User talk:Steven (WMF)/Archive 4

JSTOR suggestion
Y u removed my page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.174.162.239 (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Steven, I see that JSTOR is starting to hand out the free accounts; that's great news. It occurred to me that it might be a nice gesture on our part to keep track of the articles that have benefited from this access. Perhaps we could have a page or two where we encourage those who use these accounts to drop a note recording the work they've been able to do because of the accounts -- "Brought article XYZ to featured status" or something like that. I don't know if JSTOR cares about kudos, but if testimonials are worth anything in encouraging them to continue and extend the relationship, it might be worth considering. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The most important thing JSTOR wants is first to just make the accounts have all been activated and used, but they do have the ability to track whether there is an increase in inbound links referring to content from Wikipedia. I think your suggestion might be nice, but they offered to do the grunt work tracking usage, so it may be unnecessary at the moment. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven, just a note to say that I can't thank you enough for the work you've put into this on our behalf. It's going to make a big difference to people's editing and, I think, enthusiasm. All the best, SlimVirgin (talk) 21:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven -- I want to second what SlimVirgin just said. This is fantastic.  I've wondered for years why they don't grant 'independent scholar' access, and now we have it!  Thank you very much for all the time you've put in to making this possible. Antandrus  (talk) 22:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I third that! Really happy about this. Thanks in advance!  Turco  85 ( Talk ) 22:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
 * So. Freaking. Awesome. Thank you for all the work you've put into getting us this access, dude! (And the Talk: page notice, which just made my evening.) On a [slightly] more constructive note, though, it seems like it might be a simple thing to do for there to be a template editors could (optionally) add to Talk: pages (like all the WikiProject banners) or a flag we could add to cite templates to make tracking this at our end that little bit easier, no? — OwenBlacker (Talk) 00:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Steven, just to thank you here, since I kept the info in my email to the minimum you asked for on the possibly incorrect assumption that this would make it easier to process for JSTOR.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Being British I am prone to understatement, but I echo OwenBlacker's sentiments and have emailed per Jimfbleak. Ben   Mac  Dui  11:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OMG, are you accusing me of being insufficiently British? ;o) — OwenBlacker (Talk) 01:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Surely either Surrey has become completely globalised, or you spending too much on-wiki with American students! :) Ben   Mac  Dui  09:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh hai, thanks for the JSTOR invite (which I've emailed you for), I just wanted to confirm that you've received my email? Parrot of Doom 17:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, I got it. :) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:24, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) Parrot of Doom 23:53, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Steven, thank you very much for the JSTOR deal. One question: Is everyone getting a confirmation email? I am not sure that my email for you was sufficient. Greetings --Benowar (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been clearer: I haven't been replying with a confirmation because I'm lazy and didn't want to send 100 replies. I got yours, and will be bugging anyone who hasn't sent me the sufficient info by the 30th. :) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:53, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, thank you for the clarification. Greetings --Benowar (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: JSTOR
Hi Steven,

I believe an email was sent to me regarding my JSTOR request being accepted, however, I can't seem to find the email in my inbox. Would it be possible for you to resend that e-mail? I see that the deadline for responding to the email is the end of this month. Cheers, -- ceradon talk contribs   02:46, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Another one here ... I sent an email, but haven't heard back. Would it be possible for you all to set up a page somewhere that indicates whose emails were received, so we know they aren't lost in the mail? Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:20, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry guys. As I said above, I should have been clear: I wasn't sending confirmation replies to anyone, in order to avoid sending 100+ additional emails in addition to the 100ish talk page messages. I have the necessary info from both of you, just to confirm now. :) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Likewise – I have sent an e-mail but haven't heard back as yet (do let me know if I need to resend). Apart from that, I echo the comments by SlimVirgin and others above: this, as well as the similar initiatives User:Ocaasi initiated for Highbeam and Questia, is great stuff. Thanks for your work on this. Andreas JN 466 12:55, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hehe, came here about to ask the same thing, wondered why I hadn't heard a reply. Look forward to getting it, I need it for my current Laos work.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  09:52, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * And me! :) MeegsC (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR, forgot
Hello,

I forgot to send you the e-mail on 30 November. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 19:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Yet another JSTOR question
I noticed that people have been getting notifications for their JSTOR access and was wondering if the access is being done in the order people signed up in? If so, I'm a little confused because I see some folks getting access who signed up after me (I'm #200 & signed up on October 30th). Was hoping that I was going to get access someday soon as I see people on the Access-list getting notifications but maybe not... Anyway, if you have any clarifications for me (like maybe I didn't sign up correctly or maybe JSTOR ran out of WP accounts or whatever), I'd appreciate any of that info. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the access is given out in the order of signup, though about 12 people didn't meet the deadline and have been skipped (unfortunately). If the person you're thinking of who got access and signed up after you was Sarah Stierch, that's because it seems she forgot she already signed up earlier. I messaged her because she was #110. :) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   00:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok...that actually makes sense. I got all excited because I saw that she got an account and I was thinking maybe I missed the email or notice.  Oh well... Shearonink (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Wp:medrs
I was editing article of medical uses of silver, which is currently a very biased article because of a personal opinion of the admin vsmith who is watching it. Its full of misinformation, outdated research, repetition of warnings across different sections. I have written a new section using fda as a reliable source for an fda approved cs silver sol gel. According to wp:medrs fda position statement is an ideal rs. However the admin removed my edit and said he is not going to apply medrs because he is rarely using it. I think the admin shall be using medrs and allow the article to become unbiased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 16:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR access
Although I emailed you around November 20, I still do not have JSTOR access. Any idea why? Has the program been terminated? BigEars42 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the wait. I am just waiting on two stragglers then JSTOR can start handing out access. (They didn't want the names given piecemeal, but as a group of 100.) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was just concerned I'd been forgotten! BigEars42 (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was becoming concerned too. It might help if there was a list confirming receipt of our details so that we can check we've been included. Warden (talk) 12:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey there. JSTOR has the list now and accounts will start going out Tuesday. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

vsmith
Thank you for reply. But it seems to me its not a simple dispute. Its rather seems to me a case whereby an admin is abusing his power intentionally to maintain biased article which contains misinformation and with a help of another user whose name is yobol and who doesn't have a talk page silences all edits of users who try to improve the article which contradicts their personal views. Where and how such situation should be taken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanspir (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks PB. :) Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:28, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Echoing the congratulations-- and happy to be a beneficiary; it made my day! Bob the WikipediaN  (talk • contribs) 01:44, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR
Hello. I apologize for my lack of communication; I have been unable to access the Internet for several weeks due to major real-life workload. I most definitely want to activate my JSTOR account, but its been several days since you contacted me and I fear that I have bypassed the chance. Is the account still available for me? I shall send the necessary details as soon as possible if so. Thanks! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I have sent you the mail. Thanks again! ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 07:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * BTW, I haven't received anything thus far. Perhaps it's gone to spam? Parrot of Doom 22:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As announced on the talk page of WP:JSTOR, their plan is to send things out tomorrow (December 11th, East Coast time). Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   22:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just received it, cheers :) Parrot of Doom 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I've still not received anything by email. Are these being done in batches?  Warden (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You should have gotten yours by now I think, and I double checked that you were in the list. Can you double check your spam folder, and I'll ask my JSTOR contact if we're finished or not. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the mail was sent two days ago but Gmail was treating it as spam. I'll give it a try now.  Many thanks.  Warden (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Steven, I also didn't get any response in this topic. Is everything ok, did you get my mail? Regards --IKAl (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Greetings from Gareth Griffith-Jones
Good evening Stephen, You may not remember me, so here is a reminder to jog your memory. I have today been led to this for the first time. It was this posting by Andrew G West this afternoon that caused me to look it up. My reason for contacting you is that out of curiosity, I wondered why I could not find my name on the list. Can you advise/help? Sincerely –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 19:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC) Ha, ha! Good morning Stephen,

I have just had another look — and I am now on the listing as ''1949 Gareth Griffith-Jones 25,511 Ro''

Many thanks! –&#32; –&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 10:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)   Gareth Griffith-Jones  – The Welsh  Buzzard  – is wishing you the season's greetings. Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus, or the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

–&#32; Gareth Griffith-Jones &#124; The Welsh Buzzard &#124; 13:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you Stephen for your charming reply –&#32;

Template:Opentask-short
Since you've edited this template in your official capacity, I'd appreciate it if you'd comment at WP:VP/Pr on my request to protect it fully or to move its contents to userspace in order to prevent vandalism. Section title is "Protecting templates used in MediaWiki pages". Nyttend (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

JSTOR again
Steven,

is there something new about the JSTOR acounts?

Regards --IKAl (talk) 10:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I just double checked and your contact info was correctly in the list sent. If you haven't seen it yet, check your spam folder. One of two others saw the invite there. If it's not there, I'll have them resend. Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not find it, neither in my mails nor in the spam folder. Please can you sent it again. These are great news, thank you. I already thought I will not get it. :) Regards --IKAl (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'll make sure it gets sent again. Sorry for the mixup, <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't get any email until now and also nothing in the spam folder. Did you get my email? --IKAl (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried several times to contact you, but I get neither a response here nor on my emails. I hope you are ok.
 * Can you tell me something about the status of my JSTOR account? I didn’t get any email or any other information since the last time you answered my remarks here on 10th of January. There is also nothing in the spam folder. It is a pity, that I have an account but cannot use it. What is going wrong? --IKAl (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
I agree with the comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 123 - can we keep BLPs off this list please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up Doug. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   02:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   04:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Possible vandalism problems with Special:GettingStarted
Hi Steven. I'd like to direct your attention to this discussion about vandalism to articles with the copy edit tag. It seems like it must be a result of new accounts getting a list of articles from that new intro page. I'm not sure if there's anything to be done about it, since bad faith accounts are bound to vandalize something, but I thought you might have some thoughts on the issue. Cheers. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 18:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

An engagement experiment thought
Hi Steven,

There's a discussion on the VP about promoting the Signpost, and it occurred to me that there's the potential for quite an interesting experiment here. Are users who get shown the weekly community newsletter more likely to return and edit? We could try subscribing a sample of new signups to Signpost notifications (leaving unsubscribe details in a welcome message) and see if there's an effect... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)


 * One piece of relevant information may be the work Maryana did on redesigning the community portal. She might have access to data about clicks on the Signpost as a proportion of visitors to that page, whether they were logged in, etc. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   00:08, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Glaring reference tag being discussed
Hey Steven, a while back I mentioned the reference error tag problems to you. The issue has turned up again at Village pump (proposals), just thought I'd let you know. Ryan Vesey 18:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Account creation.
Your input has been requested at WP:VPT. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 11:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Guided tours screenshot


Is there a reason you used a screenshot of a chrome browser in Incognito mode on a mac with the article Th3 art 0f hackin9? Potential editors who would be interested in editing such an article would probably be fine without a tutorial...perhaps a more relatable article should be used.Smallman12q (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I just picked one of the articles out of Special:GettingStarted at random. I used incognito mode to avoid exposing the browser extensions and bookmarks I have to everyone who viewed the screenshot. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   23:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR again
Steven, is there something new about my JSTOR account? I also have written an email to you, didn't you get it? What went wrong? Regards. --IKAl (talk) 18:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Steven, after one week without response, also no repsons on my emails, what is the status? Is someone doing anything? Why did Wikimedia spend the money, when there is no account and not even any reaction of your side? Are you doing anything, waiting for an answer of JSTOR? Or is just nothing happening, and you won't do anything? Then please tell me, and I will stop asking here. The current status is reall annoying, sorry. And we lost months, in which it would be possible to use the account. --IKAl (talk) 19:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hey, I just pinged them again. For reference here: we didn't pay for anything, they donated the accounts on a special basis, which is why I can't just go yell at them if things don't work perfectly. Also: the year of access starts from the day you sign up, not from the same day for everyone, so you will still get your entire year. Sorry for the annoyance. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  06:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Hey! Thanks very much. The truly technical part of the work on this was done by Matt, but I'm happy have helped design and launch the product for sure. I'm glad it's appreciated, and if you want help designing a tour, Matt or I can answer any questions you might have. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
elphantsandbacon  Care to talk? 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
elphantsandbacon  Care to talk? 17:41, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You might know the answer to this...
I pondered a question about the drawbacks to mobile upload at Village pump (technical). I vaguely recall you announcing the new feature, so I figured you might have a viable answer. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't actually work on mobile, but I let Maryana, who does, know about the thread. I believe their plan right now is to turn off the call to action, where logged out users are asked to login or sign up to upload photos to articles that lack them. They're going to add some steps beforehand to educate users about copyright, original work, etc. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   05:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks man. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 05:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Non-autoconfirmed edits not getting saved
A few days ago you said you could help test a bug I reported at the Village Pump. Any news yet? Today on IRC I had one editor who couldn't save his CAPTCHA edits no matter what; he said he used the Internet explorer, not Safari. I ultimately had to advise him to make a bunch of dummy edits; as soon as he was autoconfirmed, he could save his draft without further ado. See here: Special:Contributions/DoNorth61.

Another two editors asked about pages they claimed to have saved that didn't show up - one of them said they used Safari, I didn't ask the other about their browser. In all cases I've seen so far the editors were registered but not autoconfirmed, and they could save edits as long as no external links were added. I can only imagine that it must be very frustrating for new editors to lose their supposedly saved edits in this way, and it's all the more insidious a bug because the technically well-versed editors will never encounter it. User:LKK343, to whom I talked via IRC while he was editing, could save the very same edit after switching from Safari to Chrome, so it may be a browser issue - all the others theoretically might have been too incompetent to correctly enter the CAPTCHA, but I don't believe LKK343's change of browser would suddenly have inspired greater CAPTCHA competence. Huon (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey there. Regarding the unsaved edits issue: these folks were subject to the CAPTCHA, or just had regular edits that failed to save? Unless there was a specific error message they saw, there's very little I can do to replicate the problem. To be honest too, I've often seen brand new editors have trouble realizing they didn't save their edits, when they were previewing, ran in to edit conflicts etc., so I'd really want to know that they got an error of some kind and what before we worry too much.


 * On CAPTCHA: I did re-test the CAPTCHA in Safari and IE on login and account creation just now, so it's not in there. I'll give it another shot on edit submission, but it's the same code that generates all three CAPTCHAs, so it may be an editing problem rather than something in the CAPTCHA.


 * Thanks for following up, <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:29, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * One of my unwilling testers, DoNorth61, could easily make edits that didn't require a CAPTCHA, but couldn't make this edit before he was autoconfirmed. The effect of clicking "Save page" on edits requiring a CAPTCHA was described in variations of "nothing happens" - I repeatedly asked for error messages and was told there were none, and they don't even seem to see any change to the page (except possibly getting a different CAPTCHA code - I didn't ask about that detail). Another of my unwilling testers, User:LKK343, could save the very same edit with Chrome that repeatedly failed with Safari. I am aware that replicating a vaguely-described bug that leaves no error message is extremely difficult, and it may be an accumulation of user incompetence instead of a bug, but by now I've developed quite a distrust of Safari. Should I encounter another such case on IRC, is there anything I should ask for that might help pinpoint the problem? Huon (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

JSTOR access
Hello,

I wanted to know if JSTOR access were still being given out. If so, whom can I ask for one? I think I would benefit a lot in helping articles if I have one. (Currently I'm on an ambitious plan for article work after about a month or so)

Thanks, and please wikilink my name to reply.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You should definitely still sign up if you haven't already, since the list is first-come-first served, but the pilot program for this only gave us 100 accounts, which have already been filled. After we assess the pilot with JSTOR, we'll try to negotiate more access. In the meantime, they do have an individual registration program which gives you access to about 1,200 journals. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I have requested for the access. Also, it would be nice if a list of all those who currently have this access could be kept. That will be a huge benefit for those who want access to journals, as well as those who are waiting for access (to know when they might get it). TheOriginalSoni (talk) 06:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Special:GettingStarted
I don't know how new this page is but it looks fantastic! The interface really friendly, and I gotta give props for randomizing the order of the options. Nice! ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Yeah, we're randomizing the order because we're currently running a controlled experiment with the interface (notes), so randomizing the order on every view is important so that we don't inherently bias one of the three tasks because it's at the top of the list. If you're interested we've got docs available about the ~5 iterations of this we've run, and future plans, which I can share. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   21:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure! ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 22:44, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I should reconsider my attitude
As you may have noticed, I closed Village pump (miscellaneous). I think my attitude was bad and I want to apologize for that. I don't know much about the work at the WMF, but I guess something like this doesn't make it easier at all. Maybe I should let the WMF do their job and do what I can do here. Yes, as you correctly noted, when I see something where I think it might have some effect on the project, I try to point it out so that possibly it can be addressed. In this case, I might just be seeing part of the picture, so I understand that the pieces I see might lead me to the wrong conclusion. So I will simply try to follow it and maybe try to contribute to the process if possible and in a way hopefully leading to an improvement of the project and beneficial for all participants. --  Toshio   Yamaguchi  21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * However, I don't think the response was ideal. While I do not think that is the WMF goal, I have seen enough examples of Facebook like items that I can appreciate that some would be concerned. Add to that explicit requests for Facebook like features which may not emanate from WMF, but add to the level of concern if you feel that is the wrong direction. While I don't think that is the WMF goal, hope that it isn't, is far removed from "accusing us of wanting to turn Wikipedia in to Facebook" so I think the response was a bit over the top.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  15:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your sincerity Toshio, and your willingness to collaborate with Brandon and anybody else working on Flow. Thanks very much for the consideration, <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * What Steven said. If this is something you're concerned about, I am (personally) totally happy to have a conversation about it, either here or by something like Skype or Google Hangout if you want to go into some detail :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 07:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * On a related note, I would like to express my concern in the way the Wikipedia interface is mimicking facebook. The notifications, the login page and now Flow. I do not believe that following the other major websites in terms of layout and design should play any role in how we design or redesign Wikipedia. Considering the road we're headed with these redesigns (how they look), it looks very much like we're trying to ape facebook (Regardless of whether or not that's true). I hope we don't. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * And the parts that aren't stupidly Facebook-like are clearly mimicking the iPhone/iPad style in all its bauhausesque sans-font primitiveness. (That's not a compliment.) -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk
 * Wikipedia already uses 90% sans fonts. The wordmark is one of the few exceptions, and otherwise both Vector and Monobook specify sans everywhere. As for the comparisons to Facebook... well let's just say my original VP comment that Toshio refers to very much applies to my feelings on such comments. Regarding the idea that blue buttons are only or primarily used by Facebook, I'd encourage you to take the button test. It's an education. I'd also be happy to go in to more detail about design choices, how we tested them, how users who aren't already power editors react, and more, if you're seriously interested in having a conversation about why we're not trying to mimic Facebook. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm painfully aware that we're using more and more sans fonts; I've had to go into .css to cure that for my own use. Is nobody aware of the decades upon decades of user interface studies, many pre-dating computers, which irrefutably show that serif fonts are easier to read? I don't give a ~!@^$% about "pretty"; I only care about legibility; and sans fonts fail that test, consistently. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  13:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. Sans-serif fonts are more readable, especially for those who have certain forms of visual impairment and/or dyslexia (see here, here, and here).  What makes Wikipedia difficult to read isn't the font, but the lack of a sane line measure and a too-small default font.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I took the button test. Got a 0. Probably I did not understand the logic of the test or something.
 * Please continue. i would like to see what logic is behind what is implemented. Also, do you also take active input from a couple community members, just to see their POV? As the OBoD showed, there are several legitimate concerns of the older users too (except workflow and plain nostalgia). It would be much more prudent if those are being factored in during the actual designing.
 * Also, is the WMF considering an active role in getting the main page redesigned? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 03:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The point of the button test isn't really to win, it's just to show how buttons styles do or do not stand out. Note that 12/18 of the examples given use blue primary action buttons. Some of them mulitple shades. Wikipedia isn't even mentioned, because we don't have a coherent button style (yet) and our most important actions like saving a page use a tiny grey button. Increasing the size/shape of primary actions on an interface and styling them with color so they stand out are two of the big tools in designer's war chest to prioritize elements on a page. It's examples like the list in that blog post that make me not take seriously the argument that use of the color blue means we want to imitate Facebook alone or at all.
 * We A/B tested this form design with thousands of new visitors to the sign up page, iterating with each of the three major tests based on those results, as well as from usability testing with several rounds of people who were new to Wikipedia (a few let us share them). We looked a variety of metrics, including signups as a proportion of views, error rates, edit rates, and block rates.
 * To speak about the general process: For a feature like Echo, which is used by everyone and by power editors even more, I agree with the importance of getting feedback from experienced contributors. But getting feedback from people who use a thing and letting editors dictate design, especially if they're not the only users of a feature, are two different things. I don't support the latter. We pay design professionals at the Wikimedia Foundation to do this for a reason, and design by committee doesn't tend to work out well. For a form like account creation and log in, most of the complexity and requirements come from making it easy and pleasurable for new people to use them, not replicating the feature set of the current log in page.
 * About the main page: not that I know of. There is a design mailing list that is public and which all designers are on though, and if anyone wants feedback or help, you should go ask! <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   05:10, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Can't stay logged in
Every since the new login form appeared, I cannot remain logged in using Safari. In fact, between finding your post in the VP and clicking the talk link on your sig, I was logged out. I strongly suspect the time-to-die is set to a short value, or something else is confusing the browser. Can you check into this please?! Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears to take 30 seconds. I suspect the "30 days" is being corrupted/improperly set/misinterpreted?
 * It also appears to be machine-related... working fine on this copy of Safari on 10.8.x Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I just tested Safari 6 on OSX 10.8 yesterday and didn't get this problem. Which version of Safari are you using? This is unlikely to be a hardware thing, and is either a browser issue or something to do with your cookie settings. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   17:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Latest Safari, I always pull updates. It's working fine on 10.8, the problem machine is running 10.7. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the update. I'm having the lead developer take a look now. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

This is looking like a potential red herring. I have now seen similar, but not repeatable, behaviour on other web sites. Only that one 10.7.x machine appears to be effected. I've cast about for any offered suggestions, but none have turned up so far. If I can cure it I'll be sure to post here so we don't go too far down the rabbit hole. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: Hey Steve. For whatever reason, this problem disappeared as suddenly as it appeared in the first place. I tried *everything* including downloading nightlies of WebKit etc and nothing worked. Then on Sunday, poof, all versions are working fine, like nothing happened. Did anyone change code on deployment, or do we chalk this up to the compu-gremlins? Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah I have no idea. We didn't change anything in the code recently, except removing the leftover old forms (which shouldn't have changed anything related to how login cookies were getting set). <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Development priorities
Hi Steve. Please take a look at this thread: User talk:Okeyes (WMF) and if you  can, please let  me have your thoughts on  it. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Notifications Treatment
Is there a better way to integrate section names in notifications? Today they sit as a separate second line and make it really hard to read the notification. What do you think of this:

'You were mentioned on page x in the y section. "I reverted your edit because it is already mentioned in another section" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vibhabamba (talk • contribs) 21:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding your statement about the simple survey of new accounts on VP
Regarding the statement you made at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28technical%29#Simple_survey_of_new_accounts I must sadly say the formulation of that statement is rather sexist.

The sentence in question is and it implies that females per gender finds it "intimidating, annoying, or otherwise an obstacle". → Aza Toth 17:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I could not disagree more. I strongly suggest you read the follow up comments from myself, Superm401, and Maryana. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   18:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Software roadmap
Steven,

During the User Council proposal discusion, you mentioned that the software road map is publicly available. Would you mind pointing me to it? I'm in the motions of preparing a base for a User Advocacy page and I'd link to include a (possibly simplified) version of it.

Thanks, --<tt style="color:black;">RA</tt> ( &#x270D; ) 13:02, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I've made a stab at a user-oriented roadmap here: User Advocacy/Roadmap.
 * This is based on links provided here: Wikipedia_talk:User_Advocacy.
 * Would you mind looking over it for accuracy/missing information? --<tt style="color:black;">RA</tt> ( &#x270D; ) 22:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent JSTOR matters
Hi, Steve. As you can see, the thread I started here has predictably turned into the timeworn "debate" about the absentee FA director. This issue, unfvortunately, is likely to swamp the page for the foreseeable future, but I don't think that the JSTOR issues that I raised should be forgotten, and I am looking forward to your comments when you can provide them. It might be as well to create a new thread for your comments so they are not lost in the ambient noise – maybe even post them on a different page?

Apart from broad policy issues about the future breaching of paywalls, my most pressing concerns regarding JSTOR access are as follows:
 * Is the facility going to continue beyond the 12 months of the original scheme?
 * If so, which editors are going to benefit from the access? It would be unfair to simply grant it as a continuance to the present 100 beneficiaries, many of whom have, I believe, made little or no use of it in terms of their WP contributions in the past eight months. At the same time, to simply give the facility to a different bunch of 100 editors would be equally illogical.
 * There should be a basis for selectivity, whereby the editors who are making the most productive use of the JSTOR facility retain their access, while those who are not using it are replaced by editors who will.
 * Since the majority of JSTOR articles are from learned and specialist journals, access is hugely important to editors whose main work is in the featured articles area, and I think such editors should be given  priority, based on their recent activity.

I am currently carrying out some research into the use of JSTOR access in featured articles during the past eight months. This is a long job, but I hope to present my results in a later issue of Signpost. Meantime, as i say, I would very much like to have your comments. Brianboulton (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I sure wish I could get JSTOR access, I'd certainly use it... Shearonink (talk) 16:32, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the wait. Let me go through these one by one...


 * The access for each account lasts for one year from the date it was opened, for now. This means that there isn't a single hard stop date for all accounts, and I can reconfirm this with JSTOR if people are worried.
 * There isn't a plan yet for what to do after the first pilot year is up. The contract says that JSTOR and WMF will work together to assess the success of the pilot. (The success of the pilot is primarily being looked at with the goal of active use of the accounts.) Whether we want to redistribute the same 100 accounts, or simply expand the number of accounts beyond 100 to encompass more people, will probably depend on how JSTOR feels about the success of the pilot, what can be negotiated with them, and how that jives with their plans for the free "Register & Read" program.
 * Regarding productivity: I think this is perhaps fair. The current state of access was on a first-come-first-served basis, and I only excluded a handful of accounts that had never really been active or were blocked etc.
 * I agree that reliable sources are more vital for people writing Featured-quality articles or lists. Ultimately I think the community should come to a consensus on how it wants to prioritize access, with some feedback from JSTOR and I regarding logistics. However, I don't think we need to decide that right now. How we want to prioritize access will largely depend on the results of the pilot and whether JSTOR wants to expand it, continue the same level, or end it.
 * Make sense? <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Steve, for these clarifications. My first reaction is awareness that the clock is ticking; the first accounts were opened nearly eight months back, generally by people most likely to make good use of them. As things stand, they will be the first to lose their accounts. I think we need to have a strategy in place as soon as possible for prioritizing the future allocation of accounts and to ensure that active editors making proper use of their accounts don't lose them peremptorily.  "The community" will, I am sure, have a thousand different ideas on this strategy, and then there is the issue of who judges, so it's not going to be easy  to come up with a formula. I am working on a few ideas which I will share in the near future. Brianboulton (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
 * As a user of the JSTOR concession, I would be severely hamstrung without it. I am working long-term on Rees's Cyclopaedia compiling lists of articles, and use JSTOR for background reading as well as references. Long may it continue. Apwoolrich (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Steven, best of luck in dealing with JSTOR: this has been a great initiative. Comment (self-interested, naturally). I honestly don't see the point about priority for those writing FA. JSTOR is a huge pile of searchable material for those seeking out RS on scholarly topics. That's all that really needs to be said: RS are important right across the spectrum of articles, from neglected stubs to those that get on the front page. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still waiting for my JSTOR and HighBeam reaccess, both invaluable resources. It is rather debilitating not currently having them. especially for developing articles to FA when I require the extra research. I miss them severely as an editor, as I'm sure Eric and other good editors here do.♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  07:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with Charles; adding 100 citations individually to 100 uncited or poorly-cited stubs is just as useful as adding 100 citations to a single FA, if not more so. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Confirmemail oncreate
Hi, why did you blank this message? If you think it should be killed, it'd be better to do that in MW core.

(On a side note, you can actually blank messages now without resorting to dirty tricks like the one used there, so it would be nice to change that regardless.) Matma Rex talk 14:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It was meant to be a temporary removal, since the formatting was broken with Special:GettingStarted, where it was getting injected when we served it to new registrations instead of the usual welcome page. It may be fixed now, let me test on enwiki beta. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   19:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it was changed back, thanks. Matma Rex talk 22:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI: this message will be going unseen when the next authentication architecture goes live Wednesday. The relevant bug is 51469. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   23:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Afc decline-default
Template:Afc decline-default has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 16:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Afc decline-rand
Template:Afc decline-rand has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 16:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I don't mind just speedily deleting those templates myself, as the creator and basically sole editor. We never ended up using them for a randomized test of different templates, so there's no reason to keep them around. Sound okay? <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   17:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Feel free. I simply didn't want to offend anybody (just for the case there is still any AB tests going on, or at least a realistic roadmap) <small style="font: 12px Courier New; color: #000000; display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 3px 1px 4px;background-color:#fff">mabdul 19:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Testing
Testing HTML email notifications. Yay, <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling &bull; talk   20:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages
 * If you have any questions, you can ask Ocaasi anytime. --17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Guided tours as a way to use GET parameters?
I was surprised to discover the TWA pages and notice that things like http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tour=twa2 resolve to provide extra messages based on a GET parameter. Looking into this, I ran across your message at. I don't know where the source of these messages is - apparently not - nor can I actually edit that namespace. Still I was wondering if GET parameters can be used more generally with this or other modules, and not having seen the working example I know of, I'm still not sure.

What I'm dreaming of is something like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Mandelbrot&r=1.120357&c=-0.753241&zoom=0.0001

to be processed to to yield a square of calculated Mandelbrot, which then contains squares of graphics linked to pages like https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Mandelbrot&r=1.1203572&c=-0.7532415&zoom=0.00001.

Now as that example illustrates, there are probably some performance/resource based limits you would want to impose on the use of GET parameters, yet I'm not sure how serious these are: how many users are going to really delve deep in a Mandelbrot tree, even if some ambitious coder pulls out a super-ultimate-precision real number Lua library to support it? It's a question of how many joules we want to allocate per curious click, I guess. I suppose such one-time runs, done for tour module content that is generated on the fly, must expire off the cache sooner or later, wouldn't they?

A more practical example might be a script that pulls out all the Wikipedia articles for features within a geographic rectangle. (Most of this could be done with categories, come to think of it, but GET parameters would add flexibility, especially if the .js module is able to summon up the actual contents of a category, which Lua cannot do)

Is any of this possible? Wnt (talk) 20:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania
Hi Steven. I just  wanted to  drop  by  and say  it  was good to  meet  you  again and talk  about  some pressing  issues. As soon as I've caught  up  with  Real  Life now I'm  back  home, I  will  be following  up  on  the talk  we had with  Eric and Brandon. Thanks for making that  opportunity  possible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Same here, it was very good to talk. Now if I could just get over the jetlag... <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   02:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Ping
Teahouse/Questions sounds like a GS user with some feedback on his initial experiences. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. :) <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   02:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Another for you: Teahouse/Questions  (I don't know if you watch that page, but I'm checking it every day right now to scan for 'lost' VE bug reports.)  Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

FWI
Village pump (miscellaneous). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

AfC
Hi Steven. It looks as if the RfC to  introduce a control  over reviewer experience is heading  for a consensus. Although the RfC still has some time to  run I'm  looking  at some of the suggestions that  have been made to  improve the actual AfC process. One of these, as you'll remember from our discussion  in  Hong Kong, is to  create a 'draft' namespace with  an interactive checklist template on  its talk  page (I believe this was Brandon's idea), which  AFAICS is one of the best  ideas. However, for the actual processing  of AfC submissions, it  has crossed my  mind, with  such  a namespace created,  whether it would be technically feasible to  clone and adapt  the Page Curation/Newpage Feed system to  work on  AfD. There are many features of the NPP  system  that are exactly  what  are wanted for AfC and in  a way, are things that  are already  being  done either manually  or through the AfC helper script and cloning  the  PageCuration  thing  may  save a lot  of development  time. What I'm  asking  here is really  for a quick  'yes/know' answer on the technicality. You may  however like to  have a quick  word with  Brandon  about  it. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * As those who know me are well aware, I am weak on the technicalities of software development. Conceptually, though, I think that it would be a wonderful thing if a new editor ready to submit an article had to check some boxes saying they understood notability and the neutral point of view, and reliable sources, and references, and that they were asserting that they met minimum standards in those areas with their article.  Cullen <sup style="color:purple;">328  Let's discuss it  04:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe a similar process takes place in  the article Wizard. That  said, let's see if Brandon  and his team  think  that  it's technically  possible to  adapt a version  of the Page Curation  for AfC -  your ideas could possibly  be integrated in  that. At the moment, it's just  an idea I  had, but  if it  were adopted, it  would stretch  the software development  capacity  of the volunteers, and as the NPP  tool  was a Foundation  development, I feel  confident  that  they  may  see their way  clear to  allocating  developer time to  this increasingly  urgent  issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To answer your question: Yes, technically it is probably possible, though it might actually be easier to make something from scratch, since PageCuration is finely tuned to a specific use case. I don't think we necessarily should though. I don't think we should assume that we need to encourage "patrolling" of drafts in quite the same manner, since by definition they would be obscured from search engines and readers. Instead, generally we've been thinking along the lines of what Cullen suggested: that along with draft creation, there would be a very prominent and persistent checklist of what makes a good first article, and that new authors are responsible for fulfilling that checklist if they want to have something that is acceptable for them to move to mainspace. With the new notifications system, we could even send people gentle reminders about what else needed doing.
 * I think that the kind of "patrolling" we should ideally be encouraging is more like mentorship or adoption. So in other words: let's try to make the goal "how do we give the most promising articles the best feedback?" not "how do we patrol the most pages to prevent vandalism or worse?".
 * I am hoping that by diverting lots of new article creation in to a draft namespace, we could make the real patrolling that needed to happen really limited to just pure copyvio and material that would be a candidate for oversight or revdeletion. When I last looked in 2011, CSD was 60% of deletions, and the number one reason (37% I think?) was A7 - notability. If we can lessen the pressure on patrollers by encouraging things that are not notable but also not malicious to draft status, then that's a good thing for us all. Maybe the new motto of the draft patrollers should be: Give It Time. ;) <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   07:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your feedback, Steven, it's more than I  asked for and raised some interesting  points. I  am  hoping  that   by  basing  the system  on  a checklist in  a draft  namespace, we could avoid the subjective  patrolling  which  is causing the most negative creator reactions, but  at  the same time still  provide valuable feedback  to  the creators. At  the moment for example, we have pages being  accepted by  reviewers only  to  be CSD'd again  at  NPP, and articles being  rejected that  would pass A7. Editor  retention  is primordial, but  so  is maintaining  enough interest in  the process to  retain  the reviewers we have, and to  attract  more reviewers.   A vast  number of submissions are really  totally  unsuitable for Wikipedia, which amounts to  several  more critiera than copyvio  or revdel, otherwise we would be opening  the flood gates towards  NPP which is also  labouring  under similar problems of low quality  patrolling, and little attraction  to  the process for experienced users. We  need to  find a solution that does not reduce problems for one system  by increasing  them for another.


 * I've recently deleted several  hundred WP:G13 submissions and I  was staggered by  the sheer amount  of all  kinds of clearly  unsuitable pages. The 'draft' namespace, with  a checklist is clearly  the way  to  go, and could even be configured to  issue an automated acceptance or rejection  slip. Nevertheless, as the article Wizard has demonstrated, this in  no  way  prevents users from gaming  the system by  checking  the 'right' boxes, so human review will  always be necessary, and again, by  providing  some form  of checklist  for the reviewers - perhaps something  on  the lines of the page curation toolbar, but not  by  using  the actual  live feed which  you  have demonstrated above would not  be optimal.


 * Cullen and I, by coincidence, seem  to  be thinking  more or less on  the same lines, but where  I  share his ability  for conceptualising, I'm  also not  able  to  code a mockup  to  more clearly  demonstrate what  we mean. I  think  we came close to  it  in  Hong  Kong, but  we are now again  beck  to  the limitations of talk  page discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * On the point of "this in no way prevents users from gaming the system by checking the 'right' boxes, so human review will always be necessary"... I agree for things like notability and encyclopedic style. But there are some semi-automated checks we could put in place. For instance, the presence of a References list is not that difficult to detect. It just depends on what we want to be in the checklist. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   20:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * A great deal of this can be handled with creative AbuseFilter rules, actually. "If article includes BLP infobox and does not contain any references, then it fails," etc.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Brandon - I guess we're on  the right lines. However, as the community  appears to  prefer to be offered ready-made solutions at  RfC, is there any  chance we can get  a mock up  made to  offer them  on  an RfC for a draft  namespace? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Brandon's mostly focused on Flow as a project these days, so he may not have time to work on that. Also, typically before we do mockups, we ideally like to write out what the specified requirements for a project are (even if it's on a high level), so that the designer knows the rough bounds to work within. So if we're going to get serious about software support for this, next step on the WMF end is for me to write out a basic spec. I also want to be careful with producing mocks too quickly, because they get people understandably excited about a feature, and before we get to implementation we need to have a prioritization discussion on the E3 team (since we're the ones likely to handle this), to nail down scheduling against other projects and our current resources. Me and a few other people are doing a design work session for proposed E3 projects though, and I can talk to folks about producing mocks then. <span style="font-family:Georgia, serif;">Steven Walling (WMF) &bull; talk   03:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I fully  understand and concur with  your reasons for not  rushing  things. I will  also  reiterate that I  feel  this AfC reform  project  is as serious and as urgent  as the New Page Curation was.

Process overview: I find that  's process flow chart  an invaluable aid for illustrating  the overview of the current  process, although in  its present iteration it  does not  quite actually  reflect the current  process; I  also  feel  than a second version  demonstrating  the suggestions below would be helpful, and I've contacted Oren with  a view to making  this.

A basic spec: The project I would like to see proposed to  the Community concerns the creation  of a new AfC 'draft' namespace, that  was suggested by  the community. Based on this, its mainpage could/would contain  the submitted article, and its talk  page which  would contain  an interactive template  (which  I  believe was originally  suggested  by  Brandon  during  our discussion  with Erik Möller). This template could/would provide a dual function: The items on the submitter checklist would be linked to  functions, the main purpose of which  would be, depending  on  the tally: - to send an automated rejection to the submitter in  the case of the tally  of checked boxes not  amounting  to  a suitable article for publication (such as a blank submission, a copyvio, or words that  trip  an abuse filter  as Brandon  suggests, etc.). To this purpose, a further function  would be the embedding  of a  COPYVIO  bot such  as CorenBot with  a link  to  the Duplication  Detector.
 * a checklist for the submitter
 * a checklist for the reviewer

The items on the reviewer checklist  would be linked to  functions, the main  purpose of which  would be to  remove as far as possible any  subjective reviewing. These functions, depending on  the items checked, would be Note: a basic model  of how this could look could be taken from  the appearance and functions of the Page Curation Toolbar: (official video). Considering that  we are addressing  a similar number of reviewers/patrollers, perhaps with  even more resources available, such  a video  for AfC could also  be produced,
 * Send an appropriate message, from a catalog  of messages, to  the submitter's talk  page.
 * Send an 'accepted' or 'rejected' message to the submitter containing  links to  policies, guidelines, and editor assistance noticeboards/helpdesks, etc.
 * a freetext box for additional, short comments from the reviewer
 * a date time function that would automatically  list  the article in  the existing  category  of submissions abandoned for 180  or more. This would allow for manual  tagging  for CSD-G13 and further manual  review by  admins before actual  deletion.

For more discussion in  detail, perhaps a video  link-up  could be envisaged, as we have done in  the past.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)