Winged Blades of Godric

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Winged Blades of Godric. 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!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 06:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

th:สุธิตา ชนะชัยสุวรรณ

You have redirected th:สุธิตา ชนะชัยสุวรรณ to th:เดอะวอยซ์ไทยแลนด์ ซีซั่นที่ 3 with the reason "BLP with no clear evidence of notability...See Ticket:2017080610004386 before reversion" (I can't even access).

There is a mention in th:วิกิพีเดีย:แจ้งผู้ดูแลระบบ#Image The Voice why you redirect since the old one have meet the criteria en:WP:MUSIC (reliable sources) --Sry85 (talk) 08:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Err...there does not seem to exist a thai-wiki queue at OTRS.My assumptions of notability was based on the en.wiki standards.Also, the actions executed were under the ambit of existing en-wiki BLP policy.But there's no denying that standards at other wikis vary (possibly are far lower.) I will be shortly asking some OTRS admin to look into the issue and take any corrective measure as deemed to be fit.As a side-note, do you know of any experienced user (He/she need not be a sysop etc.) in Thai-Wiki community who has OTRS access?Thanks!Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Andreek

Were you "Andreek" on English wikipedia?

Nope.Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 11:48, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Commond deletion bot requirements

I'm contacting you because you supported the Commons Deletion Bot proposal in the 2017 Community Wishlist. The Wishlist team has finalized the draft specifications for how the bot will work, and are seeking review in confirming or discussing the plans for the bot. If you have some time, please take a look and leave a comment. Thanks, happy editing to you. - Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Next steps for the wish “confirmation prompt for the rollback link”

Hello, a while ago you participated in a feedback round about a proposal how accidental clicks on the rollback link could be avoided. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts and ideas!
Looking at the feedback and the rollback situation in different wikis, the development team decided how to approach this wish: As a default, most wikis won’t have a confirmation. But users who wish to have one, can enable it in their preferences, which will add a confirmation prompt to the rollback link on the diff page and on the list pages. The prompt won’t be a pop-up, but an inline prompt like for the thanks confirmation. You can read more about the planned solution and what influenced this decision on the project page. -- Best, Johanna Strodt (WMDE) (talk) 09:31, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Commons deletion notification bot

Greetings,

You are receiving this message because you supported the Commons deletion notification bot in the 2017 Community Wishlist Survey.

Commons deletion notification bot is ready to be deployed to any Wikimedia wiki that wishes to use it. If your community is interested in the bot, you can leave a request on the project page on meta-wiki. The bot messages are available for translation on translatewiki.net, as part of preparing the bot for release.

Thank you for your participation in the Wishlist. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey

Hey, I saw the argument over on the bugmaster's talk page. You doing okay these days? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF):-Thanks for stopping by:-) Weirdly, I missed your post, for all these days.......:(

Aklapper blocked my phab account, (primarily because a f-word, used in an exclamatory sense, stayed for a few minutes before being self-removed by me) for a host of reasons that seems too high-handed and intentionally tone-deaf to me & communicating with him is terrifically difficult, at-least for me.

At any cases, he has successfully managed to prevent me from signing the confidentiality-agreement; which is mandatory for OTRS purposes and any help, in that regard will be appreciated.

On a miscellaneous note, that you have seemed to be one of the most reasonable guys with the WMF signature, I will like an answer to the question:--.......what are your (It's a generic you, for the devs; not you, in specific) responsibilities (if any), as to the implementation of any off-wish-list request....... I mean, it's beyond doubt that WMF employs certain number of developers in it's payrolls, under a variety of teams. Barring CommTech, how are the works chosen/allotted for the rest of teams? Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 14:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's too bad that you and Andre got off on the wrong foot. In my experience, he's scrupulously even-handed, but you know – it's a different community over there. Stuff that doesn't even raise an eyebrow at our home wiki is grounds for insta-banning there. The devs want a "no drama" kind of environment, and they mostly get it. One side effect is that some long-time editors from the English Wikipedia, especially among our occasional meatball:VestedContributors, have been surprised to find themselves blocked. The other thing to know is that Andre's a pretty soft touch when it comes to block appeals, unless the user has been spamming. (Sometimes even then. Back around 2015, he granted a general amnesty to everyone that was blocked, even spammers.) His blocks tend to be short anyway, but if you're still blocked, then a small apology and a claim that you understand the norms are different and won't do whatever again usually goes a long way.

Your main question is more timely than you could imagine, since my team was just whingeing talking about that very problem last week. Officially, AFIACT, the answer is:

• Everything starts with the mission and the strategy (specifically Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20 at the moment), and then you add relevant direction from the Board (e.g., about how much the overall budget will or won't change each year or whether the focus should be more on, say, encouraging article creation and less on addressing policy problems, or the other way around).
• From there, the broad requirements go down the management chain through the annual plan process. That process starts more or less now, with upper management figuring out how many staff each team will be allowed to have next year, how big Wikimania can be, etc.
• Teams will talk about what they'd like to do in maybe February. Each team's plans get sent up the management chain (e.g., my team will send our plans to the head of the Community Engagement department), and once the department's satisfied with all the team plans, they go up to the C-levels, and when Katherine (CEO/Executive Director) is happy, the plans go to the Board and are posted on Meta for public comment.

And that bit is the problem my team is looking at: The formal opportunities for non-staff influence come at v-e-r-y beginning (general strategy) and the v-e-r-y end (just before final approval, when only small tweaks are likely to be made), but the bigger practical decisions are mostly made in the middle. So if you need a mid-size project – too small to get mentioned by name in the strategy, but too big for the Community Wishlist – you're kind of stuck. Some of these mid-sized projects, such as global templates (which probably needs a full dev team for one year), could have really significant value for all the projects, but it's hard for anyone except an upper-level manager to make them happen.

This is good in some respects (because doing a big project means not doing something else, and what if that other thing was actually more important than my project?), but it's also frustrating to see the same mid-sized projects rejected year after year after year, because they aren't quite important enough. Case in point: A decade ago, everyone who knows anything about computer security said that it's absolutely insane to let admins (who are elected largely on the basis that they won't block the wrong editors) instantly change Javascript for the sites with no code review. This year, one of the devs got so distressed by the situation that he wrote the code to create the interface-admins, entirely on his own time, and proposed the policy adoption, just to reduce the number of admins whose accounts were likely to be targeted by hackers so they could exploit that. But all of us know that he shouldn't have needed to do that, because ten years ago (or more!), someone ought to have written a sane code review process that lets people post code changes before they're live, and that requires someone else to review them, so that little details like misplaced parentheses or malware could be spotted and removed before any users are affected. And it hasn't happened, because nobody in upper management has (a) been there long enough to make it happen, and (b) considered it more important than all the other things that those devs could be doing. So if you are a typical volunteer, you can propose phab:T71445 as part of the strategy, but be told that JS/CSS security is too small for the strategy, and you can propose it as part of the wishlist, but be told that it's too big for the wishlist, and you can propose it during the public comment period for the annual plan, but be told that it's really too late, because that incorporating that idea would mean cancelling too many other proposed projects, but they'll keep it in mind for next year, just like they (allegedly) kept it in mind for each of the previous ten years. This is the frustrating bit, and I don't know how to solve it yet.

From the POV of the experienced editor, I think that the most common source of confusion isn't the process itself, but instead is the belief that the Wikimedia Foundation exists to serve the (many) communities of established editors. It doesn't. The Foundation's purpose is to advance education. What is most desired by established editors (especially at the English Wikipedia) isn't always what advances education best, especially in a global context. But in many cases, I think there is significant overlap between 'what editors want' and 'what advances the organization's charitable purpose'. I don't feel like we're finding a good way to identify those overlapping areas of interest. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@Whatamidoing (WMF):--That was a superbly crafted reply which sheds immense light on the intricacies of the process along with a near-destined accompanying frustrations for the volunteers. Many thanks:-)

I will try to mend bridges with Andre, let's see:-)

Whilst, I wish to post some relevant queries and musings, at a later point of time, I will note that the statement:-- Wikimedia Foundation exists to serve the (many) communities of established editors. It doesn't. The Foundation's purpose is to advance education. is of particular value.

Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I hope that it will be useful. If you reach the point at which storytelling becomes important for your proposal, then the image of a person in an emerging community, standing in a library with a book in one hand and a smartphone in the other, seems to be particularly effective at the moment.

By the way, the Editing team got re-assigned to the mobile editing software this (fiscal) year, and the ideas at mw:Visual-based mobile editing/Ideas/October 2018 is one result. I have been trying to get people from bnwiki (in particular) to tell the team what would make their lives easier. I would be particularly happy to have your views. I think some section editing work is going to happen (because it's so painful that this is more like "fix obvious bugs" than "new features"), but I'm not sure what will happen next. You could go tell them what they ought to do.  ;-) Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The Community Wishlist Survey

Hi,

You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.

You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF) 11:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

SN's rule

No-one who has not contributed actively and consistently to 25% of the 25% most active wikis should be a steward. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 09:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

"Thank" on history page

If you go to the history page, from there you can thank someone for their edits. The manipulations made at some other wikis to also add it to RC and Watchlists have not been adopted here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:-Thank you! That helped:-) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit Summary: R ; though I won't engage with you any further.)

Hello WBG,

You are not under any obligation to engage with me any further and same with me. I honestly can't recall any personal encounter with you but it does seems that you choose to use that insulting edit summary because I was banned on the English Wikipedia. Correct? T Cells (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

"Who Wrote That" project update

Hello. I'm reaching out to you as you participated in the 2017 Community Wishlist proposal for "Who Wrote That" project (previously known as "Blame Tool"). The Community Tech team is kicking things off on the project and we have an early-stage mockup available for you to look at. I invite you to follow that project page, where I will be posting periodic status updates for the project. You are also welcome to provide your thoughts on the talk page. Thank you. -- NKohli (WMF) (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

sock puppetry

Hey! I'm here to report something to you, actually, report a sock... since you are more experienced... I was going through some of the proposals and in the WikiArchive project i saw some signs of Sock puppetry, i have done the least i can do and i hope that you are willing to take action. Thanks, Ping ME! ArepTicous ^talk_contribs 16:24, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

az:Xocalı soyqırımının tanınması#Faciəni qətliam kimi tanıyan ABŞ ştatları

Hey WBG!

Can you tell me how to make an edit request on azwiki? They have Connecticut as officially recognizing the en:Khojaly Massacre, but that isn't true. I'd appreciate some help in this regard.

Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: - Make a t/p request and ping some sysop, who has been recently active. Also, in light of Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki, I am not in the best position to offer help. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 06:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey

It will be good if you link the accounts Winged Blades of Godric (AWB) here too on userpage as on enwp. Best Regards,--Cohaf (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm

Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Reader Behaviour. LOL. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC) User:MCruz (WMF) Hmm. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Reverted an edit by you

Good day. I've reverted an edit by you. I don't think that you were being constructive and were uncivil unnecessarily. Siebrand (talk) 21:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Don't revert me, in future, w/o taking my explicit consent. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Re: Please

I did, even earlier. We'll see what happens. I suppose a part of them might now be packing to Stockholm. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey, it's better to reply at the same venue to avoid fragmentation of discussion. At any case, I am glad to know that you have already requested them for engagement. Agree that Wikimania may delay responsiveness :-) Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 10:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be grateful if you explained my perspective to the enwiki community on WP:FRAM, or at least linked to my response on your tak page on English Wikipedia. I feel like they were trying to roast me only because I dared to defend my (and other WG members') lack of any mandate from WMF. Thanks in advance. SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I will try to do that, to the best of my abilities; will leave an explanatory note:-) FWIW, your recent re-designs of the recommendation pages were damn great! Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 05:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@SGrabarczuk (WMF): - Check mail, please. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 07:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

COPE

I noticed your comment on COPE over at WikiJournal#Discussion. I was surprised because I've not heard such significant criticism of COPE previously and journal editors that I've interacted with have been pretty ebullient in their praise of its usefulness. Would you be able to point to further info on what the problems are with it and alternatives to COPE that you think avoid those issues? Happy to continue on that page if you prefer. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 17:04, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Will reply in detail, tomorrow.

I had my own heated conflicts with some of the board-members of COPE (which biases my views) but I do seem to share my observations with Schneider, Struthers, a few other members of CSM and many other folks, who actively monitor the area of fraud and ethics in science publication. See the twitter profiles of the two named folks for interesting commentary on SCOPE -- about how little they do and about how most of it further enables the frauds. Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting. I'd come across Schneider's work before (though not the COPE articles). I think they are being a little hyperbolic in his description of the 2017 BioArxiv paper It's mainly stating that full retraction (including expunging all copies from the record) is a blunt instrument and that a graded amendment system to specify exactly which parts are incorrect is more useful in many circumstances. the lead author says in an interview with Retraction Watch that "We accept for sure that in some rare cases the definitive version should not be public any more, but in the vast majority of cases we believe there should be a clear trail explaining what has happened to the article and why". However it's fair to say that COPE is not the full solution to journal ethics - it audits journals' stated ethical guidelines and provides free editor training materials, but does not police their implementation (which could be possible but might become expensive). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't pay much attention to Schneider; on close inspection, there's rarely much too see in what he writes. Nemo 16:12, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for worrying

Although my English is far from perfect, I'm just copying here the text written in the Salon. Nobody checked it, so there will be grammar mistakes. If help to understand the original meaning is needed, I'll he glad to help.--FFort (WMF) (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Blah blah

Support. Essentially, there shall be a check-box titled:- Send a message to reviewer" -- which if enabled, shall display a text-area. Un-reviewing w/o enabling the checkbox shall not post any message, at all. Un-reviewing after enabling the checkbox but keeping the text-area blank shall post a boilerplate message. suite shall allow us to have the opportunity to un-review using a customized message. Un-reviewing after enabling the checkbox but filling the text-area shall post a customized message.

Not great

https://web.archive.org/web/20191123163513/https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:2hru4vIVOF8J:https://idsa.in/system/files/jds/jds-12-2-2018-jihadist-radicalisation-in-india.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in

"Neha"

Community Wishlist Survey 2019 - Section Name in Diff

Hello!

The Community Tech team (WMF) has officially started the project for Section Name in Diff, the #9 wish from the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey!

You previously voted for this wish, so we are now contacting you. We invite you to visit the project page, where you can read a project analysis and share your feedback.

We hope to see you on the project talk page, and thank you in advance!

-- IFried (WMF), 14:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021: Invitation

The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 30 November, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 8 December and 21 December.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2021

We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote from now until 21 December for as many different wishes as you want.

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)