On 8/22/08, Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The Oxford Times are giving us a bit of publicity to help with getting
> sponsorship and they want a photo to go with it. Kaihsu and I are certainly
> going but it would be good to have as many as possible. I've provisionally
> said Tuesday afternoon, but Wednesday afternoon is possible too if more
> people were available then. We'll be meeting in central Oxford I imagine.
>
Nice!
And for those who can't make it... blue screens and photoshop? :-)
Cormac
Hi all,
The Oxford Times are giving us a bit of publicity to help with getting
sponsorship and they want a photo to go with it. Kaihsu and I are certainly
going but it would be good to have as many as possible. I've provisionally
said Tuesday afternoon, but Wednesday afternoon is possible too if more
people were available then. We'll be meeting in central Oxford I imagine.
Tom
Alison,
I asked you a question as part of a larger email a few days ago and
haven't received a response, so I suspect you missed it. Here is is
again for your convenience. A prompt response would be appreciated,
considering the imminent AGM (and please don't say you've already
answered it - I'm looking for a simple Yes/No response to make sure
there is no misunderstanding).
>So, Alison, can interested parties send in applications for guarantor
>membership (without an associated chapter membership) and get them
>accepted at the current time?
Thanks,
Tom
My good friend Kirrily Robert from Freebase is in town and meeting
Arkady and me tomorrow afternoon. Any ideas on interesting UK things
of mutual benefit to them and us (for whatever value of "us"?)
(Freebase is a collection of data under CC-BY, therefore more free
content, therefore good. Main difference is it's run by a private
company, Metaweb, not by a charity. FAQ:
http://www.freebase.com/help/faq )
- d.
From: franklin hammond <frankjhammond(a)gmail.com>
To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, 16 August, 2008 11:54:10 AM
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Paul Sinclair
> > Part of the problem is being involved in a project with sociopaths
> > like Daniel Brandt and his friends stalking those involved.
Didn't Essjay also use Daniel Brandt as the reason to lie about his degrees,
I've been assured that he's a respected administrator on en.wp.
What I doubt is this background as a "career financial manager."
If I wanted every detail public, I'd say so. If you don't like it, do us all a favour, vote against next time, complain to Alison, David and Arkady, or do the job yourself. I've already replied to you by email that Alison's seen the original references and referee contact information, and that if she asks I'll show her tax documents, share options, PAYE slips, employment contracts, job refs, and anything else, all in original, and you didn't bother. Companies House of course gets full details of name, address, date of birth and so on. That's enough for any reasonable person.
Paul Sinclair
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 1:39 PM, Gordon Joly <gordon.joly(a)pobox.com> wrote:
> At 12:15 +0100 14/8/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
>> > I would agree with that. Maybe there is a need for "Friends of
>>> Wikimedia UK" membership? In the same way that you are a "friend" of
>>> your favourite charity e.g. The British Museum.
>>
>>There already is, that's what Gordon was talking about. You can be a
>>"member", which just means you pay some money each year and just
>>generally support the chapter, like a "friends of" thing, or you can
>>be a "guarantor member" which involves paying slightly more each year
>>and gets you a vote at the AGM and means you can stand as director. It
>>also means you are liable for up to £1 of the company's debts if it
>>gets wound up (goes bankrupt).
>
> Yes, that's what I meant when I said the member hold the liability.
>
> I looked again at this page:
>
> http://www.wikimedia.org.uk/membership
>
> So, for 25 quid you can become a "Friend of Wikimedia UK" - is that correct?
>
> The company in question is a company limited by
> guarantee, which aims to become a charity. I have
> asked in the past if the "guarantor members" will
> be allow to become "guarantor members" of the
> Charity. Not sure I recall the answer...
>
> Gordo
>
> --
I'm not sure I understand the question, Gordon. The company will
(hopefully) gain charitable status. There will not be a new body that
is the charity. So the charity and the company will be the same thing
and 'guarantor members' of the company will become 'guarantor members'
of the company registered as a charity. (At the same time the board
members will take on additional responsibility as charity trustees.)
Or did I miss something?
Cheers,
Andrew
From: franklin hammond <frankjhammond(a)gmail.com>
To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Sent: Saturday, 16 August, 2008 11:54:10 AM
Subject: [Wikimediauk-l] Paul Sinclair
> > Part of the problem is being involved in a project with sociopaths
> > like Daniel Brandt and his friends stalking those involved.
Didn't Essjay also use Daniel Brandt as the reason to lie about his degrees,
I've been assured that he's a respected administrator on en.wp.
What I doubt is this background as a "career financial
manager."
Sorry I snapped at you. If it's still a problem ask Alison or anyone else on the board to check it out.
Paul Sinclair
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger..yahoo.com
**>* > **Part of the problem is being involved in a project with sociopaths
*>* > **like Daniel Brandt and his friends stalking those involved.
*> *They are obsessive with "outing" the real life identity of*
> *pseudo-anonymous editors, they lose interest pretty quickly if the real*
> *life identity is known as obviously is the case here.*
Didn't Essjay also use Daniel Brandt as the reason to lie about his degrees,
and wasn't this entirely o.k. with the foundation? Weren't questions dismissed
as "trolling/stalking?"
> Well, in some instances, there has been real-life harassment if
> editors are particularly disliked. If people had a particular animus
> against Paul as an editor, I'm sure they would go after him in real
> life if they could.
The obvious solution is for Paul to substantiate his professional
background without disclosing his Wikipedia username.
I've been assured that he's a respected administrator on en.wp.
What I doubt is this background as a "career financial manager."
I'd just like to ask once more for some substantiation of Mr. Sinclair's
business background and qualifications as a "career financial manager". I've
tried to resolve this privately via e-mail, but instead of answers, was
treated to a polite but frustrating and ultimately runaroundish runaround as
he refused to name even one actual company for which he's served in a
financial capacity. The only name I've heard so far - Businessfirst -
doesn't look like a real company, beyond a name and a proxy address (both
street address and IP address). There is something not quite right here, and
if there are any necessary amendments to Mr. Sinclair's claims ("I'm a
career financial manager - I first ran a business in the 80's, qualified as
an ACA, moved to the board of a £multimillion company as their finance and
admin manager, and I've worked as a financial controller or manager for two
PLCs…") it'd be better to hear them sooner rather than later.