Regarding the statement that VE "lacked support for references, templates..." This was not true at the time the RFC was run polling people about whether it should be opt-out or in, and it mostly certainly was not the case when VE was made opt-in again. Both those things had been in place for weeks. (Citation: the monthly engineering report for June and the following one in July.) Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 04:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's my fault. I condensed the text and moved the link to the RfC too early. Thanks for your comment! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 05:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"increase in the traffic of volume" should presumably be "increase in the volume of traffic". -- Alarics (talk) 09:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the report, but this thing wasn't quite right: the WMF let the Wikimedia Chapters Association use the "Wikimedia" trade mark, and it actually did all the time. Ziko (talk) 12:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the use of the name was contested by the WMF. Tony(talk) 12:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to the Swartz affair, the issue wasn't the downloading of "public domain" JSTOR articles, the issue was the uploading of copyrighted JSTOR articles, unless I am mistaken. Carrite (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He downloaded 4.8 million PFDs—I've fixed this now, thanks! Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article mentions Cla68's block and Kevin's desysopping, but fails to mention that both actions were ultimately reversed. Also, the article mistakenly claims it was a result of him trying to get Sue to comment on a "Wikipediocracy thread" when it was actually a blog post where her statements about the gender gap were mentioned.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb. 07:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
