User talk:Denny

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Sure, no problem. Andre (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Talk:WikiData WMDE#Status updates[edit]

^ :-) --MZMcBride 22:05, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open[edit]

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 21:52, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring Wiktionary Future content[edit]

Hi Denny, I added a comment on this on Psychoslave’s talk page. NoX (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fundraising translation feedback[edit]

Hey Denny, I have a bit of a request to ask from you. We pulled down our banners nearly a fortnight ago for what was a highly successful international fundraiser and brought the curtain down on last years fundraiser. This week however we will be changing payment processors and during the testing of the new system it would be useful to use the time productively on on testing banner text.

To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to help us improve our geman text using This Link

Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.


We are going to run the test on tuesday so if you dont see this message till 24 hours after it was sent you can ignore me :) Many Thanks though.

Jseddon (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Participation Support Program survey[edit]

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on the Participation Support Program! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you submitted or commented on Participation Support requests in the past.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback! And we hope to see you in the Participation Support Program again soon.

Happy editing,

Siko and Haitham, Grantmaking, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 21:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics[edit]

Idea Lab
Idea Lab

Hello, Denny! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

  • Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
  • Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
  • Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

Long tail of languages[edit]

Yesterday I linked you [1] but I forgot to tell where I took the link from: mw:Content translation. Are you interested in me linking/cc'ing you to other bugzilla requests or proposals on how to better leverage the long tail of underdeveloped language editions? It's usually very hard to get any development interest in such things. Look for instance at how stupid www.wikipedia.org is, despite having billions of visits per year. How to measure/demonstrate the impact of issues and solutions in a way that attracts some work on them? --Nemo 19:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes @Nemo bis:, I am interested in seeing them. Thanks for the link! I also think that www.wikipedia.org could be slightly improved. Where is the cabal that needs to be convinced of that? --denny (talk) 22:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! There isn't any: you'd first need to convince the hyper-cabal to set up such cabal; however, for specific things it's possible to get some help by specialised devs.
  • Project portals are community maintained but there's a limit to what we can do with HTML and JavaScript. Their most important problem is IMHO bugzilla:24767: as long as users search and browse only en.wiki (e.g. in India) they'll never contribute in their language. There's also bugzilla:47979. mw:Search gave us cross-wiki search, needs to be put in use. IMHO such "small" things have most impact, but it's harder to get interest for them than for M$-worth projects.
  • bugzilla:56464 is the elephant in the room: big work on ULS; basically put on shelf.
  • mw:Content translation is the next big thing in the works. --Nemo 05:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers. My apologies if you're getting this message more than once, and/or not in your favorite language.

Hello, Denny,

I am contacting you because you have left feedback about VisualEditor at pages like mw:VisualEditor/Feedback in the past. The Editing team is now asking for your help with VisualEditor. Please tell them what they need to change to make VisualEditor work well for you. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and try to fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translatable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.


Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry[edit]

Hi, I've emailed you (via de.WP). Tony (talk) 16:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tony1: Thanks for letting me know, I would have easily missed it. --denny (talk) 17:19, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: we don’t have the situation that the Board members elected by the communities are struggling against the others[edit]

Are you sure? --Nemo 08:53, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Two out of three community elected board members opposed that motion and one approved it, and it passed due to the other Trustees. Is that the 'worst' case there is? Then I still stand with my statement. --denny (talk) 16:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
(And thank you for bringing up the example)
Of course one can read the event differently, but I stand by my characterisation that 100 % non-officer community trustees opposed (i.e. all the 4 trustees the community could count on, the other being forced to represent the majority). The resolution passed, depending on how one wants to see it, due to Jimbo's treachery or due to one other trustee.
Could you explain what would it take for you to say that the community trustees struggled against the others? --Nemo 16:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: Three community-elected Trustees opposing a motion which still gets approved would be a necessary condition. --denny (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring chapter seats? Do you really think that a resolution passed with 70 % of the votes is worse than one passed with 60 %? Your division seems artificial to me, because with a 7:3 majority no single vote would change the result and the blame is always shared. Anyway, you said necessary, what about a sufficient condition? :) --Nemo 16:57, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: Chapter seats are not elected from the community at large. What is the difference between the seats appointed by the board and the seats appointed by the chapters? Why would the chapter-appointed seats carry any more immediacy than the board-appointed seats?

Regarding sufficient, the above is almost sufficient. In order to make it really sufficient, there should be any indication, direct or indirect, that it was indeed a contentious matter of import. I guess most of the resolutions of the board would qualify, I just want to be able to discard mere matters of householding which have no real import.

Also, I did not understand the 7:3-6:4 / 70%-60% numbers you gave. A resolution can as well pass 6:4 and have all three community eelected board members be against it. I do not require it to be all against the community elected Trustees, but merely all community elected Trustees being unilateral for or against a resolution, but the resolution still failing respectively passing.

As I said, I understand the Board to work usually through consensus, and therefore these cases to be basically hypothetical. But if you find a counterexample, I would be thankful and ready to change my opinion on a few questions. When I was scanning it myself, I did not find such a counterexample. --denny (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Chapters do not appoint anyone, only the board itself appoints (all) board members. Chapters select candidates and they are democratic, being member-based organisations with internal elections etc. The WMF bylaws consider the affiliate-selected board seats to be in the same bucket as community-"elected" seats and that's the definition I'm operating under; if you use a custom definition, that's fine (there were many discussions about it), but you should probably specify it.
Your distinction is IMHO artificial because it assumes a difference in voting patterns between affiliate-selected and community-elected board members. As in most cases all 5 community trustees vote together, but 5 members don't make a majority, a resolution opposed (or supported) by those 5 trustees alone would not pass; a resolution proposed by them and opposed by the others would probably not even be voted, because the non-community members control the chair and therefore the agenda. Your requirement speculates an internal democracy and an external transparency/visibility that the WMF board does not have at all.
I don't see a usefulness in the rhetoric about "consensus" in governance bodies, which is not defined in law nor (AFAIK) in political science. (Pointers to the contrary would be appreciated.) What is clear is that the 5 community-selected members of the WMF board do not have a democratic control of the board and were put in minority in at least one case.
To surface the opposition, we can only rely on decisions taken on a tight margin, i.e. by a single vote, and look how people sided. From the case at hand, we know that community-selected members stood together and that Jimmy Wales didn't stand with the community-selected members. It would be nice to have more transparency than this, but a tradition of democratic centralism in the WMF board seems to prevent it. --Nemo 07:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: I specified my understanding. In my view, the community-elected seats are more democratically elected than the affiliate-selected seats. In my view, the affiliate-selected seats, from the view of the wider community, are more comparable to the board-appointed seats. For most active contributors, they have equally little direct influence on both of these groups. And once they are on the Board, it does not even matter - there was a question to this effect in the questions to the Board candidates.

You are building hypothetical situations. Did it ever happen that all five of these seats voted in favor of a resolution, but it still did not pass? Did it ever happen that all all five - not four of five - voted in opposition of a resolution, and it still passed? I have never attended a Board session, but I have talked with a few Board members, and my understanding from these talks is that the goal is to find consensus. Whether this a proper legal or political science construct, I do not care much - it is, in my opinion, the ideal way to make decisions at Wikimedia. An instantiation of that for the English Wikipedia can be found here. --denny (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

IMHO, there's nothing hypothetical in my examples and your requirements are unrealistic. Anyway, I consumed enough of your time and we don't need to convince each other nor to lecture each other on things we both know well like consensus, so we can conclude here. Thanks for the interesting conversation, Nemo 06:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: If it is unrealistic that a resolution passes or gets rejected against the vote of all community elected Board members, then I am rather content with that :) I hope that this remains the case. Thanks to you too, your questions made me think harder through the situations you described. --denny (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Namespaces[edit]

LOL, I end up opening a new discussion already :), but an entirely different topic! I happened to read a characterisation of MediaWiki namespaces as "url formatting practices"... So I immediately thought: did Denny write a paper on the invention and importance of namespaces, too? :) Or anyone else? Stories like the migration from */Talk to Talk:* etc. etc. the template initialisation script, perhaps the invention of the MediaWiki namespace; and their importance now (personally I consider namespaces to be point 1.1 of mw:Principles). A sort of prequel to the paper on categories.

Yes, I'll do my homework and search on http://wikipapers.referata.com/ and beyond later, but this evening I'm a bit tired. --Nemo 20:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: You might been remembering this paper: Introducing new features to Wikipedia - Case studies for Web Science by Mathias Schindler and me. I also am an avid fan of "Cool URIs", on which I wrote time and again (but not much in connection with Wikipedia, more for my PhD thesis). I would obviously value nice URLs and URL-naming practices a bit higher than in that answer you linked to. --denny (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015[edit]

Dear candidate. My general opinion about administration of Wikimedia is negative. Many texts and images had been removed with pretext of protection of rights of the owners of the copyright owners. The special permissions by the copyright owners were just ignored, and removed together with the files. In particular, this refers to images of the Soviet dissidents and their texts.

Below I suggest only few examples in order to let you know what is happening: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sofiya_Kalistratova&oldid=649939072 https://ru.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Софья_Васильевна_Каллистратова&oldid=93595 https://ru.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Леонард_Борисович_Терновский&type=revision&diff=1312548&oldid=585736

I investigated the case and I revealed that many removals were performed by bureaucrat Lozman, who has absolutely no experience with obtaining permission from the copyright owners and does not even remember, who made him bureaucrat. However, this is only example.

Sorry for being late, but I just received the invitation to vote. You still have two days to change my opinion about at least one of the candidates suggested. One example of complain by the author is available at site TORI, http://mizugadro.mydns.jp/t/index.php/Kouznetsov,_permission I mention it because it has English version, although many Russian authors were offended in the similar way.

Now I formulate the question:

Do you think it is still possible to handle the cases mentioned?

Do you think that you can find time to deal with the cases mentioned?

Sincerely, Domitori (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Zdravo @Domitori:. Would you consider moving your question to the official Question and Answer page? If you don't know how, I can help you.
Based on your Commons talk page, I see that you have often struggled with licensing issues. Thank you very much for talking with so many different creators and helping them to publish their images on Commons! It is hard for me to trace what exactly happened to the files you mentioned.
In general it seems that the answer to that Question will be similar to Question #5 on page 3, on the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. In short, I trust the local communities and the autonomy of the local wikis to do good decisions. I agree that there is no good escalation method for the rare cases where the local wikis break down, and I think that is something that the next Board should address. I can see that you send Smerus more Russian sources explaining in more detail what is going on. If you want, you can explain it also to me, but I unfortunately don't read Russian too well (my wife does, but she is currently traveling).
I would be particularly interested in why images, which seem to have a keep discussion, were still deleted. --denny (talk) 05:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The missing question[edit]

From your recent thoughts on the Board Election:

I should have been asked about my role in the events surrounding the Croatian Wikipedia in 2013 (and if I didn't have one, why not)

Indeed, that was the question I wanted to ask, but it seemed a bit too narrow to be useful to other voters who I presume are largely unfamiliar with this issue. Instead, I asked a general question that happens to be not entirely unrelated to the CW affair.

I know you might not exactly be in the mood for answering the 40th question, but I'd really appreciate it - I'd be satisfied with the "short version" of the answer (if a short version is possible here in the first place :-) ).

BTW, Wikidata is a great thing, I'm a fan of the concept, and I have great respect for your work in this department. GregorB (talk) 07:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@GregorB: I would have stuttered as I will now. Because I do not write and read Croatian as well as I should - also because the language has developed in the last twenty years, and I learned it in an oral way, so that written and formal Croatian is an impediment for me - I noticed that I always struggled to communicate with the Croatian Wikipedia community. I did start the project, but I have not been active there for a long time. I was always aware that there are nationalistic interests evident in parts of the community, but I never really investigated how strong they are. I still haven't, because it is a tough thing to do, especially if you do not have sufficient background - I am a computer scientist, not a historian. When the 2013 events happened, I was asked to step in. I tried, by trying to calm down both sides (at least in my opinion), but I guess I just lost sympathies on both sides by trying to mediate. A vote happened locally. I do not know how much has changed since then.
As you can see, this answer is rather unsatisfying, which is why I was not unhappy that no one asked that question. In short, I do not know how bad the situation is, if it is bad at all. By looking at the community metrics, the Croatian Wikipedia does seem to do reasonably well, which makes me happy, but it is much harder to assess whether the Croatian Wikipedia is politically biased or not without actually doing deeper analysis. --denny (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
A study like Research:Awareness of Wikipedia and its usage patterns would be useful. --Nemo 17:19, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Thanks, I see your point, and I tend to agree that the whole thing did devolve into fairly nasty mudslinging, in which the media did not help, although I believe their central point (that there was something seriously wrong with CW and that certain people were responsible) was largely correct.
The thing is, it's not just the political bias. My Board Election question was inspired by an actual incident in which I was blocked for two weeks for making this edit. (Even explaining profusely in the article's talk page did not help at all.) I suppose getting banned for using "citation needed" might be unique in the history of Wikipedia. Well, heck, "automatic translation on Wikipedia is strictly forbidden" then, and I'm not allowed to challenge it. This tells me admins are either severely clueless about the basics of verifiability, or are malicious - not sure which is worse. Even if all CW admins explicitly say I'm not allowed to make that edit, and if I get banned again for making it - it's no skin off their backs, and it can't be helped. And no, I don't think this is "local autonomy" one would wish to foster.
I'm not really complaining here (okay, maybe just a bit :-) ), I just wanted to fully illustrate the issue and why I thought it may be universally important. GregorB (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Hi Denny -- as you're aware, I endorsed your candidacy, so I am especially pleased to see you join the Board of Trustees. Well done -- and best of luck in moving the organization and the movement toward a brighter future! -Pete F (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! --denny (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear Dr. James - Congratulations on your success.. I was expecting Your success. Hope the foundation and the movement will be strengthened with your endeavors. Ahmed Nisar (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Doc James:, this one's for you! ;) --denny (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you User:అహ్మద్ నిసార్ I believe we will all work to try to improve the functioning of the movement as a whole. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear Denny, I congratulate you for your success in this election and I am extremely sure that you can better efficiently the main performances of Wikimedia Foundation these years. --Csisc (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! --denny (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear Denny.. congratulations on your success... Hope we work together for the movement.... In fact I have greeted all successful candidates, including you on 6th June.... I forgot to mention your name ... sorry for that. I am happy that I got a chance again to greet you. Wish you all the best. Ahmed Nisar (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Ahmed! --denny (talk) 14:49, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you ever attend Wikimania with your money? Talk to us![edit]

TL;DR: Fill a short Wikimania survey, it takes 5 min.

Hi, I'm writing you because you are listed in Wikimania/Frequent attendees. As you probably know by now, Wikimania 2016 Esino Lario wants to achieve a Wikimania format which allows people to "get things done" and leave the conference fully satisfied with the result of their investment of time and other resources (see pillars 2 and 4: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Pillars ). For this purpose, we consider all audiences (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimania_2016_bids/Esino_Lario/Program#Target ).

Participants other than scholarship recipients and reimbursed representatives are one group we heard very little from, but we think they are important because: 1) they have financial resources and help make the Wikimania budget sustainable; 2) they have motivation to share and ideas on what makes Wikimania valuable.

We set up a form mainly to collect names of some such people and talk with them later: if you provide your contact, we may write you on this topic. We may release aggregate data from the resposes; data will be handled by us and the Wikimania 2016 fiscal sponsor "Ecomuseo delle Grigne" (under EU law). Please fill the whole form, it's short!

Feel free to forward this invite to anyone.

Thanks,
Federico Leva and Martin Rulsch
Wikimania 2016 team, scholarships subteam
08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Voting System[edit]

Hey Denny, I read User:Denny/Thoughts Board Election 2015 and found it really insightful. Your discontent with the voting system attracted my attention! I am a member of a Persian Wikipedia committee responsible for finding the most appropriate voting system for our ArbCom elections. We are absolutely frustrated by the Support/Neutral/Oppose system. Since Schulze method is indeed a single-winner voting system, we lean towards proportional Meek STV which is probably the best method to elect multiple winners.

If you are electing multiple people and simplicity is not important, then we recommend Meek STV. Most people agree that Meek STV is the best variant of STV, but it can only be implemented with a computer program.

But there is a stumbling block! The SecurePoll extension does not support various systems. Please take a look at Opavote to see how marvelous they run elections.

In practice we know that Persian Wikipedia does not have the needed leverage to convince the Foundation to upgrade SecurePoll extension, but we hope to make our voice heard by bringing up this issue to the next Board elections. As a member of the Board, I expect you to appoint the 2017 Election Committee members as soon as possible so that they will have enough time to revisit the proposal of changing the voting system. Hopefully the committee may consider getting help from third parties to find the suitable voting systems for all Wikimedia communities, including smaller projects such as Persian Wikipedia which suffer from low turnout. Low turnout means lower input data and, in turn, the stronger need for a robust voting system (=processor) to generate a reasonable outcome. Sincerely 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi 4nn1l2! Indeed I agree that the Election Committee should be a standing committee. This should allow for sufficient time to make this important decision. I cannot comment on the technicalities of the question due to two reasons - first, because I do not have the knowledge to do so, and second, because there is a possible perceived conflict of interest. Me discussing the voting system would be as insane as letting political parties decide on the borders of their election districts. No rational country would allow for that, and so we should neither. --denny (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


Wikinews and Wikivoyage Thai[edit]

Please Open that by final decision please Now Wiki Thai want to open them [2] [3] --Parintar (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)