|This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the|
Some intelligent fellow seems to have added the text that prevents edit links from appearing on sections. I refuse on principle to edit the entire article to add a few bytes to a small section at the end. I'd be intrigued to see if anyone can justify this arbitrary removal of functionality. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:29, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
- It's just possible this isn't specific to the article. The directive would be __NOEDITSECTION__, but I've used Special:ExpandTemplates to get the full expansion of the article, and there are no occurrences of "__" in the full expansion. So... maybe we should be asking Bawolff.
- Identical problem on Payment pending; Canadian recording industry set for six billion penalties?. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia Foundation "Answers"
Hi. :) I just wanted to let you all know that the Wikimedia Foundation is testing a potential new communication system intended to provide a central address to which community members who need assistance from the Wikimedia Foundation or who have questions about the Foundation or its activities can reach out and find answers. This system is being unrolled on a trial basis to test its efficiency and usefulness to communities.
What happens to your question will depend on what type of question it is. Many questions are general interest, and answers to these are being posted to wmf:Answers. Generally, at least to begin with, I will be writing these answers myself, although staff members have assisted with some questions already and I don't doubt will assist with more. Some issues will not be general interest, but may require attention from specific staff members or contractors. These will be forwarded to the appropriate parties. Questions that should be answered by community may be forwarded to the volunteer response team, unless we can point you to a more appropriate point of contact.
I imagine most of you are familiar with how the Wikimedia Foundation works, but it's probably a good idea for me to note for those who are not familiar that the Wikimedia Foundation does not control content on any of its projects. They can't help with content disputes or unblock requests, and they are not the place to report general bugs or to request features (that would be Wikimedia's Bugzilla). The letters I've answered already have included primarily questions about finances and the Foundation's work. I've been asked to get feedback from staff on diverse subjects ranging from the amount of latitude permitted to a project in drafting their "Exemption Doctrine Policy" to whether or not groups seeking grants need tax exempt status first.
If you have questions for or about the Wikimedia Foundation, you can address them to
answerswikimedia.org. Please review wmf:Answers/Process for specific terms and more information. --Mdennis (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
- Very nice, thanks Mdennis. Now if only there were an extension that let each local wiki maintain its own set of Questions and Answers (aggregated into the local RecenChanges and watchlists) that got rolled up into a crossproject overview on the wmfwiki... sj (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
Got ourselves a nice big scoop
I figure it's time I shared on-wiki details of a scoop that's coming soonish. I've been fairly open about these elsewhere, but never really gotten round to sharing them here. In essence, I've caught some (at least two) UK-wide newspapers publishing stuff they probably shouldn't have, owing to contempt of court legislation in England and Wales, which aims to ensure a fair trial. These matters were reported in the run-up to a high-profile trial in England, and then quickly (but incompletely/incorrectly) redacted. I have screenshot evidence etc. With the trial having concluded, I'm now maybe in a position to publish. However, before I can do so things must be cleared from a legal perspective: the news reports contained allegations of other actions which may be crimes in their own right. I must therefore make sure I don't prejudice any trials myself; England is uncomfortably close for me to chance such a thing. Negotiations with the Crown Prosecution Service are ongoing. Further complication arises from the fact Wikinews has been granted access to a restricted document from the UK Attorney General's Office. I believe that the reasons for restricting this press advisory are now null, and wish to approach them to accordingly nullify the restrictions. If they don't... Well, it's back to my lawyer to discuss the next move. I can run the story without it, but it's a much better piece with it. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- I almost forgot! Those of you wishing to learn a little more about how this works should check out UK's most-read papers found to be in contempt of court, a recent prosecution of newspapers for a similar transgression. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - firstly, it took me five clicks to edit and reply to this section... because the main water cooler page is protected. :) Please unprotect it! Secondly, this sounds very very cool. Congrats. Please post an update when you can. An updated back-story would make a nice permanent essay as well, for newsies. sj (talk) 03:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)