In T103102#1897161, @Tpt wrote:

@Romaine You could maybe do just like Russian Wikipedia or the French Wikisource and use the Wikibase other project sidebar as a basic and add your additional links to it. With that nlwiki would have a basic sidebar for without JavaScript readers and you would be able to avoid the need of having a div hidden somewhere to fill this sidebar in cases where Wikidata contains already all the information needed (which is I think the most common case).

There are materials in the Wikimedia office in Brussels that are left over from last year. I have the keys to the office and I can give access to it on the Saturday of the conference in the morning.

On nl-wiki we have for years an alternative larger system that already shows the interwiki links to sister projects in the sidebar. Enabling this for everyone on nl-wiki is useless and in almost all the cases duplicate to the already existing ones (already shown to everyone), which is much more extensive than the current Beta system.

I am not up for a discussion, I have only a simple question: who is motivated to solve the big software issues in the Dutch Wikipedia in this quarter or the next quarter?

In T119387#1825155, @Elitre wrote:

Among the other things, I'm personally musing on defining which wikis I'd like to focus on and provide particular support to.
My current reading of T119347, among other things, makes me inclined to think that our energies are better spent on communities which truly need and appreciate our efforts to go beyond mere words.

In T119347#1824419, @Elitre wrote:

Thanks for filing this.
Here's what we could do:

1. enable VE to newly registered users ASAP for two weeks, to capitalize on the Prize momentum; or
2. give the community a week to discuss this further, and if they're still interested afterwards, enable VE to newly registered users for the month of December.

Please let us know what you choose.

Wikimedia Nederland is trying to implement an Education Program.

I am not sure if this proposal is a good idea in the way it has been described above: as I read there to replace the system from user language to content language. If it is additional to the current setup, maybe it is possible, but in replace of it I am against.

In T88414#1695487, @Mattflaschen wrote:

I'll be attending. I can lead the presence (or help lead). Might need some pointers, since I haven't been to FOSDEM before.

Do we think it makes sense to do a stand, devroom, both, ..., this year?

Call for participation has been published at https://fosdem.org/2016/news/2015-09-24-call-for-participation/ .

In T88414#1708705, @Qgil wrote:

@Romaine, @johl, @Mattflaschen, (is there someone from WMBE in Phabricator?) you might want to get into details about organizing FOSDEM activities.

Sorry, there were some time and health issues that had come in between. I have not used it yet, but trying to figure out where I should add it is not directly clear. Can we make a test to see how it can be used?

This is a really annoying bug, needs to be fixed ASAP.

This seems great news!

It has not been reported since.

At the moment I have two cases:

1. I like to have a different text in Spanish if it is shown in Spain. There are two options:
   • A. or adjusted in the centralised CentralNotice (for all countries) that in Spain in Spanish a different text is shown,
   • B. or that a separate banner is created for Spain only, and that if the language is Spanish, it shows a different text, but in other cases the text from the centralised CentralNotice.
2. There comes a separate banner for Germany with a completely different design and the text in German is different than the text from the centralised CentralNotice, but in all the other languages the text from the centralised CentralNotice stays the same and used in this banner. This concerns: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:CentralNoticeBanners/edit/wlm_2015_de

This request has been implemented.

If you try to say that there is no way to fix the issues I bring up in this particular software development, yes I am aware of that. I try to give feedback not just for the moment, but also for future developments.

Sorry to day, and I am sorry that I see this only now (not being part of the German community), however I am responsible for the upload campaigns of WLM. But this is a wrong development:

As a WLM contester I would like the tool to insert the uploaded image in the gap in the monuments list where I uploaded it so that it doesn’t have to be done manually and I can see it immediately in the list.

I think we keep too much talking around the core of the problem.

In this particular case, I believe yes, because several Foundation-led efforts---the Research Newsletter and Tech/News---will come to rely on it. A cynical answer but a correct one.

I'm sorry you received such notifications in your busiest time, but I hope you understand that we cannot wait for the best spot in everybody's agendas. In terms of communication and feedback, I think we have covered the minimum and more.

That was not my point. It reacted on this:

worked upon for 4-5 months and was open to anyone interested

But only 2 months time was actually given to react.

User expectations, user privacy.

Those are choices. Here it is chosen to give users privacy. I think it is thought too easy about this.

Thanks ResMar!
What ResMar is describing is indeed a part of the issue I see. I am concerned about both the process of the development of this software as the general situation of software development. I am concerned about a long term stability.

4-5 months

We received a message only 2 months ago: 9 June 2015. Just before the most busiest time of the year.

Reading this plan, no publisher is able to give feedback as the actual contents are missing. The actual things that matter to publishers is not described in the plan. The plan described is too vague.

Usernames and emails of subscribes should be kept private. The number of users subscribed to a newsletter would be public (and eventually used to promote popular newsletters).

Usernames and emails of subscribes should be kept private. The number of users subscribed to a newsletter would be public (and eventually used to promote popular newsletters).

I personally haven't seen any issues with it anymore.

Also just created: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Events/FOSDEM/2016

In T104707#1444155, @Ladsgroup wrote:

Done.

Annoying: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q3388695&diff=216797436&oldid=216797411

The first question that comes up to my mind is why only tickets that are not merged are exported as false positives?

What is the status of this bug?

What is the status of this bug?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Wiki_Loves_Earth_2015#Problems_with_the_upload_wizard

It is not so much about working fast. I defenitely selected Australia: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q19544678&diff=216964659&oldid=216964594

Done: https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Loves_Art_2016#Technisch_.2F_infrastructuur

In T51385#577687, @bzimport wrote:

neil wrote:
Dutch:

N Noord
Z Zuid
O Oost
W West

Thanks

In T89717#1043746, @Gilles wrote:

Thank you for the extra information, I can repro. The default set in the preferences is displayed correctly in the UI, but once uploaded it turns into cc-by-sa-4.0

The biggest issue that uploading files becomes a mess is because on most Wikipedias there are not enough people with enough understanding of licenses and are not in sight of the Commons community who is much experienced in licenses. Uploading locally at itself gives the mess, and the mess can grow only worse with less attention for the subject.

Maybe it matters that I have set in my preferences, on tab Upload Wizard as default license for new uploads: Own work - Creative Commons CC0 Waiver (release all rights, like public domain: legal code)

In T89717#1043597, @Gilles wrote:

Did you upload that file as part of a batch or on its own?

Another example:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mechelen-Klitserbeek_%287%29.JPG&oldid=150327790
I checked the license and it showed cc-zero before I continued, but it uploads it under cc-by-sa-4.0.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Mechelen-Landeus_%281%29.JPG&oldid=150313610

I think it is important to have mentioned that someone should connect his account to his SUL account, with result that there is a link to the user page on MediaWiki.