User talk:Okeyes (WMF)/Archive 5

Edit window changes
It is annoying that the link to insert ~ has been removed from the edit window. Now I need to copypaste it from the message above the window.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Or type them :). We're reverting this back pretty soon, and in the long-term having a truly useful special characters section. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not exactly easy to type a tilde on an American keyboard - basically it requires me to switch to my Danish keyboard layout everytime I sign.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * and yes I could use U+007E but that is four keystrokes time four = 16 keystrokes for what I used to acomplish with one click under the edit window.
 * I've always typed it which has had the unintended consequence of ensuring that I always miss the tab key and instead add a tilde before the start of many of my paragraphs. Ryan Vesey 18:45, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually find typing them too easy; my "you know you're a wikipedian if..." list contains, amongst other things, the fact that I absent-mindedly sign emails with tildes ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:51, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I do that fairly often, ever sent one out with the tildes? Ryan Vesey 18:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. At work. *headdesk*. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thankfully for you, the people you work with would get what it means. I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly; will the edittools box that I like be coming back in any way, shape, or form? Even as a hack?  S ven M anguard   Wha?  21:17, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, we'll be adding them back in shortly as a temporary fix, and thenmaking the edit toolbar not suck contain wiki syntax in the long term (touch wood). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than the already-noted slightly-less-than-perfect implementation of special character choosing, I really quite like this change! There was really no reason for transcluded templates to ever display in an expanded list the way they used to. The edit window actually fits on my screen better now, too. Cookies for you, Okeyes - small convenience change to the interface like this are the sort of thing the Foundation has historically overlooked in favor of big-ticket items that might or might not work but are oohshiny. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :). I totally agree; really glad to be making things incrementally better. The flipside of focusing on oohshiny, of course, is that any area of mediawiki not large enough to justify a big project is pretty much never getting any dedicated attention. Glad to be balancing that out :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:25, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not having CharInsert (including Edittools, on which I relied) has forced me to become more familiar with the other editing toolbars, which is probably a good thing. I don't know if other Firefox users have noticed (I have version 15.0.1), but while I used to have trouble inserting special characters from the WikEd toolbar (had to use the Windows character map instead) I can now do so with ease. All the best,  Miniapolis  ( talk ) 14:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Heh.
A whole 11 months?  Theo polisme  02:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * How do I apply for a job at the WMF? They sure do have great benefits. Bgwhite (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Shearonink (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

New font and size in edit mode
Hi Oliver, I got on tonight to find I had a new font and size in edit mode on the English Wikipedia (though not elsewhere that I have checked so far, e.g. Meta). It's make editing harder because I see less of the article in edit mode, and zooming out means I have to zoom in constantly when previewing (otherwise the text in read/preview mode is too small to read), so protracted editing of one page is now much less convenient. Also, the bold text is not good on the eyes. Is there any way of adjusting preferences to restore the previous view? SlimVirgin (talk) 03:43, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * My editing window has changed for the better, but I have not seen any significant font or size changes. If there is a global change, either the changes have yet to be applied to my screen, there's something that's countering them on my end (unlikely), or something's going on with your edit window. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 03:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I just saw Oliver mention this on the village pump, but he said the font changes would only take place in Vector. I use Monobook but I also have them (but only on EN). SlimVirgin (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm running Vector. Hmm. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 04:24, 30 September 2012 (UTC)


 * There's bold text? That's..weird. Could you send me a screenshot? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

edit window notices - process
Hi, I was pleasantly surprised at how quickly this all went through. I opened up a discussion on doing much of the same thing about a year ago (well, some of it). I was told that all the text and everything had to all go through legal, that the clunky and unnecessary wording was not unnecessary, and that in any case it was something that would take close involvement with the foundation. So I wondered how much work you or others had done, and whether as community liaison you might comment on whether the response to me the first time was an over-reaction. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 17:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't comment on the discussion if I can't see it :). Can you point me to the thread? Apologies in advance if I take a while to reply; I am still officially Not Here. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's here – but on reflection I don't think there's anything to be learnt – merely that your appointment has filled the gap there. Geoff was more transient that I recalled (sorry Geoff) but I think you can see there that it would have been near impossible for us to have been successful in any respect. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 10:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Okeyes, regarding the watchlist notice about the change, I didn't see any. Can you link it so I can check it out? Anyway, I think one would expect/look for such an announcement in the edit window itself, not in the watchlist.Sum (talk) 05:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oliver (ought to be!)/is still on holiday, so I'll answer for him - MediaWiki:Watchlist-details covers the notices placed on the watchlist. These show up just above the "Mark all pages visited" button, and are distinct from the Geonotices, which show up above this box and are used for local notices (ie, there's an event in your local area). It went up on 20/9 (with some glitches, quickly fixed) and should have displayed until 1/10.
 * There's a case to be made for an edit notice for interface changes, but bear in mind that there's no easy way to dismiss these once you've seen them, so every editor would see the notice with every edit for ten days. IIRC, general community consensus in the past seems to be to use watchlist notices for editor-facing information. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Special Characters in Edit summary
How to add special character → in edit summary now? --Tito Dutta ✉ 01:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you using a PC? I always use alt+26. Ryan Vesey 01:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ubuntu 12.04. Windows's alt is Ubuntu's ctrl, but ctrl is producing &. I can not find the code here --Tito Dutta ✉ 02:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it might not be unicode. I know I can't use the alt code while using my computers find function or in the search bar (url search bar).  I was checking through List of Unicode characters.  U+2799 is similar; there are a lot in that 27xx area. Ryan Vesey 04:14, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ➙ Ya, it works, thanks! --Tito Dutta ✉ 04:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We're hopefully deploying the fix for this on Thursday; I can't promise it will look pretty, but I can promise it will return :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Some technical problems with page curation
Hi and thanks for the newsletter. Yes, sometimes I patrol new pages and I have review permission/right. About this new tool (or version), it seems to be clear with the symbols on the left side but, differently from the old version, I've still not well understood how to review new pages. I explain: On the right side it is a  button that links to the page to review. On the page, differently from the old version, I've not found a key at the bottom of it, saying  or something similar. For example, I'm now trying to review Swiss Meteorological Society, I've also edited it, but it still appears unreviewed here. Other times I've tried this new tool I've not performed this problem. Maybe because other users have marked it as patrolled. What's the key to press to review new unrew articles? Sorry for disturb and thanks for attention. Regards. --Dэя-Бøяg 16:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh; are you seeing the toolbar on the right side of the screen? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

list of new template redirects?
Hey, Oliver, per this thread about edit filters, I've posted at User talk:SDPatrolBot about getting the new template redirects added to it. Can you take a look at the list of redirects posted there, to see if I missed anything or included something I shouldn't have? (I pulled the list from a likely spot in your contribs, so...) Thanks! Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 21:25, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That should be all of them! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Exploded badger
So at some point I got a wee bit distracted and wound up with a pile of insults, but it also looks I was slightly wrong about the agora buttons - they're only the same colour as the editOptions container background on hover.

And man, debian is so ugly. -— Isarra ༆ 08:11, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, they shouldn't be the same colour at any point :). I'll let the guys know today. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Nobel Legacy Film Series
You tagged this article as a copyright violation from, but I'm not seeing it. I provisionally declined it, but can you give some more details? Wily D 08:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, User:Ironholds explained to me. Looks like you accidentally linked to  rather than, where it was copy-pasted from. Wily D  08:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki sort problem
There is a problem in the way MediaWiki does a sort. Where do I report this to the right individual? I'd rather not get a bugzilla account.

You can see the problem at Category:Suburbs of Melbourne. Ivanhoe East, Victoria and Ivanhoe, Victoria are sorted wrong. Ivanhoe, Victoria should be sorted first. The other entries in the category have their defaultsort value changed to have them show up with the proper sort value.

Documentation for the sort value can be found at Chicago Manual of Style, section 18.59.

Hope you enjoyed your 11 month vacation. Bgwhite (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Ivanhoe East, Victoria" sorts before "Ivanhoe, Victoria" because the eighth character is a space on the former but a comma on the latter. Spaces always sort first. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, spaces do not always sort first. The Chicago Manual of Style says otherwise.  Punctuation is sorted before spaces. Bgwhite (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Copy-editing: The Cambridge Handbook for Editors, Authors and Publishers by Judith Butcher, 4th edition, page 194, says "Alphabetical order can be either word by word (as the index to this book) or letter by letter (as the glossary), in each case counting only as far as the first comma or other mark of punctuation (except a hyphen), and then starting again." Bgwhite (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * @Bgwhite Eh why would you assume that MediaWiki follows such a book in the way it had implemented sorting ? As far as I know, category sorting is based on the basic unicode order of characters. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 08:00, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unicode indeed: mw:Help:Sorting, so space is sorted first. It's possible to change this on a per-site basis (see meta:Help:Sorting, though I'm not sure what unexpected side-effects this might have were it to be reconfigured here. Andrew Gray (talk) 08:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Update on edit page changes
Hi Oliver, hope you had a nice vacation. Some folks are desperately looking for some info on WP:VP/T with regard to the symbol bar. An update would be appreciated. In my mind, we should bring it back. (and remove special chars from the WikiEditor, then look for a new solution.) —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 07:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * We should be bringing it back today, in theory, but nobody has +2d the patches. I'm getting increasingly frustrated with the failure of anyone to do that, personally. I'll look into it and try to get it done. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:10, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A feature suggestion
Hi Oliver! Long time no speak.

I've stumbled across this beauty of a suggestion on the Village Pump - is this something you could look into? Cheers buddy! Osarius - Want a chat? 08:25, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * User:Osarius/FloatingTOC Osarius - Want a chat? 14:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello there
I just wanted to draw your attention to this because it seems like it would be a big priority. I understand you've been working hard and that you had a recent vacation. I hope you enjoyed your vacation. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback
I left feedback on an article thinking it went somewhere anonymously for others working on the article to see and utilize. I was very surprised (shocked) to see that feedback on the feedback page with my name on it. It was a medical article so this is a big privacy problem. I was able to "hide" the feedback, but it still seems visible (as hidden) and also it can be unhidden. For starters, users should know their name will be on any feedback, and secondly users who wish to delete their feedback should be able to do so. I don't really see the point of "hiding vs. "deleting." Jeisenberg (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey; sorry to see this, and sorry to take so much time to reply :(. So, the feedback box says "By posting, you agree to transparency under these terms." - the terms it links to make clear it'll be publicly visible. I have been trying to get people to make it more explicit, but no dice yet. Hiding is essentially the same as deleting (system administrators and a few other groups can see it, but that's about it) - I'm not sure how much of a technical workload it would be to make it literally deletable. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

A pie for you!

 * No problem; thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback watch list sort order
Village pump (technical) reports a problem with the sort ordering of the feedback watchlist tool (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ArticleFeedbackv5Watchlist?ref=watchlist). Could have a look please, and perhaps fix the problem. Mitch Ames (talk) 09:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure; shall do :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Feedback that contains no message.
I finally found the feedback tool today ;O) I'm a long time editor and knew of it but today's my first day seeing it in action. Looks good!

Question, though: I see feedback "messages" that have no text content. Should this be left alone for the value of the smiley face that's either green or red? Or should it be hidden as of no practical use and therefore hidden to stop anyone bothering to look at it?

Please reply on my talk page and also edit the feedback help/advisory page with the correct course of action. Great work on the tool, though. --bodnotbod (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Video found of Oliver at work
I saw this 20 minute long video and thought of you. Bgwhite (talk) 04:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Day made.  Theo polisme  10:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I love you guys :D. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * YMMD. mabdul 14:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought it was Oliver if the guy in the GIF had a hangover beard - David Gerard (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is too good. :D It kinda actually looks like Oliver...or then again, maybe not. Now if only I could learn how to avoid the pain factor on that, then I could be like Oliver :P -- DQ  (ʞlɐʇ)  09:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to attempt to try to work your Photoshop magic...  Theo polisme  10:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

"radio buttons"
I am drafting a possible question phase to supplement the current RFC on civility. In the past when taking WP related surveys and so forth there have been these buttons, I believe they are referred to as radio buttons, that allow a user to select from several options with a single click. Would you happen to have any idea how those work or maybe know somebody who does? I can't find information on them anywhere. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example of these buttons being used? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The more I think about it I can only remember them being used in the yearly user surveys from the WMF, which I think are actually done by a third party, so it's possible they aren't wiki-compatible. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds plausible :S. Those are normally run through external survey sites (or internal ones that are externally-built/not part of MediaWiki). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * "Radio buttons" are standard HTML that can be used in forms. LittleBen (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirect only patrol
Can a way be created to see only redirects at Special:NewPagesFeed? Currently you can choose not to view redirects, but you can't choose not to view articles. Ryan Vesey 00:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Possibly! So, the way we implemented might make it a bit of a pain in the arse, and we're not going to get to it this pass, certainly, but I can add it to the list :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback 2
Gigs (talk) 13:18, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

You could do with a bot for newsletters....
.... less likely to swamp watchlists that way :-) Spartaz Humbug! 11:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone clearly needs to tidy their watchlist ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Touché! Spartaz Humbug! 15:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

What happened to you removing User talk:Jeffwang from your newsletter list? Didn't we go through this last time?
Exactly what it says. See this. — Theo polisme  15:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh [expletive]. I appear to have pulled an outdated list from somewhere. Removing now :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Echo
One thing that someone should make sure to include on echo is a clear all notifications feature. A couple of days ago I had a couple thousand pages on my watchlist, that would have given me an insane amount of notifications. I also noticed that it said "There is no central notification system on Media Wiki sites". Do you know if that means it will be able to notify me of other projects someday? (It obviously wouldn't be able to when it is first deployed because it will only be on mediwiki and en.wiki) Ryan Vesey 15:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * only be on mediwiki and en.wiki
 * only be on mediwiki and en.wiki
 * only be on mediwiki and en.wiki
 * Eventually it'll be inter-wiki, which, personally, is the thing I'm most looking forward to. And I agree a "clear" or "hide read" function is necessary :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * A feature to ignore posts from WMF staffers randomly posting newsletters round the place would be good ;-) More seriously, being able to turn off minor or repetative posts like that would allow us to see underlying edits behind them that might need attention. .. er .. not that your posts don't need attention! Spartaz Humbug! 16:34, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Newsletters
You need to take off your distribution lists (again?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oy *headdesks*. Every time someone tells me, every time I remove it, and yet somehow every time I unify lists he/she turns up again. I shall fix and obliterate old versions to be on the safe side - thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as we're kicking you around, you sent one to User:Jeffwang again too. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Kicking me around is a sport with an actionable outcome; no complaints from me ;p. oh god, "actionable". I've been here too long Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)



AFT 5 on ptwiki
[//pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Esplanada/propostas/Tornar_ArticleFeedback_padr%C3%A3o_em_todos_os_artigos_da_Wikip%C3%A9dia_(9fev2012)&diff=29097598&oldid=28964474 CAN I HAZ?] Helder 23:17, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Drop me an email so I can loop Fabrice in? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Newsletters
Hi Okeyes! Its good to see you taking up the task of delivering. However, you can also ask for access to User:EdwardsBot. It'll be really easy and if you don't want to take the access, you can ask me to deliver the message via the BOT whenever the newsletter is ready. Just post the message in my sandbox and I'll deliver it via the BOT. Let me know your thoughts. Cheers!  TheSpecialUser TSU 02:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Well, my alternate persona can certainment get it done :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Apparently-broken Special:Search page
Mentioned here ("Finding the Help pages"). LittleBen (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep; Search is currently pretty much unmaintained :(. We're looking at finding someone to scrub at it. In the meantime, Maryana and Steven's team may be good people to give a kick: they focus on small, lightweight experiments :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Want to save Wikipedia?
...then get a bot! That's right, it's really that easy!* xP — Theo polisme  01:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC) *May not be that easy depending on user's ability to click a mouse and operate a keyboard. Requires fair bit of clue. The Good of Wikipedia® takes no responsibility for one's failing miserably at this task due to their stubbornly rude impertinence. They are also fully aware that the previous phrase was like saying a "frozen ice cube"—worse, in fact, and, frankly, don't care and ask you to kindly shut up. And yes, they are also aware that the aforementioned link is currently a redlink. Make it blue.
 * Hah! Point :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Popups for readers
I've talked about this occassionally, and a reader just mentioned this at the idea lab. Can the WMF work on getting a version of Popups without the tools that readers can turn on or off? I think sometimes we get so focused on the editors we forget about the readers. Popups is far more important for reading than it is for editing. In fact, I've mentioned before that somebody (not someone from Wikimedia) should create a popups for the internet that works with any link. Ryan Vesey 14:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually got an OTRS email about this a few days ago. I think the answer is "theoretically, but" - we're perpetually backlogged in terms of things we could work on or should work on :S. Having said that, popups is a user gadget: maybe ask the people who developed it to make a tool-free version? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I talked to about this and he mentioned   would do that.  I don't know how to test it though. Ryan Vesey 12:05, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmn. I'm not familiar with popups, I'm afraid - I guess relocating it to your common.js file instead of treating it as a gadget would let you tweak it. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:20, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll try that. Have you used popups?  If not, I suggest you try it out for at least a few days.  It takes a bit to get used to, but it's probably my favorite tool now (it also helps when there is watchlist lag).  In addition, it would allow you to see how it would be useful for readers. Ryan Vesey 17:29, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, what aspect of popups do you think would be useful for readers? That is, what information would be of interest to them? Maryana (WMF) (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The ability to see the start of another article without going to that article. There are many cases where a word is linked, I want to know what it is, but have no reason to go to the article.  I hover over it with popups and I learn what it is.  Thanks to the help I mentioned from Waldir, I have created a version of MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js at User:Ryan Vesey/Popups customizable.js that only includes the reading, no editing tools.  If you want to test it out, import User:Ryan Vesey/Popups importing.js.  If this is something that the WMF would actually be interested in, the only remaining thing would be to make a separate gadget that exists for people who are logged out and use cookies to allow readers to turn it on/off.  Other approaches are possible, but that's what I thought of. Ryan Vesey 17:52, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, okay, I see what you mean now. Yes, I find it pretty handy, too. At this point, I get really frustrated when I go to other wikis where popups aren't enabled; I've even found myself getting angry at non-wikis, like the New York Times site, for not letting me hover over links to preview their content :)
 * However, I think our view on the usefulness of this feature is biased by the fact that we've used it extensively as editors and have gotten used to its UI pattern. I'm not sure that readers who've never been exposed to nav popups before would appreciate it quite as much. I imagine most casual readers (those who are just looking to skim through an article, find what they're looking for, and move on) would be confused and possibly annoyed. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, that's why I think some type of switch that uses cookies to track users' preferences would be important. If that isn't possible, I think it might be a good idea to do a one week trial with a banner letting readers know we're doing the trial.  Afterwards, we could let them know that creating an account would allow them to turn it on permanently.  I feel the latter would be a poorer option, but I think it would be good to test out.  While it takes some getting used to, I feel like a number of readers would like it and I don't assume that any of them are already aware of it. Ryan Vesey 18:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably not the kind of thing we can do immediately, has to be said. November/December is Fundraisin' Time, and I imagine things that risk turning off chunks of the reader population (however temporarily) would go down poorly with that team. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's been 10 years I think readers can go a couple of months. Does that mean anything allowing readers to turn them on/off is not possible? Ryan Vesey 20:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a bigger question! I imagine it would be possible to do it somehow (cookies are a good example) but I'm not sure who has the time to implement. Both of my teams are horribly backed up. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Tell them to take their time, but it's a project I'd really like to see looked at. I've thought about it for a while now. My post here was actually in response to a reader who requested it at Village pump (idea lab) having no idea that it existed. Ryan Vesey 21:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It'd be fun to work on :). We're going to have a gap in December, but only because our developers are going off to work on other stuff. Not ideal ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It might be possible to get the fundraising team on board if you show them User talk:Stringbender101A. Ryan Vesey 21:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * hahah. Oh man, "building decent stuff for the community and readers gets us money" as a proven hypothesis would make my job so much easier. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a thought on the popups. We wouldn't want to label them as popups if they are deployed for readers.  Popups have a negative connotation (at least in America, see Pop-up ad if you're unfamiliar with the term).  Renaming it, at least on the readers side, to something like quicklinks are even "hover preview" could ensure that more readers would want to use them. Ryan Vesey 14:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Terminology changes would definitely help - but I'm afraid I can't promise anything. The resources just aren't here at the moment :S. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh hey, somebody beat us to the punch :) Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * See, people want that stuff... what exactly is that link? Anything related to GitHub is for people with an entirely different knowledge set from me. Ryan Vesey 19:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation
Hi! It is possible by any chance to get these tools deployed on other language chapters of Wikipedia? My primary concern is about Ukrainian Wikipedia:) --DixonD (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Certainly! Normally the community has to request it for us to implement - is there any discussion on the Ukranian site? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will initiate a discussion there in order to see whether the community wants to see these tools on the site or not. I will let you know when we have a consensus. In the meantime, how is configuration of the Curation Toolbar done? Can administrators change easily which tagging templates should be included? --DixonD (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I came here from Ukrainian discussion as I noticed that Page Curation is based on page patrolling system. As we are using Flagged Revisions in Ukrainian Wikipedia, is Page Curation compatible with Flagged Revs? Thanks — NickK (talk) 12:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure :/. Are you using flagged revisions by default? That is, new revisions in all articles, even when they are new articles, must go through the system? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:51, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No, currently we show an unflagged revision by default. --DixonD (talk) 07:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll find out :). I mean, I can't think why it would clash, but... Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

You should perhaps know...
about the discussion here. Cheers, Lady  of  Shalott  21:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes, lil help?
PC went back into use a few minutes ago, but of course we forgot one little loose end, the actual protection interface page warns admins not to use it at all on articles in two places. I don't even know where this page actually is, let alone how to edit it. Hoping you or one of your talk page stalkers can help. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmn; I don't, I'm afraid :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Found some techie types at WP:VPT to sort it out. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Curation Toolbar
Thanks for your help informing me about clicking "curate this article" on the sidebar. I didn't even see it there.--Mjs1991 (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem :). We really need to surface this sort of information better. I'm rooting for a new skin, personally :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Link to new feedback page layout
Hi, here you mentioned a new feedback page design - could you add the link? theMONO 01:59, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We're actually conducting tests of 3 possible designs as we speak :). Would you be interested in test-driving one? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Preilly
Just got on my computer for the day. Patrick sent me an e-mail asking questions about copyright and the best way of re-creating Antonio Pizzigati. The email came in over an hour before this ANI thread was created. While Patrick messed up, he was asking questions before the ANI thread, which is good. Bgwhite (talk) 22:31, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know :). I'll take that into account. I can't, at the moment, really say what the end outcome will be - we're still working it out :/. But hopefully I'll get clearance to make a statement. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I just responded to Patrick's email. Put a pillow on your desk first.  Bgwhite (talk) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? :p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just FYi in case you missed it at AN, there was also a questionable suppression action. I'm sure this sort of thing is just a barrel of fun for you, but I'm also  sure you realize the importance of dealing with apparent staff misconduct as quickly and transparently as possible. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'd orientate it the other way around; I don't consider it a drag, or a timesink, or whatever, precisely because it's so important. I can't make a statement right now (the situation will have changed by the time I hit "save page", quite probably), but I'll do my best to ensure a statement is made, and I'd hope the last 13 months of my work have engendered some trust on that front :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll not go into details, and just say that your model with and  is one that M. Reilly can follow right now, and an account without all of those extra flags wouldn't have got into this mess in the first place. Uncle G (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's one of the standard models of distinction. Like I said, we'll be working something out in the next few hours, hopefully. On that note, my better half has proceeded to get so drunk she can't spell "politics" (and she works in politics). I am needed for cup-of-tea-and-blanket duties, so my work on this ends for the evening, I'm afraid :(. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In other news, Oliver's evil twin Ironholds wrote Pepper v Hart, which is the TFA at the time of writing; it's still in good shape after the "attention" it's received, but I'm sure that neither Okeyes nor Ironholds would object if a few more people added it to their watchlist today (and even read it!) to give him/them one less thing to worry about while he's sorting this out. Thanks, BencherliteTalk 09:58, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As always, you speak wisdom. Should you ever formally write a policy on TFAs I'll be sure to reference this conversation in my interpretation of it :P. Ironholds (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
Vacation nine 01:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Could you take me off the spam list for hand-coding...?
If you could take me off the spam list for the hand-coding, would be grateful. Not really my sort of thing. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really a list, I just went through the logs pulling out names, but sure. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
 Puffin  Let's talk! 22:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When I try and log in, it says: "Admin rights required for this interface."  Puffin  Let's talk! 16:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding
Thanks for the information about hand coding. I'll try to look into it next week some time, I'm stuck cramming for exams until then. :) Abyssal (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's cool :). Good luck! :D. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Demo doesn't work here. No article is loaded and an MsgBox appears with the text "The API returned an HTTP error: ".

My user agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/17.0 --Neo139 (talk) 00:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Strange :S. Tried refreshing and clearing your cache? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I thought I already had been doing this...I've been giving Feedback to the Feedback I see for my Watchlisted articles. But maybe not correctly? Not sure, too discombobulated today by the CT news.Shearonink (talk) 01:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * CT? And, weird - Firefox is the fix-creating browser for others :/. I'll poke Aaron. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, try now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool
I read the information, followed in links, completed hand-coding test. All went well, no hiccups. Sent email per your request ;o) --FeralOink (talk) 07:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation message fix
I performed a test at User talk:5 albert square and she noticed that the lack of a time stamp will keep bots from archiving the section unless someone replies. Can we fix that by replacing the username at the end with a user's signature? Or could we otherwise just add the time stamp? Ryan Vesey 02:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We're looking into this now :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Problem with hand coding demo
I have tried to use the demo on two different computers. When I click on the link, the page that activates has one line of text written in large red letters. It reads, "This is a test version. No work done here will be saved." That's all. No demo. I primarily use Safari on a Mac. Am I doing something wrong or is some kind of software like a graphical package required? I noticed someone else has left you a message about having problems. I will not be able to attend the office hours so any assistance you can send my way will be appreciated. Probing Mind (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's strange :/. Tried clearing your cache, etc? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I tried cache. I saw you had suggested this to someone else. Not sure about the etc. Wait a sec, I'll try something.... I just tried on Firefox, which I have on this system. It works! Don't know why Safari isn't working. It doesn't work on my iPad either. Oh well, I'll use Firefox. If you hear anything they would allow me to use Safari, I'd like to know. I don't have Firefox on my IPad. Have to see if it's available. Thanks for the help. I should have looked at other browsers first. Probing Mind (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Since I got things to work, I have done my homework and have e-mailed you about getting an account.Probing Mind (talk) 11:34, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Replied :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You've got mail!
''' The Anonymouse ( talk  •  contribs ) [ Merry Christmas! ]''' 05:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand coding
When I try to log into the interface, it says: "Admin rights required for this interface."  Puffin  Let's talk! 21:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Get my second email? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Suppress fundraising appeal for specific pages?
Regardless of what consensus ends up being, is the proposal at Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting/Archive 3 even technically possible? Ryan Vesey 01:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The thread seems to have been archived :(. I can't get you a reply right now (the devs are not in the office) but I'll find out tomorrow morning. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, considering it got archived it's obvious that it isn't a major issue. I'd be neutral on the concept, but thought I'd try to figure out the answer.  I've linked to the archived version. Ryan Vesey 03:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you, okeyes and Ryan Vesey. I posed the question in the original article's "talk" section and I too am interested in the answer--on a technical level but also on a theoretical level.  --Kurt B.  (DrTheuth) Drtheuth (talk) 15:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey all; sorry for the delay in responding - entirely my fault (down in the big smoke seeing family). So, the good news: we have developed a solution to do this. The bad news: the solution was completed just before we took all the banners down ;p. So, it's resolved for now, and in future fundraising years we'll have a way to kill banners if we encounter a similar situation :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * We should probably run a community RFC on this in the meantime, unless it's considered entirely a WMF thing. Ryan Vesey 16:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it prrretty much is, but if you want to see what the community thinks of the idea, by all means. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

MZMcBride
Hi Oliver:  is busily removing articles from the article feedback category, and thus hiding feedback for those articles which do have it. While I sympathize with some of his frustration — I don't think the mechanism is working as well as any of us had hoped — I think this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I've left a message on his page, but you might want to engage him as well. MeegsC (talk) 13:49, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly he hasn't historically shown himself to be particularly open to people saying "stop that" once he's set his mind on the idea that something is the Right Thing. It's ultimately completely futile - AFT5 is based on a pseudorandom lottery based on page edits rather than a category system these days - but if he wants to waste the effort disabling tiny, tiny bits of a system that'll be everywhere without the same off switch, by all means ;p. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think ArticleFeedbackv5 is its own worst enemy. There's no amount of bloviating I can do here that compares to actually seeing the feedback it collects. And there's no amount of CSS or other technical magic that can mask a fundamentally bad idea. That isn't to say that I think it's appropriate to bypass the community and try to burden it with this tool. The actions of you and your team continue to seem deeply inappropriate, particularly as you engage in them under the rubbish guise of "editor engagement." But similar to FlaggedRevs, I think it will actually require a full-scale deployment before the entire idea implodes and we're back to the drawing board. I guess we'll see what happens. :-)
 * As I said on my talk page, it was (and is) completely unclear why a category-based system was ever used. It required 20,000-plus edits to add it to every article (and it was done hastily and with issues, of course) and then it required 20,000-plus edits to remove it from every article. More than a bit silly! --MZMcBride (talk) 02:11, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

..
Seasons greetings to you and yours Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

"SUL 3.0"
Hello. I noticed your remarks on Bureaucrats' noticeboard concerning a planned collapsing of the local user tables, which is (per your link) planned as a "do it and then inform the communities" project. Given that this seems controversial in that it may well require username changes against policy within the communities (such as discussed at the noticeboard), is there any way to officially put the brakes on this and involve the communities first? It may be possible to accomplish the goal without encountering as much resistance that way. (Then again, maybe not, but at least you can evaluate community response.) -- No  unique  names  06:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure; ensuring things happens that way around is kind of my job ;p. You'll note that the line is "Tweak the associated maintenance scripts (in extensions/CentralAuth/maintenance) so that Shared User Login (SUL) can finally be finished and inform the communities about this" - so it's "get it in a state where we can hit the big red button, then tell the community we're going to" as I understand it. Community involvement in Engineering projects is of the highest priority to me, as is community notification: I refuse to see changes like this get pushed without advanced notice and the opportunity for at least feedback. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:42, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I was concerned by the wording, but your explanation seems good.  -- No  unique  names  19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem :). Even if I'm not explicitly assigned to the project I'll keep an eye on it and jump in. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Feedback tool
Hi-- late last year you asked for help with the feedback tool. Here are my initial thoughts. I've noticed that 30-50% of articles on my watchlist have feedback saying "needs a picture" or "needs more pictures" or some variant. Perhaps the feedback tool can have some sort of option like a radio button people can click which keeps a tally of such requests and generates a hot list of articles with requested images. Also, there is a significant difference in feedback quality between "yes" and "no" submissions. People who give a smiley face and offer feedback are significantly more likely to have a constructive suggestion. Finally, I wonder if it would be helpful to run a filter like Cluebot against the feedback and sort comments accordingly. I am less inclined to slog through an endless list of feedback like "need pic" and "aksbhdkehjcbkdcjds," but I might glance at a "best of" type list of suggestions. Right now the signal to noise ratio makes it not very productive, like wasting time cleaning up vandalism. Just my general impressions. Jokestress (talk) 13:04, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). So, we've actually developed quite a few abuse filters that will be cleaning stuff up - the problem is they don't go backwards-in-time. A lot of nonsense submitted before the filters still hangs around :/. Have you tried filtering (using the drop-down menu at the top) to only show featured feedback? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the Featured option does help, but as you note, there's a lot of clearing to do. Also, I believe the kind of editors who would sort and clear those comments would be more motivated if their efforts went toward their edit counts or some other kind of "score." It's very similar to work done by the excellent editors who stub-sort, add categories, or assess article quality, etc. Many of them seem motivated by quantified evidence of their efforts. I look at the feedback, but so far only a few have prompted me to make improvements. And I find it very annoying when readers complain about something that is clearly discussed in the article already for some reason. That's probably the main reason I don't think I want to spend a lot of time there. Hope this helps! Jokestress (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It does :). So, we are building some automated tools - feedback curation goes into the logs, in the same way that patrol actions or deletions do, which I think is probably the right place. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Micro Design
Hello,

Recently, I set-up manually the list of ideas proposed for "MicroDesign" on it.wikivoyage. I want to thank you for the work done and the way in which you address to the community. I have a few quick questions for you. Thank you Raoli (talk) 17:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * At first I don't know MicroDesign is not an extension. I had seen on this page "http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/InitialiseSettings.php.txt" that "UseMicroDesign" option is enabled for "en.wiki" and "testwiki". For this reason I file a report in Bugzilla "https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43523" but there nobody know what is that extension. Therefore, what is the purpose of this code?
 * How do I install the js script that creates the drop-down list for templates and categories?
 * If you drop me an email at I can forward you to the pertinent devs :). It would be nice, however, to get some sense of consensus as to whether the Italian Wikivoyage users want this code before we deploy it - I appreciate the community may be rather small and new. On the config settings; it's not a distinct extension, it's some lines of CSS and JS that currently float around in (I believe) the vector extension, and can be enabled or disabled. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * MicroDesign: Community approval here. I see you take care of the development of "Page Curation" aka "New Page Triage". The community has also approved this feature: Community approval. I strongly believe in your work. What shall I ask in the e-mail? Raoli (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So, thinking about it I can probably poke the devs at my end re MicroDesigns. On Page Curation...so, a lot of the code is written for en-wiki specifically. I am not sure how much effort it is going to be to port it to other sites (this is actually my current project). What is the deletion process on the Italian Wikivoyage like? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, looking at other threads of the discussion:
 * 1) We've stopped releasing versions of AFT4. Version 5 is the newer one.
 * 2) We're also, I think, not releasing new versions of liquidthreads;
 * 3) Echo is not in a deployable form yet. When it is, we may be releasing it Wikimedia-wide.
 * 4) The same is true of the VisualEditor. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The deletion process on the Italian Wikivoyage is all still to be written, but in a first phase may be fine using Wikipedia's one. For us it is not a problem using the same deletion process of en.wiki. If necessary I can help you to port Page Curation to other sites. :)
 * I didn't know that "AFT4" was no longer relasing. I think nothing changes use "AFT5" for the community.
 * I've known, after posting it, that now the "Liquid Threads" is dead.
 * I have seen on en.wiki VisualEditor running and does not seem to have serious problems. Raoli (talk) 12:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It is running as an en.wiki-specific beta version. And, the serious problems include "templates do not work. Neither does referencing" :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes, of course I test VisualEditor two days ago in the α version and a lot of wiki standard functions were missing, but there are all the potentialities for a future usage. Great job! For "AFT5" I'll have to create a new report or say it in this https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43328? Thanks Raoli (talk) 16:56, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Commented there :). And yes, when the VisualEditor is enabled, we will probably turn it on everywhere. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:07, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I enabled that function importing three abuse filters in https://it.wikivoyage.org/wiki/Special:AbuseFilter. --Raoli (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, Did you get the message? Raoli (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

yep; sorry, work has been mad this week :). Replying via email/bugzilla. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion tag redirects
Why did you create redirects like Speedy deletion-previously deleted as a redirect to db-g4? I there any reason fr these non-standard deletion templates? (Note that we do have redirects which have a textual explanatiopn of what they're about - e.g db-repost - but these all start with "db-".) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the Page Curation log has to refer to templates in the entries, and we decided the easiest way to make transparent the tag used was to create easily readable redirects. Then we stick those in the system, problem solved :). "db-repost" is transparent to people heavily into deletion but not to most other people. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Not insulting "oldies"
Hey Oliver. I realize that Page Curation was created at least partially to reduce biting of the newbies. I wonder if there's a way to do that without building in insulting the "oldies". (I know that was never the intent.) I guess no system is foolproof, but I don't really appreciate being invited to ask for help by a someone who has added "stub" to an article that I tagged as a "painting-stub" in my creation edit. I guess even auto-reviewed articles appear in the Page Curation list. Lady of  Shalott  17:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow Lady, I never knew you were "old". Could I get a photo of you and your walker under the UGA arch?  Reviewed pages do show up in the Page Curation list.  Reviewed pages showed up in the old list as well.  A person has to manual check a box to send a message to article's creating editor.  The newbie in question has 130 edits and already has done AfDs, moved pages, requested permissions, etc.  Your page was the second page they reviewed.  I'm not really sure how to stop this except to have reviewed pages not show up automatically and have a person manually check a box under filters. Bgwhite (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Haha, Bg, I'm not quite to that point yet! Anyway, I wouldn't have minded the message nearly as much if I'd had some actual goof in my article that got caught in curation (though a hand-drafted note would still be preferable), but since it happened with an edit that only detracted from the article for no good reason, it was annoying. Lady  of  Shalott  19:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah :/. I don't think it's Page Curation so much as the editor in question - I can imagine the same thing happening with NewPages + Twinkle. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. I see that JP has been adopted by GoPhightins. Perhaps GP will see my note on JP's page and discuss it with him. He's still new enough to hope he could be willing to learn from these things. Lady  of  Shalott  20:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't remember the reason behind it... Why is the default to have reviewed pages show up? Lady's page hasn't been the only one that has caused grief.  I remember Drmies and another (She does alot of Australian sports article and women's outreach.  I need a new brain so I can remember) getting annoyed as well. Bgwhite (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Laura Hale? Lady  of  Shalott  21:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Laura. Thank you. Bgwhite (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Accessibility
Just in case: I replied to you at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility. Thanks again for your interest. Dodoïste (talk) 20:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). I've come down with a case of the leurgy today, but I will do my best to get to it tomorrow if I'm more sensate. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Curation/PC diagnostics
I sympathize with your efforts to keep a firewall between staffness and admin powers. Drop me a note if I can ever lend a sysoppy hand in a similar situation, that was an easy and uncontroversial little experiment, and now we know there's a PC/PC1 problem. I blame the overlap of abbreviations. ;-) --j⚛e deckertalk 16:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * TY; NP! (OMG, TLA!) :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * LOL! --j⚛e deckertalk 00:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A box
I ran across Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Pratyya Ghosh/Not teen, a userbox up for mfd. It appears that it may be something for legal to look at (given coppa and all), but I'm drawing a blank trying to remember who's in legal. Would you mind forwarding it on if it seems warranted? Thanks! -- No unique  names  18:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks (and sorry for the delay in replying) :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Developer console
Re your reply on this page about the Curation Toolbar not loading, what is the developer console and where would I find it? I'm embarrassed to ask on the other page! Thanks! Jsmith1000 (talk) 14:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What browser do you use? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Firefox Jsmith1000 (talk) 00:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay; if you go to "Tools > Web Console" you'll get it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:16, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much! and another reply back on Wikipedia talk:Page Curation Jsmith1000 (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

AFT5.0
Glad to hear that the research has finished! Why didn't I get a newsletter though? Vaca tion  9  16:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You're not signed up at Article Feedback Tool/Version 5! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh. I thought everybody who contributed to the hand coding thing would automatically be sent newsletters. That clears things up! Also, are you going to release the raw data with the names and stuff as you said in the email? Vaca  tion  9  16:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yep :). Just waiting on a couple of replies. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sad to say, I don't think MathewTownsend is interested anymore, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * A known known; unsubscribed. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I find this Feedback interesting...
Take a look at the Sandy Hook article Feedback... Is 'venting' about a subject one of the AFT's stated parameters? Shearonink (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you point to a specific comment? :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Much of this article's Feedback is about the early NBC report (delineated in the talk page FAQs) that erroneously stated only handguns were used...this report has morphed across the Internet into various permutations, most of which are now covered at the conspiracy theories article...so I was seriously wondering if 'venting' about a subject and/or Wikipedia's coverage of a subject was included as one of the planned-uses for Article Feedback. Shearonink (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * 'Venting'? No. But if people think there's something wrong with Wikipedia's coverage, that seems precisely the sort of thing AFT5 should surface - which is precisely what's being done on the example page. Now, is this particular page problematic? Probably. I'd argue that's going to be inevitable whenever the media gets something wrong in a high-profile situation and the rumour mill starts going: it's outside our control, and something that is undoubtedly replicated in edits as well as feedback posts. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought that the article talk page was for that, but I guess the AFT can serve as kind of a "Talk Page Light"...I can see your point. It seems that much of the watchlisted Feedback I read consists of venting or ranting *about* the subject, not necessarily about Wikipedia's coverage, but if the posts are informing (someone) that the poster sees something wrong with the article, that makes sense.  I guess I am thinking more of what some have stated on the AFT-RfC, that Feedback has the (unintended?) consequence of displacing off-topic rants or POV statements or vandalism to a page other than the article itself or even it's talk page, I don't think that's a bad thing as it keeps the actual encyclopedia content from being damaged quite as much.  I just find the AFT's intended scope so overwhelming...all these people who post Feedback....do they think that there is an army of Dobbys behind the scenes plowing through all the posts and then taking action on all of them?  Oh, and I was wondering...if AF is sitting there (untouched or not) for a certain period of time, are there plans to delete the AF post from public view or archive it or even delete it completely?  Shearonink (talk) 14:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah; I suggested that feature when I first came on board 14 months ago, and was told (by editors, actually) that it was probably unnecessary. Upon seeing the scale of the feedback people have, er. re-evaluated it :P. It's part of the complete revamp we'll have out in a few weeks (which is why Fabrice asked for more time to evaluate the tool). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Article feedback
"[link|fabrice mentioned]" :-) I would've fixed this myself, but Fabrice now has multiple posts to the RFC, so I'm not quite sure which you intended to link to. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've linked it to the Fabrice's primary post, where he stated his perspective on the RFC. :) Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

"I note you chose not to participate other than to start this RfC, which was disappointing." Well, I also cleaned up the mess you all left behind on some 20,000-plus articles. (You're welcome.)

And I'm not sure what's disappointing about starting and shepherding an important RFC like this. Do I like doing it? No, not really at all. I'd much rather be spending my time doing article or bot work. But someone had to do the deed and the Wikimedia Foundation seemed to have absolutely no interest in properly soliciting the community's input. I continue to imagine it was because of exactly the result we're now seeing at the RFC: a lot of outright opposition to the tool.

And once again, I'll point out that mine was the compromise position. I didn't write a view advocating getting rid of this tool, I just advocated not shoving it on every article. But what's done is done. As I'm well over 100 edits deep on this topic (between the RFC, its talk page, and other various venues), I think we can safely say I've done my part. :-) There's nothing to be disappointed about. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That would be met less sceptically, as a statement, if you hadn't explicitly said that you actually wanted to advocate getting rid of the tool but hadn't thought you could get away with it :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah. It's a pretty awful implementation and I think no tool is better than a really bad tool. We need a better discussion system (LiquidThreads, Flow, whatever). We need a better feedback system (for various issues like copyright infringement, reporting BLP issues, reporting broken templates or other site strangeness, etc.). Everyone supports these ideas. The article feedback tool doesn't solve either of these problems, though, it just makes a new one to deal with.
 * That said, it's called compromise. I don't love this tool, but I can live with it on a subset of pages as long as it's being worked on and supported. (I'd be just as happy seeing it go away entirely for now, though, sure, I endorsed Greg's view.) You love this tool (with this hat on, at least), but you (and Fabrice) apparently can't live with it only on certain articles. The lack of compromise here seems to be really what's gonna kill you. My view has about half as many endorsements as Greg's, but it's in second place right now by number of endorsements. It's a long three weeks to go until the RFC concludes and you may ultimately be successful in convincing everyone about the virtue of a full-scale deployment here, but it seems unlikely at this point. It'd make for quite the comeback story, at least. :-)
 * And, for what it's worth, the user confusion issue with a limited deployment seems like an awfully silly counter-argument. There about a million ways to work around that issue (including slapping the word "beta" on the tool somewhere), assuming it even rises to the level of being an issue (i.e., being a source of legitimate user confusion). --MZMcBride (talk) 04:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

My application for WP Online Ambassador
I just applied to be a WP Online Ambassador. Online Ambassadors help out newcomers or students learn Wikipedia's key processes, policies, guidelines, and norms, and guide new users to the appropriate resources. They help answer questions on the wiki, by email, or on IRC. I'd like to help out there, but I need endorsements. If you'd like to endorse me, please visit my application page. Thanks. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 00:20, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Pageview and Article Rank statistics

 * User:West.andrew.g is kindly generating Top 5000 Popular pages and Top 25 reports for English Wikipedia, apparently on his own computer, and has offered to share his code so that other language versions of Wikipedia can produce similar reports (showing which articles users currently consider to be very important/topical—article feedback, in other words).
 * It appears that the "semi-official" pageview tool (linked to from article History tabs) at http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/ is broken—the page rank number (when it is shown) never seems to change, and there seem to be huge, spurious pageview peaks. It would be good if WMF could be proactive in sorting out the problems with the existing tool—and creating a replacement based on Andrew's code (and running on WMF servers, rather than Andrew's personal machine) if the problems can't be fixed. This would be invaluable not only for English Wikipedia, but also for major other-language Wikipedias.
 * Pageview data—like analytics data (previously mentioned, see Archive 4, I'm still hoping)—indicates what is important to the majority of users, so is a good indicator for the community to use to determine where editor time is best spent (to give the majority of users a good impression of Wikipedia). Andrew has not asked me to post this comment, it is just that I feel annoyed that the "semi-official" pageview tool seems to be broken (and is being used to solicit donations, see the Flattr link) while Andrew would surely appreciate some show of support from WMF without having to beg for it. LittleBen (talk) 01:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's neither semi-official, nor quasi-official, nor in any way official; it's maintained by a volunteer(Domas) using his own resources. If Andrew is needing resources for this kind of project he might want to check out Wikimedia Labs. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * According to the About page, the raw data is generated by Domas, but the apparently-broken graphs and rankings that are linked to from the History tabs of articles are generated by Henrik, who apparently is not answering his mail. LittleBen (talk) 01:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay. Does Henrik work for us? :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. And these stats pages are soliciting donations, see the Flattr link. LittleBen (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, which I don't consider a particularly big problem. They're micro-donations that presumably aim at keeping up a site that inevitably costs money to run and maintain. On the non-Henrik maintained version, as said, if you want to point Andrew at Labs... Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ben, I note you keep jumping in and making minor tweaks to your previous posts; I've given my response :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Somebody has added Henrik to the list of Missing Wikipedians. So it looks as if somebody else will have to fix the pageview stats, as mentioned here. LittleBen (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There's another pageview tool (cf. Henrik's) linked from the top of Henrik's talk page; it gives monthly total in the sidebar, but it doesn't give ranking. Another example is here (cf. Henrik's). LittleBen (talk) 08:21, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Okeyes
I keep thinking you have two OK eyes. I kept wondering to myself "who is this OK Eyes fellow? who could it be?" O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking of that, I've always pronounced your last name like car keys, is that correct? Ryan Vesey
 * Oliver has hit his head so many times on his desk that he now slurs his speech. He now pronounces it Othhheez.  Bgwhite (talk) 06:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You three are some of the only reasons why I don't headdesk more often :P. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey! I'll be editing from/practicing headdesking in the office Monday. You can tell me where all the really satisfyingly clicky keyboards are.  Also, I'd love your advice on how to help dedaft AFT.  (cf. user:Sj/fffff) – SJ +  07:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Victor is probably best to advise on keyboards - me, I just bought myself a mechanically-switched one. Veeeery pleased :D. I'll give it a look, sure. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven
Hello again! We have some neat updates about the Teahouse:
 * We’ve added badges! Teahouse awards is a pilot project to learn how acknowledgement impacts engagement and retention in Teahouse and Wikipedia.


 * We’ve got a new WikiLove Badge script that makes giving badges quick and easy. You can add it here.  You can give out badges to thank helpful hosts, welcome guests, acknowledge great questions and more.


 * Come join the experiment and let us know what you think!


 * You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To remove yourself from receiving future newsletters, please remove your username here

Thanks again! Ocaasi 02:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unreviewednonote-NPF
Hi there. I've made a few adjustments to Template:Unreviewednonote-NPF. Because I'm not particularly knowledgeable about how those templates are used, I'd appreciate it if you could have a quick look and make sure my adjustments won't cause any problems. Thanks! --Bongwarrior (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That should work fine; have you tested the signature code? I recall that causing us a few problems :/. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I previewed it on my talk page and it looked ok. I suppose it is normally used by the Curation Toolbar, but that's not something I use. --Bongwarrior (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Should be fine, then :). Nobody has complained, which is always a good sign. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Legal state for 3rr
Does the foundation have an opinion or guidance they'd like to provide regarding the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring? NE Ent 17:27, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia help pages
Hi Oliver, you might have input on User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 126 as ISTR you looking at this problem in the past sometime. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 10:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So I did a bit of work on this a while back - before I was a staffer. The three things I took away were that Wikipedia's help pages are far too numerous, far too complex, and far too disjointed; I'm talking an average objective reading age of 20 and a system that links through to W3C Markup Validation guidelines before it links to 'how to talk to users' :/. Unfortunately I really can't work on this in my professional capacity (although I'd love to as a volunteer!). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't do a lot of work with this during his fellowship? You could try following up with him... Andrew Gray (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Doh. I thought you had worked on this as a staffer, and said so in this discussion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Alas, no. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:24, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think I was remembering your panel discussion at Wikimania, I seem to recall some crazy graph showing how all the help pages were connected? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:57, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, the Graph Of Doom :D. I'd worked on that long before getting to the WMF, actually. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Content disclaimoer
Hi Oliver; I don't know the best way of alerting the Foundation, but I've seen your name pop up at VPT and other places, so I'm sending you a message. The thing is, I need to know if this is a valid edit request. If it's not your bag, who would be best to ask? -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:41, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey redrose. Snap! This came up just recently - see this discussion. I'd suggest altering it to make it compatible with Maggie/Geoff's suggestion there. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 14:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * , Maggie has advised, so now amended. -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks for dropping us a note :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Oliver,
As per our previous conversation, I would request the Foundation take a look at the effectiveness of article talk page and/or vs. editpage templating when used to prevent disruptive editing. This COI issue isn't going to go away, and it did raise the larger question of effectiveness of these types of notices and templates on potentially problematic pages such as BLPs and COI prone articles. I am clueless as to how this can be tested empirically, but I get the feeling you have access to some resources and individuals that could shed some light on this. Considering the scope of the problem, having solid evidence as to the best way (and place) to communicate to editors would be very helpful, and to more than just the ongoing COI project. If you do develop a research project on this, I would ask you TB me on the progress periodically. Thanks in advance, I'm looking forward to some great info. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Cool :). At a bare minimum I'm going to look into whether or not we can track if people actually click through (and if so, at what rate compared to impressions). I'll work on this when I'm in SF in ~2 weeks, since there's a seminar on the event tracking extension we use. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:47, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, compare click to edit vs. actual edit, etc. I do ecommerce analysis where I look at abandon carts, buy vs. hits ratios of different pages, etc. so I have a general idea what you mean.  Thanks.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Leaf - Issue Seven (special Birthday recap)


It's been a full year since the Teahouse opened, and as we're reflecting on what's been accomplished, we wanted to celebrate with you.

Teahouse guests and hosts are sharing their stories in a new blog post about the project.

1 year statistics for Teahouse visitors compared to invited non-visitors from the pilot:

Over the past year almost 2000 questions have been asked and answered, 669 editors have introduced themselves, 1670 guests have been served, 867 experienced Wikipedians have participated in the project, and 137 have served as hosts. Read more project analysis in our CSCW 2013 paper

Last month January was our most active month so far! 78 profiles were created, 46 active hosts answered 263 questions, and 11 new hosts joined the project.

Come by the Teahouse to share a cup of tea and enjoy a Birthday Cupcake! Happy Birthday to the Teahouse and thank you for a year's worth of interest and support :-)
 * -- Ocaasi and the rest of the Teahouse Team 20:49, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

You are receiving The Tea Leaf after expressing interest or participating in the Teahouse! To add or remove yourself for receiving future newsletters, please update the list here