User talk:Steven (WMF)

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 9 years ago by JMK in topic Typography changes


Just out of curiosity, how is it that you are editing on behalf of Robert Harris? Is he not being compensated enough to bother to learn wikitext conventions? I must say this is a little odd, especially given the fact that the ideas presented seem to conform more closely to your statements than his. 03:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

Robert isn't being paid to learn MediaWiki markup. He's being paid to conduct a study of controversial content and make recommendations based on his experience in the media world. I'm helping Robert and Dory out with converting the documents they wrote to WikiText, simply because it's more efficient to have me do it. As for the ideas presented, I am editing using my work account precisely because any actions I take are part of my job and not necessarily personal opinions of mine as a Wikimedian. Steven (WMF) 16:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for explaining that. 20:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply

IRC Office Hours[edit]

Could you please update the "Upcoming Office Hours" chart on IRC Office Hours? Please and thank you! Killiondude 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the good work on community related issues[edit]

It is showing that there are many open venues to pursue interesting research in this area.--GlimmerPhoenix 14:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Felipe, that means a lot. :) Steven Walling at work 18:15, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Reply
+1 to Felipe's comment~ SJ talk | translate   04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

blocks and bans[edit]

Moved to Global blocks and bans. For great justice! Time to test it out on the poetlister case. SJ talk | translate   04:24, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply

Re: Thanks![edit]

I think that's my perfectionist side ;) Fitoschido [shouttrack] \\ 19 July, 2011 [10:18]

Re: Thanks[edit]

You're welcome! The results are fascinating ... especially the fact that there seem to be many new editors working on articles relating to WikiProject India and WikiProject Indonesia, but they aren't the most active WikiProjects. Graham87 00:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)Reply

Date mismatch[edit]

"day=17" seems wrong on [1]. Please delete this message after this issue has been addressed, unless you see some reason to keep it. Dualus 21:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note! Should be fixed now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

2 Global Bans?[edit]

You mentioned here that there were 2 global bans. Isn't Abigor still globally banned? His attempt to be unbanned on Meta wasn't successful. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 19:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Please clarify...[edit]

Here. Thanks. --SB_Johnny talk 17:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Should I assume from your lack of reply (now that we see you're otherwise interested) that the foundation's position is that reasonable people will be held accountable for not wanting to engage with the creepy types?
I did, in fact, block Mr. Poetlister's latest declared sock on WV a couple days ago, and there's a big hooplah going on about that (or at least one very vocal and upset person). I left a note there reporting that I had asked for clarification, from you.
Please do bear in mind that I don't think PL is a dangerous person, or at least not dangerous to me. My concern is that your statement seems to imply that volunteers must toe the line or be held accountable, when historically the WMF has not been very supportive of volunteers who have come up against crazy people (e.g., that certain guy who seems to be in-and-out of prison a lot lately in California... 'nuff said). I can imagine some of these people that end up being "globally banned" might be more like that guy in CA than that guy in the UK. I hope you're following that ;-).
So, again, please clarify. --SB_Johnny talk 01:02, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry for the wait. As you can see I've been pretty busy with some other work. I'll get a detailed response to you and dark lama tonight, since it does need clarification. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 01:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Understood, it's just causing a bit of a ruckus elsewhere at the moment (here, there, everywhere, etc.), and some clarification of what the actual options are would at least allow the logjam to break. --SB_Johnny talk 10:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Done. Let me know if you'd like further comment. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I think it's fairly clear on the "PL question", but I'm still concerned about putting local admins "in a bind" between potentially mentally unstable people (who would generally be the ones being banned), "anti-authoritarian types" who will probably end up hounding the local sysops for blocking, and the WMF itself making demands on the sysops. IOW, if an actor is bad enough that they need to be kept off the projects, it's probably better if somebody at the office does the actual hunting and blocking. --SB_Johnny talk 22:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, to be honest, it's not really practically possible for the WMF to start some kind of campaign to do banning/blocking itself. It's not just the Wikimedia values of "community first" that discourages us. When a company like Facebook sets out to block accounts under its terms, it hires a team of dozen or half-dozen people full time just to fulfill this kind of request. Ultimately I don't see many of these global ban cases cropping up anyway; the amount of people who really legitimately have met the criteria described in the policy (multiple local bans, more than just a spammer/vandal) can be counted on one hand. Increasing the annual number of these bans is not desirable from a WMF perspective either. Even if we could hire a team to do that, we wouldn't want to. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Agreed: there's likely to be very few people this would apply to. However, that also means you wouldn't need a room full of staffers ;-). I think the point is that when there are people who make things so burdensome for the community that a ban like this becomes necessary, maybe having at least one "professional" to take care of such things would ease the burden. --SB_Johnny talk 23:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

New policy[edit]

Fyi, this was established as a new global policy without any consensus, following any procedures, and hosted only on an obscure forum that doesn't establish policy with little participation and no consensus for it. I think this shines really poorly on us and violates a lot of our standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

That seems pretty routine to me. All they're saying is that we created a group of people who have to do page moving duties for new wikis. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 06:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
That was normally a temporary set. Policies are also not routinely created without community consensus. This new group would have the delete ability. Global sysop took over 1,000 votes and many years before it would passed. This has all of the abilities of a global sysop besides blocking, and has not been vetted by the community, lacked community support, etc. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
By the way, Mr Walling, if you were correct - what would stop the Stewards from creating a group that is exactly like Global Sysops, creating a new "policy" page without the voting procedures, say that it was routine to have global sysops and people given temporary ops, and give people at their own discretion this permanent right? The Steward policy makes it clear that Stewards cannot create new policies nor are supposed to be involved in that. They can only enact consensus. Consensus requires processes to be followed. Why is this being circumvented after the community was ignored and still said no? Ottava Rima (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

"real name" vs. wikiname + "add topic" versus "new section"[edit]


1. Congrats under the real name editing. Doing the same, because while I support the idea of people being able to edit anonymously, especially on dangerous or controversial articles (where it might cost them their life, job etc), there seems to a significant sprinkling of nasty types *cough*freemasonry* who hide behind wikinames *hack*blueboar* to avoid their pet topics being made to conform with Wikipedia standards.

2. I note that some pages seem to have an "add topic" link while others refer to a "new section" ... indeed the "add topic" alt-text on this page refers to "new section" ... if new editors are used to seeing one phrase, is it needlessly confusing to have another, on some pages, but not others?

Avaiki 01:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC)Reply


Previously locked users[edit]

I've been trying to get some discussion and it has been a little empty. This is an example. I think it would be good to define how we deal with the old locks that were either put forth by Jimbo or Stewards that were about users that didn't fit into the spam, outing user name, etc., category. It is hard for many of these past users to figure out how to go forward, and there are some like Mr. Kohs who have had local groups use renaming to break the lock, thus making them rather ineffective whereas a ban would show WMF wide community views towards an individual that would have more sway. There seem to be quite a few important problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Requesting follow ups[edit]

Requesting follow ups to these:

Talk:Badges: has the badge idea been abandoned?

Research talk:Wikimedia Summer of Research 2011/Summary of Findings: you said that you'd try to get the budget for this project. I'd still like to see it. Pinetalk 07:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  1. Badges was just a brainstorming page, not a plan. There was a last minute chance we would have participated in a project where we would get free badge designs, but it didn't pan out. I'm still interested in the badges idea, but it's not a priority ATM for any department.
  2. I have the budget breakdown, but am waiting on approval from our finance department. I'm personally comfortable with sharing it, but to be frank I want to check with them first, if only because it might create an unreasonable expectation that everyother past program will have a detailed budget ready for publication on request. I poked again today, so there should be a conclusion this week.
Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:38, 6 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Understood. Thanks. Pinetalk 09:40, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Okay, it's up on the talk page for WSOR now. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Request for BOSS id[edit]

Hi, can you look at and point him towards whomever on the staff did the deal with Yahoo for Coren and would have Coren's access id? Thanks. MBisanz talk 03:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think Moonriddengirl is on the case, but just in case you still need movement, you can bug me again here or on my en talk page. She kept me in the loop, so we should have something to report soon. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 18:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Question on WMFellowship[edit]

Steve - I submitted my idea for fellowship but I am not able to link to the open project ideas. Can you help?

Draft RfC[edit]

"sets a high bar that does not allow only English-speaking editors or only Wikipedians to dominate a discussion."

I'm not sure what's the best way to fix this - this sentence sounds clumsy and ambiguous (sets a high bar... in order to increase participation? what?). Is there a better way of phrasing this? Deryck C. 09:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'll tinker with it. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 17:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Office hour date[edit]

Re [2] the 11th is a Friday. Do you mean the 10th or Friday? 15:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

From the Google Calendar that was temporarily created, I'm going to say this was meant to be Friday - updated. Thanks for noticing. The Helpful One 15:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Global bans[edit]

To be honest, I think a lot of opposition to global bans are self-serving or silly. Basically, without global bans there is an anarchist system where people do whatever they want without any rules or restraint. That worked very well for Wikiversity where a person was desysopped, regranted admin and cratship without consensus, then went on a purge of enemies with many of the admin and regulars no longer participating because he is still in power. The WMF needs to be able to implement various things to make these systems work, because right now petty tyrants can easily just manipulate the system. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:56, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I think more could be done in general to advertise the discussion, as it's obviously quite small and self-selected at this point. We're not on a tight deadline though, and with Wikimania coming up it'll be fairly easy to try and get some more voices in the conversation. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
[3] John struck an IP vote, but I do not remember if that is done for these. If so, there are others on that page that should probably be dealt with. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am okay with striking anon votes in the name of preventing sockpuppetry. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Re: We are not Facebook[edit]

Hello! Just a note that someone (Jimbo) disagrees[4] with this: «We are not Facebook, where we're going to hire a team of people to moderate abuse flagging.»[5] Cheers, Nemo 09:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

To be fair to Jimmy, moderating requests to ban users and modering content are two very different things. When it is legally required to do so, the Foundation already moderates content under office actions. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

conduct policies[edit]

hi Steven. I understand how you can sometimes feel that some users are disruptive or trolling. Also, it is clear that some users have a history of behavior which you may consider to be hostile or disruptive. However, such comments do not follow one of our fundamental policies. Moreover, in a discussion, you should not be overly biased by your disputant's background at all, arguments stand or fall on their own. And even in situations when you see model trolls trolling you still should avoid voicing your labels this way (and to be perfectly clear, I don't think this is such a model case, since the discussion does have real arguments and real concerns you or I can disagree with, but still it is not a rant for the joy of ranting on any side of the argument). Such comments should be avoided by any user because they are very non constructive (and believe me, nobody likes being called a troll, irrespective of what they do or say). It is particularly unfortunate that such comments are voiced by a somebody from WMF, since their negative outcomes vastly outweigh any possible positives. We all have bad days every now and then, and I'm the last person who should judge anybody by one snappy comment. However, I'd like to kindly suggest that you cross out what you wrote and consider apologizing to the editor. This, I think, would be in true spirit of ASG and WikiLove. Pundit (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I disagree. Assume good faith is a policy to avoid assuming the worst of someone who has not demonstrated ill will and may simply be making an honest mistake. But it does not mean that one should ignore bad behavior or insipid comments from people. Seth is not someone with concerns about the proposal based on experience as a member of Wikimedia communities, like Silverseren, Michael, or others. He's a hanger-on who joins meta discussions here or on Wikipedia from time to time, and ridiculous inflammatory comments like the one he made are not going to be treated as if they were substantive contributions to the discussion. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:00, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
It is my experience that acting with civility even towards people making inflammatory comments works much better than using nonconstructive labels. This is so for two reasons: first, calling anybody a troll most likely aggravates a discussion, rather than leads to a peaceful solution (even agreeing to disagree). Second, for any bystander it creates a very unfavorable image. On many Wikimedia projects your comment would result in an immediate block. En-wiki policies are much less strict in this respect, but still throwing off remarks that somebody is a troll by a WMF staff member (irrespective of the actual trolling input) does not set a good example of behavioral conduct. Anyways, just look at the discussion - you're fueling the flames. From any admin I'd expect to know better :) Pundit (talk) 08:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Au contraire, I am indeed "someone with concerns about the proposal based on experience as a member of Wikimedia communities" - this, too, is experience. I know how the no-personal-attack and civility rules are too often suspended when a high-status person goes after a low-status person. And how easily those in positions of power will justify heaping abuse on those they dislike, in the name of "bad behavior or insipid comments". It's not difficult at all to see a path from those types of declarations to the use of global bans as a political tool (which I mean quite seriously and is not hyperbole - of course I'm not saying this is of the same magnitude, but the rather that the process itself is similar). I have a (social) right to voice such concerns on Meta, in fact, far more so in terms of quality of argument than the untrue accusations you have been making against me. And again, those accusations are false. If I really were the "obvious troll" you charge, I could do a lot better than obscure policy pages (like making lots of noise about the mess which is Commons, something which continues to amaze me in not becoming an enormous scandal). By the way, I'm a "participant-observer", not "hanger-on" - the latter refers to someone who tries to curry favor with prominent members of an organization, hoping to eventually become an insider or get some benefit or patronage from the organization. I'm sure you'll agree I'm not doing that. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
The whole attitude that people are endowed with the right to edit the projects is part of why you don't understand the policy Seth, and why bringing up political metaphors or general libertarian wonkery are not relevant. Yes, you are welcome to participate in an open project like Wikipedia and Meta, and obviously whether you continue to be welcome is not a decision I make. That has nothing to do with whether I am allowed to say that I think you're a troll who does more harm than good, and that I don't find your comments relevant. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:30, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply
Sigh. It's really very tedious when I anticipate an argument, address that argument, but it's just ignored for a stock complaint. I said "(social) right", meaning "right" used in the sense of "I have a right to my feelings", as opposed to the legal sense e.g. "First Amendment right". That is, the word "right" has two major senses, one which refers to something like "fair", the other to "legal". That you are criticizing me for something I explicitly did not state, speaks volumes. It does indeed have everything to do with what I said - you have a (legal) right to be wrong, but it's not right. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Video idea[edit]

Hi Steven, in your editor engagement experiments, what would you think about the possibility of creating videos like this one in various languages and putting them on the Wikis' main pages in an effort to turn more readers in to editors? I realize that altering the main pages would require community consent but I wonder if this is an idea that's worth pursuing. --Pine 18:05, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yeah some kind of community-related content on the Main Page is something we'd be interested in, especially regarding converting readers/anon editors to registered community members. Our next step for E3, other than making permanent two current projects, is focusing on trying to onboard brand new people who've registered. There are rough notes at mw:Onboarding new Wikipedians, and the basic idea is to help speed on their way the 30% of new people who make an edit, and try to get the 70% who never do, to complete a few edits. Whether we put it on the Main Page or not, the idea of an introductory video is a good one. My current plan is to try and use the material shot during Wikimania for use in the fundraiser to create such videos in English, with subtitling for localization. Victor Grigas the Storyteller on fundraising is a skilled editor who might be able to help, but with the fundraiser coming up they're super busy. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I think the Mediawiki page that you link to is fantastic... and really wish it were on Wikipedia. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I like this onboarding idea also. --Pine 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

New function[edit]

Can you see my propose? I also send you an email. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have left an answer.--Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have left a new answer. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Global Requests Committee[edit]

The Global Bans RFC seems to have become inactive. Is the WMF still supporting some sort of global ban procedure? I hope that we don't have another office-imposed global ban. Would you be willing to work on the Global Requests Committee proposal or send it to someone on WMF Staff or the WMF Board, perhaps SJ, who could move it forward? I am mainly interested in not having the office impose another global ban, I think this is better handled by the community and the Global Requests Committee is the "least bad" option IMO. --Pine 20:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)Reply


Post-edit feedback[edit]

I saw a message of yours about enabling post-edit on, right? Do they have information about it in their language anywhere? Does translation of this page need to be re-enabled? Thanks, Nemo 07:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

No, it's okay. We are going to deploy later this week, but it's based on request from bewiki folks, so they know what's up. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 20:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

New option on interproject links[edit]

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) 14:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply


Hi. From the point of view of someone who assumes very bad faith, I think it would be easy to look at the ACTIVEUSERS/USERS mix-up in a poor light.

Perhaps not in a vacuum, perhaps in the context of bugzilla:47698 and bugzilla:47694#c12.

In bug 47698, the user interface surprisingly and suspiciously isn't nearly as obnoxious if you're using Monobook (which most power users do) as the buttons are not bright green and blue, they're simply gray.

The pattern here (the users count and the Monobook change) would be that you're intentionally misleading readers and editors alike.

In bug 47694, it felt like (malicious) obstructionism, even though it probably wasn't intended as such.

Then I remember Hanlon's razor and AGF and I hope those are sufficient for those who would otherwise assume very bad faith. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply

You may or may not like what we've done with this interface, and that's an opinion which you're fully entitled to, but that's where the buck stops. You're not entitled to imply that I would intentionally mislead readers, editors, fellow MediaWiki developers or anyone else. End of story. Normally I would argue with you about totally absurd statements you just made, but I refuse to engage with substantive debate if the basis for your conversation is to accuse me of lying through omission. This kind of nasty behavior is why I set you to ignore on IRC. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 00:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sure, you're free to ignore me. Or even remove this talk page section, if you like. And if you ask that I not post here, I can abide by that.
But I think it's important for you and others on the E3 team to (try to) understand how some users may view its actions. As I've said elsewhere, more and more I see it as comparable to the Usability Initiative. It seems the gray interface buttons in Monobook were intentional as "non-Vector users are likely to prefer a more low-key interface." I've asked for a clarification, as I have no idea what that means.
Obviously everything is a matter of perspective and interpretation. But I think there's often a tendency to associate a backlash with a fear of or resistance to change, when sometimes backlash (or opposition) is the result of how actions are (broadly) perceived. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply


Hello, Steven. I am Penn Station, an administrator of the Japanese Wikipedia. May I ask you two questions in relation to your message at w:ja:MediaWiki talk:Anoneditwarning#Create account link?

  1. The "campaign" parameter is only set to w:ja:MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning, but I think it is also needed at w:ja:MediaWiki:Anonpreviewwarning as well (probably campaign=anonpreviewwarning). Is this correct?
  2. On the English Wikipedia, you removed the "edit" action from w:en:MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning [6]. It seems to be for avoiding something conflict with visual editor, but I think visual editor has not yet been available for IP users. Is it necessary to remove the action?

Thanks in advance. --Penn Station (talk) 06:58, 2 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Track effectiveness of a link[edit]

Hi Steven, it's me Ricky, from here . Sorry for late response as I was contacting UX team through email (I still don't have a response though) so I didn't check the forum.

I'm Wikipedia Indonesia admin and currently, based on our research and survey, we are implementing a new method for user to sign up in ID, through this big blue button > . We want to track the effectiveness of the button, can you help us? --Ricky Setiawan (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ricky, I would recommend you ask on the public analytics mailing list. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:14, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Language links in the Login/signup pages[edit]

Hi! Please note: Research_talk:Account_creation_UX#Language_links_in_the_Login.2Fsignup_pages --Kaganer (talk) 10:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please time stamp the mass messages[edit]

The "mass messge" (we call it spam) you signed last night is missing the timestamp. Therefore manual editing is necessary to make the work of the archive bots possible. Plese use timestamps in the signatures from now on. Regards --MagnusA (talk) 11:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Please reply[edit]

See [here. Thank you. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 19:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Sorry for not checking back on De kroeg sooner. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Typography changes[edit]

Dear Steven Walling. The changes you implemented in typography have caused problems for Persian Wikipedia. The titles of our articles are cut in half and lower parts of many letters are hidden under the line. The font is also non-Persian and ugly. Pease undo this ASAP. Thanks in advance. ماني (talk) 07:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I tried to like the new typography, but no luck, monobook does it for me. The different fonts are just confusing, not pretty and headache inducing. That said, there are appearance changes that could do wikipedia good. For those many users who don't have accounts and mainly read this site, all the clamour in the left column and top row could be avoided if they can just fold away, which would leave a reader with pages that are there to be read, not worked on. And paragraphs that right-align would be a major improvement in appearance. JMK (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Citizendium is a good example of terrible design that confuses from the start and takes your appetite away to contribute. I see that when I choose monobook now, I loose some of the neat design changes like a search box at the top of the page. It would be good for especially non-contributing users, if the search box was right above the article name, which would be very intuitive. Another critical design change I think, would be to the edit box. References < ref>...</ref > should be a different colour, because at the moment they mix with the text and make editing very confusing. If you add up all the seconds that are lost due to this, it may be hours and days of lost productivity. All the options given on Wikipedia:Citation templates should be accessible from the edit box, and there should be a space after the fields so that the references fold like text. JMK (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Please undo the changes (at least on the Dutch Wikivoyage) as soon as possible. The type face for the top level headings is not acceptable. The reading ergonomics are quite poor. Look at the way the numbers are presented. Also the high characters are too much higher than the other characters. This makes it acceptable for the page title, but not for the "==heading==" that is used more often on a page. --FredTC (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hey FredTC: you might be interested in the rationale for the new headings which is detailed at the FAQ. Thanks, Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
I did read the FAQ, but it does not explain several things that are the most disturbing:
  • Why are H1 and H2 serif, and H3, H4, H5 sans serif on laptop/desktop (looks ugly), and why is H1 - H5 always serif on android smartphones (looks much better)?
  • Why does "18 Lettertype veranderd" have to look like "18 Lettertype veranderd"? The big difference between high letters and low letters makes it difficult to read. It could be OK if it appeared just once on a page like H1, but with H2 also in this type face the readibility becomes a problem.
  • Why does "5 DSM" have to look like "5 DSM"? I found out how this is called, and reading the article on Wikipedia about it, I learned that it is described in terms of "old style", "antique figures", "medieval". All words that say "not of modern times". So why is this type face selected? --FredTC (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

FredTC, I suggest you to ask these questions on mw:Talk:Typography refresh: Edokter (an admin) is very helpful in answering, see for instance mw:Talk:Typography refresh#Height/width issue & Russian wiki issues (ST vs CTT, СГT, 1234567890). --Nemo 13:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Some neat ideas here[7]. JMK (talk) 13:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

The new font in Hebrew: Times New Roman[edit]

Hi Steven, the community in Hebrew wiki is very un happy with the new font Times New Roman. It looks not good in Hebrew. I would like to know who choose this font? Did an Hebrew reader was a part of the team? who made the decision? and what is need to be done to go back to the old font? See also here. Thanks Hanay (talk) 05:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Barnstar and a request for feedback[edit]

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

en:Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/MadmanBot 11