User talk:Gryllida

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

Afrikaans | العربية | অসমীয়া | asturianu | azərbaycanca | Boarisch | беларуская | беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | български | বাংলা | བོད་ཡིག | bosanski | català | کوردی | corsu | čeština | Cymraeg | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Zazaki | ދިވެހިބަސް | Ελληνικά | emiliàn e rumagnòl | English | Esperanto | español | eesti | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | Nordfriisk | Frysk | galego | Alemannisch | ગુજરાતી | עברית | हिन्दी | Fiji Hindi | hrvatski | magyar | հայերեն | interlingua | Bahasa Indonesia | Ido | íslenska | italiano | 日本語 | ქართული | ភាសាខ្មែរ | 한국어 | kar | kurdî | Limburgs | lietuvių | Baso Minangkabau | македонски | മലയാളം | молдовеняскэ | Bahasa Melayu | မြန်မာဘာသာ | مازِرونی | Napulitano | नेपाली | Nederlands | norsk nynorsk | norsk | occitan | Kapampangan | polski | português | پښتو | Runa Simi | română | русский | sicilianu | سنڌي | සිංහල | slovenčina | slovenščina | Soomaaliga | shqip | српски / srpski | svenska | ślůnski | தமிழ் | тоҷикӣ | ไทย | Türkmençe | Tagalog | Türkçe | татарча/tatarça | ⵜⴰⵎⴰⵣⵉⵖⵜ  | українська | اردو | oʻzbekcha/ўзбекча | Tiếng Việt | 吴语 | 粵語 | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/-

Contents

Welcome to Meta![edit]

Hello Gryllida!, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 10:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the IEG Committee[edit]

Hi Gryllida,
Thanks for signing up to join the Individual Engagement Grants Committee! It is my pleasure to confirm your membership. We’ve got a lot to accomplish together, particularly during the next 6 weeks, and it will be awesome to have your help. Here is how to get started:

To make your membership official, please do 2 things by February 11th:

  1. Introduce yourself in the IdeaLab.
  2. Send your email address to IEGrants@wikimedia.org, so that we can subscribe you to the committee mailing list.

Then there are 2 first tasks' for active committee members to start on right away:

  1. Review information in the Committee Workroom (your new organizing hub on meta), including responsibilities and the review process. Feedback and questions are very welcome at this stage.
  2. Start giving feedback on open ideas, drafts and proposals. Asking questions to gather information you’ll need to make a recommendation helps prospective grantees think their projects all the way through, and will give us more great proposals to choose from.

Our formal review of proposals starts February 22nd. I’ll be posting information about scoring and selection of proposals on the committee mailing list and in the Workroom soon, so please keep an eye there!

Thanks again for joining this new grantmaking program...I hope we’re going to see some amazing impact from these grants! :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 06:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

The two things done. Thanks for the links and pointers, I'll take a look at them in a bit. :) --Gryllida 06:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
I sent the message a few days ago and also yesterday, but wasn't added to the mailing list... did it get through? Gryllida 14:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Now that we've got everyone's information confirmed, I'll be adding you all to the list in one batch today - so you should have a mail coming your way soon! Meanwhile, if you haven't already, you might take a look at the Workroom talk page as there are a few discussions there that your input would be helpful with. Cheers :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bot cloak request[edit]

Hi Gryllida, I reverted your edit on IRC/Cloaks/Bots because that page is obsolete, as its header says. Cloak requestes should now be done at [1]. --MF-W 00:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I re-read the header about three more times and now see the link. Thanks for passing it on. --Gryllida 00:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I just fixed the link. It was wrong before, sorry. ;) πr2 (tc) 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Right, you fixed it nine minutes before your message here. Got it. Thanks. :) --Gryllida 00:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Convidando o Brasil[edit]

Pleas, I would ask your attention to the comments of the committee evaluation, thank you.Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 01:12, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Now discussed here. Gryllida 02:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Grantmaking Barnstar[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
Thanks for all your hard work on the IEG Committee! Congratulations on a successful round 1 review - we could not have done it without you. Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Siko, it has been a pleasure to help (and I'm sure the interesting bits — seeing these projects start and grow — are still in the future). Gryllida 22:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Individual Engagement Grant reviewer survey[edit]

Hello, the Wikimedia Foundation would like your feedback on Individual Engagement Grants! We have created a brief survey to help us better understand your experience participating in the IEG program and how we can improve for the future. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you served on the IEG Committee.

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 IdeaLab soon.

Happy editing,

and , Grantmaking & Programs, Wikimedia Foundation.

This message was sent via Global message delivery on 01:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Siko and Jonathan; done. This has been a challenging experience and I would be happy to participate in a next round, I am sure that there would be one if the things work well this time. :) Gryllida 02:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Wikinewsie Group provisional board selection meeting time[edit]

Hi. This is to inform you that the meeting for the provisional board selection meeting for The Wikinewsie Group will take place in #wikinews-groupconnect on May 4, 2013 at 13:00 UTC, which is 8:00 in Mexico City, 9:00 in New York City, 15:00 in Berlin and 23:00 in Sydney. If you are interested in being on the provisional board but cannot attend, please comment at Talk:The Wikinewsie Group/Meetings to let the community know. --LauraHale (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

  • Hi. I do everything I can to help the project, but I would like to avoid the roles that require being up-to-date and decisive with everything; there is a chance of my online presence changing sporadically within upcoming months. I'll try to make it to the meeting at the mentioned time. Thanks for the note. --Gryllida 11:36, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Come celebrate IdeaLab’s (re)Launch![edit]

Idea Lab
Idea Lab

We’ve redesigned the Grants:IdeaLab to make awesome collaborators and shiny new ideas easier to find.
You’re invited to the (re)Launch party!

Come visit and create a profile, share or join an idea, and tell us what you think about the updates!

Hope to see you there! Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

an answer to your question about math OCR[edit]

Gryllida, I have posted a detailed answer to your question about the PlanetMath Books Project proposal, here. Arided (talk) 15:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

IEG Barnstar[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
Gryllida, thank you for participating so actively in the IEG Committee again this round! I really appreciate that you took the time to communicate directly with some many proposers on the talk pages, and were so well informed about the proposals. Thanks for making IEG great, hope you'll stay around for the future :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It has been a pleasure. I indeed will try to interact with the grantees to provide feedback as I hope to find their progress interesting. Gryllida (talk) 04:16, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Meta:Karma[edit]

I think you should move this to the article namespace, as it has nothing to do with Meta. Cheers, PiRSquared17 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that. Unfortunately I hadn't looked at how other essays exist when making it... --Gryllida 22:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
WM:4WP ;) PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It's strange to read that. I'm not a Wikipedian; I'm a ...Wikimedian, a contributor to all the sister projects at once... (Although the namespaces thing is substantially different, actually; at Wikipedia, essays don't go to main space, as you remarked.) --Gryllida 23:44, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought you were mainly active on Wikipedia. Now I see you are a Wikimedian, not just mainly on one project (Wikinewsie, Wikipedian, etc.). PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's reasonable. Surprisingly I'm a bit slow on each, although reading each of them a fair bit, in couple languages. --Gryllida 01:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Two questions per candidate[edit]

Per Stewards/Elections_2014/Guidelines#Suggestions_to_participants, please only ask two questions per candidate. There is also a section for questions to all candidates. I think you should ask there instead of asking each individually. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. How many can I add in the all-candidates section? --Gryllida 03:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think there is a set limit, but it's better to ask someone from ElectCom (e.g. Snowolf). PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I have asked them all, having shortened the list to two, by combining a question, albeit barbarously; hopefully they'd come up with reasonably elaborate answers! Thanks for the link. Gryllida 03:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the questions like "what languages do you speak?" are all answered in the candidates' statements. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

That's true; I've removed the unanswered ones, and now I'm reading the language codes which I had previously ignored — in the statements — due to these codes looking meaningless and not catching my eye, originally. --Gryllida 04:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics[edit]

Idea Lab
Idea Lab

Hello, Gryllida! 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

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jmorgan (talk) 23:43, 12 March 2014

Thank you. Although I continue to participate on-wiki; hangouts are so inefficient, like lectures, compared to interested people reading a book or getting in touch with the beloved entire community of brain-stormers... Gryllida 09:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

GSOC : A system for reviewing funding requests - Proposal Review[edit]

Hi Gryllida

I am applying for GSOC Project with wikimedia. My project topic is : A system for reviewing funding requests. As you have been involved with this idea , I would like to have your feedback on this proposal. Link : https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Kushal124/A_system_for_reviewing_funding_requests_GSOC

This is an initial draft and I would complete this proposal today itself.

Thanks Kushal124 (talk) 17:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. This page lacks a spec, which is good in this case, as a spec and documentation is already developed elsewhere. Just link to IdeaLab/Application scoring system (idealab is for all ideas, gsoc too, not just grants from wmf), and/or to a spec, in your proposal, if not already. Right now it's filled with stuff of interest to mentors. (As interested as I am in this project, I lack the language or programming context required to mentor it.)

I understand that you start with a GSoC project by doing a test task from Annoying little bugs and include it in your proposal. You have a bug linked there, which may or may not be enough, depending on how much it overlaps with the proposed project itself. —Gryllida 08:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar and a request for feedback[edit]

IEG barnstar 2.png Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
Thank you for commenting on Individual Engagement Grant proposals during this recent round! We really appreciate that you took the time to share your thoughts.

To help us improve the IEG program for future participants, would you mind taking this quick 3-question survey?

Thanks again for your help,

--Siko and Haitham, Wikimedia Foundation Grantmaking

User:Jmorgan

Hi, thanks! It might have been helpful if you left a time stamp on your message; now I have (almost) no idea how fresh it is.

I have filled in the survey as you instructed. --Gryllida 11:33, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Your draft of RFC guidelines (was: Your recent edit)[edit]

Hello. I wanted to inform you that I will be moving your recent edit about adding a guideline section from the main RfC page to its dedicated talk page. Aside from my own view on these, something like this should be proposed first - either on a talk page or even another RfC(which would be very meta...) to get input and form a consensus first. Your own impression alone of what RfC should be or what guidelines are lacking are strictly just your own. There should be proper discussion, debate and more collaboration before a section is just added that redefines what RfC's have been for years. I'll move your suggested section to the talk page, you can copy it anywhere else you want, but I'd suggest against adding them to the main RfC page as established guidelines (even with the note accompanying it). Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 12:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Theo is procedurally correct. Thanks for looking at the topic of RfC guidelines; many RfCs are a waste of time because of lack of attention to these things. --Abd (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Acknowledged. (I did leave a note on it, saying that it's a draft section, but apparently you'd like me to draft it elsewhere, which is fine.)
I did ask for community input (as you may have noticed) at a mailing list. --Gryllida 22:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

About not editing headlines on talk pages[edit]

Aside from the point, I would like to ask you not to edit my comments. You renamed the section heading here which was in essence, a part of my comment. This would appear as if the current heading was left by me - it wasn't. Your new heading starts "Your draft..." either referring to yourself in the second person, or misleading the reader in thinking that I am the one calling it "Your draft". I object. It is not within your purview to think of better titles for other's thoughts, or selectively edit someone else's opinion. Please undo and refrain from editing other people's comments. Theo10011 (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

What specific title could you come up with, then? "Your recent edit" is not specific. I would not find it when browsing a table of contents of a talk page of an archive. Gryllida 13:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you are getting the point, or choosing to not get it intentionally. It is not your job to come up with specific titles for "other people" - specific, obtuse, irrelevant as their titles may be according to you - they are not yours to redefine. You can not edit their thoughts because you feel they aren't to your liking - this is a very basic concept. It's as if I say I don't like your name, what else could you come up with? or if I go to your previous essays and RfC points and start renaming their headings. Actions like those aren't considerate of others, I don't think I can explain it any better. I see others have brought similar points here about this issue, so I'll repeat please stop editing other people's comments. Theo10011 (talk) 08:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, apparently I didn't like the headline, not found it too dry and useless. That is a truly wonderful assumption. --Gryllida 10:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

How RfCs work[edit]

TL;DR: RfCs may occasionally be a pile of flood and garbage and writing them efficiently in the early phase is not required. Surprisingly, the pile of garbage has some meaning and may be polished to extract actionables for a next more focused step.

Suggestion to close was not necessary (how exactly it's about to be polished and focused, I dunno.)

Surprisingly people had taken a long time to explain the above to me (and only did so outside of this talk page). I didn't know that someone is taking the time to process the whole thing. It's inefficient way of work.

--Gryllida 13:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

You unhelpfully suggesting to close a source of information (was: Your Recent Comment)[edit]

Hi. Just to say that I felt your recent comment (at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Superprotect_rights) was extraordinarily unhelpful, if for no other reason than that you have just succeeded in making yourself look like a catspaw of the WMF. Attempts to stifle discussion on a matter like this, even if you feel there is a procedural case for doing so, are remarkably unwise. There are very few forums where ordinary editors like me can keep up with events on this important matter, and seeking to close down a source of information is not welcome. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 17:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I honestly feel that the current request for comment is useless, unhelpful, a waste of time, and should be closed while someone takes time to write a new one which has a more supportive and actionable structure.
That's OK if you disagree. --Gryllida 22:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I suppose it's your right, as it's your talk page, but when you change a section header it breaks jumping to a section from an edit summary in history. As well, some people get upset about this kind of action, because, technically, the section header is part of the person's comment, and altering it can be considered uncivil. You didn't change the meaning, so that's probably not going to happen here.
  • You seem to have missed the function of the RfC, which is not to create an action, specifically, it is to advise the WMF regarding the sense of the community on the superprotection affair. To expect coherence, with this being so new and so raw, is to expect what isn't going to happen. There are, however, many coherent comments that have been made, and this is obvious on review. The community consensus is obvious from commentary in the RfC, on de.wikipedia, and on wikimedia-l. On the central affair, the role and operating manner of the WMF, it's very simple, and is not about MediaViewer, nor, in fact, about superprotect itself -- though superprotect takes the flak, and as well, Erik as the WMF point man. The RfC, as it is, is quite adequate to show this, not in a coherent, cleanly summarized way, not at this point. It would be a waste of time to create a new RfC on this point and would, in a sense, disrespect all those who commented.
  • The function of a meta RfC, on something like this, is not to decide anything, it is to advise. Here, it is specifically the WMF that is advised, and staff is fully capable of seeing the advice without having it spelled out by a new RfC.
  • Many have complained that the WMF has been silent. That, to me, means that the WMF is considering the matter, and has properly become wary of making yet more ill-considered statements that turn what might have been a minor matter into the Battle for Dominance that German media has presented this as, and as many see it.
  • As I wrote in the RfC, I've closed many meta RfCs. Many or even most were poorly written and had no clear purpose. However, if any issue remains to be explored, if a resolution is not clear, RfCs are not closed. They can remain open for years, sometimes. It's quite clear to me that there could be benefit from some pre-RfC process, but that probably would not apply here. This was an affair rapidly ballooning far beyond control.
  • Do be aware, Grillyda, that the RfC was started by John Vandenberg, who is highly experienced, he was an arbitrator on en.wikipedia. Many highly experienced users, including stewards, have commented.
  • I haven't seen something like this since Jimbo Wales took two actions: first, he showed up on en.wikiversity and made unilateral decisions, including blocking a user considered a troll, and desysopping a bureaucrat who unblocked (the 'crat was following local consensus). An RfC was started here over this, and it was not going well, there were enough "regulars" who showed up to support Jimbo that it was running, as I recall, at about 2:1 that there was no problem, and maybe Wikiversity should be closed, if people didn't like what the Founder did, etc. That should sound familiar.
  • And then Jimbo, perhaps encouraged, went to Commons and started unilaterally deleting pornography. And all hell broke loose. That RfC exploded. Here it is: Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag. Had Jimbo and the WMF been paying attention, they might have noticed that those who saw a problem in the Wikiversity actions, before Commons exploded, included some heavy hitters, such as, by the way, John Vandenberg.
  • The basic issue was not whether or not Jimbo was "right" in his actions. The issue was quite the same as in the current RfC: the role of the community and the WMF (and there were issues over whether or not the WMF had authorized Jimbo; as it turned out, it appears that it had not.)
  • There are some who think that the WMF created this incident to make the point that they are in charge. If so, it would be extraordinarily clumsy to do it this way. Some have said that they want to "fire" the community, for this or that reason. Again, that would be strange indeed. No, it's pretty obvious to me what happened, it's totally normal, it often happens in nonprofits. It can be devastating to the long-term success of an organization, but, short-term, it can even look successful. Those most offended simply go away, one never sees the actual damage, and, as measures and statistics decline, there is always some cause that can be cited that "isn't our fault." That's why it is so important to see the actual response, Gryllida.
  • (I don't care about "fault." I care about the human project and what will empower us, collectively, to reach goals worth pursuing. Blame is useless for this.) --Abd (talk) 23:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
    • I'm not trying to suppress discussion of the topic; that 90% of your writing implies so suggests a misunderstanding. Also I don't like talking about a specific consequence of X without discussing X itself; 99% of this RfC barely scratches the surface of the root problems here... Gryllida 23:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Far more than 90% of my writing has nothing to do with you, Gryllida. You are technically correct, but I'm not the only person who saw your comments as attempting to shut down discussion -- specifically the RfC. You would see what I'm talking about if you actually attempted a close, i.e., what you asked someone else to do, without specifying who that would be and how. And see this. If we want to talk about the "root problem," I could write a hundred times as much as I've written, my attempt is to stay focused. I have specific goals in mind, and what I've been doing is not only visible on-wiki.
You have mentioned essays you have written. If you would like review of one, let me know. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Yeah, a slightly better RfC could be named like that: "Superprotect: what are the root causes behind it and how to approach them?". I'd be excited. It could actually give something more useful than a dozen of screen-fulls of thoughts that are not motivating.
In the current form, the RfC says "WMF, please do not do that!". But I find a need to be catalytic and figure out what to do.
If you'd like to create such section at the current RfC, you're welcome to do so, but I doubt its current inclination is possible to change without renaming and restructuring the entire page. (Hence the suggestion to open a separate page for a next RfC.) --Gryllida 00:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
  • If you'd like to review an essay, please take a look at software, for instance. --Gryllida 00:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The underlying problems are being discussed elsewhere. Nonetheless there is no reason the community shouldn't express its opinion on this matter. And this is an expression of what to do, it is saying that clearly identifying the role the editor is acting in is a good idea. You suggest we could change the software to do that, which is a good idea, but would require the development team to work on it which right now that seems unlikely, and raises a number of problems of its own. Rich Farmbrough 08:21 19 August 2014 (GMT).

  • Do you mean this, which I also managed to deny and convert to a software need? --Gryllida 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Why unlikely? --Gryllida 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • And even if unlikely, taking note of what is missing is desired. Otherwise nobody knows what is missing. --Gryllida 10:18, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Reminder on tone[edit]

@Gryllida: I'd like to repeat the reminder made above: it is generally considered uncivil to edit someone else's comment without clearing the change with them in advance, and this does include headers. I've read your comments above, and feel that you are being sufficiently obtuse ("In the current form, the RfC says "WMF, please do not do that!". But I find a need to be catalytic and figure out what to do", for example) that there's very little point in attempting to discuss Wikipedia's problems with you. Finally, I very much dislike being patronised ("That's OK if you disagree."). I don't need your permission, or anyone else's, to disagree. Please learn to speak respectfully. RomanSpa (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry, I did it again. :-) Apart from convenience following, I had to do it due to this phenomenon. Curiously enough, it happens in many places — such as first talk page messages to the less-stable newcomers — and should be interesting to resolve.
As for the two quotes, please accept that I'm being straightforward and don't have a second meaning. I don't. I merely wanted to express thoughts, the latter being that I wouldn't like to fight. (Someone said "Hi, A", and I said "Hi, not A", and I figured I needed to add something to show that I'm not trying to convince them.)
I accept your attack at me — your statement that I'm not worthy enough for you to reject a meaningful discussion with me. Now what did you mean here, I wonder, if not a direct attack? What primary meaning can I find here, if the attack is not intended?
By all means I encourage that you put your thoughts into notes somewhere. Please don't do so at this talk page, though; I'd ideally see people writing small essays on each of their thoughts, as that's the best means of brainstorming that I can find with the available software. --Gryllida 08:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • You know, to deliberately repeat an offensive action (editing another editor's comments) after someone has complained about it can only be taken as an act of blatant rudeness. The rudeness was in no way alleviated by the emoticon.
As for the idea that I have committed an "attack" at you by deciding not to engage with you, I will simply note that I have merely concluded that, whether deliberately or unconsciously, you do not appear to understand the positions taken by most people in the RfC. I find your comment "In the current form, the RfC says "WMF, please do not do that!". But I find a need to be catalytic and figure out what to do" quite obtuse, to the extent that I find it hard to believe that a moderately empathetic adult would make it. There are two options: either you honestly don't understand why your remark entirely misses the point, in which case it's unlikely that you will be a helpful discussant in this RfC, or you are deliberately missing the point, in which case it's again unlikely that you will be helpful in addressing the concerns of contributors to the RfC. In either case, it seems to me that there is little that either I or Wikipedia can gain from further conversation. I'm not saying that you're not "worthy", I'm merely saying that I don't think either you or I would gain from an extended discussion on this matter. I don't consider making this remark to be an attack: I have been careful to express my own views in terms of my own thoughts, feelings and impressions, and have not commented on your intrinsic worth or other characteristics. I simply feel that you are missing the point of the RfC discussion; I think this is sad, but I can't see any way to change this. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 10:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Maybe some interested people would try to parse RfC atm, but I doubt that -- without someone taking notes into a clear essay -- it is useful to people later. In its current form, "WMF, please do not do that!" is occupying 90% of its page and I am not the one to walk through and clean up the garbage, especially after being asked to stop restructuring my own talk page.
I deliberately refused to read the RfC and posed a question of doing something to show that its participants are interested in producing something readable and actionable. --Gryllida 11:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
(I added a note to self in the parent section.) Gryllida 11:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for polishing my turd[edit]

Hi Gryllida, I was at first a bit annoyed with your suggestion to close the RFC and calling it a pile of junk, but when it became apparent you were trying to extract meaning from it all, it was easy to understand your initial objection. Yes, an RFC like this is usually a messy thing (like 100 person at a table all talking to each other at once) in its early phases. I've also been involved in setting up a much more focused community response, like Community Logo/Reclaim the Logo, and Pete has now done that with Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which only focuses on the commonality between the RFCs (en, de, commons, & meta).

I've started to look at the pages and discussions you've started, and I wanted to pop in to say thank you for picking up some of the aspects of this issue and devoting time to created more focused pages and discussions. Lots of useful material in there and its great to see others have started to engage on those pages. I've left one comment so far at Talk:Superprotect: an assumption of bad faith, and more to come. John Vandenberg (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar of caring[edit]

After feeling your pain and reading «I am not the one to walk through» (especially the I), I hereby award you this barnstar for caring so much about the recent conflicts and for taking an active role in trying to find a durable solution.

However, you are caring too much: you've not been named on-the-war-field commissioner/investigator/observer by the UNO/OSCE/Hague, there are no piles of corpses urging immediate action. The WMF software development has been broken since at least 2010 and it's not going to be fixed any time soon, don't hold your breath and don't try to fix it on your own: it's not your responsibility and you did more than could be expected from a single editor. For your own health, take a back seat now, go do something smaller which gives you a more immediate sense of usefulness. --Nemo 13:57, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Good timing; this specifically helped me at this given moment in time. --Gryllida 23:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decisions[edit]

The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.

If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.

I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 22:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • A request to stop something might be not motivating enough where a >50% of users (or enough funding) is obtained, the petitionee perceives agreeing to it as a lost battle. For this reason, I doubt the WMF would take the petition seriously, unless you put it into global banners on all projects (or abuse mass message).
As surveys are hard to do right and it's very easy to introduce bias ("let's undo this!" in a petition. yuck.), I only like one kind of surveys - the manual "one big fat textbox" style of feedback, and structure it later, after it is received. Wouldn't you like to find a wiki page where user rights are listed, and add a "New! (leave feedback)" button next to Superprotect? I'd love to hear their thoughts without having the "let's undo it!" label above the textbox.
--Gryllida 23:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
That would be Requests for comment/Superprotect rights, I believe. :-) If you think that page has not been able to receive "unlabeled" comments, how to fix that? --Nemo 04:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
This RfC is hard to find. Perhaps Meta's main page is the only substantial entry point. A user rights page could be another entry point that exists at every wiki and is visited by people who are vaguely interested in related topics.
What does "unlabeled comments" mean? Please rephrase. --Gryllida 10:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The kind of comments you're after. --Nemo 11:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. I am looking for comments that people leave voluntarily when browsing a user rights page. This means:
  1. They're specifically interested in this topic. They're likely to think through deeply. They're not dragged by something or someone (a talk page message or a banner) to read this; they're less likely to act thoughtlessly with the purpose of getting rid of "yet another survey" just to please whoever asked.
  2. They're not forced to read a lengthy RfC initially (although it is that still). Most people don't like reading or even learning new type of collaboration (and RfC is a new term overcomplicating things). They just see a "Superprotect new! (help | leave feedback)" sort of thing where the "leave feedback" button shows a dialog where they can type their message and be taken to a discussion page. Content and discussion should be separate, and content (the 'help' link) should be factual.
  3. They don't start by reading other peoples' comments. Placing facts and comments together just looks weird -- people would skip the facts and skim over the comments, and add something similar just for fun, out of herding instinct.
What sort of labels are we discussing here? --Gryllida 11:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
So you're looking for an (initially) write-only RfC. That's feasible, for example with mediawiki.feedback.js, which can easily append some comments to a wiki page. Where would you place this invitation to comment? --Nemo 12:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not exhaustive list, but I'd put it on Special:ListGroupRights, were it to list superprotect. I thought it would, but it doesn't.
I've already used jquery (both the feedback thing, and a manually programmed dialog) in the past but I'm curious whether it's as doable with the OOjs UI toolkit -- it's where design things are heading a bit more recently. --Gryllida 13:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida, sorry I didn't notice this discussion before. (I'm watching your talk page now.) Thank you for engaging with this. I see you more recently removed your name from the petition -- I assume this is for the reasons discussed above? I'm interested in hearing your thoughts about what the best path forward looks like to you. -Pete F (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts are laid out in this book. I'm pretty tired of the specific useless noisy petition. I could have also spent the entire time writing content or talking to newcomers elsewhere, or improving software related to those, and doing so will be the subject of my next focus. --Gryllida 23:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Your ping[edit]

Hello Gryllida,
I received your ping today, where you asked me about a translation. You seems to be a nice person and AFAIS you do more work on the consultation-page as the WMF; thanks for that.
Unfortunately I can not help you there. The reason is, that I’m very, very angry and disappointed about the WMF and so can not convince myself to help them in any way. Until now the WMF neither said sorry nor promised a better future; they did not switch the mediaviewer to opt-in and said that they no longer care of elections in projects. I’m in no dept to them, quite the contrary: my work made it possible to build something like the WMF at all. So as long as the WMF does not care for me, my votes and the trust my community had set in me, I will not help them in any way.
Nevertheless: Good luck! --DaB. (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DaB., thanks for sharing the feelings. I — generally — can't stand the attitude of choosing a conflict instead of a compromise, but a compromise may have been insufficiently indicative of the problem. Whether or not this specific crisis ends up with something productive in their management and planning, I dunno. It's their project after all.
Do not hesitate to take a small break and do some note-taking in a language of your convenience. Write down main problems and main solutions. Think what may have caused this conflict, over the years, gradually. While you don't have to upload these notes to a public place, contemplating on them during a couple weeks may be helpful for your own understanding in long-term. (That's what I've been doing here at Meta; I'm yet to write down a complete picture, myself.)
You might notice that I had marked some suggestions as worth leaving MV opt-in, on its feedback page, at my personal discretion. --Gryllida 02:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Edit Activity Graphs[edit]

Hi Gryllida,

Of late I've been working on some graphs that visualize the entire edit activity of a wiki - https://cosmiclattes.github.io/wikigraphs/data/wikis.html. I'm documenting work at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Editor_Behaviour_Analysis_%26_Graphs. This has been taking up a ton of my wiki time :-)

I've also put down some of the preliminary inferences regarding editor activity on en. Each graph has a selector on top of the page that allows you to filter it. On taking the cursor to the left end of the selector you'll get a resize cursor, you should then be able to redraw/drag the selection. Would you be interested in the data set for ru? I'd be happy to listen to other ideas you have.

The thread I started on the research mailing list https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-July/004582.html.

Replay Edits was my first foray into visualizations & I'll never abandon it, I'm fully aware of the concerns you have regarding it. I will get back to it but I don't want to commit to a deadline to it. --Jeph paul (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeph paulThank you. Please make the new tool support multiple wikis and multiple languages as well.
At random I looked at [2] and I could not interpret it, but I will try to do it again in a few. Gryllida 01:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I put together a presentation for the research team at the foundation - http://slides.com/cosmiclattes/edit-activity-graphs-analysis/. It also has some of the preliminary results. It has links to the graphs & says how to interpret & play with them. Let me know if you need any help in interpreting them or if you have other metrics you'd like to see graphed.--Jeph paul (talk) 04:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

How can we improve Wikimedia grants to support you better?[edit]

Hi! The Wikimedia Foundation would like your input on how we can reimagine Wikimedia Foundation grants to better support people and ideas in your Wikimedia project.

After reading the Reimagining WMF grants idea, we ask you to complete this survey to help us improve the idea and learn more about your experience. When you complete the survey, you can enter to win one of five Wikimedia globe sweatshirts!

In addition to taking the the survey, you are welcome to participate in these ways:

This survey is in English, but feedback on the discussion page is welcome in any language.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 01:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Last call for WMF grants feedback![edit]

Hi, this is a reminder that the consultation about Reimagining WMF grants is closing on 8 September (0:00 UTC). We encourage you to complete the survey now, if you haven't yet done so, so that we can include your ideas.

With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation.

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery. 19:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign on content curation & review[edit]

WPCube.png

I've recently launched an Inspire Campaign to encourage new ideas focusing on content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. Wikimedia volunteers collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge, and we’re looking for your ideas about how to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible. We invite you to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is welcome - your skills and experience can help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign to improve review and curation tasks so that we can make our content more meaningful and accessible! I JethroBT (WMF) 05:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out Instructions) This message was sent by I JethroBT (WMF) (talk · contribs) through MediaWiki message delivery.

Should FuzzyBot remove all potentially outdated translations?[edit]

Hello, thanks for adding multiple new translations in your language here at Meta-Wiki in recent years. Please join the discussion with your opinion: Should FuzzyBot automatically remove all potentially outdated translations?. Nemo (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Participate in the Inspire Campaign and help address harassment![edit]

NounProject Leaves.png

Through June, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas focusing on addressing harassment toward Wikimedia contributors. The 2015 Harassment Survey has shown evidence that harassment in various forms - name calling, threats, discrimination, stalking, and impersonation, among others - is pervasive. Available methods and systems to deal with harassment are also considered to be ineffective. These behaviors are clearly harmful, and in addition, many individuals who experience or witness harassment participate less in Wikimedia projects or stop contributing entirely.

Proposals in any language are welcome during the campaign - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign so that we can work together to develop ideas around this important and difficult issue. With thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC) (Opt-out instructions)

Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassment[edit]

NounProject Leaves.png

Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

test[edit]

.

...
...
4
5

Global preferences ready for testing[edit]

Greetings,

I am contacting you because of your support for Global settings in the 2016 Community Tech Wishlist. Global preferences are now available for beta testing, and need your help before being released to the wikis.

  1. Read over the help page, it is brief and has screenshots
  2. Login or register an account on Beta English Wikipedia
  3. Visit Global Preferences and try enabling and disabling some settings
  4. Visit some other language and project test wikis such as English Wikivoyage, German Wiktionary, the Hebrew Wikipedia and test the settings
  5. Report your findings, experience, bugs, and other observations

Once the team has feedback on design issues, bugs, and other things that might need worked out, the problems will be addressed and global preferences will be sent to the wikis.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

added - error message when i visit special:preferences Gryllida 23:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Template Wizard script available for testing[edit]

Hello. I'm contacting you because you voted for the Infobox Wizard in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

The Infobox Wizard has gotten an upgrade - it's now a Template Wizard which works for infoboxes and all other templates. The feature is being developed as an extension (which will allow for localization) but there is a prototype user script which works well.

The Wishlist Team would love it if you could take a few minutes to try the Template Wizard prototype script out and give us feedback on whether it lives up to your expectations. This feedback will help build the script into an extension. To get started, add the following to your Special:MyPage/common.js -

mw.loader.load( 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Samwilson/TemplateWizard.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript' );

The Template Wizard will show up as a puzzle-piece icon in the 2010 WikiEditor. You can click on the icon to insert a template. Your thoughts are needed on whether it makes sense for the wizard to be available for all users by default or if there should be a preference for it. If it's a preference, what should the default be? Please leave your feedback here. Thank you! -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Message sent by User:Keegan (WMF)@metawiki
using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Keegan_(WMF)/TW&oldid=17880254
--Gryllida 03:21, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”[edit]

Logo Feedback round in the Technical Wishes project.png

Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Timeless Newsletter • Issue 1[edit]

Wikimedia beetle.svg
Newsletter • July 2018

Welcome to the first issue of the Timeless newsletter! This issue is being sent or forwarded to everyone who has at some point expressed an interest in the project, give or take, as well as a couple of other potentially relevant pages, so if you would like to continue (or start) receiving this newsletter directly, please sign up for further updates on the meta page.


The news:

The Timeless grant has been selected for funding, and the project is now underway!

While I've had a somewhat slow start working on the project for health reasons, I'm pleased to announce that everything described in the proposal is now either happening, or on its way to happening.

Current progress:

  • The project now has a hub on Meta to serve as a directory for the various related pages, workboards, and local discussions and help pages. It's probably incomplete, especially with regards to specific language projects that might have local pages for Timeless, so if you know of others, please add them!
  • Outreach: I've been talking to various people and groups directly about skinning, desktop/mobile interfaces, project management, specific component support, and other things, and have begun to compile a very shoddy list of skinning problems and random issues on mw.org based on this. Some of this may inform the direction of this project, or possibly this project will result in building a more proper list that can then be used for other things. We shall see.
  • Some development - task triage, code review, bug fixing, and various rabbit holes involving ...overflows.

General plan for the future:

  • Triage the rest of the workboard.
  • Catch up with all the talkpages and other bug reports that have been left various other places that are not the project workboard
  • Do all the bug fixes/features/other things!
  • Some proposals aimed at Commons and Wikisource in particular (maybe, we'll see)

Essentially, the grant as written shall be carried out. This was the plan, and remains the plan. Timelines remain fuzzy, but while there have been some initial delays, I don't particularly expect the timeline for project as a whole to change a whole lot.

Also, for anyone at Wikimania right now: I am also at Wikimania. Come talk to me in person!

Thank you all for your interest and support thus far!

-— Isarra 12:23, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This issue has been sent regardless of signup status. To receive future issues please add yourself on the massmessage list.

SVG Translate Community wishlist survey project[edit]

Hello! Thank you for voting for the SVG Translate project that was proposed in the 2017 Wishlist survey. The Community Tech team in the Wikimedia Foundation is beginning to start their work on the project. We're currently looking for feedback on some open questions which will allow us to come up with preliminary designs for the tool. If you are interested in being involved, you can watch the project page and join in the discussions on the talk page. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts and learning from your experiences. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF), Product Manager, Community Tech (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Community Wishlist[edit]

Hello, you expressed an endorsement on these wishes: Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Miscellaneous/"→" links to sections should be easier to click and Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Editing/Autocomplete summaries in VisualEditor. Do you want to give a support vote too? --Dvorapa (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Dvorapa they both seem rather small, we could do them as a user script. However I also added the support. Gryllida 09:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Work for one of them already started, the second is a huge programming challenge, obviously devs don't want to invest their time to. --Dvorapa (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

"Who Wrote That" project update[edit]

Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an early-stage mockup available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to provide your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for sharing this, NKohli (WMF). Personally I'd suggest to remove the 'User:' part from the tooltip display, only leave their name (ie 'Foo') visible to show. Also please provide a non-JavaScript fallback. --Gryllida 01:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: Thanks for the feedback. From my understanding, it's not going to be possible to make this feature work without JavaScript. JavaScript needs to run every time we need to look up the author information for any word. To do this without JavaScript would mean to develop an entirely new UI system so that we can display the article text and the author for each part of the text in the same view at the same time. Because popups will also not work without JavaScript. I apologise about that. Do you mind if I copy over your feedback to the project talk page so other people who have the same query can see it too? Thanks a lot. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 03:11, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Not for each part NKohli (WMF). Instead I hope there will be API for this feature which takes article title and a quote as input. This can be done as a JavaScript-free page with two textboxes for these two arguments. --Gryllida 07:45, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: Unfortunately, the WikiWho APIs don't take return data for a given quote but instead they return the entire blame-map for the article in one go which we then have to manipulate in JavaScript to show author information. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps a non-JS form for quickly showing the API output without the users needing to read json or xml would be great.
And somehow check whether anyone is interested in per-quote api as well, perhaps just ask everyone who showed interest in this project whether they want this feature or not. --Gryllida 22:29, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I asked two people at random: Dalka and MusikAnimal at their talk pages. Perhaps you are willing to be a bit more active about checking this, I encourage to take all steps that you find are reasonable. I would very much encourage both of these points (non-JS version, and per-quote API), especially the former. Gryllida 22:33, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: The API I pointed you to already exists by an external organization. We cannot modify them so there is not much scope of changing how it works. I will keep the non-JS option in mind but I will say that there is not very much hope on that front. Thanks for your feedback. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
WikiWho are free (libre) software, if you want to do the blaming by quote there is an opportunity? Just checking in case there are legal restrictions or something similar, like as if someone else wants to volunteer with this task. Gryllida 00:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: The software is indeed free. The issue is that for this feature, the data and apis we will be using are hosted on their servers. We will not be taking the software and deploying it ourselves. This is because it is a monumental task to deploy it on our own servers and it does not give us any foreseeable benefits. We will also be losing out on the maintenance for the software that is provided by GESIS. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. --Gryllida 20:02, 23 February 2019 (UTC)