User talk:Jorm (WMF)/Archive 1

I know you really, really, really want to add a "Welcome" template to this page. Please don't.

Mentioned you
I mentioned you by name over here. --MZMcBride 00:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Extension:LiquidThreads/Redesign
Hi. If you really want to own Extension:LiquidThreads/Redesign, you need to move it to a user subpage (something like User:Jorm (WMF)/LiquidThreads redesign). This will make it clear to everyone that you're acting as the guardian of the page and it contains only your views. If it's in the extension namespace, the current attitude and behavior toward the page needs to change. --MZMcBride 01:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It was originally in a WMF Projects namespace, which indicated it was ours; it was moved out of that into the Extension Namespace. I am not the owner of the page but it does not belong in my personal space.  The design is open for discussion and that means exactly that.  If you can think of a better, non-user space page for what is an official WMF document, I'm all for hearing it.--Jorm (WMF) 02:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no "WMF Projects" namespace, at least not in any meaningful sense. Wiki pages, in the general sense, are meant for open collaboration and editing. That's a fundamental principle of a wiki. You've now reverted that page several times, apparently with no regard for what the change is.
 * If you want to have a page documenting your vision for LiquidThreads, I think that's fine. I don't think anyone here has a problem with that. But if it truly isn't open to collaboration and editing by others, the easiest, clearest, standard way to indicate that is to put it your user space. That makes it clear to others that it's yours, which your reverts and note at the top clearly indicate. --MZMcBride 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe Jorm means to "own" the page. However, blanking entire sections of the page has never been an acceptable way to work collaboratively. I think it's fair to ask to discuss major changes on the talk page, but to allow minor changes on the page. Another possibility is to do a POV-fork for the redesign, if other people have an alternate solution to offer (but I'm not convinced POV-forking is the way to go). guillom 02:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * From the top of the page, "If you have any questions or suggestions, please put them on the Discussion page rather than editing here, please!" I'm not sure how much clearer that can be (in addition to the multiple reverts in the page history). I also don't accept the premise that bold editing is undesirable. My comments above make it clear why I think it's important for this page to be in the user space if it's going to be an exception to the standard wiki philosophy. --MZMcBride 02:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding of the issue here is that Jorm doesn't consider this to belong to him, he considers it to belong to the WMF, hence why he argues it doesn't belong in his user space, but at the same time it reflects a specific opinion. Perhaps the best way to solve this problem would be to separate the current work being done by the WMF from the stable extension. I.e. having for example the documentation related to the current WMF engineering project in LiquidThreads v2 (with subpages like LiquidThreads v2/Redesign), and keeping Extension:LiquidThreads for the current, stable extension. Would that work? guillom 02:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It wasn't unreasonable for Gurch to remove a section about a controversial feature that has (literally) no justification for its inclusion. I don't see much on the talk page justifying the feature either, though I do see several issues and negative responses to the idea. This is probably beside the point, though. The community should be involved in development like this or it should be made clear(er) that it's not being involved (or it's only being involved in peripherally). I don't think putting it in Jorm's user space is an issue, especially as he's the only one working on the page. --MZMcBride 06:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes Interface
I looked at the mockups for the NOV release of Pending Changes on prototype.wiki and my first reaction to the main review page was, This still looks cluttered. I looked at it, and thought there might be redundancy in some of the labeling in the following areas.


 * Above the blue box it says: 'Review this revision'. But then directly beneath it, it says 'Please review the pending revision below.'  Can we cut one of them?


 * Above the diff it says [accepted reversion] and [pending reversion]. What about just [accepted] and [pending]?


 * Also, the blue outline box itself adds a pretty substantial graphic load. What would it look like without it.  Cleaner, simpler, more, Vector?  For that matter, if you do stick with the blue outline, maybe use the electric blue rather than royal blue, which has a much more monobook feel to it.

Just some thoughts. Let me know what you think. Or, if this isn't your department, can you pass it on. Thanks, Ocaasi 07:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey!
 * I am, indeed, the right department for this type of feedback, so you came to the right place.
 * I agree with you - wholeheartedly - that the review page looks way cluttered. I have a mockup about halfway finished for that page but it was decided not to complete it and publish it at this time because they aren't changes that will be able to make it into the November release and I didn't want to put it up there and have people think that it was going to happen.  There have been talks about putting up the designs after the release goes live in order to spark some conversations and I think that might be a good idea.
 * (I did say "eliminate that top box asap - can this be done without doing a mock up?").
 * Hope that helps. --Jorm (WMF) 17:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely helps! And the sooner the better... Pending Changes has a bullseye on it, as you know, and a slick UI will do much for its survival.  Any chance of a mid-trial rollout of the new design, or will that be strictly 3.0?  Thanks... Ocaasi 08:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't speak to the chances of a mid-trial rollout, though that development and release style is one I know that we are working towards. Our biggest problem at this time is resources; we simply don't have enough developers (front end and back end) to work on things as rapidly as we'd like.  I know that my time, personally, is spoken for over the next several months on other projects, however.--Jorm (WMF) 16:25, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned you (again)
Hi. I mentioned you here: 25443. --MZMcBride 04:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Article_feedback
Given that you have worked on this tool, and that you list it on you talk page as a feature you have worked on, I believe you should recuse yourself of any discussion on this feature. You have, I assume, invested much time in it, and thus this is something more emotional for you than logical. Please recuse yourself from discussion of this feature due to this conflict of interest. (Copied from article discussion).
 * Sorry. This is my job.  I cannot recuse myself from discussion about things I am paid to do as an employee of the Foundation; there is no conflict of interest in this case.--Jorm (WMF) 06:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You can certainly contribute, creation of he AFT was part of your job, I can see that; but I definitely see a conflict of interest in the way you have promoted the feature, the way you have discussed about it. Put another way, it would seem best to me to create the tool, observe feedback and that is about it. You are engaging in promotion and evangelism of what you have created. That is where I see the conflict. Leave that up to others who like the tool, but have not invested the time that I assume you have in creating the product. I look at your discussion and I simply see someone (to use a colloquialism) defending their baby. This is a natural instinct. I think anyone who has spent a lot of time on this as I assume you have, would absolutely want to see it put to use. It's just natural. --Timl2k4 06:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's going to be any further value in continuing this conversation.--Jorm (WMF) 07:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well that make sense, as I don't see any value in the AFT. i.e. it makes sense that you don't see any value in conversing about the uselessness of something you have created. --Timl2k4 07:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is neither here nor there, but you have also worked on the WikiLove feature, and I think its great. So I guess if AFT is introduced it will survive or die of it's own accord. I would send you some WikiLove, but it's not a MediaWiki feature.--Timl2k4 08:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Link cilors
Here's the link to the proposal for a different (improved?) link color scheme: Cologne Blue skin problems --Waldir 09:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)