that I've been impressed with what I've
seen of her in public. (:
However, Wil, I agree with points others have made. I'm concerned that
you're going to create drama with what you're
Hello again, Wil.
It's obvious that I'm not going to change your mind - nor is it my place
to do so. But there /is/ one question of you that I would be remiss to
not answer:
On 05/23/2014 11:49 PM, Wil Sinclair wrote:
If they are exposing serious problems
that desperately need fixing, then
Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 02:31:32 UTC 2014
the criticism there has led to exposing **serious problems that
desperately needed fixing**,
Marc A. Pelletier Sat May 24 15:00:31 UTC 2014
By their obsession over **nits**
Which?
increasing PR manipulation
This has been a consistent focus for
On 05/24/2014 11:13 AM, edward wrote:
Also this complaint
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
from a sitting arbitrator suggests the issue is a serious one.
There are issues indeed about who is supposed to handle what aspect of
the matter; with opinions
On 05/24/2014 11:26 AM, edward wrote:
You mean selectively quoting? I was not aware of misquoting you. I
used your very words.
Fair enough; I do enjoy the occasional semantic game now an then. I
could make a cogent argument how selectively quoting sentence fragments
is, necessarily,
Which bits did you feel were selective, i.e. which parts of your
original meaning were changed by quoting sentence fragments? I mean you
did actually say that the criticism on WO has led to exposing serious
problems that desperately needed fixing. You then followed that up,
and here I quote
Marc,
I am sure you are aware of the discussion here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sue_Gardner#Child_protection
Those concerns were raised not by banned trolls, but by members of the
English Wikipedia's arbitration committee, and other users with advanced
permissions. They were
+1
I want to join Jat-Bart and thanks the FDC for the great work they did
again. I'm also happy to see improvement in the process and to see that
this round the FDC published more detailed feedback of their
recommendations.
I found their feedback of the WMF proposal as a very mature and
So perhaps you can understand why you emerging from WO with questions
about child protection rang all sort of alarm bells. You didn't look
like you were genuinely curious but as though you were simply aping one
of their calls for war. Coming from most anyone else, it'd have been
dismissed
Thank you FDC for completing this work and providing valuable feedback. As
we continue to improve our planning process and our funding programs we
hope to make your work easier as well.
Thanks everyone else who has participated with comments and recommendations.
Lila
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at
I've participated from time to time in Wikipediocracy and its predecessor
Wikipedia Review, and I've kept an eye on discussions there even when I
haven't been participating. At times I've gained useful insights and
information from things posted on those sites. In particular, they have
been a
On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
badly on him to do so, and I certainly don't agree with those who suggest
it reflects
On 24 May 2014 22:21, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 24, 2014 12:18 PM, Newyorkbrad newyorkb...@gmail.com wrote:
I can't say whether it's a good idea or not for Wil to participate on
Wikipediocracy, but I don't agree with those who've opined it reflects
badly on him to do
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 10:33 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll express it. I think it does. It's a festering pit of spammers,
trolls and nutters, and is a net negative in just about every way.
en:wp arbitrators coming here and talking about Wikipediocracy as if
they're their
Hello everyone,
I thank you all for your encouraging comments on behalf of the FDC. We will
be very happy to see our recommendations materialise for the benefit of the
Wikimedia movement as a whole. We are grateful to everyone who has been a
part of this process so far.
Regards
Ali Haidar Khan
Andreas
And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito. That
in itself is food for thought.
And therein lies the problem.
In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor on WO
forums on an issue in which I wasn't involved, and then proceded to
close an
On Sat, May 24, 2014 at 11:33 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas
And he's not the only Wikimedia admin to participate on WO incognito.
That
in itself is food for thought.
And therein lies the problem.
In 28byte's case he actively attacked myself and another editor
I don't know about any specific incidents Newyorkbrad has referred to
below, but I generally agree with his characterization of the site.
I've told them exactly what I think of the nature of some discourse
there when I started this thread:
http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=13t=4527.
Wil, I've been here ten years and I can't usefully answer your
question what's going on? in a sentence (or a paragraph or an
essay). You can only learn by participating. You can learn some things
by reading all the justifiably-banned users have to say, but I'm not
sure they're things that
37 matches
Mail list logo
