User talk:Effeietsanders

• User talk:Effeietsanders/archive

I'm looking for Effeietsanders

Hi, I would like to consult you in regards to a TV program we're producing. Please contact me at noya@ananey.com ASAP

Kazakh Wikimedia Chapter

Hi, I'd like to ask you about the update regarding KKWM chapter recognition process? Thank you! --Ashina 13:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

As far as I am aware, we're currently still waiting for a reply to Delphine's question on Talk:Wikimedia_Kazakhstan regarding the number of active Wikimedia project editors in the candidate chapter group. I was planning on sending a reminder about that a while ago, but didn't get to it unfortunately. Effeietsanders 13:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, however could you please clearify what we need to provide? Do we need to provide list of wikipedians working on application or anything else? thank you for your assistance! --Ashina 11:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ashina,

The question is basically who in your group supporting the request is an active Wikipedian indeed. You already provided a list of people supporting your proposal, it would be helpful if you could indicate who of those is an active Wikipedian (with a link to their userpage on the relevant Wikipedia). Thank you! Effeietsanders 06:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I'll put the usernames of all people who are supporting us with our application. --Ashina 13:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am writing this message to get any update relating our application to be recognize as Wikimedia chapter. Is there any news? we have answered to all questions over month ago. Could you please give an update to us regarding this point? If we need any further action please contact me. Kind regards, --Ashina 05:43, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ashina,

I apologize for the delay. I am aware of your answers now, and will discuss within the committee first a bit before I get back to you - but I hope to be able to give you an update soon. Effeietsanders 14:45, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Stewards/elections_2011-2 questions

Hello, Effeietsanders! Thanks for the amazing "extreme situation" questions you made the candidates! --NaBUru38 10:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia Venezuela

Hello,

I am writing to ask you a question regarding the status of our still pending request of Wikimedia Venezuela to become a local Wikimedia Chapter. We have started gathering people and ideas since October 2010, organised a series of lectures for Wikipedia TEN. Our proposed bylaws have been reviewed by members of the ChapCom as early as May 2011. We were informed that in June-July 2011, our proposal was scheduled to be submitted to voting and, as of October 2, 2011, we are yet to receive a notification, either approval, rejection, suggestions...we have received only silence. What is going on? What has delayed the ChapCom to close the voting on our case? Working groups in other countries have submitted their proposals/requests to form a local WikimediaChapter more or less at the same time that we did, and they have been approved already. Why not Wikimedia Venezuela? What is wrong with us? If we were told what is wrong with us, we could work it out and fix whatever is needed...but with no input, we are left sitting in the waiting room for months..

Could you please tell us what is delaying our approval? What do we have to do?

Our people (37) is anxious and wondering what is going on. We were more people, but we feel dissapointed and discouraged, and this doesn't help us at all. Could you please give us an update?

Many, many thanks in advance from Venezuela.

--Jewbask 01:29, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

(note for archive: message was sent to all chapcom members and several board members, and reply was given elsewhere by one of those already). Effeietsanders 15:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Notice of review of adminship

Hello,

In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/October 2011. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before October 10, 2011. Kind regards, vvv^t 17:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Removal of global sysop tools

Hello Effeietsanders. I'm about to remove your GS access due to inactivity. Do you have any objection ? Do you still plan to use it ? Thanks. -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:03, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Quentin,

I do use the rights every now and then, but usually unlogged (viewing deleted pages etc). I realize this is not very clear from the policy - but I would at least prefer to remain global sysop for those reasons. I don't use the right very regularly, but I do every now and then. I could of course make an excuse action now, and make it clear policy-wise, but I guess that wouldn't be entirely fair either :) Effeietsanders 15:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

No, but becoming an active GS would. Don't want to do some countervandalism work this days ? ;-) -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 15:50, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The policy is about logged actions, sorry but I've removed GS from your account. fr33kman 23:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

The policy says no such thing, so that is your interpretation of it. Which is your good right of course, but it remains an interpretation and your choice to remove :) Effeietsanders 09:11, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

In his GRFA Effeietsanders specifically asked for GS access in order to be able to view deleted content. At that time it was not controversial. Ruslik 11:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

When did it become controversial? I don't recall that moment. Nemo 19:59, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• Hey, just wanted to let you know that the global sysop policy on inactivity has been reworded per discussion, and you could request your tools back under it I suppose. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Removal of global sysop

I have removed your global sysop right due to inactivity in line with the policy. Regards, fr33kman 23:48, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it allowed in Wikipedia?

To keep in the pages of wiki Administrator's personnel thesis? at http://sd.wikipedia.org ? Other problem is We call Computer as same in English, but admin forcibly used his word Ganpukar of Computer. I have proof that thousands of published books called it Computer not Ganpukar. If some one oppose him he started abusive language. That is the reason sd.wikipedia.org never got attraction to Sindhi community. Plz check record there. Other things are he locked CSS due to that on the same site there are lot of font styles appeared there. He is not able to set commonCSS or Monocss. We are in trouble to work in our local Sindhi language. I don't know where to say for this problem. Record history says all the situation there. I appeal plz warn him to follow en.wikipedia.org rules, other wise he will continue use his personnel details and personnel promoted articles there. Dear I am sorry If u r not right person to say all about this, Plz suggest me where I can raise this issue. My sd.wikipedia.org ID is same. His thesis is not a violetion? http://sd.wikipedia.org/wiki/ماحولياتي_انتظام_ڪاڻ_اُپُگِرَهِي_عَڪس_ضماءُ_۽_درجه_بنديءَ_جي_طريقن_جو_اَڀياس Alixafar 23:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

* Frohe Weihnacht und einen guten Start ins neue Jahr
* Prettige Kerstdagen en een gelukkig nieuw jaar
* Merry Christmas and a happy New Year
from --Neozoon 23:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Effeietsanders 23:19, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Editing on other people´s wiki-pages...

... is much appreciated. Thanks for fixing the typos--Pavel Richter (WMDE) 22:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC) :-)

with the blessing of maria

mmmmm...You first prayed to her in the church, I suppose...LOL --Marctaltor 23:02, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Favorite meta-edit ever

On buying happiness –SJ talk   14:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of review of adminship

Hello,

In accordance with Meta:Administrators/Removal and because you have made fewer than ten logged actions over the past six months, your adminship is under review at Meta:Administrators/Removal/April 2012. If you would like to retain your adminship, please sign there before April 08, 2012. Kind regards, —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 12:49, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Budget Wikimania Naples 2013

Hi Effeitsanders, I saw your note on the discussion page of our bid. Apologies, I claim the fact that it is our first time on bidding, and procedures are still unclear for us, so I ask for a minimum of indulgence. We have a working budget, as written in the bid, but it is difficult to give precise numbers before having the exact amount of participants. Furthermore, I saw that also other towns had not it in, so I erroneously presumed it could be left out for the moment while waiting the first discussions. However, no worries, I will make assumptions and give you guys an upside/downside assessment based on the quotations we have on hand. Looking forward to talk to you.--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ferdinando, very precise numbers would be way too much to expect of course. I am just looking for guesstimates, but based on the event you have in mind. You probably know how much the venue would cost, and the same for accommodation etc. Those amounts you could easily include. You probably also have an idea of the cost for the catering etc. I look forward to your additions! Effeietsanders (talk) 19:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Advice on affiliations?

Hey Lodewijk. I've been reading with interest about the new affiliation models recently. I am a bit confused about whether this has actually gone into effect with the latest Board resolution, or whether that does not happen until the Board approves an AffCom plan in July (per wmf:Resolution:Affiliations Committee)? If I am interested in shepherding an organization through the affiliation process, is there anyone (ChapCom?) who I can talk to about it now? I saw mention of groups like Mozilla or EFF as possible Movement Partners, but I'm wondering about whether cultural institutions which have demonstrated support for Wikimedia and a history of cooperative projects (namely, the US National Archives, in my case) would also fit under this category. I wouldn't mind being a guinea pig, in fact, though I don't want to suggest an affiliation with the National Archives until I have a better idea about what I'd be suggesting. Any advice would be appreciated. :-) Dominic (talk) 07:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dominic,

We're all trying to find our way still, so no surprise you're a bit confused. The Committee is currently still setting up all procedures etc, so the actual processes are not yet in place to start recognition - once those procedures are in place we could get really started. It probably will be closer to June than to today.

That being said, I should perhaps make clear that for the Movement Partners, the idea was mainly to think about international organizations - the national organizations would more logically align themselves with a specific chapter. Of course the US is as always a bit different than the rest of the world because the chapter structure is set up unaligned with national borders, so I'm not entirely sure if US National Archives would fall under this definition.

I think that the idea (but don't just take my word for it though and also ask others!) was to focus mainly on organizations with an international character which would not make sense to align themselves with one chapter - in the Cultural sector this would probably mostly be umbrella organizations. International doesn't have to be global though, but at least covering several countries. The definition is in no way set in stone, so there will always be border cases.

Hope that helps, Effeietsanders (talk) 07:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

What sort of umbrella organization are you referring to? Do you mean international cultural organizations which individual institutions may be part of (like IFLA or ICA), or are you thinking of a hypothetical organization formed by Wikimedians for GLAM projects? My understanding was actually that the affiliation is with the Wikimedia movement (it's in the name!), not with the Wikimedia Foundation or any of the individual chapters (which is why they, also, are types of affiliations).

I think it is far more powerful to say "So-and-So is a Wikimedia Movement Partner" than "So-and-So is a Movement Partner with the Canadian chapter of Wikimedia". It's also more powerful to be able to say the US National Archives (or the Rijksmuseum, or whomever) is a Wikimedia Movement Partner, rather than just being the member of an umbrella organization which is a Wikimedia Movement Partner, especially if an institution is willing to explicitly align itself. There are almost no cultural institutions which could actually fulfill a requirement of covering multiple countries, as most have single site, and I'm not sure what purpose that restriction would serve. I understand this isn't settled; I'm just thinking out loud. Dominic (talk) 08:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

For partner organizations, I'm thinking of external umbrella organizations. The reason why in my understanding this is limited to international organizations, is because for national organizations they cán affiliate themselves with the natinoal Wikimedia organization. Also the national Wikimedia organization would be the best to judge whether this would be a good idea, how best to communicate that etc - there is some downside to duplicating all that on an international level. So if the Rijksmuseum would like to affiliate themselves with Wikimedia, the most logical partner would be Wikimedia Nederland - not so much applying for 'Movement Partner'. But of the three new types - I think this one needs the most deliberation still. This is definitely not the first time this discussion takes place, and according to this discussion it is still an open question. So lets make sure we don't get their hopes up before we know for sure that it would be possible under this model. Effeietsanders (talk) 09:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bristol Wikimania Bid

We have been looking up and down the Discussion page to see if we have missed anything with our answers. We believe we have answered everything but you can never be too sure, can you? Thought I'd drop you a line and let you know. If there is something else, let us know. Steve Virgin (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC)