User talk:Tango

I should find any messages left for me here, but if it's urgent please leave a note on my English Wikipedia talk page.

Congratulations, you're now an admin! Mike Peel 14:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcript

Do you foresee even the remotest possibility that BBC Radio 5 Live are interested in ownership of 3.5 minutes of discussion of Wikipedia on one of their multi-hour long shows? I suggest we give the discussion better attribution + links to the Radio 5 Live website and a link to the individual show's website (if there is one). Fair use would easily come into it given the tiny proportion of the show that's relevant, but they wouldn't give one iota of a damn about it. What do you think? Also, this needs to be resolved quite quickly because I have also been asked to transcribe the Newsnight piece. But that will be taken down from the iPlayer in about five days. I'm obviously not going to do it if it's not going to be used. --Bodnotbod 22:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is the whole of one item, so I'm not sure fair use would cover it. It would be best if we just contact the BBC and get their permission. David Gerrard will have the contact details. --Tango 23:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Joining online

You may like to know that the online application link is not working. I do have a paper application form somewhere, but I am more likely to join if I can do it online. Grafen 08:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this problem - it was caused by a recent server move. The form should now be working again. We look forward to having you as a member. :-) Mike Peel 13:16, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Chinese walls in the virtual embassy

Hi,

I have been making assumptions about what might be possible in terms of ID verification by local chapters in drafting how a GLAM Ambassador verification process might work, see outreach:GLAM/Ambassador register/help. I might be sticking my foot in my mouth, as I have no idea on what basis member registration might be usable as a kind of cheap Chinese wall process to confirm that someone requesting GLAM Ambassador status has a legal identity on file (i.e. having a financial payment record from an account under a real name). If the financial records are off-limits, we might need to discuss the realities of doing simple ID verification so that a board member can sign-off (say, by confidential email or just by leaving their sig on the register) after meeting someone at a Wiki-social event.

Do you have any thoughts on if this do-able for the handful of verification checks that might be needed in a year or should we leave it to GLAM Ambassadors to vouch for each other (which might be a reasonable alternative, if edging to cliquey)? Thanks, Fæ 14:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi. At the moment, we don't really do any verification of members details. Yes, we receive a membership fee from them, but usually that is just through Paypal. We can't really verify any of the details they've given us from that. It's probably best if you do your own checks. The WMF gets people to scan their ID and email it to them if they need to verify identities. You could do the same. --Tango 14:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I suspected this might be the situation. I'll discuss alternatives with GLAM folks, something akin to the web of trust might work for such a dispersed international group. --Fæ 16:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

CSS

I've created the additions for Mediawiki:Common.css in my personal css at User:WOSlinker/common.css.

After this has been implemented, most of the style code can be removed from templates such as Grants header, Cultural partnerships & News from the Office and just replaced with a single class name.

I've also done the same sort of thing for the Header1, Header2 & Header3 templates. These could then be merged into one template called Header with a "color" param to set the background colour, with the rest of the style controlled by the css.

Moving as much of the style as possible into Mediawiki:Common.css means that it's all controlled in one place and is easier to update later on if they style needs updating.

Theres more that could be done after this, but let's start with something simpler. -- WOSlinker 13:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

The additions for common.css have now been implemented - thanks for assembling them. :-) If there's anything else that could be added to the page, then please let one of the admins know. Thanks. :-) Mike Peel 00:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. MartinPoulter has has changed the radius in Template:Header2 & Template:Header3 from 1em to .4em, so could you make the changes in Mediawiki:common.css as well. Thanks. -- WOSlinker 14:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

/* for Header1, Header2 & Header3 templates. */
.mp-h2 {
    margin:0;
    background:#cef2e0;
    color:#000;
    -moz-border-radius:.4em;
    -webkit-border-radius:.4em;
    border-radius:.4em;
    font-size:120%;
    font-weight:bold;
    border:1px solid #afa3bf;
    text-align:center;
    padding:0.2em 0.4em;

WMUK in 2008

I followed your commendably patient questioning in a thread that includes this post, back in 2008. You did well, and you were right to question what was going on. I note your very last comment. We are now in a sort of mirror image of that situation. You have to accept that, where money is involved, you are all going to come under much more public scrutiny, and it's simply not on to claim that the scrutiny is part of an 'agenda' or whatever. I would just like to see the evidence, that's all. Best Peter Damian 10:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The situation with WMUK v1.0 was completely different. The purpose of that rather unpleasant and lengthy discussion back in 2008 was to get the chapter to accept members so we could elect a new board that would actually do things and could be held accountable by those members. In fact, the problem was eventually solved by WMUK v1.0 dissolving a the current chapter being created from scratch. The current chapter has a very open membership policy and the board is highly accountable to those members. We are also highly accountable to both Companies House and, now, the Charity Commission. --Tango 17:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

If you are being open then could you please ask Roger to supply the information I asked for, namely who that 'brief conversation' was with. Thanks Peter Damian 22:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Response

I've just responded to the questions you raised on Microgrants/Operation Cowboy. —Tom Morris (talk) 15:30, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I watch recent changes on this wiki, so there's no need to notify me in future. --Tango (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the next five years – a day workshop on the future of Wikimedia UK

There's a sign up section on the event talk page. If you have a particular preference about work shops you want to attend, you might want to add you name to the relevant lists. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 16:10, 20 March 2013 (UTC)