User talk:JAnstee (WMF)

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 | 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)‎ | +/-

Sandbox


Additional resources in Learning Library... or Tools ?[edit]

About this: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Programs%3AEvaluation_portal%2FLibrary%2FResources&diff=7471067&oldid=7279355

Shouldn't this addition be outside of the learning "Library" sections and instead placed in the "Tools" page (along with Wikimetrics and Qualtrics) of the Evaluation portal ?

Note that the link below the first added resource (descrbed with the resource template) is unrelated, but seems to be associated to the next resource below it. The presentation is counter intuitive and the link not described correctly. This is counter-intuitive and in fact it is fully related to Wikimetrics in the Tools section.

verdy_p (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed this when I posted next to the Logic models one. Both the Logic Models and the Tracking and Reporting Toolkit page are tools too, just at different levels (these two pages should be under a subheading of something like "Process and Tracking Tools") so both will need to move and a category level which I need to figure out. I just have not had the time to come back to it and couldn't figure it all out at the time I realized the disorder. JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
OK... This populates better the reusable tools for various future reports. And lives the library for finalized reports about completed programs (whose reuse for later preoframs is much less evident except for inspiration or simply to learn about what was good or bad in a project and discussing about what may be done in the future; the library are not necessarily the current state of best practices to recommand for the future, even if they are informative and an be used to hint further projects)
In fact given te current size of the library, may be the program reports themselves should have their own section separate from the library itself on the portal, as they are not really "resources".
Or the library may be thought again by showing a more synthetic list as it is now growing rapidly (and much more than any other part of the Evaluation portal. For now it is sustainable, but this won't last for long and this library should probably become a basic index of thematics, bringing people to pages listing resources about each thematic (note that we already have categories or lots of common thematics, and many of these thematic pages (listing the various resources about the thematic) should be categorized in those categories (e.g. "Meetings/Meetups", "Privacy", "LGBT" and "Gender divide", "Translation" and improved support for some scripts like Arabic or African languages, "Wikipedia", "Commons", and constant projects with regular events organized in various places like "GLAM", "Wiki loves monuments", photo contests, "Wikipedia Education", "Zero Access", "Chapters organisation", and the various Wikimedia commitees...) verdy_p (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016 Evaluation[edit]

thank you Jaime for the message. fantastic to have you involved! yes, please do not hesitate to comment directly on the talk page of Wikimania 2016 bids/Esino Lario/Evaluation, and please add all your doubts and suggestions and remarks. We have the idea of having an evaluation team (here the draft page). beyond the survey and the tools we would like to involve the stakeholders (in particular wikimedia Italia and CH), we will have to report to grantmakers too (the report for Wikimedia Foundation will be on meta but for the others we will have documents in Italian following their forms) and I would like to have also some researcher involved (Roberta Bonetti is anthropologist focussed on applied anthropology who has already given her volunteer support to the idea) and maybe the team of Italian sociologists focused on ICT. Open to suggestions and of course i consider you and the evaluation group of Wikimedia Foundation part of the team if it is not a problem. my warm regards and looking forward to hearing from you. --iopensa (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Deleted user page[edit]

Hello Jaime. I marked user:JAnsee for deletion because there is no such user. The only content was your signature, dated 04 June 2013. Feel free to create a new account with that name if needed. —Pathoschild 02:33, 03 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pathoschild, thanks for the clean-up, clearly made a mistake that I didn't know was out there. CheersJAnstee (WMF) (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

Tiles. 7 Halytska Square, Lviv. WLM 2015 in Ukraine

Thank you for comments and trying to help us, sharing your experience. It is very important for us :) --アンタナナ 17:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Have a nice morning/day/evening/night Face-smile.svg

Wikimedians of Colombia user group[edit]

Hello there, Jaime! I'm Oscar, from the Wikimedians of Colombia user group.

We the group members are worried to see that we appear here as a not eligible group, with no recent activity and reports not up-to-date. We are not sure if that's a mistake or if we have not made some reporting procedure, so we'd like to check what the problem was and fix it. I appreciate your kind help with the issue.

As I'm not sure if I can modify this other table, I'm posting here the relevant information:

  1. The group current status is Renewed indefinitely since this AffCom resolution.
  2. Our annual report was sent for the renewal. It's located here.
  3. We have requested, received and reported on time one (1) grant. The report can be seen here.
  4. We have an active blog here, an active Facebook page here and an active Twitter account here. As you can check there (and also in the annual report), we have been doing several activities over the year. In fact, we have recently requested a new grant for a contest we have just started.

That's it. Do you think we somehow missed any reporting procedure or something? What shall we do now to fix our status?

Thanks for the help! --Racso ¿¿¿??? 02:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello Oscar. Thank you, for pointing that renewal out, I missed it, and especially for posting the links to your report and other sites. I have updated Reports with those links and also made the update to the eligibility list. (That is where we check for reporting and activity when we do the eligibility list.) Please let me know if you have any further questions. JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
Blazing fast! Thanks again for the help! --Racso ¿¿¿??? 14:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


WMLGBT+[edit]

Hi Jaime, I added a link to Wikimedia LGBT/2015 to the Reports page. We haven't applied for any funding, so the report is mostly a summary of our activities, or at least links to more comprehensive meetup and results pages. As you may know, Wikimedia LGBT+ focuses on improving content across all Wikimedia projects, and in all languages, so our reporting may look a little different than groups with a more defined scope or geographic area. Please let me know if you require any additional information at this time. I am trying to get the ball rolling now so that the group can be represented at the Wikimedia Conference and continue to have its user group status. -Another Believer (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Another Believer for submitting your activities report to the Reports page. The way the process works is, once you submit the report I review the report (completed). Now, I submit a request to AffCom to renew your User Group status and will here back from them within 72 hours. I do not anticipate any problem with your reporting, however, as our offices will be closed for the holiday, it may take a little longer to email you back again and update the eligibility list once approvals have been cleared through AffCom. Please let me know if you have other questions. -JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 18:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your assistance, Jaime. -Another Believer (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello again, Another Believer This message is to draw your attention to the recent updates to the affiliates reporting and conference eligibility pages on meta. There you will find your user group is renewed and is now eligible to register one representative to attend Wikimedia Conference. Thank you for your updated reporting and congratulations on your renewal. - JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Jaime. I appreciate your help and heads up. -Another Believer (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka[edit]

Hi Jaime. Good day to you. Would you be able to help me with {{Affiliates}} (and any related lists/templates), please? I would like to add Wikimedia Community User Group Sri Lanka to it, but I'm unsure if I'm allowed to do so. Kind regards, Rehman 13:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Rehman. I am a little confused as the template page you reference has already been updated to include Sri Lanka on the User Group page. These are templates that I am responsible to maintain in order to display affiliate names and logos on our main affiliates page. May I ask, what update are you wising to make for Sri Lanka? JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging at Wikimedia Conference 2016 Learning Days![edit]

OOjs UI icon ribbonPrize.svg Take Action icon (The Noun Project).svg This Certificate of Appreciation awards JAnstee (WMF) for being a great
Teaching Lead
at one or many Learning Days session(s) in Wikimedia Conference 2016
JAnstee (WMF), we hope this experience has empowered you to continue sharing your experiences to enlighten others in your local community... and beyond! We hope to continue to foster together peer-to-peer learning. Warmly, the Learning Days team. María (WMF) (talk) 00:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to Training Modules design conversation[edit]

Hello! We are leaving you this message because you have previously indicated that you interested in helping the Wikimedia Foundation Support & Safety team in developing our training modules this year.

We appreciate all the help and thoughts users like you have offered thus far. We would like to encourage you, if you are interested, to participate in the next step of our development: a community consultation about the design and structure of the modules. Note that we're not yet gathering feedback on the content of the modules - a separate consultation about that will be starting soon.

In this "design" consultation, we're looking for advice on things like the best place to host these modules, the accessibility of content, and other potential design decisions. Please feel free to leave any thoughts you have about these things on the talk page. Thanks! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Republika Srpska, not Republic of Srpska[edit]

You've made a mistake here: there's no Republic of Srpska, only Republika Srpska - the name is not translated into English, see Dayton Accords. 217.197.138.62 15:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

North Carolina Triangle Wikipedians User Group annual reporting[edit]

Hello,

I was notified that our annual reporting was past due and have taken care of that, I think. Can you confirm the reporting requirements have been met? If I'm missing anything, please let me know that as well.

Thanks,

Frankcjones (talk) 23:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello Frankcjones While your report is now posted, it does not meet all reporting requirements. Specifically, Wikimedia User Groups are required to submit an annual activity report covering the entirety of the 12-month agreement period in order to prompt review for a renewal. This would mean your report should cover all activities from May 22, 2015-May 21, 2016 (Or from May 2015- April 2016). Please send me another note once you have completed this reporting. - Thanks, JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
JAnstee, I've extended the report to include events between May 2015- April 2016. If any additional information is required, please let me know. Thanks, Frankcjones (talk) 02:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Frankcjones, I have updated accordingly. - JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Reporting for ELiSo[edit]

Dear Jaime, the report page says that the report for ELiSo is not submitted. But, our report for all years can be found here. Could you please take a look and update the reports page? All the best, Lingveno (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, Lingveno, I had only updated on the eligibility page it seems. My err, thanks for letting me know, it has been corrected. JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 02:18, 25 January 2017 (UTC)


Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia[edit]

Hello, Jaime! I'm David from the Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia. I want to know why here Wikimedia Community User Group Georgia is marked as inactive? We have 2017 report at our user group page and all reports is up-to-date.--David1010 (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello David1010, as noted on your user group talk page, your group has not submitted your required reporting to the meta Reports page.
Wikimedia User Groups are required to submit an annual activity report covering the entirety of the 12-month agreement period in order to prompt review for a renewal. Reports must be written in English, posted to meta, and linked on the meta Reports page.
This page is used to track how organizations and groups are meeting reporting requirements described in their agreements with the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g. chapter agreements, thematic organization agreements, user group agreements). It is the central place where affiliates can add reports about their activities, share their plans, and even news or social media channels with the wider movement. When new reports are available, organizations and groups should add them to this page to keep their columns up to date.
As noted on the meta Reports page, your organization’s 2016-2017 annual reporting became past due in March. Please be sure to
  1. Post your first annual reporting to the meta Reports page as soon as possible to return to compliance with your user group agreement.
  2. Check that your group’s page is also up to date with past report links for historical record-keeping, and
  3. Please send an email to Wikimedia-l in order to share with a movement-wide audience.
Once you do this, the mark will be updated. Thanks, JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Done--David1010 (talk) 08:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, David1010, I have updated the eligibility page accordingly JAnstee (WMF) (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Translation of the questions of the survey into German[edit]

Hello Jaime,

I got a automatic report with the invitation to make the survey today maybe one hour ago. I made it then quickly after I got the E-Mail. In the survey the German translation was not in every case good. Can you please give me a list of the questions and the German translation and is it possible to change the German translation. I think it should be done. Because it is not good for the Image of the Wikimedia Foundation if you publish a survey and the translation contains mistakes. I asked the question also at the discussion page of the survey. Please answer soon to my question. Because I think the current situation is not good for the Reputation of the Wikimedia Foundation and the way how user from other countries see the WMF. -- Hogü-456 (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hello Hogü-456, I am Rebecca Maung, and I am managing the Community Insights survey this year. Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention! The survey was translated from English by a third-party service, and we tried to have volunteer translators review each language version to fix errors. We only had two weeks to conduct this review, and did not find a reviewer for every language, so, unfortunately, the German translation did not get reviewed. I understand your concerns, and agree that it is important to have high-quality translations of the survey. If you are still offering your help with improving the German translation, you can do so on this google sheet]. I'll continue to monitor it and make changes to the survey as they are recommended. Again, I greatly appreciate your feedback. RMaung (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)