User talk:Fetchcomms

HOME	TALK	USER
SAND	MISC	GUEST

to-do

archives

leave a message

Please explain

Dear Fetchcomms
Can you please explain the use of the word "bitches" here.
Yours sincerely,
--The Master of Mayhem ^{cup of tea? Don't worry, I'll make it} 20:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be funny in my edit summary. Don't worry, I'm not calling you my bitch. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload wizards etc

Just as a follow-up to our discussion on the "proposals" page: I of course agree it would be worth pursuing an improved upload workflow, be it on the basis of the new mw:Extension:UploadWizard they have on Commons now or whatever else. I'm not very tech-savvy when it comes to wiki development. Have you got any idea whether the UploadWizard could easily be adapted to our needs? From a cursory glance at its source code I had the feeling much of its structure was hard-coded in the form they use on Commons. We would of course need a lot of much more fine-grained forms with different, specific questions asked for different types of non-free files here.

I don't know if you saw it, but I made this sketch of the kinds of steps an uploader might be guided through and the kinds of questions they should be asked at each stage, here: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft (note that this would of course be split up into sequences of different pages, each section being one screen). This is of course very far away from any technical implementation yet. Any thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it would be easy to have the UploadWizard enabled here, but I agree that a version for enwiki would require a lot more custom stuff for non-free files. I'm also not very fond of the UploadWizard for several reasons (one of which, as you mentioned elsewhere is because you have to upload the files before filling out the information and stuff) but I think it's main strong point is simplicity over the regular upload form. Unfortunately, this means less licensing choices, which I also dislike, but I'm hoping that will get addressed in the future.

I read your draft page and I think it's definitely a good plan, and much more clear, but should probably clarify how to send permission to OTRS better. That's one issue that's difficult to explain because it's not clear enough to most users what we need unless they look through multiple pages and whatnot. If we just say something like:

"If someone else has given you permission to use an image they created, please have them fill out the form here and email it to permissions-enwikimedia.org along with the image attached (or, if you already uploaded the image to Wikipedia, the name of the image here). Please note that "permission for use on Wikipedia" is not enough—by filling out the form mentioned above, the creator of the image allows commercial and non-commercial redistribution and modification of the image with credit, anywhere, not just Wikipedia. Once the form has been emailed to us at the above address, please simply wait for the permission form to be processed (may take several days or weeks, depending on mail volume) and the image uploaded by one of our volunteers. Or, if you already uploaded the image to Wikipedia, please edit the image description page, add {{OTRS pending}} and click save, so we know that the form has already been sent. The rest of the process will be taken care of by our volunteers."

Etc., etc. This would help reduce the number of OTRS responses that are "sorry, we need a more clear statement of permission" or "sorry, what image are you talking about" and so on. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Brevity, the soul of wit

Hi Fetchcomms,

Thanks for your question/suggestion.

I'm sorry for not just saying, "Yes, interaction-bans would be nice". (I had suggested such bans at the RfC/U drafter's page.)

Best,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, but it's just nice to know exactly what sort of action is being requested. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fetchcomms,

I definitely would prefer interaction bans with the 2 editors who acted as principle and agent over this weekend's ANI. I have stated my complaints about this weekend's ANI already, so I shan't elaborate. I had hoped that a voluntary gentlemen's agreement would have already been accepted.

A similar ban between the principle, Ratatoskr, and MF should have occurred before. MF's talk page has an agreement with this suggestion and skepticism about making a request.

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't followed that thread, but why don't you just post a short, plain notice (i.e., "Would you voluntarily agree to an interaction ban with me for [period of time]?"; no accusations or anything snarky) on the other users' talk pages or start a subsecrion at the AN thread if they don't respond? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)