`  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,    ==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. –    : 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. —  •    ::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, I don't see a difference between Kohs, Shankbone, Sam Blacketer… (insert your personal favourite COI case), and this proposal. There are two completely unrelated issues. First, the ``wedge in the door`` unilateral acceptance of paid editing (if the BM pays me £500 to edit on their behalf, how do we then tell  of the British Medical Journal's marketing department that she's banned from editing articles on medical journals?). I use the name of Kohs because he was the ``test case`` that determined our rules on this kind of thing, not because he's some kind of sacred totem. Secondly, there's the issue of the sheer illegality of it. Payments to volunteers, other than genuine and receipted expenses claims and whether in cash on in kind, are flat-out illegal; either someone's a contract worker and gets paid minimum wage (and taxed accordingly), or they're a true volunteer and don't get paid. (There's a single exception, for one-off ex gratia honoraria to long-serving volunteers, which HMIC sometimes accept as non-taxable gifts, but even they still need to be declared and will still be deducted from any means-tested benefits.) Has Mike Godwin, the WMF board or even Alison Wheeler signed off on this arrangement? –    If you'd really enjoy a protracted tone argument, I continue to contend that posting unhelpful and provocative comparisons is not a constructive contribution to discourse, especially when you had detailed commentary available to link to. For my part, neither is the backhanded insinuation that RfA is your primary ``contribution``.  Leaving that aside, I'll refer you to the British Museum's legal department to raise any legal concerns — I don't have any reason to believe that the Foundation has any role at all in this initiative, nor that the role of Wikimedia UK extends beyond an advisory one. I'll presume for the sake of my own sanity that they know what they're talking about.  My contention is that these facts work in the favour of the Museum: It accepts Wikipedia's quality standards, it distances itself from editorial control over article content, it is a non-profit with a shared mission with the Wikimedia Foundation, and it involves writing about objects with real providence and public interest. You might not be able to see a bright-line distinction, but a distinction definitely exists — these issues are always about trading off advantages and limitations of different approaches, and it's my contention that in this case there is a real, tangible benefit to Wikipedia's quality, and mitigated, comparably minuscule, conflict of interest concerns. I definitely don't agree that ``If we let them do it, we have to let others do it!`` is a cogent argument — the trade-off works out differently in all situations, and there's no reason to think that other situations can't be handled with thought and judgement instead of a hard rule for or against any editing for monetary benefit. —  •    :That's fair. Regarding my point 1, I think we're going to have to disagree about the COI issue. I am using MyWikiBiz as an example for a reason; while I know you were around back then I'm not sure how involved you were in the whole saga around it, and it can't be repeated enough that (a) the case set a very clear ``no paid editing ever`` policy on Wikipedia, and (b) the proposed arrangement—in which paid-edits would be written off-wiki or in a dedicated space, and only moved into mainspace once they'd been ``signed off`` as neutral by someone completely uninvolved—was more open and accountable than the proposed BM model. (Greg Kohs may be a disruptive loon now, but back then he was just a developer at Comcast who thought he'd stumbled on a mutually beneficial way to improve Wikipedia's coverage of corporations, and give corporations a first foothold on a rapidly growing new medium that was incomprehensible to most advertising departments. This article gives a pretty good background to the thinking behind the MWB plan and Jimbo's killing it off.)  :To me, I genuinely can't see a bright-line distinction; if we allow the British Museum, why not Bruce Castle Museum? If we allow Bruce Castle, why not its owners, Haringey Council? If Haringey Council, why not one of the private contractors who operate services on their behalf? And if one private company, why not all of them? That's only a very few steps from the BM to MyWikiBiz, and I can see no place on that spectrum to draw the bright line. (If one take