Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done

2014-03-10 Thread User Mono 
Closed isn't the best word, but do most people know what 'read only' means?

> From: peter.southw...@telkomsa.net
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2014 12:32:56 +0200
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of   
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
> 
> Makes sense to me too.
> Peter
> - Original Message - 
> From: "James Alexander" 
> To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
> Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2014 12:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] the big red notice on the top of 
> http://strategy.wikimedia.org - done
> 
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 1:49 AM, Bohdan Melnychuk  wrote:
> >
> >> But we close wiki. We not set wiki read only. Why should we use another
> >> therm than the procedure is called?
> >
> >
> > Because what we DO (no matter what we call it) is set it as Read Only, it
> > is still 100% accessible you just can't edit it. I think it does make 
> > sense
> > that 'read-only' is more understandable then 'close' which sounds like we
> > completely shut it off and you can't read it either.
> >
> > James
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> >  
> 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Round 2 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2014-02-22 Thread User Mono 
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the second round of the 2013 
Picture of the Year competition is now open. This year will be the eighth 
edition of the annual Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes 
exceptional contributions by users on Wikimedia Commons.
Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their favorite images featured on 
Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a single Picture of the Year. 
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international 
Wikimedia Commons community in the past year were entered in this competition.
These images include professional animal and plant shots, breathtaking 
panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, photographs 
portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human portraits, and so 
much more.
There are two total rounds of voting. In the first round, you voted for as many 
images as you liked. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each 
category have continued to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just 
one image to become the Picture of the Year. 
Round 2 will end on 7 March 2014. Visit 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction
 to learn more and vote for your favorite image.
Thanks,User:MonoPicture of the Year Committee   
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

[Wikimedia-l] Round 1 of Picture of the Year 2013 is open!

2014-01-24 Thread User Mono 
Dear Wikimedians,
Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2013 Picture of the Year 
competition is now open. This year will be the eighth edition of the annual 
Wikimedia Commons photo competition, which recognizes exceptional contributions 
by users on Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia users are invited to vote for their 
favorite images featured on Commons during the last year (2013) to produce a 
single Picture of the Year.
Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international 
Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this 
competition. These images include professional animal and plant shots, 
breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historical images, 
photographs portraying the world's best architecture, impressive human 
portraits, and so much more.
For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topical categories. Two 
rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you may vote for as many 
images as you like. The top 30 overall and the most popular image in each 
category will continue to the final. In the final round, you may vote for just 
one image to become the Picture of the Year
Round 1 will end on 7 February 2014. To vote, visit 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2013/Introduction
Thanks,User:Mono
Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner obscuring site interface

2013-12-09 Thread User Mono 
I also forgot to mention those annoyingly ugly 'Credit Card'/PayPal buttons 
with the double borders. I suggest making the border 1px solid and then reduce 
the border radius to 5px. 
User:Mono

> From: userm...@outlook.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:36:31 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner obscuring site interface
> 
> Related: There are some issues with the design of these banners, especially 
> the floaty thing.Why are you using a  element? It's really wrong for 
> this kind of thing. Also, please commit to just one color for the floater - 
> the highlighting thing doesn't make sense in that space. (See a possible 
> solution, if the icon was black with a yellow i, at 
> http://awesomescreenshot.com/0d622k4fb2). Furthermore, that shadow is hideous 
> - it should be blurred out some more or just eliminated - it adds little 
> (without shadow: http://awesomescreenshot.com/0e622k4k3c, blurred shadow: 
> http://awesomescreenshot.com/06d22k4s6f). This a) looks better and b) would 
> probably increase conversions since it's all around brighter (but in a 
> better-looking way). At the top, it's best looking to eliminate the shadow on 
> the right side which looks unbalanced and increase the blur (like box-shadow: 
> 0px 5px 10px #aaa;). See http://awesomescreenshot.com/01022k566a. I highly 
> suggest you adopt these changes.
> Thanks,User:Mono
> 
> > Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:09:59 -0800
> > From: pcoo...@wikimedia.org
> > To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner obscuring site interface
> > 
> > Love it! Looks like there's more than one banner too:
> > http://imgs.xkcd.com/store_news/store_gd_g1_QG5Z.png
> > 
> > --
> > Peter Coombe
> > Fundraising Production Coordinator
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> > 
> > 
> > On 8 December 2013 19:52, MZMcBride  wrote:
> > 
> > > Largely unrelated: it looks like xkcd () has spoofed the
> > > "DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS" donation banner as part of its store campaign:
> > > . :-)
> > >
> > > MZMcBride
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> > 
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner obscuring site interface

2013-12-09 Thread User Mono 
Related: There are some issues with the design of these banners, especially the 
floaty thing.Why are you using a  element? It's really wrong for this 
kind of thing. Also, please commit to just one color for the floater - the 
highlighting thing doesn't make sense in that space. (See a possible solution, 
if the icon was black with a yellow i, at 
http://awesomescreenshot.com/0d622k4fb2). Furthermore, that shadow is hideous - 
it should be blurred out some more or just eliminated - it adds little (without 
shadow: http://awesomescreenshot.com/0e622k4k3c, blurred shadow: 
http://awesomescreenshot.com/06d22k4s6f). This a) looks better and b) would 
probably increase conversions since it's all around brighter (but in a 
better-looking way). At the top, it's best looking to eliminate the shadow on 
the right side which looks unbalanced and increase the blur (like box-shadow: 
0px 5px 10px #aaa;). See http://awesomescreenshot.com/01022k566a. I highly 
suggest you adopt these changes.
Thanks,User:Mono

> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:09:59 -0800
> From: pcoo...@wikimedia.org
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fundraising banner obscuring site interface
> 
> Love it! Looks like there's more than one banner too:
> http://imgs.xkcd.com/store_news/store_gd_g1_QG5Z.png
> 
> --
> Peter Coombe
> Fundraising Production Coordinator
> Wikimedia Foundation
> 
> 
> On 8 December 2013 19:52, MZMcBride  wrote:
> 
> > Largely unrelated: it looks like xkcd () has spoofed the
> > "DEAR WIKIPEDIA READERS" donation banner as part of its store campaign:
> > . :-)
> >
> > MZMcBride
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list
> > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> >
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monobook was optimised for editors, Vector is more balanced between readers and edtors

2013-11-24 Thread User Mono 
How are the edit functions in Monobook more prominent than in Vector?

> Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2013 08:24:52 +0100
> From: nemow...@gmail.com
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Monobook was optimised for editors, Vector is more 
> balanced between readers and edtors
> 
> WereSpielChequers, 22/11/2013 08:03:
> > But it would be interesting to see some stats on the relative
> > retention and upgrading of editors who use monobook and Vector.
> 
> The idea sounds crazy, but yes, why not, let's test this. I believe you 
> can put your thoughts on a Meta-Wiki Research: page, describing the 
> background, the A/B test and the proposed analysis, and then ask the WMF 
> to run it (preferably with the consensus of the target wikis, but it's 
> not usually considered necessary for so-called experimentations).
> 
> Nemo
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia blog moving to WordPress.com

2013-09-08 Thread User Mono 
Yeah,  that's convenient.  Make the press team use programming software to 
write a blog post?  That is absurd.

There comes a point when things need to get done and they just need to work 
imho.

--- Original Message ---

From: "K. Peachey" 
Sent: September 8, 2013 8:59 PM
To: "Wikimedia Mailing List" 
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] Wikimedia blog moving to WordPress.com

If self hosting WP is being a issue, We should look at sustianiable
alternatives compared to just chucking the baby out with the bath water
because it's "too hard".

I personally would love to see us usign a ncie GIT based backend produces
static html outputs for the blog (Cachability++ Security++).

The only issue I forsee with such a option is choosing a comment system
that we could embed.
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 


___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The failure of Google, looking for open source alternatives

2013-08-24 Thread User Mono 
Do you have a specific article that talks about this? Do remember the new 
Google Maps is still in beta. It's (still) impossible to use on older computers 
because it is so slow and laggy - it's possible the WMF could lobby them to 
keep it around.
Mono

> From: strain...@gmail.com
> Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2013 01:31:51 +0300
> To: wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The failure of Google, looking for open source 
> alternatives
> 
> 2013/8/25 Romaine Wiki :
> > Google is throwing the Wikipedia layer out of Google Maps under the guise 
> > of "improvement", while it actually sets several steps back in time. It is 
> > like going to the Middle Ages instead of the future.
> 
> I wouldn't go *that* far. Opportunities come and go, and so are
> reusers of our content. This is not such a big deal for Wikipedia, I
> believe.
> 
> > It shows that commercial companies do not make decisions by looking what 
> > people like, need and want, but let the end users down. In the past such 
> > changes in software always was a moment for me to consider if there are 
> > alternatives and if possible to switch over to them.
> 
> >
> > Considering this for finding a Wikipedia layer on maps, I do not know any. 
> > But I do know there is an open source alternative, just like Wikipedia, but 
> > then for maps, OpenStreetMap.
> >
> > We already work together in some way, we use the maps of OpenStreetMap in 
> > our Toolserver maps when we click on the coordinates on articles.
> >
> > Unfortunately I couldn't find any layer for Wikipedia on 
> > http://openstreetmap.org
> 
> Perhaps the WMF should provide that? Kolossos has done a tremendous
> job with his work on the subject. Moving from the toolserver to the
> labs could be a good moment to increase the resource allocated to that
> project.
> 
> I think OSM would be happy with the idea. One of their layers (the
> transport map) is already provided by a third party AFAIK.
> 
> >
> > I think it would be good if we as Wikimedia would broaden our use of and 
> > connections with OpenStreetMap and let both communities work together more.
> >
> > (It is unlikely to happen I think, but OpenStreetMap would be perfectly 
> > under the wing of WMF, just as Wikivoyage.)
> 
> No it wouldn't. The OSM Foundation has proven in many ways superior to
> the WMF (consider only the way licence change was approached on their
> and and on the WMF wikis...). Perhaps some of this image is due to
> cultural differences between Europe and the US (me being biased
> towards the European model), but I don't think so.
> 
> Also, compared to Wikivoyage, OSM has far superior visibility.
> 
> >
> > We should strive on working together with OpenStreetMap, we supplement each 
> > other.
> 
> Have a nice weekend,
>Strainu
> 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 
  
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,