User talk:Pine/Archive 1
- 1 Welcome to Meta!
- 2 Re: Copyedit of "Mind the Gap"
- 3 Ping!
- 4 Global bans policy discussion
- 5 wikimedia-l
- 6 Global Request committee
- 7 Reply
- 8 VisualEditor and Parsoid details
- 9 Thanks
- 10 On fellowships and grants
- 11 Thanks for signing up!
- 12 Welcome to the IEG Committee
- 13 Convidando o Brasil
- 14 Grantmaking Barnstar
- 15 March Grants News
- 16 IEG Barnstar
- 17 Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal Clinics
- 18 Re: WMF Annual Plan talk page
- 19 Grants:IdeaLab/Cameras for Commons photographers
Welcome to Meta!Edit
Hello Pine/Archive 1, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
-- 07:33, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Re: Copyedit of "Mind the Gap"Edit
- Grammarians are inconsistent in their enforcement of the so-called prohibition of comma splices; examples are provided in the article "comma splice". The disputed rule about comma splices is subordinate to the value of logical grouping. Think of the commas in this sentence as indicating where brackets could be if this sentence was a mathematical equation: "[The graph shows that] [[[(1) self-identified males that the computer algorithm scored as using female language], and [(2) females that the computer program identified as using female language]], [are often relatively close to the dividing diagonal line for gender-even scores]]; while [[[(3) females that scored as using male language], and [(4) males identified as using male language]], [are more likely to be further away from the diagonal]]." If you remove the commas in question then the sentence would read as: "[The graph shows that] [[[(1) self-identified males that the computer algorithm scored as using female language], and [(2) females that the computer program identified as using female language are often relatively close to the dividing diagonal line for gender-even scores]]]; while [[[(3) females that scored as using male language], and [(4) males identified as using male language are more likely to be further away from the diagonal]]]." Adding the commas makes the correct logic clearer. Pinetalk 04:26, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
20:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Global bans policy discussionEdit
At Requests for comment/Global bans, where you have commented in support of Option 2, a third option has recently been implemented. The first two options did not prove a way for respondents to indicate that they oppose global bans entirely, i.e., that it is not possible to write a meaningful global bans policy that would attract their support. Option 3 is intended to provide that opportunity, and to aid in distinguishing between people who oppose the proposed policy because it requires improvements and those who oppose the proposed policy because no policy permitting global bans should be adopted.
Because the third section was added late by a respondent, it is possible that some people who responded early in the RFC have commented at option 2, but would really prefer to support option 3, or support both. If so, you may voluntarily choose to move your original comment or to or strikethrough your original comment and add new comments. This is a courtesy notice of the change, and there is no requirement that you take any action. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Global Request committeeEdit
Hiya Pine, I'd like to invite you to help with a global request committee. I want to restart the proposal and see how far we can get this time. I am wondering if I should start a new RfC for this or use the existing one, I'll ping you when I have something to start with. I'd love to have you work on this together. Regards. Theo10011 (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- OK, I'll make some comments on the GRC talk page. Let's coordinate there. Pine✉ 20:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
VisualEditor and Parsoid detailsEdit
I have never been able to get clear answers on how the Visual Editor is doing, what its costs are, and why it's taking so long
— User talk:Sue Gardner/Narrowing focus#Comments
Sorry that you've not been able to find answers to your questions about the VisualEditor and Parsoid projects; I'd be happy to answer any questions you have, or get the answers for you if I don't know them myself.
I see that Tilman provided you with numbers of what the VE and Parsoid teams are costing from the 2012/13 WMF budget which as he said isn't perfect; note that it also excludes the cost of the Wikia staff working on the project as well, without whom it would cost somewhat more.
On the "taking so long" front, it's probably not obvious just how hard both the VisualEditor and in particular the Parsoid projects are. It would be considerably faster and cheaper were we to abandon wikitext and start from scratch, but that would involve abandoning the entire corpus of Wikipedia, Wikibooks etc., or at best a mammoth effort for our communities to have to port content across; as you can imagine, this is not something we'd accept.
In terms of understanding how the projects are going, so far, I've been doing the regular monthly updates which go on the blog and which the Signpost covers occasionally, and I've been posting fortnightly status updates for both VisualEditor and Parsoid on the technical messages distribution list and the English Wikipedia's Village Pump. Where else do you think I should be highlighting the work (and are there other things you feel I should talk about in them)?
- Hi Jdforrester, thanks so much for following up. Unfortunately I need to be off Wikimedia sites likely for the rest of today, but I'll try to get back to you by midday tomorrow. --Pine✉ 19:01, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- Hi again. Thanks for the links. The main way that I tried to get more information on the VE project was by asking people who work in WMF Engineering. I believe that I asked at least two staff and in each case I was told by these people, who are normally very knowledgeable about WMF, that they knew nothing about the VE's progress and/or that the VE team is relatively isolated from the rest of Engineering. That has been my main source of frustration and why I was feeling stonewalled. Separately, I've glanced at the WM Engineering Reports and for some reason I didn't realize that the bold blue section headers would also be wikilinks to places to get more information from MediaWiki, and that's my error for not realizing that the section headers were clickable. Thanks again for following up. --Pine✉ 22:01, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
On fellowships and grantsEdit
Thanks for signing up!Edit
Hi Pine - thanks for signing up on the Individual Engagement Grants Committee page! Was going to ping you and others about this today, and I'm so glad you beat me to it. I feel better knowing we've got at least one person committed from the start :-) More to follow on this soon. Siko (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wanted to thank you for the same. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- (: I'm looking forward to working with this committee. We have some very capable people who are signing up for the committee. I'm hopeful that some of the projects that apply for funding through IEG will deliver good value to Wikimedia projects and communities. --Pine✉ 19:53, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the IEG CommitteeEdit
Thanks for being the first to sign up to join the Individual Engagement Grants Committee! It is my pleasure to confirm your membership. We’ve got a lot to accomplish together, particularly during the next 6 weeks, and it will be awesome to continue to have your help. Here is how to get started:
To make your membership official, please do 2 things by February 11th:
- Introduce yourself in the IdeaLab. (I think you already have one, actually!).
- Send your email address to IEGrants wikimedia.org, so that we can subscribe you to the committee mailing list.
Then there are 2 first tasks' for active committee members to start on right away:
- Review information in the Committee Workroom (your new organizing hub on meta), including responsibilities and the review process. Feedback and questions are very welcome at this stage.
- Start giving feedback on open ideas, drafts and proposals. Asking questions to gather information you’ll need to make a recommendation helps prospective grantees think their projects all the way through, and will give us more great proposals to choose from.
Our formal review of proposals starts February 22nd. I’ll be posting information about scoring and selection of proposals on the committee mailing list and in the Workroom soon, so please keep an eye there!
Convidando o BrasilEdit
- Thank you about the feedback, but:
- Committee responsibilities
- Provide feedback on the talk page of grant proposals in all 3 stages: ideas, drafts, and final submissions.
- I asked for feedback, as it was the primary responsibility of the committee (see), and especially to ameliorate the project. But some points that you had been raise, I could not use to improve the project, because they are vague or had errors, things that could be solved if you had asked "Is that what you mean?", or if you had said: "This point we had try to show this error.".
|Thanks for building the committee and leading this first round of review all the way through to the selection of a great group of grantees! I've valued your thoughtfulness and insights all along the way as we've planned and launched this new kind of grantmaking - this round would not have been anywhere near as productive without you, Pine. :-) Siko (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)|
March Grants NewsEdit
|Pine, thanks for continuing to keep us honest in IEG during round 2 :) Your questions and partnership in thinking things through are always useful. I hope to continue to benefit from your expertise in the future! Best wishes for a nice holiday, Siko (WMF) (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)|
Upcoming IdeaLab Events: IEG Proposal ClinicsEdit
Re: WMF Annual Plan talk pageEdit
No objections from me. The two sections I added, however, were of little importance, I even planned to archive them. Didn't check the talk yet today. --Nemo 07:22, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Grants:IdeaLab/Cameras for Commons photographersEdit
Are you still interested in this idea, because I think it should be something to look into. At the same time, it might not be even a bad idea to expand it so that more people are covered, because of the scope of things. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Kevin Rutherford, the scale is currently small because this is a pilot program. If you have ideas for expansion please write them on the IdeaLab proposal's talk page. Thanks! --Pine✉ 07:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)