User talk:Nemo bis
edit this template Welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation wiki
Thanks for being here! This wiki does not exactly follow the same rules as the other Wikimedia projects, since it is not open to all for editing, and in case of disagreement, the organ of decision will be the Board. A rule of thumb however is that if we gave you access, that means we trust you. So please, do not be shy in editing this site. There is ample work for everyone :-)
- Please create your userpage with a short biography and other introductory information about yourself and the work you do. You may want to use the {{user info}} template. Feel free to look at other user pages for examples.
- All organizational pages may be found in the special category.
- For those willing to help with translation, please see m:Translation requests, and in particular the Foundation subpage /WMF.
- Please watch for feedback on Meta-Wiki and start discussions there.
- More about this wiki...
Cbrown1023 talk 20:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
"only 6 months of delay"
Hi,
(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)
- Great minds think alike then, I guess. ;-) Great job cleaning up Meta-Wiki, btw. Cbrown1023 talk 20:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
"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)
Discussion
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)
- 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)
- 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 donate
wikimedia.org: I've been told it's ok, but if it's not I'll revert. --Nemo 21:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- Exactly :) I have reverted. Philippe (WMF) 23:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ok. Perhaps we could add the link on {{2010/Donate-footer/en}}? --Nemo 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Ok. Perhaps we could add the link on {{2010/Donate-footer/en}}? --Nemo 20:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
- 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 donate
Question
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)
Is this Italian? Should it be redirected to FAQ/it? --MZMcBride 20:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
This page needs an update for 2011 and 2012, if you're bored. :-) --MZMcBride 00:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- <3 --MZMcBride 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- <3 --MZMcBride 00:53, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- No, that would make no sense. At least permanent links work for everyone. --Nemo 07:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Answers@
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)