MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages/Archive 5

7028: 3811: 6604: 6297: 5993: 5622: 4067: 3206: 2678: 31: 4674:. I consider proposing watchlist items first important as well. A watchlist notice is probably the most prominent place we have to advertise stuff to experienced editors, and there are always lots of discussions and RfCs that some editors consider extremely important. Asking for support first, and having a brief discussion about wording, helps to avoid controversies and keeps the notices focused. 6769: 6189: 6049: 5950: 4895: 4663: 3599: 3372: 5855: 4231: 3867: 3771: 3522: 2573: 2262: 1885: 1811: 1572: 1353: 1014: 543: 266: 195: 360: 4124: 6433:

to propose text for the message; neither he nor the WMF is crafting this message. Using the word "invited" would make it appear as if the WMF is personally sending this message to everyone's watchlist, so using that word would be inaccurate. I'm thinking of replacing "please be sure to" with "you are

5193:

You are invited to a Backstage Pass event at the Herbert Art Gallery and Museum, Coventry, on Saturday October 1. Join curators for a behind-the-scenes tour of the museum and its off-site stores, and help improve articles related to its collections. For more information and to sign up, please see the

1917:

Whilst it's very difficult to work out if the spike in UBLP reduction is due to this notice, or other influences, but not much else has changed in the past month other people going on holidays... and we have removed over 4400 UBLPs in the 25 days since Dec 4 (when I think the notice went live)... the

1500:

I'd support the original notice, but I don't think that a recurring notice is a good idea. People tend to disregard things like that once they become routine. That, and it's a bit of a slippery slope: there are lots of other projects and backlogs that would love to "advertise" like this, but we can't

1447:

Can we have propose that is a recurring banner, maybe for a week each month. Try it simple, as above first, then add a target value for a future run (ie under 15,000 by Jan 31 or similar), until we get the backlog under 1000 (it's just above 20,000 now). If anyone not heavily involved in the task to

610:

Who is pushing this test? Is it the policy institute project, or the community? If its the policy institute let them carry on on their own. if its something the community has come up with and they volunteered to run first, then keep it. the story itself hasn't generated a lot of encouraging feedback,

5566:

If this were to be a watchlist notice thing, the simplest phrasing without evoking any bias is "There is an RFC on whether to alter the lead of WP:V in regards to the phrase "verifiability, not truth"." You don't need to go into the specific actions being requested as that does lend some bias to an

4870:

There's nothing special about this page, especially when it comes to addressing the question about what ought to be a watchlist notice and what not, how many at one time, etc. You can start a discussion at a relevant Village Pump (or a separate RFC subpage of a village pump) and ideally work towards

4200:

This discussion has been unusually active already, with a lot of good discussion. But it's a significant change and we want to make sure that people are notified so if they want to weigh in they can. So the watchlist proposal is a good idea. And regardless of whether there's a consensus or just wide

3683:

seems very premature for a broad scale announcement. It is an ugly bucket of poo at that page. If we are to going to direct people to a discussion then it needs to have something like a cover page that puts some context and manages expectations, not that sort of page which is realistically only for

2381:

It used to be that banners were rare. The intrusions were tolerable and effort to dismiss the banners was low/infrequent. Unfortunately, the banner frequency has increased to the point where I sometimes get multiple banners on login. This is very frustrating, particularly if I'm on a slow connection

666:

The Public Policy Initiative is a Wikimedia Foundation project; the main thrust of it is to get experts and students involved with Knowledge through classroom assignments. The assessment testing is part of this (and also part of the broader Wikimedia strategy to develop better ways of measuring the

6988:

My gut tells me adding this would be taken negatively by non-USian editors who already dislike watchlist notices. If the Foundation itself is taking the interest in the SOPA aspect, then they can likely draw attention via the space they have already (I forget which special page that is, but its the

6725:

Hi Fastily. While I would like to wait a bit until next week's Signpost and/or till the RfC falls off WP:CENT, to avoid monopolizing advertising channels and to give more time to respond to opinions as they come in, if you really think now is the best time to advertise and others agree that's fine.

4691:

The first two were too many at once, and also too similar. Adding a third without removing the others is way too much. A few years ago there were three or four notices, and I asked for an admin to add another notice asking whether there were too many notices. I was kinda joking, but a nice admin

4303:

For the Watchlist page, for every entry in the watch list (article/talkpage/forumpage entry line in the watchlist) I would like to have an optional, kind of clock available; next to each entry that I can manually click(the clock or some button/link/picture etc) to make a toggle entry (invisible for

671:

story has generated a little bit of constructive criticism, and there's much more at the assessment discussion page where people have been discussing the assessment testing after starting to try it out. I would actually say the feedback has been fairly encouraging, given that quality assessment is

4481:

Sorry to be procedural here, but sending emails not requested is a very annoying thing to many people. The "A few ops people were sitting together, we couldn't think of any reason why it wasn't enabled yet, so we just did it on the spot." is a bit too fast and should reflect consensus. My proposal

2060:

I don't think we need to usurp the geotargeted watchlist notices. I do think we really need a notice that shows up regardless of geography though, since there are online-only activities that are being organized and because there are a significant amount of English editors outside the obvious areas

675:

In any case, it looks like we've attracted close to the number of assessors that the project's research analyst Amy Roth is looking for. We'd only like the notice to remain up through Friday. Of course, if it's widely considered not useful and not worth using a watchlist notice for, go ahead and

4738:

While I can certainly agree with the sentiment I think an important thing to remember is trying to find good ways to get notices out that are minimally invasive. Watchlist notices are great for that. They're short text messages that are easily (and individually) dismissible. Much better then site

3905:

I removed the notice because the poll has had plenty of input and we do not generally run watchlist notices for long periods of time. Furthermore it seemed (at the time) that further input would not change the balance of consensus which has remained fairly constant throughout the RfC. There is no

2385:

In preferences there is an option 'Suppress display of the fundraiser banner'. I'd like an additional option to 'Suppress all banners'. Alternatively, there could be a suppress option for each type of banner. As long as I can cut down on unsolicited messages, I don't mind. What's the process for

325:

Whatever people want to do is fine to me. I'll be honest however, I don't consider it a copyvio at all. I came up with it on my own accord and your text wasn't even on that page when I did so (looking at the history it was changed on the 13th) so I have no idea how I would have been expected to

5437:

The RfC opened on October 5, and is therefore likely to close in a few days, but it was not widely advertised. As this is a significant change to a core content policy, we need broad notification and input. Could someone add a note about it to the watchlists for a few days, or until the RfC is

4133: 731:

I agree with Xeno. Editors' attention is one of the most valuable resources of Knowledge, and it's not a good idea to waste it. This project is probably worth a watchlist notice such as the one we have now, but it's still a borderline case and is certainly not worth a project notice that makes

4837:

Well, at least the other two were removed. The notice wasn't left up long enough, but last time a ton of people came here and said they don't like them. We probably would have gotten the same result again. Maybe it's best that no one knows about this page, and where they should take their

1080:

It would be sensible if the same users who are being invited to participate in the elections are invited to participate on how they would like the election run this year. I don't think there is a shortage in the times we hear the question 'who decides how the elections are run' and then the

4177:

If as you say this proposal actually has a chance of gaining consensus, I agree that we need to publicize this with our most effective mechanism before implementation. Otherwise, with a change of that magnitude, many people would be certain to complain that they did not know about this.

5062:

template and people are going there in good faith to get help and their requests are not being quickly addressed, leaving them in limbo. If this notice is rejected, would it be inappropriate to make this request at the Village Pump and, if so, in what subsection? Regards,

799:??? Of course they do, that's the problem. We are all shown a watchlist notice that obviously doesn't apply to us. That's OK, but it wasn't OK when the watchlist notice pretended that it was of global interest and so wasted the time of editors who thought they might help. 3701:

I agree that we should not be dropping people into messy discussions. Anything advertised here should be well structured and introduced for those not familiar with the issues. This particular discussion doesn't do such a bad job actually. The bolded link takes you to

859:

It's that time of year again - our annual dose of politics and shenanigans comes to us in the form of the 2010 Arbcom elections. We typically post a watchlist notice for the election, and so (as per precedent) I'd like to confirm consensus for the following notices:

1697:

Well, if it could be incorporated better, I think it would be nice to have it, to show people that finding an unreferenced BLP isn't as hard as they thought. In addition, far more people are likely to go to it from their watchlist that would otherwise not travel to

1918:

previous 4400 took almost two months to do! Thank you to everyone for your assistance in this. It's been amazingly successful, much more than I ever would have hoped for - my original "stretch target" of 15,000 by Jan 31 will probably be done a whole month early!

2542:

Yeah... I want to make sure as many people come see it (Even if you're not interested in volunteering, joining the discussion/sharing experiences etc hmm. Part of me wants to get in the fact that it's a Foundation study but I can't find a great way to put it.

4593:

If it helps, the way I found out about those RfCs was because of the brief time they were mentioned in the message atop my watchlist. Though both RfCs have gotten a lot of participation already, I would have no issues with mentioning them again on watchlists.

2962:, which will need a head start of IIRC 30 days so that it's updated in all browser caches before the structure can be changed here. Switching the import in common.js to the resource loader may speed that up, I haven't looked into the implementation though. 1284:

The fundraising announcement should be removed. The people running it have no interest in "collaboration". The community proposed hundreds of banners, and all of them were ignored. We shouldn't encourage editors to waste any more time on this ruse.

4871:

some proposals. There are a number there in the archive discussion you point to. And then maybe there needs to be a policy page for sitenotices, watchlistnotices etc, so that existing practice and any new consensus is actually written down somewhere.

6649:

Simply because I decided that 2 weeks would be sufficient coverage on the high-profile watchlist notice. Generally we only put things up for a week or two to avoid the potential for "notice blindness" caused by excessive use of the notice. — Martin

142:

If the DIV tags are placed on the same line as the message, then the button will also appear on the same line rather than in its own paragraph. It makes more sense to have it on the same line as the message that it is used to dismiss. To do this,

2461:

I'd really like to put a notice up for the wiki guide study we're trying to start (both getting some direct data on how/why new editors start/stop editing (or don't) and how direct outreach can help that). Below is probably what I'm thinking of:

2221:

We haven't been able to recruit enough ambassadors for the coming semester based on more local recruitment efforts (individual invitations, messages on discussion pages, etc.). We're still hoping for at least about 65 more. For background, see

1525:

I agree. This case is a little exceptional considering how much strife and controversy this backlog causes. Since everyone seems positive on the idea, and no one has objected, I'm going to go ahead and mark this with an editprotected request.

2636: 2618: 1304:

It seems like there hasn't been much activity on the meta fundraiser banner/message proposal pages lately, and many good messages that haven't been tested yet even as the fundraiser is nearing its end. Maybe it's time to remove the notice for

6746:

I'm going on a long trip tomorrow, so will not be able to be too responsive during this period, but nevertheless would not mind wider advertising at this point as the proposal, rationales, responses to objections are fairly well-developed.

6548:

from being a suggestion that was up for discussion into being a certainty. Due to the significance of this agreement, I feel that including a mention of the deadline within the message is absolutely necessary. How about the following?

4034:

Yes I think "closing in for the kill" is a little too informal and may generate some complaints! How about just saying the task is n% complete? And I can make it change dynamically so you can see the percentage coming down. — Martin

732:

hundreds or thousands of editors from Europe and elsewhere waste their time finding out that they are supposed to assess articles on US interior politics for completeness, sourcing and neutrality. This simply doesn't make any sense.

5162: 5146: 2769:

How about updating this to "The Great Backlog Drive is underway – help clear Knowledge's backlogs for the chance to win Wikimedia goodies!" It's been up for a while so the timing is out of date. Or perhaps remove it as old news?

4758:

If there are other notices that are being crowded out, it might be OK to remove one or both of the notices related to bureaucrats removing the admin flag. Those RfCs are now three weeks in and have well over 300 comments each.

3043:

If RL was completely broken, you'd be reading plaintext. It was indeed broken for Gadgets, in the sense that the caching in the Gadgets extension wasn't playing nicely with the caching in RL; but that is AFAIK all fixed now.

672:

not one of the topics that really riles us up (unlike, say, pending changes). Part of the reason we wanted to use a watchlist notice is because less high-profile methods hadn't attracted enough people to make the tests works.

225:

Would people have a problem if we posted a short notice on watchlists looking for help with the fundraising campaign this year. Most specifically a comment directing them to the Messages page for comments and new proposals.

6335:

might end by December 31, 2011. Since this new document will affect every Wikimedia user, I believe that all users using their watchlists need to know about the these discussions and that their time to comment is limited.

904:

These notices match the notices posted for the elections of 2007, 2008, and 2009. Note that the securepoll link will be updated to whatever we use for this election; the nowiki'd link in the above example is last year's.

4307:

This I can use to identify when did I saw the entry, and may be some information on by whom and how many edits are done after that moment so that inspecting Watchlist becomes more clear and quicker to me and perhaps many

4153:: This issue has been suprisingly controversial, and I think merits wider attention. The implications are very wide-ranging, and consensus needs to be equally wide-ranging if this is to move forward (or conversely, die). 3100:, and offers no way to load arbitrary scripts via ResourceLoader. We can still profit from Commons.js being loaded through the ResourceLoader by incrementing a version parameter, but can't use it directly at the moment. 3727:

a discussion but a questionnaire for users to fill out. I always seem to stumble over how to phrase these type of things, if someone could update the notice to reflect the new phase it would be very much appreciated.

3848:

without any discussion to be replaced, the RFC is still open and since removal of the notice comments have severely fallen off, the RFC is yet to be closed and may as well remain open for the usual 30 days, thanks.

4961:

I'm very hesitant about any change that would make the effective "home page" for many users more wordy. If anyone is thinking of implementing this, I'd recommend allowing at least a few weeks for discussion first.

5109: 2428: 2401: 1042: 874: 6796:

As adding banners and a possible black out of Knowledge would not only affect every editor, but also everybody viewing Knowledge, I think it would be wise to inform as many users as possible about this RfC.

760:

I have no problem leaving it up even longer than that, if warranted. Perhaps it could be reworded (again) to reflect its US-centric interest. Or maybe just a very wide geonotice would allay those concerns?

5759:

No, the template for 107 is still closed. The diff algorithm makes it appear the }} after 107 was removed, but it's equivalent to removing the }} after 108. What's the actual problem people are observing?

340:

If some text is minimalist enough, then it's not a copy vio. Not sure it applies here, though. After that, if you didn't know about it, I think only a US judge could decide if it's a copy vio or not. -

3463: 3410: 1756: 585: 148:• An ] is about to commence a ] affecting approximately ten thousand articles in order to resolve wide-scale copyright infringement issue. For further information or to discuss, see ''']'''. </div: --> 4482:

would be to enable it, but to block it by default (at least for non-anticipating existing users who are not looking at their settings anymore). If this is the wrong venue to suggest, please let me know.

157:• An ] is about to commence a ] affecting approximately ten thousand articles in order to resolve wide-scale copyright infringement issue. For further information or to discuss, see ''']'''.</div: --> 4612:, I assume. Question always is which topics should be brought to the attention of all active, experienced users, not just those who want to involve themselves by watching the various noticeboards/pumps/ 3560:

protection has entered a second phase and users are asked to endorse position statements." Or something maybe a bit less clunky that still emphasizes that the previous free-for-all has been curtailed.

2340:

As Jujutacular pointed out to me, it's getting crowded. This one has probably done most of the good it will; it'd be fine to take it down. Thanks for leaving it up so long! I really appreciate it.--

2022:

Any objections to 10th anniversary organizing message? We've got less than 30 days to go, and there's lots being done and more yet to do. My idea is as follows, but revisions are definitely welcome...

2438:

I appreciate you are trying to publicise this committee a bit more, but I'm not sure this affects the average editor enough to warrant the notice here. No strong feelings either way though. — Martin

3575:

I'd like to endorse this most recent request. I think that most users do not realize that this is actually now a new discussion. Perhaps a more succinct wording would be "Join the second phase of a

5671:

Whether it is a big deal or not, I think it can certainly be argued that there has been enough participation in the discussion now so that consensus (or lack of) can be accurately judged. — Martin

4023:

Honestly, I don't like that wording precisely, but I like the idea of trying to convey that we're running the last mile or two of this marathon in some manner. Suggestions/improvements welcome! --

4007:

That would be quite helpful. If I could , might I suggest a slight reword both for variety and to take note of the fact that we've broken 10,000, e.g., we really are, or would like to be, e.g., :

4724:

or whatever you feel is appropriate linked to this discussion (or a new section), I think we would find there is a consensus to have less notices. The notice can be quickly removed either way. -

6267:

Seeing no objections, I am adding an edit request as I think it would be unfair to the community to make such a major change to the ArbCom elections with the limited response we've had so far. -

6228: 6217: 2846:

I just tested it out and it only added about one more pixel of space between items. Barely noticeable. Note that in my testing I threw out the divs and added the classes to the li's. The code in

3746: 3703: 3576: 3553: 3485: 513:

The above watchlist notice is severely misleading and is probably wasting the time of editors outside the US and editors in the US who are not interested in assessing public policy articles.

5104:

Don't know if this is worthy of a watchlist notice, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. There is an RfC to determine what the percentage should be for successful RfBs. Here's a suggestion.

326:

credit you (I could not even have done a google search and seen you came up with it). To be totally honest I think a credit is a bit disingenuous, this version of the text wasn't yours. :/

6452:

You could use "encouraged", but there's nothing wrong with "invited"—you (or the admin who posts the notice or whoever) are extending an invitation on behalf of the community and the WMF.

443:

I would support this. I just removed the CCI notice and we can probably remove the pending changes notice as well, so we should have the space now. Any objections to adding Sage's notice?

4983:

I think that in comparison not that many people actually use the edit link for that. We might better add an 'edit' tab with Javascript. The page already has plenty of JS loaded anyways. —

2877:

I've disabled the request as it seems to be controversial and/or require further discussion or changes elsewhere. Please reactivate when you've worked out the best approach. — Martin

892: 868: 2818:(an unordered HTML list) rather than •s. It might be possible to use wikisyntax (* foo) in this message, even. There's no reason it should be using fake bullets, though. -- 1128:

No doubt, EnWiki users will want to be made aware of this poll too, since we use Commons to host most images in our articles. Could someone add it to EnWiki's watchlist-details? --

4425:

Yes, I know they were enabled. I had previously set mine to disabled, and somebody change them at Mediawiki level back to enabled. Please do not interfere with editors' settings.

258: 2833:

Changing to an unordered HTML list seemed to create extraneous space between the items, while normal wikisyntax didn't work at all. At least that's from looking at the preview.

1148: 1117: 4856:

It's pretty long, which is what happens when people can actually find this page. People have a lot of ideas about how to use the watchlist if they know they can control it. -

2223: 637:

couldn't be used to advertise this? Every time a watchlist notice of very limited interest is implemented increases the chances that folks will simply hide watchlist notices

1320:

I agree, as my section above notes. I'm extremely disappointed in WMF and the fundraising people for soliciting so much community input and then using nearly none of it.

4439:

Yes, let's make this notification; I wasn't aware until I saw this page pop up on my watchlist. I'm sure others would like to know before they get their inboxes spammed.

6238:

This RfC is supposed to wrap up before the elections start and I think it would help to get some more input from the community in the short time we have left. Thanks. -

5473:

Just to clarify here, per my note on your talk page, I changed the description to this, so the proposal is clearer, along with links so people can judge for themselves:

3745:

The next phase is now up, albeit quite a bit different from the last attempt that remains under discussion for the future. I suggest adding: Join the third phase of a

2427:

is underway. Applications will be accepted until March 7, and community input on applicants will be solicited starting March 14. If you are interested, please see the

1751: 1606: 971:

I've loaded up the messages so they should automatically appear at the correct times. The syntax should be clear enough in case the times need tweaking, etc. — Martin

6681:

Granted that this proposal could have long lasting impacts on the project, I would like to propose that it be advertised to a larger audience via watchlist notice. -

5824:

admins who volunteered to close it will not be doing so until the 10th. Further notification may be useful, to enliven 5 days of bickering with some fresh thoughts.

4824:, and I've removed it. It's not like there's a concrete proposal or even a well-structured discussion. Start something at a Village Pump, and if that goes somewhere, 5116:

I'll leave it up to others as to whether or not to put this up and for how long. The specific wording can be completely rewritten as far as I'm concerned. Thanks. -

1980:

and the increase during the time the watchlist notice was in effect is quite dramatic! Definitely might need another run in a few months to try to finish them off.

5169:

onto the watchlist notices. This is very important that as much of the community be involved so that we have a better idea of how the election is going to be run. –

4127:

that that RFC be publicised via watchlist. Given the significance of the change, and the balance of opinion in favour at the moment, that seems sensible. I suggest

4384:

Now that we are getting email notifications of user talk page changes there has been a couple of instances of confusion (as it is on by default). Suggest adding:

4497:

I'm just the messenger :) you need to raise it with the relevant ops people (I'm not even sure where the best place to do that is tbh... perhaps foundation-l) --

1192:

Since Commons is sitewide, let's not restrict this to just enwiki. Perhaps it would gain more prominence in their designated zones, like on CommonsTicker or the

6426:

The problem with using "invited" is who's doing the inviting. The users participating in this thread doing the inviting, not the WMF. Steven Walling of the WMF

3166: 3073:

needs to be exchanged with the respective ResourceLoader call first, otherwise it's still loaded via wikibits. That is probably as simple as replacing it with

2992:

The era of 30-day decaching time is over with the introduction of ResourceLoader; now script- and style-changes are pushed within ten minutes to all readers.

569:

Why are we giving watchlist notice space to one specific project? Is there any anticipated encyclopedia wide benefit from this? If not, I don't see the need.--

4054:

Works for me... the best "first number" I have at hand is 52,760 on 4 January 2010. Depending on which counter you use, we're in the 8900-9000 range now. --

4015:

and help with the ] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people. With 50,000 articles done, and fewer than 10,000 left, we're closing in on the kill.

414:

I realize the watchlist notice is a little crowded right now; however, I anticipate that we would get all volunteers we need in a fairly short time period.--

97: 5254:

en.wiki was updated to MediaWiki 1.18 in the last 12 hrs. It's not without a few bugs. I suggest a watchlist notice to affirm this and to point people to

4692:

did add it, and that notice garnered more participation than any other I've seen. Everyone wanted the notice bloat reduced. I think we're there again. -

4218:

bringing this to the attention of a wider audience. I hope something like this proposal will be adopted, but any consensus will need to be broad-based. --

254: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 4853: 1680:

Hmm, doesn't really add much to what's there, and disrupts the flow of the sentence. The big red button on the link takes you there anyway ... — Martin

5916:

Can we set up the Arbcom election notices? This is based on the code that was used last year (with updated dates/links/switched to display template):

2502:

This isn't a huge rewrite.. (well it's very little I added another link to basically the same wording). Any thoughts on a better way to get it there?

2470:

to try directly reaching out to new editors. Find out more about the study, volunteer and/or share your own new user experience at the the Wiki Guide

2146:

lists more meetings in the next weeks and months, the anniversary and most meetings were this weekend, which will end in all timezones this UTC noon.

6610:. I wasn't sure whether the expiry date was important enough to mention. I corrected the subject-verb agreement as well. Hope this is okay. — Martin 3792:

I suggest removing this now. The latest poll has been running for more than a week, has had plenty of input, and the consensus seems clear. — Martin

2289:

Can this be put back up? It was working pretty well, but going much slower than I expected. We still needs a lot more Online Ambassadors. Thanks!--

1429:

Looks great, well done. Have you thought of creating a banner that editors can display on their user and user talk pages to advertise the project? --

5498:." The proposal is to remove the phrase "not truth" from the lead, and move that phrase into a separate section, along with some other changes. See 5007:

I've disabled the request now, as it doesn't seem like there's consensus. To me, both the existing and the proposed text don't seem to be following

111: 2551:

study looking at the effect of directly reaching out to new editors. Come learn more, volunteer or just share your own new user experience on the

2395: 5921:|1-2 = {{Display/watchlist |until = 22 November |cookie=### |text=Candidates for the ] are invited to ''']'''.}} |2-3 =  7012:

is the appropriate venue for people already interested in discussions, while if the Foundation wishes it to be seen, it can do a centralnotice.

5977:

Could someone review and implement the above? We need to have it in place by 00:00 UTC (five and a half hours from the time of typing). Cheers,

250: 5922:|3-4 = {{Display/watchlist |until = 11 December |cookie=### |text= ''']''' is now open to ] new members of the ].}} | 408:

and I would like to run a notice for a short time to recruit people for Amy's article quality assessment experiments. We'd like to run this:

3029:

You mean the problem with pop-ups and what not? That's fixed now, was only for the gadgets in the first place anyway, as far as I'm aware. -

405: 4938:

Would help reduce confusion, I took a long time to find that edit link at first and I'm sure lots of users would have the same problem. —

2765:"The Great Backlog Drive has just begun – help clear Knowledge's backlogs for the next six weeks for the chance to win Wikimedia goodies!" 6578: 6521: 6410: 6345: 1997:

It did really help, wow! And yeah, another run in a few months might help us polish this off, thanks to everyone who worked on this! --

411:

A team is forming to test Knowledge's article assessments, as part of the Public Policy Initiative. Interested article reviewers can ].

4806: 4707:

If somebody started a new community discussion about overuse of the watchlist notice, I would happily add it to the watchlist notice. –

4508:

Ok, I'll try; would be my first experience with "ops-people" and am actually quite interested in the decision making structure there...

4201:

support for the change.. we should proceed with caution and make sure we analyze the actual impact before making any permanent changes.

3416:

I've proposed a full-on sitenotice pointing to this but so far it is not looking too likely and I've been told this is a better option.

5920:{{#switch:{{interval|n={{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}|12 November|22 November|27 November|11 December|format=time}} |0-1 =  6870: 6802: 6675: 5043: 4523: 4377: 4348: 4331: 4277: 2193: 962: 914: 6328: 6967: 6850: 6826: 6280: 6251: 5129: 4451: 4257:

Hi, any idea how can I put a suggestion for /Watchlist page? A link to a page where I can put the question will be the best. Thanks.

4165: 3962: 3192: 2942: 2907: 2100: 1796: 1513: 1239: 936: 773: 47: 17: 3706:

which has several explanatory sections at the top including "Explanation of format", "Purpose" and "General information". — Martin

5360: 1970: 6121: 5452:

I note that this suggestion has been standing for a day now. Is there any opposition to adding a notice to this effect? — Martin

2851: 2847: 1238:

A reasonable idea, but I would only be able to do half the job (removing it from here). Therefore I suggest you try contacting a

676:

remove it now. But I hope people will see the value in the project even if they aren't interested in participating themselves.--

4646:

Since the two items were already up for a while, with the cookie-IDs as they were, I'd rather not make a structural change now.

811:

When you separated the terms watchlist notice and project wide notice I thought you might be referencing two different things.--

5434:." The proposer of the RfC was to remove the "not truth" portion, and move it lower down in the policy to remove the emphasis. 4947: 3245: 3240: 2345: 2331: 2294: 2250: 2235: 1310: 896: 681: 490: 434: 419: 5310:

discussion should be discussed? Maybe better to rephrase to: Discussion should take place ? or Changes should be discussed...

5596: 5547: 5084:

I don't think this is appropriate as a watchlist notice—it's not significant enough. Sure, you can ask at the Village Pump.

3621:

Thank you. I should warn you there is already talk of further phases. This is a big issue and will not be resolved easily.

1259:

Well, since Meta is now using the CentralNotice to add the fund-raising banners, I'm actually not certain that would work.

952:

Thanks. Note also that the entirely incorrect dates I inserted above would, of course, be corrected to the proper ones per

4613: 4609: 5535:

The first sentence still needs tweaking, IMO, as most of what it says the proposal would remove would actually remain. --

6948: 5486: 5422: 5197:

Join us at the Edinburgh Wikimeet on 1 October to discuss the new Scotland coordinator position and our GLAM programme.

2143: 1951:

I've removed it as it has been up for quite a long time now. We could perhaps run it again later in the year? — Martin

645:, reducing the value of this interface note for information that legitimately need to be communicated to all editors. – 6880:

Since this would be aimed at people who are not already keenly involved with WP current affairs, more info is better.

6077: 5158: 5057: 4996: 4972: 1174: 601: 476: 667:

quality of our articles), so that we can measure whether or not the program is measurably improving articles. That

5662: 5377: 4861: 4843: 4779: 4729: 4697: 2552: 2341: 2327: 2290: 2246: 2231: 1868: 1306: 677: 486: 430: 415: 346: 38: 3552:

As of today this discussion has been reset to more structured format. Could we get an update? Something like "The

1630:

Perhaps you could suggest the exact wording that you think would work. Thought you were an admin anyway. — Martin

6923: 6628: 6585: 6545: 5870: 5843: 5749: 3906:

reason for the notice to stay for as long as the RfC is open, so I propose to remove this notice again. — Martin

3750: 6931: 6640: 6593: 6574: 6533: 6476: 6443: 6416:

I'd personally swap "Please be sure" with "Editors are invited", but agree with the basic message either way. —

6406: 6341: 5072: 4599: 3431:

Is anybody home here? Can I just do this? Will I be yelled at by a million people if I screw it up? Lil' help?

3093: 1772: 1710: 1668: 1617: 1099: 451: 280: 2072:

Suppose there can't be too many notices about this :) It would be good to make sure everyone sees a notice. --

6492:

Please don't use "WMF" (ever, really, but particularly not in messages of this nature). Something like this:

584:

They are testing tools that are under consideration for wider deployment in the Wikimedia websites. See also

6775: 6195: 6055: 5956: 5883: 5810: 5780: 5719: 5491: 5427: 5389:

I've added a blank template for the next notice which includes the cookie number. Happy with this? — Martin

4901: 4219: 4206: 4125:

Wikipedia_talk:Village_pump_(proposals)/Proposal_to_require_autoconfirmed_status_in_order_to_create_articles

2041: 1837: 4788:

Added a notice about notice overload, since there have been no objections. Also removed bureaucrat RfCs. –

4633:

I would prefer it to be combined into one message, but certainly seems important enough to include here. —

4304:

not clicked/visible colored with a picture or a link with information on the moment of the click on watch).

3383:

Martin's version. His wording sounded less like an inadvertent ad, IMHO, but feel of course free to tweak.

187: 125: 6631:

for the benefit of unregistered contributors. I'm not an expert on these messages, but why is the message

6367: 4581: 4327: 4273: 3758: 3690: 2314: 1600: 1380: 1107: 996: 640: 508: 399: 372: 294: 179: 133: 6954:

to the RfC, which should have the same effect. I'll add an edit request since there are no objections. -

6471:

I don't believe that we have the right to speak on the WMF's behalf, but I like the word "encouraged." --

6963: 6846: 6822: 6461: 6393: 6276: 6247: 5658: 5125: 4857: 4839: 4801: 4775: 4725: 4693: 4449: 4202: 4163: 3960: 3249:

for encouraging new users and improving new articles is currently underway. Sign up and get involved!".

3190: 3051: 3002: 2940: 2905: 2774: 2548: 2520: 2471: 2467: 2098: 1794: 1587: 1511: 1218: 1197: 1133: 1086: 1049: 934: 771: 342: 7041: 7021: 7001: 6977: 6935: 6917: 6908: 6895: 6860: 6751: 6741: 6730: 6718: 6708: 6694: 6662: 6644: 6622: 6597: 6537: 6480: 6466: 6447: 6421: 6373: 6356: 6315: 6290: 6261: 6167: 6146: 6124: 6111: 6101: 6034: 6020: 6011: 5985: 5940: 5888: 5872: 5847: 5833: 5815: 5799: 5785: 5769: 5753: 5724: 5683: 5666: 5640: 5615: 5602: 5579: 5553: 5528: 5464: 5446: 5401: 5384: 5353: 5336: 5319: 5304: 5286: 5270: 5241: 5231: 5209: 5173: 5139: 5093: 5078: 5015: 5000: 4978: 4955: 4875: 4865: 4847: 4832: 4810: 4792: 4783: 4768: 4748: 4733: 4711: 4701: 4680: 4652: 4641: 4626: 4603: 4586: 4569: 4530: 4517: 4503: 4491: 4469: 4458: 4434: 4420: 4402: 4359: 4298: 4247: 4222: 4210: 4193: 4184: 4172: 4144: 4096: 4085: 4060: 4047: 4029: 4002: 3985: 3969: 3944: 3918: 3897: 3883: 3858: 3829: 3804: 3787: 3762: 3737: 3718: 3695: 3644: 3630: 3616: 3592: 3569: 3536: 3514: 3500: 3475: 3453: 3440: 3425: 3403: 3389: 3348: 3328: 3315: 3300: 3269: 3258: 3224: 3199: 3160: 3142: 3106: 3083: 3056: 3038: 3024: 3007: 2987: 2970: 2949: 2925: 2914: 2889: 2867: 2854: 2841: 2827: 2796: 2778: 2745: 2729: 2712: 2696: 2671: 2654: 2604: 2587: 2564: 2536: 2507: 2497: 2483: 2450: 2417: 2358: 2349: 2335: 2321: 2298: 2276: 2254: 2239: 2205: 2177: 2168: 2152: 2127: 2116: 2107: 2083: 2067: 2055: 2034: 2009: 1989: 1963: 1945: 1927: 1904: 1876: 1830: 1803: 1779: 1734: 1717: 1692: 1675: 1642: 1624: 1592: 1554: 1535: 1520: 1491: 1461: 1442: 1424: 1404: 1367: 1345: 1329: 1314: 1294: 1263: 1254: 1233: 1212: 1193: 1187: 1178: 1137: 1090: 1075: 1053: 1032: 983: 966: 943: 918: 846: 820: 806: 794: 780: 739: 712: 685: 655: 620: 605: 578: 563: 534: 524:

The ] is testing a new ] on pages under the project's scope. Interested article reviewers can ''']'''.

494: 480: 458: 438: 423: 381: 350: 335: 320: 287: 243: 212: 5201:... but I was nonetheless hoping that someone here would be able to point me in the right direction? 2196:

to introduce some kind of an opt-out article collaboration notice to the watchlist to attract users. —

6714: 6417: 6352: 5865: 5839: 5829: 5745: 5237: 5205: 4319: 4265: 4094: 4058: 4027: 3893: 3854: 3733: 3655:

An announcement for second phase discussions Watchlist seems premature, or not the right landing page

3640: 3626: 3588: 3565: 3510: 3471: 3436: 3421: 3265: 3129: 3124: 2560: 2503: 2479: 2391: 2382:

on a small device with limited time. I don't want to work so hard to get rid of stuff I don't want.

2006: 1551: 1449: 1421: 1027: 803: 800: 736: 733: 531: 528: 331: 327: 239: 235: 232:

Help shape the 2010 Wikimedia Fundraiser! Propose new messages and comment on existing options on ].

3810: 1228: 1207: 6927: 6636: 6589: 6570: 6529: 6517: 6472: 6439: 6402: 6337: 6027: 5978: 5216: 5064: 5008: 4943: 4744: 4595: 4243: 3879: 3783: 3254: 3070: 3034: 2823: 1765: 1703: 1661: 1610: 1081:

subsequent 'really? i didn't know that this discussion was even happening...i guess i'm too late'.

1003: 444: 273: 173: 3974:

What time period do you think is reasonable? The first was so effective would like another swing.

6701: 6094: 6017: 5933: 5878: 5838:

Please extend ~ more days, whenever the closing admins close, can't they autoclose this as well?

5805: 5795: 5775: 5765: 5714: 5591: 5542: 5170: 4854:

MediaWiki_talk:Watchlist-details/Archive_2#I_think_four_notifications_at_one_time_is_one_too_many

4675: 4647: 4621: 4179: 3611: 3384: 3138: 3101: 3078: 2982: 2965: 2920: 2741: 2708: 2667: 2660:

Since there are no objections, would really appreciate if this could go up today. Many thanks! –

2650: 2354:

Okay, removed message 89. Can always go back up when you're looking for folks for next semester

2164: 2157:

If not, someone needs to change it to "was on January 15", instead of the current "yesterday". –

2147: 1985: 1977: 1923: 1472: 1457: 1436: 6603: 6296: 5992: 5621: 4951: 4066: 3205: 2677: 2025:

Knowledge's 10th anniversary is less than a month away. Visit ] to help plan the celebrations.

1153: 1121: 6387: 6363: 6232: 6142: 5909: 5166: 5150: 4576: 4430: 4323: 4269: 3754: 3685: 2625: 2305: 2215:

I'd like to run a notice for recruiting Knowledge Online Ambassadors for about a week or two:

2201: 2123: 2063: 2030: 957: 953: 909: 853: 816: 790: 616: 574: 121: 5190:

4739:

notices and MUCH better then Central Notices which have certainly been creeping in too much.

7038: 7017: 6957: 6840: 6816: 6561: 6504: 6453: 6270: 6241: 5119: 5089: 5012: 4764: 4441: 4353: 4155: 3952: 3530: 3494: 3481: 3447: 3309: 3182: 3045: 2996: 2932: 2897: 2861: 2835: 2771: 2581: 2530: 2491: 2270: 2090: 1786: 1579: 1503: 1341: 1129: 1082: 1045: 926: 763: 6713:

I think Dcoetzee speaks a lot of sense on that talk page, and fully endorse what he says. —

5187:

You are invited to the Cambridge Wikimedia meetup, Saturday 8th October from 15:00 onwards.

4389: 4347:

I'm not sure I understand your idea exactly, but the place to propose it would probably be

6997: 6902: 6881: 6435: 6164: 6108: 5825: 5608: 5575: 5521: 5439: 5349: 5315: 5300: 5266: 4992: 4968: 4635: 4513: 4487: 4091: 4055: 4024: 3889: 3850: 3729: 3636: 3622: 3584: 3561: 3506: 3467: 3432: 3417: 3396: 3362: 3357: 3321: 3293: 3286: 3281: 2387: 2355: 2113: 1999: 1699: 1654:• ''']''' to reduce the backlog of unsourced biographies of living people ().</div: --> 1544: 1448:

date thinks that the target link page isn't clear enough, then please give us feedback at

1414: 1389: 1260: 1223: 1202: 1184: 1170: 1021: 597: 472: 6303:, but I realise it will probably be closed shortly anyway. Sorry for the delay. — Martin 5042:

This might be a little iffy since some people might consider that board to still be in a

2617:

Hi, I'm wondering if it's possible to put up a very short notice for the March copy edit

2954:

Ah. Well, as said above, the dismiss-script needs to be adapted first to work with both

1059:

The elections need to be mentioned here for sure. But I'm not sure whether a discussion

112:

Knowledge:Administrators' noticeboard § Mass blanking of ten thousand articles by a 'bot

7009: 6874: 6806: 6657: 6617: 6513: 6310: 6221: 6006: 5678: 5635: 5459: 5396: 5371: 5331: 5284: 5226: 4939: 4740: 4617: 4415: 4293: 4239: 4080: 4042: 3997: 3980: 3939: 3913: 3875: 3824: 3799: 3779: 3713: 3668: 3343: 3250: 3219: 3155: 3030: 3019: 2884: 2819: 2791: 2724: 2691: 2599: 2445: 2424: 2415: 2174: 2078: 2050: 2044:) posted for NYC and DC. Would this be instead of or in addition to the geonotices? -- 1958: 1940: 1899: 1862: 1825: 1729: 1687: 1637: 1531: 1486: 1400: 1325: 1290: 1249: 1217:

How about removing this and placing it on the Meta CentralNotice Admins' page instead?

1070: 978: 710: 653: 558: 379: 210: 163: 611:

so it doesn't seem to be something the community as a whole is really interested in.--

6914: 6748: 6738: 6727: 6705: 6332: 6089: 5928: 5791: 5761: 5586: 5537: 5255: 5035: 4553: 4527: 3134: 2809: 2736: 2703: 2662: 2645: 2639:

has begun! Help reduce the backlog of 4,654 articles and get rewarded with barnstars.

2159: 1981: 1919: 1453: 1431: 631: 514: 485:

Thanks! I'll keep an eye on it and remove the notice when it's served its purpose.--

6944:. I too would like the workshop added, but I could see others objecting. I'll add a 6163:

My sincere apologies. I spotted the broken link, but Kaldari beat me to the fix. —

5183:

I don't think that the following type of notices fall under the remit of this page:

4828:

maybe a watchlist notice. Currently, it's not even half-arsed, it's maybe 5%-arsed.

6989:

same where their funding requests and other project-wise news would be located). --

6683: 6361:

Agreed that there should be something. Please propose text for the message though.

6138: 5051: 5031: 4558: 4499: 4465: 4426: 4398: 3580: 3557: 3489: 3459: 2964:

But in general I think everyone agrees that a proper list is certainly preferable.

2197: 1848:

Although the link is to an external tool, it leads back to a random article, which

812: 786: 612: 570: 117: 6555: 6498: 5362:, please; it's useful to remind editors of this page what cookies have been used. 4189:

Right now the Jayron32 supporting view has 47 supports, the DGG opposing view 14.

2489:

I would suggest rewording so that the link is closer to the front of the notice.

429:

Any thoughts on this? Amy is anxious to get her assessment team filled up soon.--

7035: 7013: 5085: 4760: 1337: 840: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

6559:

will expire after December 31st. All are strongly encouraged to participate in

627:

I am minded to agree with Crossmr here. Is there some reason one the pumps and

6990: 5568: 5342: 5311: 5293: 5259: 4984: 4964: 4872: 4829: 4789: 4708: 4509: 4483: 4190: 4141: 1360: 1162: 589: 518: 464: 392:

notice for recruiting Article Assessment Team for the Public Policy Initiative

5657:

I don't think this is really that big of a deal, and it should be removed. -

3458:

How about "There is a community discussion underway to decide the future of

839:

Per Sage's request to leave the notice only through Friday, I've removed it.

6653: 6613: 6306: 6002: 5790:

The template has " |until=5 November". That's why it's no longer displayed.

5674: 5631: 5455: 5392: 5365: 5327: 5277: 5222: 4411: 4289: 4076: 4038: 3993: 3976: 3935: 3909: 3820: 3795: 3709: 3664: 3339: 3215: 3151: 3015: 2981:

I've modified the js earlier today, we can switch the HTML around April 29.

2880: 2787: 2720: 2687: 2595: 2441: 2408: 2073: 2045: 1969: 1954: 1936: 1895: 1856: 1821: 1725: 1683: 1633: 1527: 1482: 1396: 1321: 1286: 1245: 1066: 974: 703: 646: 554: 308: 203: 4922:

I proposed this a while back but was ignored. So here it is again. Change:

3243:; could we have a watchlist notice to advertise it along the lines of "The 6805:

to determine what action the English Knowledge should take in response to

3680:• Join the second phase of a ''']''' to decide the future of ] protection. 4119:

RFC on whether autoconfirmed status should be required to create articles

3133:

userright is now available for users experienced in working with files."

6737:

Shall we? Seems like things have quieted down at the RfC at this point.

3932:

and help with the ] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people.

3175:

The ''']''' userright is ] for users experienced in working with files.

1846:

and help with the ] to eliminate unsourced biographies of living people.

6351:

Given that it is proposed to be a legal document, I completely agree. —

5112:

to determine the threshold for successful Requests for bureaucratship.

5804:

Thanks. I believe the RfC is not due to be closed until 10 November.

4926:

You have '''$ 1''' {{PLURAL:$ 1|page|pages}} on your ] (excluding ]).

2142:

Any objections to removing it at 12:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)? While

116:

There's a proposal on the noticeboard for a watchlist notice (q.v.).

6873:

to determine if English Knowledge should take action in response to

6553:

The time allotted by the Wikimedia Foundation to comment on its new

4286:

What kind of question? What would you like to do, exactly? — Martin

2402:

Knowledge:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee/2011 appointments

1043:

Knowledge:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

5820:

It was originally scheduled to be closed on the 5th; but the three

4934:

You have '''$ 1''' {{PLURAL:$ 1|page|pages}} on ], excluding ]. (])

1842:

Please put a plainlinks class around the random bio link, like so:

1183:

Added, using TheDJ's wording to indicate it is on another project.

4134:

whether autoconfirmed status should be required to create articles

2377:

Proposal to supplement 'Suppress display of the fundraiser banner'

5744:

removed the last two characters of the template for cookie 107.

4720:

is underway about the overuse of notices on the watchlist", with

4549:, I would like to propose it here now. Frankly, this feels like 3264:

Bumping this, it would be really helpful (say for 1 or 2 weeks)?

2592:

This has been up quite a while now, so I've removed it. — Martin

2194:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)#Watchlist collaboration notice

6676:

Knowledge talk:Tool apprenticeship#RfC: Should we begin a trial?

6016:

Good. I was about to set something up, but I was beaten to it. –

5030:

Neutral mediators and clerks are needed to address a backlog of

3990:

It's been 2½ months. I'll stick it up for a fortnight? — Martin

3723:

The third phase is live as of a few minutes ago. It is actually

3411:

Knowledge talk:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

1392:

to reduce the backlog of unsourced biographies of living people.

924:

Seems appropriate to me. Community-wide issue, needs attention.

4388:

Email notifications for your user talk pages changes have been

3012:

I heard a rumour that the resource loader was broken. — Martin

1002:

Please replace ] with ] to make it a functioning link. Thanks,

6763: 6183: 6043: 5944: 4889: 25: 2717:

I've put it up for two weeks, hopefully sufficient? — Martin

6913:

Concur with this wording, and the need to get the word out.

6329:

meta:Talk:Terms_of_use#Closing_of_Discussion:_December_31.3F

4013:• You are invited to <span class="db-cGxhaW5saW5rcw": --> 3930:• You are invited to <span class="db-cGxhaW5saW5rcw": --> 3123:

Perhaps we should add a notice to inform that the userright

2784:

It's been up for a full month, so I've removed it. — Martin

1968: 1844:• You are invited to <span class="db-cGxhaW5saW5rcw": --> 6502:

with community input. All are encouraged to participate in

4132:

You are invited to participate in a Request for Comment on

3704:

Knowledge:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011

2850:

would need to be modified slightly if it is done that way.

2814:

Please change the format of this message to use <ul: -->

2423:

The process to appoint three non-arbitrator members of the

6434:

free to" or "feel free to" since "be sure" is basically a

4259:असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 1112:

The following sitenotice is currently active on Commons:

6216:

Does anybody object to having a watchlist notice for the

4313:असक्ताह सततम्, कार्यम् कर्म समाच्रर | असक्तॊ ही अचरण कर्म 2523:

project to help in directly reaching out to new editors.

3239:

The Community Department and I are currently working on

2895:

I don't see any reason not to go with Max's suggestion.

2376: 6972: 6855: 6831: 6632: 6427: 6285: 6256: 5741: 5507: 5503: 5499: 5134: 4670: 4550: 4546: 3845: 3606: 3379: 1759:

to eliminate unreferenced biographies of living people.

304: 3445:

Propose how you want it worded and I could put it up.

3077:, but I haven't looked at the documentation thus far. 2528:

Or something like that. Feel free to tweak, add, etc.

2218:

The ] is looking for experienced Wikipedians to be ].

1660:

I don't particularly like it much, but it might work.

1063:

the elections warrants this level of notice. — Martin

307:. Credit in an edit summary to the page works for me. 6924:

Knowledge:SOPA_initiative#Concrete_proposals_workshop

2342: