User talk:Jayen466/Archives/2013/February

The Signpost: 04 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Paid editing discussion
I didn't know you spoke German ;-)

I took three years of German in High School, but I don't remember a lick of it.

The machine translation says that you were saying that CIPR was reimbursed by WMF with free advertising for creating their PR guidelines. Was that true or is the translation off?

CorporateM (Talk) 20:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The translation was off. :) I said that CIPR (and PRCA) helped with the advertising for Monmouthpedia as part of the overall agreement between WMUK and CIPR, as described here. Andreas JN 466 21:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Awww. Interesting. That is a little weird, because that means the chapter organization had a COI in the ordeal. They were hired by CIPR through bartering. After all the controversy, why would they put themselves in such an obviously poor position? Oh well. CorporateM (Talk) 15:40, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, that was well before there was any hint of controversy, and when Monmouthpedia was the toast of the town. Things only began to go awry later. Note that the results of the Wikimedia UK governance review – which focused on conflict-of-interest management – are expected to be published any day now. See discussions on http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2013-February/date.html#start Andreas JN 466 15:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll keep an eye out for it. It's often suggested that WMF itself start an officially-endorsed paid editing program, to which I have to remind people that COI exists in real-life too. ;-) CorporateM (Talk) 20:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hallo
Wie geht's, Andreas? Are you staying out of trouble? I saw your name on Carrite's RfA and thought I'd drop by to say hi. Drmies (talk) 04:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi as well, Drmies. :) I'm being good. Just doing a bit of work for the Signpost. It's a quiet job, and people actually seem to appreciate it. How've you been? (And best wishes from the better half.) Andreas JN 466 16:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Image of St Lucia Pitons with rainbow
Hello! I came across an image of the Pitons in St Lucia with a rainbow going across. It was credited to Jayen466. I think the image is absolutely perfect and, with your permission, I would like to feature it on a non profit, educational website hosted by the St Lucia government. (This is the link to the website, which is still under construction: http://lc.biosafetyclearinghouse.net/) Please let me know under what conditions you would agree to me using this photo.

Million thanks,

Jannel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.169.83.3 (talk) 15:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Jannel. I released the picture into the public domain, and I'm glad you like it. Please feel free to use it. :) Best, --Andreas JN 466 16:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

In the media
Thank you for writing this up, Jayen. It's much appreciated, especially given my time constraints and RL getting in the way of the regular NAN writers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Pleasure. Andreas JN 466 09:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi again, the UK governance review is going to be covered in "News and notes" by me this week. I should have put that as a note in the newsroom before you wrote your piece, and for that I apologize. The governance review has wider interest for the Wikimedia movement than just what third parties have written about it. :-) Do know that your work over the last couple weeks is still appreciated, and assuming you are still interested in contributing to the section, I will try to put NAN's topics in the newsroom sooner. Kind regards, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okey-doke, I'll leave it to you then—two articles on this would be too much! No need to apologise, but giving each other head-ups in the Newsroom on what we're planning to cover makes sense. I'll do so likewise, so you'll know what I am planning to work on beforehand. Best, Andreas JN 466 03:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 09:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Chart
Bielle

Hey
What was the recent thumbs-down to the chapters association? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Chapters_Association#WMF_Board_letter_regarding_the_Chapters_Association Best, Andreas JN 466 16:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That shows you how far behind I am with my reading of WO Could you please create a section on this or your user page with links to stuff you think I should/would like to know? I know that's lazy but, how about it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll try. :)) --Andreas JN 466 17:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In that vein: Andreas  JN 466 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking cos then it would stand out on my watchlist and not get overtaken by talk comments. (I know it's so rude to mess with a man's user page. Sorry. ) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Yes, that works. :) Andreas JN 466 18:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm very relieved by the foundation's response to the association. I agree with your comments about the foundation taking more control of processes and the movement's direction, too. I understand the importance of them distancing themselves from possible litigation due to content, but I'm certain that doesn't demand the degree of hands-off they're exercising now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

An idea for a different type of community-pedia project
Excellent, I've long said wikimedia needs to start approaching governments and spreading this idea, especially for smaller entities and cities. Whether they will or not remains to be seen...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  18:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!
Cheers! Andreas JN 466 22:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Question
Hi Andreas, I'm not really too used to the English Wikipedia policies and "corporate culture" but I'd like to ask you for some advice. I've been interested in Gibraltar-related issues for long, but I didn't want to cooperate with Gibraltarpedia as I do really think it does not follow the wikipedia spirit (sorry for my English). Moreover, I do think that the "broader" scope of Gibraltarpedia is nothing more than an attempt to hide the actual focus of the project (promoting Gibraltar). But none of the places that "belong" to the scope of Gibraltarpedia have been asked for permission (yes, it sounds stupid) neither there are wikipedists from, let's say, Algeciras or Ceuta, backing the project. In such a situation, why is it allowed? Isn't there any way to prevent them from unfairly appropriating locations and therefore making such locations undergo the restrictions that should be applied only to Gibraltar-based articles. In fact, I think that they're using the non-Gibraltar places as sort of hostages trying to show how unfair it is to apply restrictions to those other places. I feel confused and really a bit pissed off. Any idea? --Ecemaml (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 February 2013

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * EdwardsBot (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)