User talk:Nemo bis

From the Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Cbrown1023 talk 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"only 6 months of delay"


(diff | hist) . . Nm Política de gastos relacionados ao trabalho‎; 18:23 . . (+4,913) . . Nemo bis (Talk | contribs | block) (published translation from m:Política sobre conflito de interesses (with only six months of delay..

Well, of course if people don't format their pages like an actual translation request and don't ask someone to copy it over... it won't get done. Cbrown1023 talk 19:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike then, I guess. ;-) Great job cleaning up Meta-Wiki, btw. Cbrown1023 talk 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't know why some staffers don't have an account here"

[1] Well, because most of them don't need one? :) guillom 16:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Nemo,

Cleaning up the wiki is great and all, but sometimes it's better to discuss things before you do them. :-) We probably should've pointed out that Foundationwiki feedback message to the fundraising team and asked them to help us come up with the best place to put that, rather than just doing it on tons of pages without their input. Cbrown1023 talk 20:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, we really need to discuss things like that more... since it's adding even more variables to the page. Links to other pages make it more likely for people to not donate and instead go off and read other things on this wiki, which we don't want. Azariv 20:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, you're right, but we may loose some donor who can't find infos on tax exemption, as well; given also our recent discussions on fundraising-l I thought it was the right thing to do; then I was going to ask comments on list, but I felt it was excessive and I have eventually asked to I've been told it's ok, but if it's not I'll revert. --Nemo 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually not a lot of evidence that we will lose donors over the lack of tax deductibility info:in fact, the status quo has been to not include it. However, there *is* evidence that navigation links on the donation form directly result in a lower contribution amount. Given that, I really must stand by my original opinion. Philippe (WMF) 02:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly :) I have reverted. Philippe (WMF) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Perhaps we could add the link on {{2010/Donate-footer/en}}? --Nemo 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe in the FAQ? "Where are my donations tax-deductible?" Or maybe we should just remove it from the page completely since it pretty much only applies to the US? Cbrown1023 talk 21:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want it anywhere on the donation form: it's an invitation to click away, which directly impacts donation amounts. I think the FAQ is good. :) Philippe (WMF) 02:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey, on this edit you changed a translation that you suspect was already better than the new version. My instinct is that the old one was better as well. I'm wondering if you could explain why you changed it? I'm tempted to revert, but want to be sure I'm not missing something. Philippe (WMF) 01:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Informazioni su Wikimedia

Is this Italian? Should it be redirected to FAQ/it? --MZMcBride 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History of the Board of Trustees

This page needs an update for 2011 and 2012, if you're bored. :-) --MZMcBride 00:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind that I helped out there might be some missing so please do double check. :) The Helpful One 00:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
<3 --MZMcBride 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I'm always for the preminence of Meta :-p, I liked it more when Board of Trustees linked to the relevant pages there, which have far more insight. But a collection of links like this is useful, thank you both. Nemo 06:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much incentive for people to keep Meta-Wiki updated. The same isn't as true for this site. :-)
I agree that Meta-Wiki should be used where/when possible, but I snipped some content from it yesterday because trying to maintain certain data in two places simply doesn't work well. Meta-Wiki still has a much better info about the history of the Board, but some of that ought to be cleaned up and exist here, in some form. That's what I was hopefully laying the groundwork for in my most recent edits. --MZMcBride 16:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Staff and contractors

Hi Nemo. I saw your edit here. I don't like the table of contents at the bottom like that. The page looks broken and very ugly with the box there.

I think I know what issue you're trying to resolve, but can you be explicit about it? It's just a matter of having clickable anchors, right? I think a solution like the one here would work much better (hover over "Time access and conversions"). And/or we could make the entire header clickable for an anchor. Please let me know what you think.

For now, I'm going to remove the table of contents box. I was hoping to avoid a revert, but it's really bothering me. :-/ --MZMcBride (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. As I said, I need an index to use the page. I'll just use the oldid I guess. --Nemo 22:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Another option I came up with was to wrap the TOC in style="display:none;" and then you could modify your personal CSS subpage (or make a gadget, even...) to force the box to display inline. With this method, you could put the box wherever you wanted to on the page (not necessarily at the bottom). --MZMcBride (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would make no sense. At least permanent links work for everyone. --Nemo 07:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Grr, I forgot that we had already discussed this, the current page is really completely hopeless. Permalinks didn't work with my feeble memory, I guess I'll just make another version of the page for my own use. --Nemo 10:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd forgotten we'd already discussed this as well. I only happened to notice as I accidentally clicked the page history of Staff and contractors instead of Template:Staff and contractors. I'm not sure a user subpage is going to work for you either, given the links in the sidebar and other links elsewhere (chat, etc.). I created Template:Hide and User:MZMcBride/monobook.css to resolve the index issue. The collapsing can probably also be overridden with CSS... I'm just not sure of the right incantation right now. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt links are a problem: very few people link specific areas of the page now that it's impossible to use, I mostly open it on my own. To give links to others I can still use permalinks of the old better version when I really need to. --Nemo 11:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Follow-up to my questions on Meta some time ago: Contact us still lists answers@ as an address, but doesn't clarify the role of the address. Is it active? Can you please clarify its function on the page? Thanks, Nemo 21:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's very active. :) We receive emails daily from people who have requests or questions for the Wikimedia Foundation. I'm not sure what I would add to the contact us page - basically, it's for everything that doesn't fit into another category. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. "Everything that doesn't fit into another category" seems more like info@ as described on the page: «Questions related to Wikipedia or other projects» is so generic as to cover everything we may be talking about. At least one of the two needs to be clarified.
Also: donations, press and business are very clear categories, but info@ and answers@ are extremely mysterious as regards who replies etc. As long as there's only info@ this doesn't matter much, but having two mysterious addresses means people will be confused. --Nemo 06:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there's a pretty big distinction between the Wikimedia Foundation and the projects. :) I do not answer questions about whether somebody can write an article about their garage band, and info@ does not answer questions about whether a visiting group from Oxford can tour the office. Sometimes people do get confused - they send inquiries for and about WMF to info@ and the people at info@ send them to me. Sometimes people send questions about content to answers@, and I send them to info@, but on the whole the system seems to have been working pretty well for the past year and a half. :) Are people complaining about confusion somewhere that I haven't noticed? Finding out specifically what is confusing them might help determine if clarification is needed. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 10:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Confused people who don't know where to write won't know where to express confusion either.
As 1) saying "projects" for our wikis is jargon, and 2) you seem to imply that answers is about the office/staff of the WMF (which makes sense given that the board has its own address), I've tried [2]. Please correct/clarify if wrong.
Now we only lack some clarifications about audience: press@ and business@ have an obvious audience, info@ is for everyone willing to contribute/comment/etc. the projects, now is answers@ for readers or what else? How does it relate to liaison@ (for community members) or legal@ (for any legal-related request, but including or excluding "community liaison-ing"?), etc. etc. --Nemo 10:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, believe me, Nemo, they do. :) They write to all of them. It happens frequently. As to the change you've proposed, I guess we can see what happens. If the number of misdirected emails rises, then we might need to revert and figure out a different way, although I'm not sure this is an actual problem so much as a theoretical one. Answers@ is used by readers and editors - anyone who has a question for the WMF. They come in regularly, daily. Its audience seems to be finding it okay. :) --Maggie Dennis (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess said audience doesn't include me, because I, for one, am confused and don't know who to write. --Nemo 11:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's start there. What is your problem? If you tell me, then I can help you figure out who to write, and we can determine if the contact page can be changed to clarify. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On closer reading, I removed the staff link. I'm afraid it may mislead people with the "for or about staff" suggesting that the email address is simply to discuss staff. If we remove the "about" it would make more sense, but then it would also suggest that all the addresses above are manned by staff, and they are not. :/ (Thehelpfulone pointed that out, as I pinged him to ask if he could think of a way to fix this.) We could address this by noting which ones are handled by volunteers (partially or completely), but I really think that's going to confuse everybody, since we still get correspondence from people who think staff are the "boss" of content. If you have any other ideas, I'm open to them, but, of course, we can also open the question at the contact talk page. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our projects

Hi. Thanks for this edit.

I'm very tempted to implement a {{project}} template for each section of the Our projects page, as I'd like to rework the design a bit and a template would make this much easier. However, I know you've said previously that templates can make future translation efforts more difficult. Is there any way to mitigate this? --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean to do, but – as long as all the linguistic/translatable content stays in the same page – moving styles to a template will only help translation, bot with and without Translate extension. Unless, of course, the template is too smart, doing hacky things with parser functions or whatever. --Nemo 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. I think I was a little confused about using templates versus using templates (i.e., subpages) for page content. This is what I'm working on. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Only issue I see there, the template always embeds English logo? I guess we can add a parameter or switch to language-neutral logos (without names and subtext). --Nemo 21:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Still, calling an edit based on actual documents "trolling" is absolutely unacceptable, especially when it comes from a Board member. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 17:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that doesn't seem to assume good faith. However, I'd think an appropriate way to voice this concern would be a talk message to Stu, rather than a revert on such a page. :) --Nemo 17:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you don't want to make a point, that is. I'd think an appropriate way to voice a concern about your edit would have been for Stu to leave a message on your talk page in the first place. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 17:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I've just talked a bit with him and his point was that I should have asked on the talk page before making that edit. :) So by making too many points we'd be stuck in a dead end.
What matters is that with his revert Stu gave us an update on the current actual status of the board, absent an official communication/vote/resolution, and this supersedes the information we had till this morning (and hence my [attempted] update to the page). The annual plan, I'm told, was approved with a consent resolution, without a meeting, so we currently have "only" one vacant community-selected seat. The new appointments as per last elections have not been approved yet, and we can't just assume they'll happen soon (despite the vacancy), just like I was wrong in my bet that the annual plan had been considered worth a meeting (as the page didn't say the contrary).
TL;DR: The information we have on WMF corporate matters is often incomplete and unclear and that's why it's useful to have a wiki where more eyeballs (try to) take care of it, but when we have official sources of information all the better. --Nemo 17:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know of no wiki which requires its users to seek permission before editing a page; it wouldn't be a wiki if it did. So if I understand correctly, the annual plan resolution was approved without a meeting because a phone call cannot be considered a meeting? Tomasz W. Kozłowski 18:04, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can: see for instance Minutes/2013-05-04, a 14 min meeting via phone to change the bylaws. Both meetings and written consent (for consent resolutions without meeting) can happen via various media, so there aren't sharp boundaries. --Nemo 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to concept that talk pages are a better way to discuss than reverts or name calling. I was annoyed that someone would go in and change the official board page to something incorrect without asking or otherwise confirming a bunch of assumptions. I thought then and I think now that it is inappropriate. Just ask! Stu (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Stu, so when is the switch-over scheduled to take place? Thehelpfulone 18:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, our plan is to do what has been done in the past which to use our Wikimania meeting to both enthusiastically thank the outgoing board members for all of their volunteer service and also to welcome officially the incoming board members.Stu (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stu, just as I wrote above, I think it's absolutely inappropriate to make people ask permission to edit a page. If that's how you imagine a wiki to operate, then perhaps the Foundation should switch to a different content management system. Tomasz W. Kozłowski 18:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS If you really think that discussing things on a talk page is better than reverting and calling a user names, then why did you do both in your revert of Nemo's edit? Tomasz W. Kozłowski 18:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I just apologized in particular for the name calling. On the revert, the information Nemo added was not correct so I think a revert was the appropriate response. :) Stu (talk) 18:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How come? I can't find the phrases "I apologize" or "I'm sorry" anywhere in your message above. Plus, you clearly wrote that it's better to discuss things on a talk page than revert them, and yet you claim that reverting Nemo was the appropriate response? This doesn't make any sense (to me). Tomasz W. Kozłowski 18:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* I am sorry I namecalled. I am not sorry that I fixed an error I found on a wiki. Stu (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Replied. --Maggie Dennis (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Staff and contractors

Hi. I've undone your edits to Template:Staff and contractors as I don't think they improved the page. While it might be nice to properly translate this page, the current translation markup is hackish, outdated, broken, confusing, and unused. The translated pages themselves are in a bad state, which is why we stopped linking to them many months ago.

Regarding the Communications blurb text, I imagine it'll be rewritten a few more times, but given the goal of the Communications team, it doesn't seem unreasonable to explain Wikimedia in the blurb. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, happy to discuss whenever. Though the real focus should probably be killing this wiki. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Broken sidebar link

[3] - depending on what kind of import process you were using, perhaps it's worth checking whether this has happened to other links in that batch too? Regards, Tbayer (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for you note Nemo ;) Happy to see your usual proactivity in mobile projects as well. Catch you on the wikis :)--MElamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to editing access and login setup

Hello @Nemo bis: First, thank you for your efforts here on Foundation Wiki and now Governance Wiki over the years. Second, I wanted to make sure you were aware that as we complete the transition to the planned Governance Wiki setup, we will be making further changes to editing access and the setup of logging into accounts.

Over the coming weeks, we will be enabling Single User Login (SUL) on this wiki - allowing all registered users edit access to the talk pages as well as translation pages. Editing on main namespaces will be limited to approved accounts. You can find additional information about these planned changes on the Meta-Wiki page for Governance Wiki. Once this transition is completed, we will begin reviewing what additional access and setup changes may be necessary to best support the purpose of this wiki. Again, thank you for all of your assistance over the years, and we look forward to seeing you utilizing the new setup. --Gregory Varnum (Wikimedia Foundation) [he/him] (talk) 02:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]