씨발새끼야 Mcnabber091 (talk) 02:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal ClinicsEdit

Hello, EllenCT! We've added Events to IdeaLab, and you're invited :)

Upcoming events focus on turning ideas into Individual Engagement Grant proposals before the March 31 deadline. Need help or have questions about IEG? Join us at a Hangout:

  • Thursday, 13 March 2014, 1600 UTC
  • Wednesday, 19 March 2014, 1700 UTC
  • Saturday, 29 March 2014, 1700 UTC

Hope to see you there!

This message was delivered automatically to IEG and IdeaLab participants. To unsubscribe from any future IEG reminders, remove your name from this list

page_counter and QuarryEdit

Hello!

Glad you are finding Quarry useful :) the page_counter column has never really been used in wikimedia wikis for the longest time, and has been completely removed recently (see: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Removing_hit_counters_from_MediaWiki_core). Hence that column will not give you any stats on page views, I'm afraid. There is no view counter available on labsdb, and so we can not use that from Quarry :(

Will attempt to fix the other dead link! Thank you for reporting that! Yuvipanda (talk) 21:04, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yuvipanda: now that the pageview analytics are sorted out, what are your wishes about how to approach that deprecated field? Do you need more engineers, dev ops, DBAs, sysadmins, or the like? EllenCT (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

What future IdeaLab campaigns would you like to see?Edit

Hi there,

I’m Jethro, and I’m seeking your help in deciding topics for new IdeaLab campaigns that could be run starting next year. These campaigns aim to bring in proposals and solutions from communities that address a need or problem in Wikimedia projects. I'm interested in hearing your preferences and ideas for campaign topics!

Here’s how to participate:

Take care,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 03:34, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Future IdeaLab Campaigns resultsEdit

Last December, I invited you to help determine future ideaLab campaigns by submitting and voting on different possible topics. I'm happy to announce the results of your participation, and encourage you to review them and our next steps for implementing those campaigns this year. Thank you to everyone who volunteered time to participate and submit ideas.

With great thanks,

I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources, Wikimedia Foundation. 23:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Open Call for Individual Engagement GrantsEdit

Greetings! The Individual Engagement Grants (IEG) program is accepting proposals until April 12th to fund new tools, research, outreach efforts, and other experiments that enhance the work of Wikimedia volunteers. Whether you need a small or large amount of funds (up to $30,000 USD), IEGs can support you and your team’s project development time in addition to project expenses such as materials, travel, and rental space.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF), Community Resources 15:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Survey on content curation & review Inspire CampaignEdit

Thanks for your participation in IdeaLab during the Inspire Campaign focused on improving content curation & review processes from February to March 2016. I'm interested in hearing your feedback about your participation during campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.

Immediate results of the campaign can be found here. Please feel free to review them and let me know if you have any questions about the campaign or the survey. Thanks! I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

(Opt-out instructions)

Your questions to the FDC candidatesEdit

Hello EllenCT! Thank you for your questions to the candidates to the FDC. To answer your question in the summary, yes, it is better if the comments are signed, it helps give some context to the questions. Also, you have asked two questions about paid editing for which I fail to see a direct connection to the work of the FDC. Could you please reframe them both so as to make sure that they are relevant to the particular context of FDC and/or grant making? This would tremendously help to keep the discussion focused and make sure the outcomes are valuable to chosing the right candidate. Thank you very much! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

@Delphine (WMF): many FDC applicants have experimented with programs undertaking editing with various direct and indirect financial supports in the past, and they are likely to continue. Facilitation and sponsorship of topic-focused editathons are one of many examples. I'm a little bit surprised at this, frankly. EllenCT (talk) 16:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@EllenCT: Thank you for your reformulation of your first question. The second question is still out of scope, you seem to be asking the candidates to evaluate programs that your question does not define and to take a stance on a complex matter. I do not believe the Q&A session in that context is the place to ask such questions. Thank you! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
@Delphine (WMF): I most certainly am asking the candidates to take a stance on a complex, open-ended matter because I want to evaluate the candidates by their ability to respond to the questions. If you believe that is insufficient justification for either question, then please let me know to whom I may appeal your decision. EllenCT (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi @EllenCT:, there's no "appeal" to a decision I have not made :). I was just trying to keep the debate on track. The candidates have started answering all questions anyway, so I guess we're good. I am just not convinced about the kind of insight such an open ended question brings into this particular process. In any case, thanks for participating! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 04:09, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Community Wishlist SurveyEdit

Hi EllenCT, I saw your edits to the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey page. The Wishlist Survey is a Community Tech team project; we're going to run the survey every year to create a backlog for the team. As you can see on that 2015 page, it's a pretty involved process -- we have two weeks where we invite people to post proposals and review them, and then two weeks for people to vote on the proposals. We're planning to start asking for 2016 proposals around mid-November. So I'm glad you're looking forward to the next survey and you have a couple proposals in mind, but you're a few months early. :) I'm going to remove the links that you posted on 2016 Community Wishlist Survey -- they'll need to be expanded into full proposals, once the survey starts at the end of this year. Let me know if you have any questions? Thanks, -- DannyH (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Questions asked at Talk:2015 Community Wishlist Survey#2016. EllenCT (talk) 00:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Hi EllenCT! Thank you for participating in the FDC candidates discussion. Your questions and their answers will be taken into consideration by the Board when making their decision, so thank you for providing different thoughts and outlooks on the nominations. Cheers! Delphine (WMF) (talk) 09:13, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Strategic Approaches Report Part 2 now uploadedEdit

You can find the Strategic Approaches Report (parts 1 and 2 now combined into one doc) as a PDF on Commons. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - should say that the new stuff starts on page 71. :) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

A paper on personal attacks in English WikipediaEdit

Hi! You're receiving this message because you signed up as a participant to the m:Research:Detox project. We just wanted to let you know that some of the researchers on the project have released a paper that uses machine learning to analyze some aspects of the nature of personal attacks in English Wikipedia. The paper can be found on arxiv here. If you get the chance to read it, we'd love to hear your thoughts over on the m:Research:Detox page.

Help us understand Toxicity on English WikipediaEdit

Hi! You're receiving this message because you signed up as a participant to the m:Research:Detox project. We have just launched a Wikilabels campaign to collect more information on Toxicity in Wikipedia. If you'd like to help, please rate a few comments via the Discussion quality WikiLabels campaign (Warning: comments may contain distressing content).

Invitation to Proposals for new projectsEdit

Hello. There are proposals for new projects that you may consider, like WikiJournal and Wikidirectory. Share your thoughts in those pages. Thanks. --George Ho (talk) 06:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

See www.eeptpp.info for a proposal for a wiki-like platform concerning the environment. Ramosama (talk) 14:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Project Proposal for an Environmental Emergency Plan TemplateEdit

Dear EllenCT, Considering your contributions and activity, I thought my proposal www.eeptpp.info for a wiki-like platform to save the environment might be of interest to you. Thanks for your attention, Arnold Ramosama (talk) 14:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Closing of the RfCEdit

You just closed the RfC regarding the naming of the WMF with the imho dubious reasoning of something about legal. I fail to see any connection between your new head-note and the RfC. Can you please explain, why you put this misleading head-note there? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:37, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sänger: the Board Chair and a Board community liaison said it was premature, and while I can't tell you why, I suspect that the legal review to determine the potential harm to chapters and affiliates must conclude before anyone is allowed to make a decision. EllenCT (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
What has this all to do with legal? There is nothing about legality in this RfC, it's about content. I fail to see any connection with legal matters for the community< not to speak out in this content dispute. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:53, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Ah, by the way: I think, that an RfC is not anyone's property, once it is in the open and a considerable amount of editors have spoken out, so it's not up to you to decide this, it is no longer your RfC, it's our RfC. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:55, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Sänger: The yes/no question was premature because if the Legal department says there are some names that could hurt the chapters or affiliates because of confusion, then those aren't allowed. I am sure they will also look at trademark registrations and the like. Of course, who even knew there was an ongoing legal review because the Board hasn't published minutes in over a year? EllenCT (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I've reverted your premeditated and non consensual closure and started a topic on the talk pages. I still fail to see any connection between legal and the RfC,. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:03, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
The legal department is expected to figure out whether certain name changes would put chapters or affiliates at risk from potential litigants. Several of them asked for that, but I didn't know it was still going on until listening to Zach's podcast. EllenCT (talk) 09:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Zack is saying nothing with a lot of words to deflect any criticism of his pet project, I would not trust him with anything in regard of branding. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:07, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
I got the impression that Zach would have preferred that the Legal department had finished by now. Let's continue the discussion on the RFC talk page. EllenCT (talk) 09:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
And? What has Zachs mind to do with this? He's just a employee of the communities. I'd like to know, why you personally did this, despite no real need for this, as legal has no connection to the RfC. I really fail to understand your reasoning completely, I don't even have some remote clue for this for me unfathomably thinking. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that the legal review to determine the potential harm to chapters and affiliates must conclude before anyone is allowed to make a decision. After almost a million dollars invested in consultancy? Why so many unethical, anglocentrist people and their conflicts of interest are running the WMF? Xavi Dengra (MESSAGES) 20:29, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly the planners did not think the legal review would take as long as it has. EllenCT (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Noticeboard noticeEdit

A discussion regarding your edits has been opened at Meta:Requests_for_help_from_a_sysop_or_bureaucrat#Main_page_edit_warring_over_unusual_RfC, please see that discussion. Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 00:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Meta:CivilityEdit

Hi. I am not certain what is going on, and whether this is typical of your contributions. Would you please read the linked page, and reflect on your recent contributions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:13, 13 March 2020 (UTC)