"

If you are here to tell me you replied to a comment of mine in a discussion, don't bother unless it's been a few days. I've probably got it watchlisted.

 Tog-editwidth 

Hi Werdna,someone correctly noted at WP:Requests for comment/May 2010 skin change/Bug reports#Widen the edit box to fill the entire screen that the preferences option ""Widen the edit box to fill the entire screen"" doesn't actually do that. I notice that you changed the wording of that option one year ago, in rev:49553. Two questions:
 Was that requested or discussed anywhere, or more an ad-hoc wording and we can just tweak it to something like ""Widen the edit box to fill the available space""?
 Why is that option in there in the first place? Seems to me that width:100% would be a good default for all installations, and site admins can just tweak it in their installations' CSS if they want.
Cheers, Amalthea 

Meetup

You may well have seen a site notice about the next Cambridge meetup, this Saturday 29 May. I thought those who have been in the past should have a personal invite, too.   

 What the hell? 

What the hell is ""It is my polite recommendation that you continue to contribute in areas in which you can make constructive contributions (like RfA) instead of making provocative comments in lieu of contributing to others"" supposed to mean? I have virtually no involvement with RFA, and AFAIK am the single highest contributor of FAs to WP:LONDON; have you confused me with someone else?

As per my initial comments when the BM scheme was announced, I have serious reservations about creating formal ties between Wikipedia—whose prime selling point is editorial independence and a neutral point of view—and with any one museum, university or other institution. Quite aside from the glaring COI issue of an organisation paying people to promote their exhibits, nobody has even touched on the tax issues of paid editing being channelled (directly or indirectly) through the WMF. As you may know, I'm generally supportive of the idea of paid editing—I don't see how someone paid to promote an organisation differs from a fan of a band writing about said band, provided the COI is declared and the writer adheres to NPOV—but the talkpage of an almost moribund WikiProject is certainly not the place to unilaterally overturn what was a pretty overwhelming consensus at WP:Requests for comment/Paid editing. – scent 

 So you had serious and substantial reservations, and you decided to express them by making provocative comparisons? It's like the Wikipedia version of Godwin's Law.
 I've already made my own arguments about the importance of intent and outcome in ""paid editing"", on the discussion page itself.  Saying that the British Museum is ""paying people to promote their exhibits"", is at odds with the facts of this situation (as Liam has explained). I have no comment on ""tax issues"", and consider that outside of the community's remit in any case — it can be dealt with by the Foundation, if indeed money is being ""channeled through"" the latter. Your comments on circumventing community consensus have no relevance to me; if you'd like to make a big drama-fest out of somebody offering incentives to write featured-quality articles about notable historical artifacts, then I invite you to do so and see what response you get. —  • talk 

No, I had serious and substantial reservations, as did David Cane, and we listed them in great detail at the time the proposal was announced; to his extreme credit and unlike you, Liam paid the courtesy of answering them in detail rather than posting a rambling personal attack. (Still waiting for that explanation of what ""It is my polite recommendation that you continue to contribute in areas in which you can make constructive contributions (like RfA) instead of making provocative comments in lieu of contributing to others"" is supposed to mean.)
And no,