On 16 November 2012 16:30, Megan Hernandez wrote:
> **You did it the right way, I think most people realize what a treasure
> trove of information Wikipedia has and your message was simple and honest,
> no tug-at-the-heartstrings kind of stuff. Appeals to smart people.*
> ** "This big, plain blue
Hello again,
The 24-hour test came down earlier today. Overall, the test went really
well and helped us prepare even better for the full launch.
We raised nearly $2 million USD from more than 130,000 donors. (FYI, our
best day last year was $1.2 million.)
We plan to run short tests next week a
Andrew Gray, 16/11/2012 16:43:
On 16 November 2012 15:30, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
But I think the point (at leat originally) was not so much to have the
global discussion forum or the global village pump, but to have a common
place for Wikivoyage discussions, which so far were held on the o
On 16 November 2012 15:30, Yaroslav M. Blanter wrote:
> But I think the point (at leat originally) was not so much to have the
> global discussion forum or the global village pump, but to have a common
> place for Wikivoyage discussions, which so far were held on the old
> Wikivoyage, but now are
On Fri, 16 Nov 2012 16:07:56 +0100, Juergen Fenn wrote:
2012/11/16 Ziko van Dijk :
I agree to Ziko's point of view. I think we are at a crucial point in
the Wikimedia movement because we now have the opportunity to finally
create a common village pump for all projects. I think we should use
the
2012/11/16 Ziko van Dijk :
> You have a good point. Meta discussions on Wikipedia happen mainly on
> English Wikipedia, sometimes on Meta Wiki. I personally prefer not to
> create new wikis but to use Meta Wiki because otherwise people would
> have to follow too many wikis.
> I could imagine that
Hello Fussi,
Instead of pointing out that WiVo is at the moment a rather small
project, I think it would be helpful if the more experienced members
of the Wikimedia movement here would be a little bit more
constructive. :(
You have a good point. Meta discussions on Wikipedia happen mainly on
Engli
Yes, I know ;)
But it certainly has a effect, larger or smaller.
Probably, you would be faster if you can write a report in Polish and you
discussed with others in Polish.
2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak
> lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of
> the non-native
lol, I didn't want it to sound this way. I only wanted to say that none of
the non-native speakers of English within the FDC wants to use this as an
excuse for the lack of long detailed recommendations for each of the
entities.
dariusz
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Osmar Valdebenito
wrote:
>
I spent the last twenty minutes writing that mail in English and now you
say it is irrelevant? Boo...
(by the way, in my last mail I was talking more general about the movement,
not only about the FDC)
2012/11/16 Dariusz Jemielniak
>
> Also, the fact that we're not native speakers is irrelevant
Stefan Fussan, 16/11/2012 14:23:
@Nemo: Of course. Just one page called lounge or whatever is too small.
You can take all the pages you want, if you're talking of available
space to write. (Usually, the less pages you use the better it is,
because then more people will have them watchlisted.)
They did their job to evaluate more than 10 extensive applications, make
their recommendations and provide a long report. They have even answered
the questions and probably will be able to do if you have more questions.
That was they work as volunteer and they did it.
Probably everybody would like
thanks, Osmar.
I don't have to state the obvious, that over the last couple of weeks we've
been putting several hours per day into the FDC process, besides our real
jobs, and besides the 4-day session we held. This is what needed to be done
and we have no complaints and Thomas is right that being
Dear Dariusz, dear Jan-Bart,
Thank you very much for the hard work, you are volunteers as we all
are. I am also admiring your insight and - pacience.
A short note on the WCA: The WCA has never asked contributions from
the member chapters, and there is still no budget. We will see how it
will be f
On 16 November 2012 13:06, Osmar Valdebenito wrote:
> Yes, it would be great to have a lot of details and I haven't seen any
> problems by the FDC to provide them as long as you ask them but you can't
> expect them to do all that extra work 'for free'.
Yes, you can. When you volunteer for a posit
@Nemo: Of course. Just one page called lounge or whatever is too small. And
we can not flood the metawiki with pages and discussions without any order.
I am sure, the general wiki was small. But why? We were de: and it. only.
We talked directly via discussion pages. But things have changed
signific
I agree that better and much more detailed reports would be great. I would
love to read what projects the FDC agrees with, which should change and so
on. But guys, the FDC is a group of volunteers with not enough time and
where few are native English speakers able to write long pages. I even
consid
2012/11/16 Stefan Fussan :
> The Wikivoyage project is online now and i want to thank all of you who
> have been involved with this process.
>
> On the former Wikivoyage project we used to have a wiki called general: for
> discussions that affect all language versions. I wonder why the WMF project
Stefan Fussan, 16/11/2012 13:27:
I know, there is the meta wiki. But I am not sure. Maybe its too meta. And
the discoussion page or a Wikivoyager's Lounge may be too small.
Too small?
Ok... the
set of meta articles can be placed in anywhere the Incubator.
Meta articles? If it's what I think
The Wikivoyage project is online now and i want to thank all of you who
have been involved with this process.
On the former Wikivoyage project we used to have a wiki called general: for
discussions that affect all language versions. I wonder why the WMF project
dont have something like this. Now I
I was also expecting a much more detailed report. I remember having a
discussion with Anasuya about the timetable and I pointed out that she
hadn't scheduled enough time for writing up the report. If she was
thinking of a report like this one, then I can see why we disagreed. I
thought a lot more t
On 16 nov. 2012, at 10:18, Lodewijk wrote:
> Hi Jan-Bart,
>
> I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be
> subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who
> else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that
> anyone w
Hi Jan-Bart,
I definitely hold a personal opinion indeed. Opinions indeed tend to be
subjective - and I found it so obvious that it was my personal opinion (who
else's would it be?) that I didn't state this. I couldn't imagine that
anyone would mistake me for an opinion poller :) I am sorry that y
Dear Rupert,
in short: we've been using two main reference points. One was the previous
year costs (and trying not to choke by exceeding 120% growth by far), the
other was size of the entities.
Depending on the feedback from this round, the FDC may decide to change the
model of posting the recomm
Hey Lodewijk,
No, I think we have the same level of information. My questions were
to be sure I understood correctly what you meant.
I tend to, some extent, agree with you, that it would be better if the
FDC could provide more informations regarding their decision, so
chapters can improve from on
> From: rupert.thur...@gmail.com
> Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 08:01:49 +
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: FDC recommendations on funds allocation,
> Round 1, 2012-13
>
> i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially
> how FDC calcula
i (personally :) ) would like to have more details as well. especially
how FDC calculated the amount they found acceptable.
rupert.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 7:49 AM, Jan-Bart de Vreede
wrote:
> Hey Lodewijk,
>
> So a few points, first of all you have a very subjective view of the
> situation an
27 matches
Mail list logo
