English: The fastest way to reach me is through this talk, but feel free to write below.
Polski: Najszybciej możesz się ze mną skontaktować poprzez tę dysksuję, ale możesz też napisać poniżej.
Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitionsEdit
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.
I'm notifying you because you participated in one of several relevant discussions. -Pete F (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Superprotect letter updateEdit
Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.
Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.
I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.
Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.
Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.
Thank you for your engagement on this issue, and please stay in touch. -Pete F (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
2016 Community Wishlist SurveyEdit
You’re getting this message because you participated in the 2015 Community Wishlist Survey and we want to make sure you don't miss it this year – or at least can make the conscious choice to ignore if it you want to. The 2015 survey decided what the Community Tech team should work on during 2016. It was also the focus of Wikimedia hackathons and work by other developers. You can see the status of wishes from the 2015 wishlist at 2015 Community Wishlist Survey/Results.
The 2016 Community Wishlist Survey is now open for wishes. You can create proposals until November 20. You will be able to vote on which wishes you think are best or most important between November 28 and December 12. /Johan (WMF) (talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Presenting Community Engagement Insights survey report: Tuesday, October 10, 1600 UTCEdit
I am reaching out to you because you signed up to receive updates about the Global Wikimedia survey.
We will be hosting a public event online to present the data, a few examples on how teams will be using it for annual planning, and what are next steps for this project. The event will take place on Tuesday, October 10, at 9:00 am PST (1600 UTC), and the presentation will be in English. You can watch the livestream here, and ask question via IRC on #wikimedia-office.
If you are unable attend, you can also find the report on meta, and watch the recording of the event at a later time.
We hope to have you join us online! -- María Cruz 23:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your participation in the WikiGap Challenge!Edit
Now, we have finalized the results from the WikiGap Challenge. You can find the general and top results here. I want to thank you for your contribution, which together with the other participants have created a tremendous and long lasting impact for the visibility of women on Wikipedia.
We want to give you a barnstar for your participation, to praise your efforts for a better visibility of women on Wikipedia!
We will analyze the challenge and the way it works closely, to see how we can improve it for next year. It would be very valuable for us if you wanted to share your views on the challenge, especially when it comes to: the point system, the focus, and the adding of the list from UN Human Rights. You can send your answers to firstname.lastname@example.org!
I hope you found the challenge exciting, and that you want to participate next year as well!
Best, Eric Luth (WMSE) (talk) 11:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Over-qualified CSS selectorsEdit
My apologies that this message is just available in English.
Over-qualified CSS selectors of portals in Wikimedia skins have been changed.
div#p-variants are now all removed of the
div qualifier, as in for example it is
#p-personal, #p-navigation …. This is so the skins can use HTML5 elements. Your gadgets or user styles seem to use them and you will have to update them. You can read more in phab:T252467. Johan (WMF) through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:27, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
I noticed your addition of https://authors.toolforge.org/toolinfo.json to Toohub's crawler URLs because it exposed a bug in the crawler logic. Thank you for helping it get uncovered.
Once the bug is fixed, the toolinfo record from https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/authors/info/id/1124 would normally "win" an edit war because of the order in which the crawler is processing the two source URLs. I made an edit to the toolinfo data in toolsadmin to stop toolsadmin from publishing that toolinfo record so that your tool hosted version will end up being the one seen in Toolhub from now on. Thanks for using Toolhub! -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)