User talk:Mdennis (WMF)

Archives 1

pl

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Foundation_wiki_feedback#Terms_of_Use_.282012.29.2Fpl

Pls don't use Google translate TransPerfect, use community. Przykuta (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm very sorry to hear that there are problems with this translation; the Wikimedia Foundation would, of course, more than welcome community correction. Unfortunately, we can't force community participation, and in spite of the open translation request that has lingered for months, the community stopped working on this translation on January 13th. We were put in the situation that we either had to commission a professional translation or not put up a translation of the contents in the Polish language at all. The professional translation was added to the existing community text on April 5th, and a note was placed at the talk page of the Terms of Use inviting contributors to improve it if possible (Talk:Terms of use/pl). That invitation certainly still stands! If you can make it better, or know other translators within the community who would be willing to help, please encourage them to do so; we want the best version we can get. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've just read the section you link. I'm afraid that the concerns voiced there actually seem to relate to community work, not the professional translation. :/ We did not have the summary translated by professionals because it had already been done by a member of the Polish language Wikipedia, who very kindly answered the call for translators. As I mention there, this is collaborative work just like the rest of the projects, and I'm sure that he or she would welcome assistance in correcting any errors or offering better alternatives. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I will try

1. step 1 - ask community
2. step 2 - if community don't work, ask professional and send info about this to the community
3. step 3 - ask community for feedback

Przykuta (talk) 10:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Polish Terms of Use

It is plagued by grammatical. and stylistic errors. For example część is incorrectly inflected as "częśćmi" just at the beginning of the text. Please hire someone speaking good Polish or use the community support, but don't produce an illiterate trash as an official edit-protected document. 77.112.49.152 10:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. If you can help improve this document, you would be very welcome. :) Please see the section immediately above. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Miszabot

If you don't want it to take away the section (ever), the solution is to add text that doesn't end in a time stamp to the very end. Even hidden text apparently confuses the bot sufficiently that it will leave the section in place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I thought I'd done that here, but it rearchived the sections the very same day. Can you see what I might have done wrong there? I'm so low tech. :/ --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I would have expected that to work. Perhaps the bot has gotten "smarter" on us. Well, there's nothing quite like reading the directions: The bot owner now recommends tagging the section with {{subst:DNAU}} en:Template:Do not archive until) as the way to prevent archiving of particular threads (forever; it will also take a date, but I figured that permanence was your goal). The template doesn't exist here, but I suspect that as it's subst'd, we could just take the subst'd text and re-use it. Would you like me to try? WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, great! I've ported the template over as it seems like it could be useful for others. Let's see how it works. :) I'm giving it a go below. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Okay, it may work, but it's not pretty. :) [1]. I'm guessing it doesn't know how to handle en:Template:Substituted. :/ Porting that over seems pointless, as we don't have a bot that will automatically add it. Do you know enough about coding to make it work without that template? If not, I'll look around for somebody. :) (Of course, before doing that, we might want to see if the bot handles the template otherwise as expected. No reason to make it pretty if it just flat doesn't work! It entered the hidden comment.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 15:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Coding is not my strength. My plan had been to subst the template into a sandbox on en.wp and then see whether the resulting code could be usefully copied. But there probably is a better way to do it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

So, this one turns out to be pretty easy. The bot recognizes hidden code; the template places this on your page: <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 14:55, 21 April 2022 (UTC) -->. The bot respects that. :) Thanks much! I may wait a bit after the announcement before I test it at Terms of Use, though. I don't want Geoff's announcements to get pulled when I'm not looking. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations on figuring it out. I'm glad that we found a solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Some bits of feedback

Gday Maggie … some dot points

• With the new "Terms of Use", it would be useful to have a short summation of what are the differences from the existing. Is that possible on its talk page?
• The page is on a account restricted wiki, so there is no real ability for feedback in situ ...
• On the page itself, it is lacking direction to where to put feedback, especially for grammatical or translation changes, ie. comments should be directed somewhere.
• Your account there is a different name from your account elsewhere (where it has the '(WMF)' addition), and when you get there all one sees is MZM commentary, and again pretty well a locked page. Can I suggest that if where you are posting that you look to modify your signature so it directs to this meta talk page, or you look to a redirect at your Foundation talk page. Or it clearly links to a "mail me" component.
• A locked talk page that is restricted to a small elite is not a good look, and is discouraging, though often understandable.

Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, billinghurst. :)

There is a short summation of the differences on the Foundation Wiki at wmf:New_Terms_of_use/en. I can certainly add this to the Foundation Wiki talk page, if that's what you mean. If you want it on the talk page here, I can do that, too. Just seeking clarification.

It is standard practice for WMF policies to be on the Foundation Wiki. It's where the existing Terms of Use are as well as the Privacy policy, the Code of Conduct policy, the Trademark policy and all the others. While it's true that these have historically been closed to editing (and I was frankly a little concerned about that myself), I was pleased to see that when individuals try to "contribute" they are directed to where feedback can be left. (I experimented with this.) The edit box you see when you try to contribute directs you to several email addresses before noting that "Unfortunately, wikimediafoundation.org does not allow open editing currently; however, we want everyone to be able to contribute" and offering a link to Foundation wiki feedback. If you think that the Foundation Wiki needs a more readily visible way to encourage feedback, I can bring that up with staff, certainly.

I don't know if it would be possible to unlock the talk pages on Foundation wiki, but I can ask about that, too. It may not be a good idea, though. I gather that the Foundation wiki does not have many users or watchers, and I worry that comments left there in less immediate situations than this might be overlooked. :/ I wonder if it would be possible to unlock a single talk page for a limited amount of time? I wonder if the developers will laugh at me if I ask? :D (I'll risk it.)

I have taken your advice about putting contact information on my talk page on Meta. Thanks. :) While it's on my user page there, I know that especially newer users may not find that, and it had not occurred to me that users might look for me through my edit histories there. Does it look okay to you? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I found the Community Liaison, Product Development online (thank heavens for remote workers; the San Franciscans are by and large still sleeping). He tells me that "the issue is not that every page is protected, it's that LocalSettings.php has been altered to reserve the 'edit' action to certain classes of users. You'd have to either unlock all pages, or split up the edit right, which is tricky and would require install customisation." He believes that the amount of developer time this would require would make it unlikely. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maggie, it was feedback on thought bubbles, not criticism. I don't mind where we put text about what changes are taking place, as long as it is logical, and easily findable, and hopefully linked to. My concern about basically locked talk pages is that we don't/aren't giving people a place to go. We either need to have softredirects or email links on talk pages to direct people to where to provide feedback, or otherwise email as that is the expectation with wikis. I have no expectation that the foundation wiki be opened, more reflecting on the look when only certain people, eg. MZM, can make comments. This is eyes wide open stuff. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

terms of use

you aware that the local wikipedia versions link to the localized name of the terms of use on wikimediafoundation.org (e.g. to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Conditions_d%27utilisation), not to the "Terms of Use/code>" version? cheers, —Pill (talk) 11:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I just worked that one out thanks to Guillaume, who I had asked the verify the link. :) This is complicated! I'm preparing to make a chart of the languages to try to make sure that everybody finds the page they're looking for. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:48, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

yeah, the same is true for the other languages in the banner, i guess, at least it's true for german (local links point to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nutzungsbedingungen). hence: good look ;). —Pill (talk) 11:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That's helpful. I appreciate it. :) I'll fix that one and then keep plugging away at my chart. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Per Guillaume's suggestion, I'm redirecting the local language to the translated page - this will eliminate this issue in the future, since future versions of the ToU will be housed at the same title. The link will always point to the current. I hope fervently that all is working now for the 2012 de version? --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks good. —Pill (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. :) I'm glad. I remember when I woke up this morning and optimistically thought, "Well, this should take about a half an hour." :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:45, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

WM:Emergency and stuff

On en:WP there seems to be a consensus that we need professional advice on the suggestion that we block suicidal users. We would also like to understand the way the WMF emergency response works. Who should we contact to get these two things dealt with? Rich Farmbrough 23:47 26 May 2012 (GMT).

Hi, Rich. :) Good to see you. I'm a good starting point. I'm actually part of the emergency response team, but am not sure how transparent we are with that (for reasons I know you know :/). I'll check with Philippe, my supervisor, who organizes it all and hope get back with you soon. He's in Argentina at the moment, but it shouldn't take long. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 23:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)