Jump to content

User talk:Sj/8

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki





Sj, did you see the email that I sent to you? I'm hoping that you can send a reply to Wikimedia-l. Thanks and happy new year. --Pine 07:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

I did and glad you asked. I will respond soon; I'm still thinking about it. I am impatient in my own way, so on the one hand I always want us (as a board and movement) to do more; and on the other I have to actively take time with some responses to reflect on them. Warmly, SJ talk  22:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I understand. Thank you. --Pine 23:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi SJ. Some time has passed. Are you still working on the email, or did you send one and I missed it? Thanks, --Pine 00:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
I wrote one, asked a friend for feedback, and life's little disasters got in the way. I will get back to it this week; it is a topic that was dear to aaronsw's heart too. SJ talk  02:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. I was sad when I heard about Aaronsw. I'm glad to see that the Wikimedia community is remembering him in numerous ways. I look forward to your email, but maybe it would be best to have this conversation a few days from now after we've all had a chance to do some emotional processing. Could you send the email on Thursday or later this week? Thank you, --Pine 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
Hi SJ. A month has passed since I first wrote to you. Are you still planning to respond? --Pine 02:04, 29 January 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hi, I thought you might have useful perspective on this: Talk:Special Interest Groups -Pete F (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Reply



Re: "I would love to see not just a FDC but a tech dissemination committee where people can apply for tech support for projects." -- this is a lovely idea. SJ talk 

Thanks SJ. Wondering how I should pursue it? I and many other I am sure need tech support for the work we do on Wikipedia / Wikimedia projects. And while I am even willing to pay someone I have no idea about hiring people who know how to edit Media Wiki software.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
I think you want a Tech version of the GAC, actually. Most tech needs are in the 1-2 developer range for a few months, for a fixed result. (The FDC equivalent would be a small dev-team for a year for an unrestricted variety of projects.) I suggest starting by proposing requests to the GAC, asking for tech time rather than $$, and see what they say. They may have good ideas. SJ talk 
Thanks will give it a try :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply
This is a fantastic idea. -Pete F (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't know what sort of tech support you're talking of and coming from whom, but Sumana seems to see Lead our development process as a product adviser or manager as something somehow similar to this. --Nemo 07:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Tech support would come from the WMF. The WMF is an expert in hiring people who do tech work. Wikipedians are not. So even if we have money / get money through an IEG this may not be what people need.
For example I need this or some equivalent tool to work in more languages than English [1]. User who created it is to busy to adapt it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

Community logo and derivatives


Thank you, Sj. :) I've spoken to the legal team about this, and Michelle Paulson put some thoughts here that might be useful consideration. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lovely, thanks Maggie. SJ




You might notice that there's a new page at Endowment here. In the links at the bottom is a question about your edit here. You may wish to comment as to where that discussion happened... or not. :) Philippe (WMF) (talk) 11:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Bureaucrat discussion


Hello. A bureaucrat discussion has been opened to decide the outcome of this request for de-adminship. It is opened for more than three days now and it has only received one comment so far. If you could please pass by and leave your comments over there it would be really appreciated. Best regards.

— Delivered via Global message delivery on behalf of MarcoAurelio, 15:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Marco. I commented there... SJ talk  23:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)Reply



have you forgotten one purpose for Wikinews? to serve as a record of what was known at a given point in time? - Amgine/meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news 21:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that too. This is partly addressed by historical revisions. More detailed comparisons of the value of "record v. persistent context" would be useful. I'm sure there are examples where one of those uses dominates, and others where both matter.
The record/snapshot of the full set of things popularly discussed is likewise important to put in context. Right now we don't have any way of capturing that : we don't work well on wn with other data feeds; today there are a number of compatibly licensed news sources that don't generate entries of any sort on WN. So I think there are many useful conceptual updates that could be sorted. SJ talk  03:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Grantmaking Barnstar

Individual Engagement Grant Barnstar
SJ, thanks for the thoughtful participation in IEG discussions - hope to have your ideas and input again in round 2! Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

chocolate leftovers...


... here notafish }<';> 00:53, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia loves the DPLA


Hi SJ,

I have emailed Emily Gore and Pam Wright. Below is a copy. Love to hear your comments.

Emily and Pam – We are a group of Wikipedians who would like to be the DPLA’s “first customers”.
The group will download NARA metadata from the DPLA to Wikimedia Commons. To this end, digitized item-level materials from NARA’s ARC database that have corresponding empty categories in the NARA-Commons partnership have been identified. The categories will be filled, and the images will be made available for Wikipedia editors – as an example of the power of the DPLA and its partner agencies.
The initial download includes NARA Record Group 330: Records of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1921 – 2008; however, if there is another preference, please let us know.
This collaboration - between Wikipedians and the DPLA, and using NARA records - is an amazing first step: NARA data is used first, furthering the agency goal to bring materials to Commons in a structured way, the DPLA has a high profile “first customer”, and Wikipedians are first in the door of what is the future of records aggregation.
After the completion of the first download, NARA records can continue to flow on to Wikimedia Commons, using the templating, categorization, and naming structures already in place.
The DPLA Technical Development team has expressed support of the plan, and will let us know when the download can begin.
This effort brings together diverse groups for a common goal – your input is welcome.
Emily – When appropriate, we will tweet, blog, and FB during the live download. We can provide you with the url of the Commons page the data will flow to, so you can watch the progress as well. It should be exciting!
Pam – As mentioned above, Record Group 330 seems like a good choice – military images are popular on Wikipedia. If NARA has another preference, please let us know.

Best, User:Bdcousineau User:Michael Barera User: Sarah Stierch User:Smallman12q

cc: SJ Klein, via user page

Thanks. Bdcousineau (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Great start! One thing we should consider: becoming a DPLA hub (say, along with WikiTeam), for both existing Wikipedia data, and perhaps providing curation services for repositories and communities that don't know how to get their material into the proper format, but are happy to contribute it to the DPLA through us (as a community hub) . [think of the smaller collections of primary sources, or sites like geograph.org that are busy gathering new data and may not have time/experience to scriptably massage the data into new formats. SJ talk  17:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Great idea of Wikipedia as a DPLA hub; I'd love to be involved any way that is appropriate. I've always thought Wikimedia is missing all the materials from so many small county and regional historical centers/museums.
Sadly, NARA is not so enthused about the DPLA/Commons/NARA collaboration. The team has decided/is discussing a different download, perhaps the 10k ARTStor images that are in DPLA. Research shows they are also PD. We will check in again. Thank you for your time and support. Bdcousineau (talk) 00:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Young Innovators Competition for Diversity of Digital Content


Hi Samuel,

I wanted to tell you about ITU Telecom Young Innovators Competition's new challenge on preserving diversity of digital content. We are calling for concept papers or start-ups from all around the world, started by young women and men (age 18-26) who work to inspire the creation of local content in a less frequently used on the Internet language. We recognize the dis-balance of digital content available and are devoted to help diversify the content by supporting talented young entrepreneurs who have projects in this field. We accept concept papers or start-ups (already up and running and in need of further help to scale up). We offer up to USD 10 000 of seed funding to the best 10 submissions, and we really hope that some of them will be for our challenge on digital content.

More information at our website .

Any questions, as well as applications, should go to young.innovators@itu.int

Thanks if you can spread the word for us in your networks.


Thanks, Dimitrina! I will definitely spread the word. This looks like an amazing effort. Are you asking them to release their work under a free license? SJ talk  23:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hi. Can you please fix Wikimedia user group? It redirects to itself. PiRSquared17 (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Done. SJ talk 
Ha! So I'm not alone. :-)
I updated groups groups. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
P.S. Wikimedia exit interview/Sue Gardner is underway.

Hi, thanks for participating in the RFC for interproject links. There is a new option that might be interesting to explore. Please check Dropdown next to title 1 and Dropdown next to title 2. They are part of Option 5.--Micru (talk) 14:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

FDC round 2


Dear Samuel,

If they had any trouble they should indeed talk about it. I am glad to help, the extent of my participation depends, however, on the content of their trouble in round 2. If they wish they can contact me at FDC portal/Appeals regarding FDC process/2012-2013 round2 or by e-mail susana.morais@wikimedia.pt.

If they wish to complaint about the FDC recommendations to the board, it is better to discuss them directly with the board representatives on the FDC.

Regards from Lisboa! Lusitana (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

Forced user renames coming soon for SUL


Hi, sorry for writing in English. I'm writing to ask you, as a bureaucrat of this wiki, to translate and review the notification that will be sent to all users, also on this wiki, who will be forced to change their user name on May 27 and will probably need your help with renames. You may also want to help with the pages m:Rename practices and m:Global rename policy. Thank you, Nemo 16:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Methinks your EdwardsBot is a bit trigger-happy... I thought the page in question says that renames will happen by August? Where is the May 27 deadline from ? SJ talk  18:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
It was actually supposed to be done in May, but James realised that it would cause huge problems for checking voter eligibility in the Board and FDC elections, see his email to Wikimedia-l. Thehelpfulone 18:48, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply



"and" = "amd" in your statement. -- phoebe | talk 18:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

The irony is that there's one in your statement too, "foward-looking". :D Thehelpfulone 18:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ha! See, if only someone helpful had told me about it... thanks MzM for the fix. To the below, I am aware things are editable; but a statement is a particularly personal piece of writing, not meant to be changed. It would be especially inappropriate I think for the candidates to start editing each other's statements, even something as minor as spelling. To SJ: apparently this is what happens when we don't proof for each other. :) -- phoebe | talk 00:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the catch! And fixes. I'm using... antiquated technology this week to edit. Definitely throws off the proofreading reflexes :) SJ talk  18:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just a gentle reminder: this site is a wiki. ;-) Be bold, &c. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Now, now ..:) Someone other than me did fix the typos (thanks!). And it's reasonable for one candidate to avoid touching another's orthography, touching on how touchy some are about touching. What if I were using a statement generator based on the 'optimal # of typos in trusted communication'? SJ talk  18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Making all Chapter Agreements public


Hey SJ, just following up from the discussion a couple of months ago about publicly publishing the chapter agreements that are currently only on the private (and soon to be closed down?) internal wiki. I see Geoff replied a few days ago to your message on his talk page. From a quick count I see that there are 12 links to internal on Chapter Agreements. Do you know who the best people to contact would be to get these chapter agreements published? Thehelpfulone 18:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Let me take a look. SJ talk  18:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I also just thought that it might be good to add columns for FR2012 and FR2013, and possibly FDC eligiblity. What do you think? Thehelpfulone 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
Geoff suggests the WMF is fine publishing the custom versions, but the chapter has to agree. Most of the links to internal were to the stock template from 2007, which I've published here.

on WMHK's alternative option


Thanks for your creativity, SJ. But frankly, we DO NOT see such alternative fesible, as most of cost for chapter-survival (paid staff, audit cost) either lay in long term paid staff, or concurrent expenditure. Even your dear grant adiminstrator can block us on spending the previous remain fund on concurrent expenditure like audit cost. If we cannot finish the audit report, it is a criminal offence, and the whole board can be get sued & fined by the HK gov't [2] [3]. So what can we do? Yes, the FDC decision just force us to disband the chapter. -- ※ JéRRy ~ 雨雨  ※  Was?  ※  18:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

That sounds... like an alternate reality to me. If you need funds this year, grants are available. For next year and beyond, there are both grants and FDC. If you get (any) new grant, the previous funds can be applied to that. SJ talk  22:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Amical recognition update


Thanks for keeping us informed. We look forward to celebrate the resolution. Obviously you are invited to the party.--Gomà (talk) 07:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Very kind. :) SJ talk  20:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Board Questions


Hi. We still wait for a lot of answers from you. You are one of the candidates I really would like to vote for, but I draw a line for myself some time ago: candidates who don't answer the questions (and it is possible to say "I don't know the answer!", this is [some times a good one ;)] an answer) will not get my vote. But time is running away... -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 23:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, Marcus! I have answered the questions as best I can now. There are certainly some difficult questions where I don't really know the answer :-) but I have shared my best approximation in each case. SJ talk  18:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply
I know it is hard - I would have problems to answer al lot of these questions ;). But I don't have to *g*. That's why I wrote, it's for me OK not to have an answer. It's better than to construct one. Marcus Cyron (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply





But why are you manually adding T:x comments? They get added automatically when you mark a page for translation. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, now I know what sorts of formatting the parser chokes on :-) Let's see if it minds my including the comments directly. SJ talk  18:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
Replied on my talk page. The rest of the discussion (if there is any) should happen on my talk page. I want to keep it in one place. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
I left a question for you there relating to this SJ. :-) Thehelpfulone 20:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply
As we don't yet have Echo on Meta, just a ping to let you know I've replied. Thehelpfulone 22:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot!


I notice that you have understood exactly - like Phoebe and Maria - what kind of dilemma we are trying to solve. After almost 10 years, where we are working on this project, we simply see the need, working on new ideas, even apart from established structures.

BTW: Karl and I are Austrian citizen and although we consider ourself - of course - as part of the German language Wikipedia, on the other side, we see ourselves as representatives of regional interests too. --Hubertl (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Seen as an extreme voice


You write, «I have not always succeeded in part because I am seen as an extreme voice [in the WMF board] on these issues; even though within the spectrum of positions in the rest of the community I do not think my positions are particularly extreme.» This is something that worries me a lot, because I hear it constantly: WMF board members with different opinions or backgrounds get marginalised or ignored and are put in a corner. Maybe one day someone will be able to change this unfortunate situation, in the meanwhile my condolences for this hard job: I really do not wish anyone to be elected on the WMF board! I hope you know that many of us felt and shared your pain in these years. --Nemo 09:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your comments, Nemo. Perhaps I should find a different phrasing: 'one end of the spectrum of voices on the Board'. I don't mean it to have a negative connotation there, or to suggest there is any marginalisation going on - we are a very consultative and consensus-focused board. But on a small number of issues we take up a broad spectrum of views, and one of them is how much the WMF should direct vs. support the projects. The context there is usually some difficult problem that has not yet been solved; so it is not clear how a solution will come about. Some people believe that the WMF, by being larger and older than many other institutions, naturally knows the best solution to thorny problems; I am not so sure. Sometimes I see the best solutions coming from individuals.
But even on issues where I am the odd Trustee out, I do not feel ignored. And usually, on every issue, we come to a compromise in between the extremes of the spectra of views. SJ talk  02:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Candidate questions



I have a couple of questions regarding your candidate submission:

  1. How the previous board fullfiled tasks, you would like to do in the future?
    The previous Board learned to work together quite well: reaching consensus quickly, and finding alternatives to consensus when needed. We never worked in factions. The Board has also become good at delegating work to committees and to staff groups, without confusion. This required building trust within the whole Foundation, and within the {ED+Board} team, that each part was working as it should. We started to open up the Board process, inviting a Board Visitor to sit in on some of our sessions. And I personally learned a lot through our movement roles process: about how to develop guidelines for the Foundation through community efforts.
  2. How you would evaluate your work in the previous Board?
    I feel good about my work to shift the WMF's definition of movement groups : so that it now pays attention to how much support is given to individuals and small groups; so that chapter successes are learned from, and so that there is also a well-defined place for thematic organizations and individual projects in the Foundation planning and analysis. I tried to bring consensus to the Board even when we had thorny discussions about whose work defines our mission, and how to accept healthy risks. I worked smoothly with the ED in the past two years; who is an important part of any well-functioning board.
    I was not able to get long-term financial planning underway, which is important to me; this took longer than I had hoped. This year, after joining the Audit Committee, I learned how to be more effective in contributing to those plans. And I feel that, despite best efforts, we still spent more time reacting to recent events than planning for the future. These are both things that the next Board should address. It should significantly improve the WMF's long-term plans, and spend much less time on short-term drama.
  3. What do you think about funds redistribution to the Chapters? Why chapters always grunt about it? What should be done in this area? And it something, why it wasnt already done?
    I think a chapter in every country or region is, when developed properly, an effective way to organize partnerships, funds, and other resources. The WMF initially encouraged all regions to develop chapters, to hire staff and 'professionalize', and to acquire funds. Then starting three years ago, this advice changed; I think chapters complain in part because of that shift in expectations. In community-drive projects, there are many alternatives to 'professionalizing' and many ways to distribute resources without a lot of staff. In the past few years, the movement has seen amazing organizations without staff, and amazing projects without organizations (such as WLM). The WMF wants to support this sort of work without prejudice -- based on its value to the projects. And wants to redistribute funds to supports each part of the world, not only proportional to how much that country donated. This required changing how fundraising and allocation worked. This has led to the FDC and more reporting; which is not as convenient as the early fundraisers. That's another source of complaint. Finally, both chapters and the WMF think that the other group isn't always making good use of funds. This is a failure in communication and shared metrics.
    I think we need to improve peer review among the {WMF, Chapters, and Thematic Orgs}, so that each of those groups trusts the work and progress of the others, and all feel that they are united in working towards our mission. We need to unify our metrics, and discuss the different goals in the strategies of different chapters. We need to prioritize translation for this level of planning and communication. And we need to describe more fully the work that only Chapters and that only the WMF can do: so that each can delegate work to the other when needed. Some of this has been done, slowly. But sharing internal planning across organizations is hard; and much of this sharing requires better multilingual communication. For instance, the detailed strategy work that WM-SE and WM-FR and WM-IT and the WMF do is, in each case, in a single language; with only summaries translated into some of the others.
    Certainly. I've mainly tried to move as much communication and documentation as possible to Meta. Including Board resolutions, so they can be more easily commented on and translated, reports and Chapter Agreements, and useful internal WMF documents whenever I run across them. I have refused to join any new private wikis (other than the board-wiki) myself; we switched having a separate movement roles wiki to publishing all materials on Meta. And most of the Board-level work that I have been part of, including drafts of many resolutions proposed to the Board, have in the past 2 years been developed on Meta.
  4. How "one" can change all organisation?
    Some changes require many people. But a single person can serve as an example; and remind others to do things they already want to do, but may forget. In our case, much of the conflicts on our projects, including debates about what software to write, and Foundation-Chapter-Partner tension, is self-inflicted and self-fulfilling. A bit of mediation, and remaining calm in the face of a momentary crisis, can help avoid blow-ups and distractions.

Thank you very much for answers.

Thank you for your questions. SJ talk 


--Juandev (talk) 10:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Best wishes


Hi Samuel I just wanted to;

  1. thank you for all your effort on Wiki,
  2. wish you best for the election; it's good if people who get up the learning curve are able to contribute over a long period (ego declines, understanding increases, wisdom rises; value and effectiveness increases),
  3. say that if in future you see a need for someone like me (early retired senior investment banker, check my edits for areas of current interest particularly in mental health, serving on various boards) on one of the boards then give me a nudge, because I'm motivated to see Wiki thrive and develop. In particular I'm hungry that Wiki be perceived as having a higher standard of content than it now is by the general public; Wiki has enormous potential to help mankind even more in future, and this is a key issue in it doing so.

All the best, JCJC777

Thank you JCJC, for your kind words and your interest. I agree that we must reach a new level of perceived use -- including welcoming the legions of disaffected academics who would like to contribute to not-for-profit publications. Do you know other community members interested in that same goal? We may also need input from talented investment experts, as we are considering building an endowment and setting up a more aggressive long-term investment plan. Right now we have $30M+ of our reserve in conservative low-yield instruments. SJ talk  19:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Congratulations on another two years


Congratulations on a job well done, Samuel. Your support of the foundation over the last two years and the two years before that has been exemplary. I'm very happy to have your continued support of the projects under the WMF umbrella. Congratulations and thanks for your efforts. 01:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi Samuel, I hope you are doing fine. Thanks for your answers and the most important thing: Congratulations! I am really glad you made it again, you really deserved it. Take real care and keep on doing your good work! Claudi Balaguer/Capsot 19:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC) (So funny not to be blocked or reverted when using anonymous IPs... but I might be speaking too quickly...).Reply
   Auguri e in bocca al lupo, Sj  Klaas|Z4␟V
  08:06, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! Many hands make light work. :) SJ talk  11:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)Reply



Thanks Samuel! Right back at you. :-) The next two years promise to be interesting! Kind regards, Raystorm (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply

input wanted



I'll have a think and come back to you.

Initial thoughts;

Use the $30m to attack the core issue of Wiki content being seen as poor quality by some people; 1. Pay for analysis of which entries are seen as low quality (certain categories?), 2. Pay good editors to improve those articles. No point in money in bank (esp. when can turn on donations, as you say); let's use it aggressively to raise Wiki quality.

$30m is very small in investment terms. Easy to lose significant % in management and other fees. Nowhere near big enough for own fund.

Using first year students to edit seems bad idea to me; almost designed to produce sloppy editing, and thus to damage the Wiki franchise. How about paying leading academics to quality check articles in their area of competence; maybe have a badge (red triangle?) on those articles to indicate 'checked by an expert'.

If we have resources let's invest them right in our core activity, to build Wiki credibility, to attack weak articles, and thus raise the perceived value of all the other articles. Thinking e.g. like Bezos 'get big fast': let's focus all our resources on lifting Wiki quality. That's the best way to maximise how much value Wiki has and how much good it does.

Best wishes, JCJC

Internal wiki discussion


Hi SJ, as previously discussed, I've started something at Talk:Wikimedia_wikis#Are we re-purposing Internal?, please add your thoughts there. :-) Thehelpfulone 00:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re: Sending to wikimedia-announce: too much?


I like your suggestion of a condensed monthly summary of tech–related news that you brought at Talk:Tech/News; would you mind expanding on the idea a bit? :-) odder (talk) 19:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Global Economic Map


Hi SJ,

Would you be interested to give a comment on the Global Economic sister project proposal on Wikipedia?

Thank you, Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'll have to take a closer look at it. This sort of map is clearly needed; though many such projects can be realized within an existing sister project - as a new type of page, to begin with. SJ talk  18:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply



at meta isnt even matching the simplest rules of politeness: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#This_isnt - how rude will it get here?--Angel54 5 (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply



Hi Sj! Do you think this proposal has any chance of being revived in the near future? It had a lot of promise. PiRSquared17 (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

You have new messages
You have new messages
Hello, Sj. You have new messages at User talk:Programs:Share_Space/Questions.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SarahStierch (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for these two ideas: coming back into vogue in 2014. SJ talk 

Irregularities on Croatian Wikipedia


Sj, I'm setting up a new page format for info on problems with Croatian Wikipedia and I've moved your contributions from the old page to here. Please let me know if all looks ok. Also, we're planning to open the pages for submissions soon, so any feedback on the layout & instructions is very welcome. Thank you! Miranche (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)Reply



I have sent you an email, would you be so kind when you read it to send me an answer. Thank you! SpeedyGonsales (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the email. Replied! SJ talk  01:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Resolution:Media about living people


Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 06:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

The Dutch version is not updated. I'd like to do it, but have no edit rights there. Can you give them to me, please? Thank you in advance,  Klaas|Z4␟V22:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
You mean the original resolution? The new resolution is posted in Dutch, and looks up to date. 22:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply
Same problem in French, not updated on the WMF site. Ideally the amended texts on the WMF site should be resubmitted for translating updates here in Meta, and further reviewed for updating on the WMF site. But it would be simpler to have these texts maintained only here, by locking translations once they are approved. The WMF site would then just host a local mirror of the last validated translations. verdy_p (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2013 (UTC)Reply