Jump to content

User talk:Eloquence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 216.38.130.162 (talk) at 00:26, 8 March 2013 (→Random comment: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I will respond to messages on this page. Please check your contributions list ("My contributions") for responses. If there is a response, your edit is no longer the "top" edit in the list.

Unlike other Wikipedians I don't archive Talk pages since old revisions are automatically archived anyway - if you want to access previous comments, please use the "Page history" function. But I keep a log of the removals:

WP:TROUT

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

Consensus is important. People are here to work together and earn a voice in the vision; not to mindlessly write articles for their Foundation Overlords. extransit (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for engaging extensively with the subject matter at hand and reaching an informed, thoughtful conclusion.--Eloquence* 02:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DUCK. extransit (talk) 02:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For standing up for newbies, even in the face of great trollitude. Ryan lane (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
:-) Thanks, also for engaging in the discussion from the start. It's a hairy issue and I hope we'll be able to find common ground.--Eloquence* 21:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Followup question re division of authority

Mr. Möller: Following up on our exchange in the Signpost yesterday, I started looking around on Meta for a (non-essay) policy document which defines the division of operating authority between the WMF and the various WP project communities and could not find one. Does it exist? There seems to be a considerable presumption that we here at the projects have, in keeping with the wiki ideal, the ability (admittedly, not the vested right) to determine our own destiny through the agreement of WMF as the "owner" to keep hands-off below a certain level of authority. Is there some document which defines that level, or does the Foundation simply only keep, or mostly keep, hands off on a case by case basis, having made no promises, agreements, or policies that it will not change things by fiat whenever and wherever it sees fit? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC) PS: I've asked Maggie Dennis for her comments on this as well as Community Liaison. TM[reply]

First, as I said on the Signpost talk page, framing this as a WMF vs. community issue is an oversimplification and likely to add more heat than light to the conversation. There were more than 100 people who expressed opposition to restricting new page creation in the original RFC; in the face of strong minorities like this, it's very much in the tradition of our project to consider alternatives and work further towards consensus.
But, to answer your question, there's no formalized definition of when and how we would or wouldn't engage. About 8 years ago, long before being involved in WMF in any way, I started this essay, which has been further developed into a reflection on the various governance norms and processes that exist in Wikimedia projects. There's also m:Founding principles, which is particularly worth considering in the given context. And of course there are many examples e.g. of Board resolutions that have directly sought to effect change in Wikimedia self-governance or established high-level policy principles.
In general, Wikimedia Foundation works in partnership with the Wikimedia communities to achieve our mission. This is expressed also in the WMF values:
We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission.
This is why we haven't simply said "no, there will not be a trial for restricting new page creation", but have tried to help identify and pursue alternatives before implementing new restrictions, as I noted in more detail here. But it is not true, and has never been true, that WMF will execute any request that has sufficient community support (by some definition of sufficient) unquestioningly.--Eloquence* 17:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just to allay one concern, I'm not interested in roiling the new page patrol issue with the authority question. As I said in my post, I was only a weak supporter of the autopatrol solution and I like the Article creation workflow solution reasonably well (with some reservations). I also thought your response to my comments and questions have been stand-up, open, and worthwhile, and I thank you again for them.
I'm more concerned about the degree to which this has illustrated that this could happen and am concerned and a bit alarmed that there is no formal Foundation policy in place which defines the boundaries of the relationship between the Foundation and the editing communities and sets protocols to be followed when those boundaries are to be crossed (from either side). I've not been around as long as some and there may have been other instances in which the Foundation acted in a manner such as this for other than legal reasons, but this is the first one I've encountered. In short, I'm concerned about that independently of the NPP / newcomer retention issue. Thank you for clarifying it for me. Dunno at this moment what, if anything, I'm going to do with that information, but it's good to have it. Would you say that there is an informal sense or accepted practical understanding about the issue among the staff and/or trustees, and if so what? Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the general shared understanding and belief that we operate on is that we're all working together to advance the Vision and Mission of our projects, and that this requires continued, serious, honest and deep engagement regarding the key challenges we're dealing with. WMF employees are here because they have a strong passion for what we're trying to do, many of us have long histories as Wikimedia volunteers, and everyone here works beyond the call of duty to help us succeed.
In my experience, when there is a high degree of tension, pausing, discussing, looking at data, and considering various alternatives is usually the right thing to do. While I do believe in the importance of improving and clarifying governance and process, I also think we have a strong tradition of case-by-case flexibility (cf. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules) that's important to maintain. I've seen plenty of online communities get bogged down in bureaucracy and the development of "constitutional" documents at the cost of losing focus on the core objectives. Some degree of tension, frustration, and anger is unavoidable, but we have a shared responsibility to move conversations back into constructive spaces as quickly as possible.--Eloquence* 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
After sleeping on this issue, I've decided not to take it further because to do so at this time would be more likely to feed the trolls than attract editors to the issue who, like me, are deeply committed to the project but who are concerned about what this incident may imply for WMF-user community interaction and relations. Thank you once again for being so forthcoming. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article Feedback Blacklist

Hi Eloquence. I saw you created that category, so I suppose you can answer a question. In es:wiki we don't have a Category:Article Feedback Blacklist yet. How can a equivalent of this category be created ? I mean how to make such a category be functional in non-English Wikipedias? Thanks in advance. Gustronico (talk) 20:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please file a request in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ against Wikimedia → Site requests, title "Set article feedback blacklist for <name of wiki(s)>", and state in the bug description the desired name of the blacklist category or blacklist categories. Add me to the CC list to help expedite things. (Yes, this should be easier and arguably part of the internationalization of the feature, but it requires a manual configuration change at this point in time.)--Eloquence* 20:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Eloquence. I've noticed that a request is already in progress in bugzilla:32182, but the name of the category is being discussed right now at eswiki. May be you can attend bugzilla:29903 instead. Excuse me, I don't know your e-mail address to add you to the CC. Best regards, Gustronico (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bildfilter schlägt weitere Wellen in der FAZ

http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/filter-fuer-wikipedia-welches-weltbild-soll-es-denn-sein-11523047.html

Pünktlich zum Fundraiser ist die WP wieder in der Presse. --Eingangskontrolle (talk) 09:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Danke fuer den Hinweis, EK.--Eloquence* 02:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Eloquence. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter.
Message added 11:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:11, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your message! Minhnt2000 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your prebuilt tips for article feedback response....

I think they are good and save quite a bit of time for common questions.... I have two suggestions:

leave the greeting off the top of the note so the editor doing the -subst- can put their own salutation there.
expand the list of them

Thanks for your work, Ariconte (talk) 04:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestions. Will tweak them further over time. Feel free to modify them as you see fit, as well. :-) --Eloquence* 08:38, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Eloquence,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:8btheater.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:8btheater.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FUW test results

Hi Erik, since you were interested in the new file upload mechanism, I thought I'd keep you updated about this: Wikipedia talk:File Upload Wizard#Statistics after first week of test run. I'll get back to you about that offer regarding user testing too; haven't forgotten about that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Files listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 March 9 if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 19:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HighBeam Research collaboration (similar to WP:CREDO)

Hi! I've recently started a discussion with HighBeam Research, who is interested in donating some accounts for Wikipedia editors to use. I see you were involved with the Credo project and wanted to get your feedback on a few issues:

  • What did the Credo project do right? Wrong?
  • Were you too lenient in giving out accounts?
  • Could you have limited account usage duration?
  • Could you have centrally managed passwords?
  • Should you have assigned accounts randomly not on a first-come basis?
  • Who decided which editors got accounts?
  • How was the project promoted?
  • What rules did editors follow for using and referencing non-free sources in articles?

I have read over the talk page discussions and archives for the Credo project and am formulating a loose idea of what might work better. Right now it would include:

  • minimum of 1 year, 1000 edits
  • demonstration of experience doing research and intent to use the service
  • announced ahead of time
  • randomly selected after a week
  • maximum duration of 1 year, after which people can reapply

I'd love to get your feedback. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 14:13, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback dashboard???

It looks like the Feedback Dashboard has disappeared; I get "No such special page" when I try to access. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wide image

Template:Wide image has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikiquote

Template:Wikiquote has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FB dashboard rate limiting gripe :-)

Please have a look at Wikipedia_talk:New_editor_feedback#Rate_limit and the linked bug report. Thanks, Ariconte (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

... for the CSS fix to replace watchlist boldface with dotted underlines. I much prefer the dotted underlining to the way it was before. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC) I like the effect on Recent Changes, too! Yunshui 雲‍水 07:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. :-) --Eloquence* 07:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mediawiki config

Howdy; I'm interested in checking some values set in the Mediawiki LocalSettings.php file for the English-language Wikipedia please - specifically $wgDefaultRobotPolicy, $wgNamespaceRobotPolicies and $wgArticleRobotPolicies. Would you be able to oblige ? Many thanks. - TB (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the configuration options for all wikis at http://noc.wikimedia.org/ - we don't use "LocalSettings.php" in production; config is split over two files, CommonSettings.php and InitialiseSettings.php. These files are versioned in git.--Eloquence* 00:13, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers - exactly the info I need. - TB (talk) 06:29, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania Barnstar

Wikimania Barnstar
It was great to see you at Wikimania 2012! --evrik (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! :-) It was nice to meet you as well.--Eloquence* 18:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EduWiki Conference 5-6 September in Leicester, UK

I am writing to you as you have signed up to the Education Meetup at Wikimania 2012 and perhaps are interested in how Wikipedia links to education. Wikimedia UK is now running a education related event that may be of interest to you: the EduWiki Conference on 5-6 September in Leicester. This event will be looking at Wikipedia and related charitable projects in terms of educational practice, including good faith collaboration, open review, and global participation. It's a chance to talk about innovative work in your institution or online community, and shape the future of Wikimedia UK's work in this area!

The conference will be of interest to educators, scholarly societies members, contributors to Wikipedia and other open education projects, and students.

For details please visit the UK Chapter Wiki.

Please feel welcome to register or promote within your network.

Thank you, Daria Cybulska (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fwd: Licensing of gadgets and user scripts

Hi!

Do you know if anyone at WMF should be aware a suggestion about the licensing of gadgets and user scripts?

Best regards, Helder 15:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Unreported-world-rio.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Unreported-world-rio.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:WIGU example.png

Hi. Would you mind please commenting at commons:User talk:Dbenbenn#File:WIGU example.png regarding licensing/OTRS? Thanks. -- Trevj (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Editpage-head-copy-warn

Respect the bunny!

This is a rather unfriendly message. Even for someone who has been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. The location is very obstructive. This will scare of a lot of people. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page.--Eloquence* 02:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - it's not very friendly. It was there before, they just moved it from below the edit box to de-clutter the edit interface and ensure that people see it before they start making an edit. See mw:Micro Design Improvements for details. I think it's the correct positioning, but I wish the text was friendlier and, provided legal agrees that's sensible, dismissible once you've seen it. The former is easy if folks can agree on alternative language; the latter requires code. See Template:Bugzilla--Eloquence* 02:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't hop talk pages. Only cute bunnies are allowed to hop onto my talk page ;-)
Happy to hear that people are working on improving this! Multichill (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the bureaucrat policy that alters what you were told at the time of your decratting. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the bureaucrat user right. This includes inactive time prior to your decratting if you were decratted for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFB. Thank you. MBisanz talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Erik,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for ten years or more.

Best regards, — Hex (❝?!❞) 21:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Random comment

Hello Eloquence!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eloquence&oldid=542712082"