User talk:Fetchcomms/Archive 22

h t u s m g

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Please explain

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Fetchcomms
Can you please explain the use of the word "bitches" here.
Yours sincerely,
--The Master of Mayhem ^{cup of tea? Don't worry, I'll make it} 20:13, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be funny in my edit summary. Don't worry, I'm not calling you my bitch. /ƒETCH COMMS / 02:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Upload wizards etc

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just as a follow-up to our discussion on the "proposals" page: I of course agree it would be worth pursuing an improved upload workflow, be it on the basis of the new mw:Extension:UploadWizard they have on Commons now or whatever else. I'm not very tech-savvy when it comes to wiki development. Have you got any idea whether the UploadWizard could easily be adapted to our needs? From a cursory glance at its source code I had the feeling much of its structure was hard-coded in the form they use on Commons. We would of course need a lot of much more fine-grained forms with different, specific questions asked for different types of non-free files here.

I don't know if you saw it, but I made this sketch of the kinds of steps an uploader might be guided through and the kinds of questions they should be asked at each stage, here: User:Future Perfect at Sunrise/Upload forms draft (note that this would of course be split up into sequences of different pages, each section being one screen). This is of course very far away from any technical implementation yet. Any thoughts? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether it would be easy to have the UploadWizard enabled here, but I agree that a version for enwiki would require a lot more custom stuff for non-free files. I'm also not very fond of the UploadWizard for several reasons (one of which, as you mentioned elsewhere is because you have to upload the files before filling out the information and stuff) but I think it's main strong point is simplicity over the regular upload form. Unfortunately, this means less licensing choices, which I also dislike, but I'm hoping that will get addressed in the future.

I read your draft page and I think it's definitely a good plan, and much more clear, but should probably clarify how to send permission to OTRS better. That's one issue that's difficult to explain because it's not clear enough to most users what we need unless they look through multiple pages and whatnot. If we just say something like:

"If someone else has given you permission to use an image they created, please have them fill out the form here and email it to permissions-en

wikimedia.org along with the image attached (or, if you already uploaded the image to Wikipedia, the name of the image here). Please note that "permission for use on Wikipedia" is not enough—by filling out the form mentioned above, the creator of the image allows commercial and non-commercial redistribution and modification of the image with credit, anywhere, not just Wikipedia. Once the form has been emailed to us at the above address, please simply wait for the permission form to be processed (may take several days or weeks, depending on mail volume) and the image uploaded by one of our volunteers. Or, if you already uploaded the image to Wikipedia, please edit the image description page, add {{OTRS pending}} and click save, so we know that the form has already been sent. The rest of the process will be taken care of by our volunteers."

Etc., etc. This would help reduce the number of OTRS responses that are "sorry, we need a more clear statement of permission" or "sorry, what image are you talking about" and so on. /ƒETCH COMMS / 17:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Brevity, the soul of wit

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Fetchcomms,

Thanks for your question/suggestion.

I'm sorry for not just saying, "Yes, interaction-bans would be nice". (I had suggested such bans at the RfC/U drafter's page.)

Best, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 18:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't be sorry, but it's just nice to know exactly what sort of action is being requested. /ƒETCH COMMS / 19:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Fetchcomms,

I definitely would prefer interaction bans with the 2 editors who acted as principle and agent over this weekend's ANI. I have stated my complaints about this weekend's ANI already, so I shan't elaborate. I had hoped that a voluntary gentlemen's agreement would have already been accepted.

A similar ban between the principle, Ratatoskr, and MF should have occurred before. MF's talk page has an agreement with this suggestion and skepticism about making a request.

Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 19:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't followed that thread, but why don't you just post a short, plain notice (i.e., "Would you voluntarily agree to an interaction ban with me for [period of time]?"; no accusations or anything snarky) on the other users' talk pages or start a subsecrion at the AN thread if they don't respond? /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. I made the offer, more formally with your formulation, on Worm's talk page. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:44, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hey fetchcomms, thanks for the suggestion. I appreciate the suggestion, but since all my interactions with Kiefer up to this point have been constructive and he appears to be using an interaction ban with myself to circumvent an RfC, I'm going to have to decline. The discussions leading to this point are filled with drama, and unless you've got some popcorn, I think you're better off out of it! However, if you have some time, I'd welcome your opinion on my behaviour. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, he's not obligated to participate in an RfC anyway, but I'd still suggest that you two try not to interact needlessly (e.g., jumping into another's conversations if you're not involved and it doesn't concern you). Does that work? /ƒETCH COMMS / 21:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, I have never interacted with Kiefer needlessly, and I have no difficulty continuing in that vein. Also, I am aware he's not obliged to participate, there's a long thread on my talk page where I've said just that. Anyway, I'm happy with this outcome. Worm^TT · (talk) 21:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi fetchcomms. Sorry to bother you, but I thought it best to notify you of this. I (and to some extent Demiurge) have attempted to not interact with KW needlessly, but he's making it very difficult at the moment. Oh and for your information, I am still working on an RfC - the workshop that Kiefer mentions below was not a draft, it was intended as a one to one workshop where we could thrash it out. Worm^TT · (talk) 06:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

RfC—See you real soon

Hi Fetchcomms,

I mentioned your suggestion of an interaction ban on my draft RfC/U.

Anhedonically, Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage "Rules"

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The rules you have set out, are you kidding me? 174.7.19.170 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Well duh. It's supposed to be funny. 9_9 /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:08, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's a relief, but you do know that to people who don't know you, the way you set it out seems like you're being serious. When I saw it, I simply assumed you were an uptight snob. Anyway, it's good to know that it's a joke. 174.7.19.170 (talk) 07:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

My apologies

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think was in a slightly bad mood when I was reading/responding to your comment at AN. Please accept my apologies for ~~offending~~ annoying you. Looking back at it, I don't know why I was agitated by it; it doesn't stand out to me as uncivil at all... – AJL^talk 08:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I usually just write really concise comments. /ƒETCH COMMS / 20:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Online Ambassadors: Time to join pods

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! If you're planning to be an active Online Ambassador for the upcoming academic term, now is the time to join one or more pods. (A pod consists of the instructor, the Campus Ambassadors, and the Online Ambassadors for single class.) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) explains the expectations for being part of a pod as an Online Ambassador. (The MOU for pods in Canada is essentially the same.) In short, the role of Online Ambassadors this term consists of:

Working closely with the instructor and Campus Ambassadors, providing advice and perspective as an experienced Wikipedian
Helping students who ask for it (or helping them to find the help they need)
Watching out for the class as a whole
Helping students to get community feedback on their work

This replaces the 1-on-1 mentoring role for Online Ambassadors that we had in previous terms; rather than being responsible for individual students (some of whom don't want or help or are unresponsive), Online Ambassadors will be there to help whichever students in their class(es) ask for help.

You can browse the upcoming courses here: United States; Canada. More are being added as new pods become active and create their course pages.

Once you've found a class that you want to work with—especially if you some interest or expertise in the topic area—you should sign the MOU listing for that class and get in touch with the instructor. We're hoping to have at least two Online Ambassadors per pod, and more for the larger classes.

If you're up for supporting any kind of class and would like me to assign you to a pod in need of more Online Ambassadors, just let me know.

--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

PS: There are still a lot of student articles from the last term that haven't been rated. Please rate a few and update the list!

Postman!

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello, Fetchcomms. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-Tempodivalse [talk] 00:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiCup 2011 July newsletter

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The finals are upon us; we're down to the last few. One of the eight remaining contestants will be this year's WikiCup champion! 150 was the score needed to progress to the final; just under double the 76 required to reach round 4, and more than triple the 41 required to reach round 3. Our eight finalists are:

Casliber (submissions), Pool A's winner. Casliber has the highest total score in the competition, with 1528, the bulk of which is made up of 8 featured articles. He has the highest number of total featured articles (8, 1 of which was eligible for double points) and total did you knows (72) of any finalist. Casliber writes mostly on biology, including ornithology, botany and mycology.
PresN (submissions), Pool B's winner and the highest scorer this round. PresN is the only finalist who has scored featured topic points, and he has gathered an impressive 330, but most of his points come from his 4 featured articles, one of which scored double. PresN writes mostly on video games and the Hugo Awards.
Hurricanehink (submissions), Pool A's runner-up. Hurricanehink's points are mostly from his 30 good articles, more than any other finalist, and he is also the only finalist to score good topic points. Hurricanehink, as his name suggests, writes mostly on meteorology.
Wizardman (submissions), Pool B's runner-up. Wizardman has completed 86 good article reviews, more than any other finalist, but most of his points come from his 2 featured articles. Wizardman writes mostly on American sport, especially baseball.
Miyagawa (submissions), the "fastest loser" (Pool A). Miyagawa has written 3 featured lists, one of which was awarded double points, more than any other finalist, but he was awarded points mostly for his 68 did you knows. Miyagawa writes on a variety of topics, including dogs, military history and sport.
Resolute (submissions), the second "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Resolute's points come from his 9 good articles. He writes mostly on Canadian topics, including ice hockey.
Yellow Evan (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool A). Most of Evan's points come from his 10 good articles, and he writes mostly on meteorology.
Sp33dyphil (submissions), who was joint third "fastest loser" (Pool B). Most of Phil's points come from his 9 good articles, 4 of which (more than any other finalist) were eligible for double points. He writes mostly on aeronautics.

We say goodbye to our seven other semi-finalists, Another Believer (submissions), Piotrus (submissions), Grandiose (submissions), Stone (submissions), Eisfbnore (submissions), Canada Hky (submissions) and MuZemike (submissions). Everyone still in the competition at this stage has done fantastically well, and contributed greatly to Wikipedia. We're on the home straight now, and we will know our winner in two months.

In other news, preparations for next year's competition have begun with a brainstorming thread. Please, feel free to drop by and share any thoughts you have about how the competition should work next year. Sign ups are not yet open, but will be opened in due course. Watch this space. Further, there has been a discussion about the rule whereby those in the WikiCup must delcare their participation when nominating articles at featured article candidates. This has resulted in a bot being created by new featured article delegate Ucucha (talk · contribs). The bot will leave a message on FAC pages if the nominator is a participant in the WikiCup.

A reminder of the rules: any points scored after August 29 may be claimed for the final round, and please remember to update submission pages promptly. If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 23:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Input needed

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please consider this draft proposal and provide input. We want to get this right and your help would be great. Be bold if you see an area to improve. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 04:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←