IRC office hours/Office hours 2011-11-10

<poem style="font-family:monospace,Courier;background:#F2F2F2"> [19:05] * howief (~howiefung@216.38.130.166) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:06] <Ironholds> okay, howief has joined - now we can start :) [19:07] <howief> hello everyone! [19:07] <Ironholds> so hello again for the (third?) office hours session on the new AFT version. We've got a lot of new things to consult on :) [19:07] <Ironholds> and DarTar will be talking about the research metrics for the data on the testing that'll be run [19:08] <Ironholds> DarTar, over to you :) [19:08] <DarTar> thanks Ironholds [19:08] <DarTar> hi everyone [19:08] <fabriceflorin> Hi everyone, good to meet you all again! [19:08] * Peter-C (~Peter-C@wikimedia/Peter.C) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:08] <DarTar> we put together a page describing the detailed plans for data analysis [19:08] <DarTar> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Data_and_metrics [19:09] <DarTar> just a general reminder: all research-related discussions from now on will be hosted on Meta [19:09] <DarTar> to avoid confusion with the development documentation, which you can find as usual on mediawiki.org [19:09] * Addihockey10 (~chatzilla@wikimedia/Addihockey10) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:10] <DarTar> we worked on a new plan for the testing and analysis of AFT [19:10] <DarTar> and you can find a diagram summarizing the first 3 stages here: [19:10] <DarTar> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Data_and_metrics#AFT_test_plan [19:10] <DarTar> the basic idea is that we will test separately three different issues: [19:11] <DarTar> 1) the effects of different designs on the volume and quality of feedback we collect [19:11] <DarTar> 2) the effects of the placement of the tool [19:11] <DarTar> 3) the impact on editing activity [19:11] <DarTar> we will run these three stages sequentially and will report the results at the end of each stage [19:12] <DarTar> as to the quality of feedback, we will need the help of the community [19:13] <DarTar> we will run some quantitative analysis to measure the overall length and richness of comments sent via each of the 3 design options as well as each of the placement options [19:13] <DarTar> but we also need to hear from you which design and which placement produces the highest quality stream of comments [19:14] <DarTar> we will use both a toolserver script to publish the comments and the feedback page to hear from the editor community which option is doing the best job [19:15] <howief> does that make sense? [19:15] <rmf_> That's cool, will there be consulation on the aethetics of the design? The current widget does not particularly fit the look and feel of the rest of the presentation level at the bottom of article pages - and sits between the navboxes and categories, where it does not sensibly belong. [19:16] <Bensin> ... and is unnecessarily big. [19:16] <DarTar> rmf_: feedback on the design is always appreciated, but the most critical issues will be on the usefulness of different designs/placements in terms of what they produce [19:16] * Fluffernutter (Fluffernut@wikipedia/Fluffernutter) has left #wikimedia-office [19:17] <DarTar> that is, if we see that a specific design/placement is producing only garbage we will probably want to discard it [19:17] <Ironholds> rmf_: we will be talking about the placement, for example, in a tick :) [19:17] <howief> when the dev team is ready, they'll be putting up designs on prototype [19:17] <howief> so folks can give feedback then [19:17] <howief> we'll have some designs on prototype for a few weeks before deploying to production [19:17] <howief> during this time [19:18] <howief> i'm hoping we can evaluate the different comment streams to figure out which design provides the highest quality comments [19:18] <howief> and also evaluate the design [19:18] <rmf_> <Nod nods> [19:18] <DarTar> that's all from me on the testing/data analysis plans – if you have questions/suggestions please post them on the talk page of http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Article_feedback/Data_and_metrics [19:19] <Ironholds> rmf_: so, you mentioned the placement of the AFT? [19:19] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin has actually been looking at moving it elsewhere, and some users (Utar, particularly) have been giving great ideas on what to do with it. fabrice, do you want to explain more? [19:20] <fabriceflorin> we will be testing up to 3 placement options for the feedback link on the article page (section bars, title bar and vertical button) [19:20] <fabriceflorin> Here's the link to placement options: [19:20] <fabriceflorin> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Version_5/Feature_Requirements#Placement [19:20] <fabriceflorin> To increase feedback rates, we are discussing adding a 'Feedback' link higher up on the page. (see thumbnail to the right) [19:20] <fabriceflorin> when you click on any feedback link, the feedback form will display as an overlay next to that link (as shown in mockups like this one) [19:21] <fabriceflorin> This would be a floating form, Bensin [19:21] * RoanKattouw is now known as RoanKattouw_away [19:21] <fabriceflorin> Note that that overlay feedback form will need a 'close' button ( X ) and we may want to also gray out the entire page background (to make it pop up more) [19:21] * PhancyPhysicist (~charles@cpe-107-9-220-27.neo.res.rr.com) Quit (Remote host closed the connection) [19:21] <fabriceflorin> if an overlay form is not practical in first phase, the fallback solution is to simply provide a jump link to feedback form at bottom page [19:22] <fabriceflorin> Here are some of the options we are considering for a feedback link higher up on the article pages: [19:22] <Ironholds> hopefully the close button and the fact that it's not immediately visible will solve the "ack! too big!" concerns :) [19:22] <fabriceflorin> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Button-Option-A-Mockup-11-08.png: add feedback link in the section bars (next to edit link) [19:22] <fabriceflorin> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Button-Option-B-Mockup-11-08.png: add feedback link in the article title bar (top right corner of page) [19:22] <fabriceflorin> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Button-Option-C-Mockup-11-08.png: add vertical button in the right margin of the browser window [19:23] <Ironholds> fabriceflorin: actually, looking at the first option, I have a suggestion :P [19:23] <fabriceflorin> Which of these options A, B and C do you think has the most merit? [19:23] <fabriceflorin> Can we start by discussing Option A, which was suggested by Utar! [19:23] * Theo10011_a (~Theo10011@59.180.17.67) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:23] <fabriceflorin> Yeah, Utar! [19:23] <rmf_> Much nicer than the current setup, I hope they prove as effective. C, however is not-nice. [19:23] <geniice> fabriceflorin does this break gracefuly in monobook and classic? [19:23] <Ironholds> rmf_: my favorite is A, personally :) [19:24] <howief> geniice: we'll have to make sure this "degrades gracefully" [19:24] <fabriceflorin> We certainly will do our best to make sure it degrades gracefully. [19:24] * Theo10011 (~Theo10011@wikimedia/Theo10011) Quit (Disconnected by services) [19:24] * Theo10011_a is now known as Theo10011 [19:24] <geniice> break is preferable. unlikely that classic users will be using article feedback [19:24] * Theo10011 (~Theo10011@59.180.17.67) Quit (Changing host) [19:24] * Theo10011 (~Theo10011@wikimedia/Theo10011) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:24] <howief> good point [19:24] <YairRand> A is going to make a lot of people really annoyed [19:24] <Ironholds> Bensin, your thoughts? you've been pretty involved in all this (and for that, we are most grateful!) [19:25] <howief> we could decide to simply not show the feedback widget in classic/monobook if we can't get it to work [19:25] <YairRand> C is going to squish the page into an even tinier box [19:25] <Ironholds> I don't think not showing it in monobook for example would degrade the feedback [19:25] <fabriceflorin> The main point of this proposed placement is to engage more readers to participate (not just the kind of folks who have time to scroll down to the bottom). [19:25] <rmf_> Exactly right Yanir [19:25] <fabriceflorin> The more readers we engage, the more we hope to convert to editors. [19:25] <Ironholds> I mean, monobook is only used by people with accounts who have tweaked the preferences, and I'd imagine that's mostly editors [19:25] <rmf_> And I use the feddback tool in Mono. [19:26] <rmf_> :) [19:26] <Ironholds> rmf_: but you edit! :P [19:26] <DarTar> YairRand: there's a possibility that C will be designed to use a Z-index so as to be always in the front [19:26] <howief> rmf_: no feedback for you! [19:26] <howief> (just kidding of course) [19:26] <DarTar> so it won't cannibalize on page width [19:26] <fabriceflorin> Yes, YairRand is right that C could possibly impact content, but we could also make it overlap. [19:26] <Ironholds> (om nom nom page width) [19:26] <rmf_> I still have an opinion on the completness and trustworthiness of articles! [19:26] <YairRand> er, covering the content? [19:27] <Bensin> +1 on YairRand. Not option C [19:27] <fabriceflorin> Note that option C is widely used now by many popular sites, so people will expect it to be there. [19:27] <Ironholds> rmf_: true, but - have you seen the new designs for the feedback form? [19:27] <Ironholds> we're getting rid of the stars [19:27] * Maryana (~justdandy@84.246.5.106) Quit (Quit: AFK) [19:27] <fabriceflorin> Option C is also a lot easier to implement from our end. [19:27] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: Even more pages has feedback/comments at the bottom :-) [19:27] <rmf_> yes it is very different [19:27] <fabriceflorin> What do you guys think of Option B, right below the title bar? [19:28] <YairRand> how would it fit with the geocoordinates bar? [19:28] <rmf_> It has some benfits, in the example withthe star, padlock and speaker it is a bit messy. [19:28] <fabriceflorin> Good point, Bensin. Problem is, we're not getting much traction at the bottom of the page, where very few people ever go -- particularly the casual readers we seek to engage. [19:28] <DarTar> YairRand: that's a good point we need to sort out [19:28] <howief> it would have to go below the geocoordinates [19:29] <howief> we'll need to work with the devs to figure that out [19:29] <fabriceflorin> Good point about geocordinates. We may be able to slide it to the right or left of those. [19:29] <rmf_> Well if it goes below we are again inserting project interface into content. [19:29] <fabriceflorin> But Option B has the advantage that it is above the fold, where people will see it more easily. [19:29] <howief> yes [19:29] <fabriceflorin> And yet it's out of the way, not in your face ;o) [19:29] <howief> the positive about option B is that it puts the feedback link more prominently [19:30] <howief> the potential downside is that people will provide feedback without reading the article [19:30] <fabriceflorin> If you had to pick one option, which one would you recommend? A, B or C? [19:30] <rmf_> Pesumably a tab was dicounted? [19:30] <rmf_> *discounted [19:30] <howief> i think we'll get a good sense of whether people leave feedback without reading when we look at the comment streams [19:30] <fabriceflorin> Note that we plan to test all three, but would love your preliminary feedback, so we can adjust accordingly. [19:30] * Logan_ (~Logan@wikimedia/Logan) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:31] <DarTar> jorm: do you want to take rmf_ question on tabs? [19:31] <rmf_> B will give most feedback I suspect, but A will give more granualr feedback [19:31] <fabriceflorin> Good point, rmf. [19:31] <DarTar> there is another benefit to A [19:31] <YairRand> honestly, I'd pick none if it were an option. otherwise I'd pick B because it takes up the least space, even though it's mostly unnoticeable. sorry for being so negative. [19:31] <Bensin> I hate to be a killjoy, but I'm not too pleased with any of the options... Sorry. Option A has good intentions, though. [19:32] <DarTar> when articles are semi-protected, we will still be able to get feedback per section by readers who cannot contribute [19:32] <howief> so is there a fourth option? [19:32] <Ironholds> Bensin: that's my favorite too. What do you dislike about it? [19:32] * Theo10011 (~Theo10011@wikimedia/Theo10011) Quit (Quit: Leaving) [19:32] <YairRand> A would make the edit buttons less noticable [19:33] <howief> YairRand: yes [19:33] <howief> that's one of the potential dangers of option A [19:33] <howief> with Option A, we're putting [feedback] right next to [edit] [19:33] <howief> which may cause users to make a direct choice between the two [19:33] <Bensin> Ironholds: I just think that placing a feedback form at the bottom, where most readers would expect it to be, is a better idea :-) [19:33] <howief> this could have the potential of "cannibalizing" edits [19:34] <Bensin> Ironholds: But I like the idea of section-specific feedback. [19:34] <fabriceflorin> Option A is also a bit cluttered, because we are repeating the same link a number of times on the same page. [19:34] <DarTar> Bensin: have you seen how many people submit feedback with the current placement? [19:34] <howief> i.e., a user who otherwise would have made an edit now provides feedback since it's easier [19:34] <DarTar> Bensin: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Research/November_2011 [19:34] <fabriceflorin> I personally favor Option B, but that's just me. Ultimately, the data from the tests will be our guide. [19:35] * Utar (50fa1d74@gateway/web/freenode/ip.80.250.29.116) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:35] <DarTar> 0.00017% of all pageviews per article currently produce a rating [19:35] <Ironholds> welcome, Utar! Ears burning? :P [19:35] <Bensin> DarTar: That is not necessarily due to the placement. Maybe readers are not as interested in commenting. Yes I know how that sounds for the 5th most visited page on the web... I'm just saying :-) [19:35] <Utar> A bit. [19:35] <Ironholds> okay, I think we have to move on - DarTar, fabriceflorin and howief have a packed day [19:36] <Ironholds> but if you have any other comments or suggestions about this specific discussion, I'll be staying around for a good hour afterwards as is normal :) [19:36] <DarTar> Bensin: look this up: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Article_feedback/Research/February_2011#Article_length_2 [19:36] <Ironholds> for now, fabriceflorin has something important to say about access. Fabrice? :) [19:36] <Bensin> DarTar: Maybe readers interested in interacting will actually edit directly instead of commenting. [19:37] <DarTar> yes maybe :) [19:37] <fabriceflorin> Yes, I have some good news for the community: you all asked that ANYONE be able to vote posts up and down on the feedback page -- and we agree! [19:37] <Ironholds> Utar: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Button-Option-A-Mockup-11-08.png - look familiar? :) [19:37] <fabriceflorin> Here's the new wireframe for the simple feedback page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Article-Feedback-Page-Simple-Wireframe-Admin-Tools-V5-11-10.png [19:38] <Utar> Ironholds: Niceee! [19:38] <fabriceflorin> So from an access standpoint, here are the rules we are proposing: [19:38] <fabriceflorin> anyone can post feedback (even on protected pages) [19:38] <fabriceflorin> anyone can view this feedback page (using link in feedback form) [19:39] <fabriceflorin> anyone can can vote posts up and down (using yes/no buttons or similar input) [19:39] <Bensin> DarTar: Thanks for link. That is really interesting! I can speculate on may things that can be the cause of it :-) [19:39] <rmf_> Sounds good, it remians to be seem whether this is used as a feedback tool or a forum :) [19:39] <fabriceflorin> But only administrators could see user admin/moderation tools (since only admin tool in phase 1.5 is 'hide this post.') [19:40] <fabriceflorin> Here is a revised wireframe which only includes one admin tool for starters: [19:40] <fabriceflorin> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Article-Feedback-Page-Simple-Wireframe-Admin-Tools-V5-11-10.png [19:40] <Ironholds> rmf_: I think we'll find that out during things like testing :) [19:40] <Utar> How about banned users - will they be still able to use AFT? [19:40] <howief> Utar: good question [19:40] <howief> we haven't discussed the connection between banning/blocking and commenting [19:40] <howief> what do you all think? [19:41] <Ironholds> I think they should prevent feedback, personally [19:41] <Ironholds> it also gives us a tool if someone is abusing the feedback function [19:41] <fabriceflorin> Eventually, the feedback page would grow to include more admin tools, as shown in this earlier wireframe: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/File:Article-Feedback-Page-Wireframe-Moderation-V5-11-01.png [19:41] <Addihockey10> I don't like the article feedback tool at all. [19:41] <howief> good point [19:41] <Ironholds> Addihockey10: whyso? [19:41] <rmf_> It's really a different function from blocking. [19:41] <Addihockey10> It's too open to absuse. [19:41] <fabriceflorin> Note that these wireframes need some design love to create a nice mockup, once we've settled on core features for phase 1.5 [19:42] <rmf_> We block people for [{WP:COMPETHENCE]] [19:42] <Ironholds> Addihockey10: have you looked at the changes the new version is going to make? [19:42] <YairRand> if blocking doesn't prevent feedback, we need an entirely new specialized blocking system to stop people from abusing the feedback system [19:42] <Addihockey10> Ironholds: Link? [19:42] <Ironholds> Addihockey10: WP:AFT5 [19:42] <fabriceflorin> But you get the idea. We start simple, with only a hide button for admins, then we add more tools that can make this more relevant for editors. [19:42] <rmf_> No reason such folk should not feedback. [19:42] <howief> yet another blocking system seems to add complexity [19:42] <Addihockey10> Ironholds: Revised statement, I think the current version is shit ;) [19:42] <Ironholds> Addihockey10: good-o :) [19:42] <geniice> fabriceflorin "hide" "hide"? Nuke from obit perhaps [19:42] <rmf_> yes yair - tierd bloocking :o [19:42] <Ironholds> rmf_: well, we block people for lots of reasons, but in every case it's a "go away until you learn to behave" block [19:43] <Ironholds> that's why it's "indefinite" rather than "infinite" [19:43] <fabriceflorin> For example, the more ambitious version of the admin tools for phase 2 would let you post the best feedback to the talk page, or mark issues as resolved. [19:43] <Ironholds> it's kinda undermined if we leave them with avenues to improve stuff or participate :P [19:43] <fabriceflorin> Addihockey, please ignore the current version, we're focusing on the next version. [19:44] <fabriceflorin> But you are correct that opening up comments in this way could open up the floodgates for spamners. [19:44] <Ironholds> so, Bensin, Utar, thoughts? Should a block also prohibit feedback? [19:44] <Addihockey10> fabriceflorin: Use that admin interface [19:44] <Addihockey10> I like it [19:44] <Utar> still thinking... [19:44] <Addihockey10> the mock-up [19:44] <Bensin> Ironholds: Instinctively I'd say yes. Can't see why not... [19:44] <rmf_> @Ironholds: I disagree. We block them to proetcet the project (allegedly). Trols and vandals can keep off the feedback, but cetain other classes of blocked user should be allowed to feedback. [19:45] <YairRand> does anyone else think the entire system is starting to look redundant to the talk page? [19:45] <rmf_> *cough* [19:45] <fabriceflorin> We may have no choice but to have some function for de-emphasizing comments from serial spammmers. [19:45] <Ironholds> YairRand: well, I don't. Talkpages would be great if the average person either (a) knew they were there or (b) could handle markup [19:46] <YairRand> so use LQT and relocate the talk tab to wherever and rename it. [19:46] <fabriceflorin> Yair, the system is intended to be simpler to user by casual users. The current talk page is very daunting for a reader. [19:46] <Ironholds> one of the things I've opened up on the talkpage, guys, is a discussion over how to control abuse - it's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Commentspam if any of you want to help :) [19:46] <Utar> IIf it is enabled there would be someone use it to cry for being banned. [19:47] <fabriceflorin> The current editor community has grown comfortable with talk pages, but indications are that they are overwhelming for casual users. [19:47] <Utar> On the other side, he/she could use it to tell the others what should they change in that article (f.e. banning because of 3 reverts). [19:47] <rmf_> Ironholds: YairRand: You could have a button that opens a new talk page section and signs it, with exisitng functionality. [19:47] <Utar> But that could be done on talk page too. [19:47] <YairRand> if there are two simultaneous projects going on to replace talk pages... [19:48] <fabriceflorin> We may not necessarily need to 'block' serial spammers, but we could filter them much lower on the feedback page. [19:48] <YairRand> ...it's a bit of a waste [19:48] <Ironholds> YairRand: well, this isn't intended to replace talkpages :) [19:48] <rmf_> Notice that Wikia has segued over to comments form talk pages, much to my disgust. [19:48] <geniice> fabriceflorin we need to block serial spammers [19:49] <geniice> in fact we need to block spammers full stop [19:49] <YairRand> right, but it would probably be better to go at it from the perspective of having a perfect, simplistic talk page also available [19:49] <Ironholds> okay, so, guys? the staffers have a hectic schedule, I'm afraid [19:49] <Utar> So, on topic of banning out of AFT in accordance with any other banning, I would say no banning if there would be systems good enough to stop comments abusing the system. [19:49] <Ironholds> so what we're going to do is this - fabriceflorin will move on to the next topic on the schedule, and I'll be hanging around for an hour afterwards to hash stuff out and discuss things without such time limits [19:49] <fabriceflorin> These are just very preliminary wireframes, we still have a long ways to go on them, but it's REALLY helpful to have your initial impressions now, and later on in the talk page. [19:49] <Ironholds> and in the meantime, there's a thread at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool/Version_5#Commentspam to discuss banning, blocking and how to control spam :) [19:50] <fabriceflorin> One more thing we should also bring up is that users will be able to add multiple feedback posts per article [19:50] <fabriceflorin> after you post feedback, the form becomes blank again, so you can post more [19:51] <fabriceflorin> after you post feedback, this phrase would be shown: 'See your last post >>' with a link to your last post(s) in the feedback page [19:51] <fabriceflorin> And when calculating overall ratings (or yes/no answers), only count the last post rating, not an average of all ratings by that user for that article [19:52] <fabriceflorin> Now, here are a couple new mockups and wireframes for option 1 of the feedback form ... [19:52] <fabriceflorin> Here is a revised mockup for option 1 - A [19:52] <fabriceflorin> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Form-Option1-Mockup-11-10.png [19:52] <jorm> Uhm, as far as tabs go, I don't think we should add any new tabs to the interface *at all*. [19:52] <jorm> comments and feedback thing should be contained within the tool. [19:53] <fabriceflorin> We are trying a variation to the 'What do you think?' headline we had before, because it seemed too open-ended (invites people to voice their opinions about the topic, rather than suggest improvements to the article) [19:53] <jorm> (sorry, i was away talking to erik) [19:53] <rmf_> Erik needed a talking too? [19:53] <fabriceflorin> So we are experimenting with an alternative headline (e.g.: 'Help improve this article') instead. [19:53] <howief> jorm: does his best to keep erik in check [19:53] <fabriceflorin> What do you think of this approach? [19:54] * PhancyPhysicist (~charles@cpe-107-9-220-27.neo.res.rr.com) has joined #wikimedia-office [19:54] <rmf_> experimenting alwasy appeals :) [19:54] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: I like. [19:54] <jorm> heh. no; we were discussing additional deployments of moodbar/fbdash [19:54] <fabriceflorin> ere is a revised wireframe for option 1 - B: [19:54] <fabriceflorin> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Form-Option1-B-Wireframe-11-10.png [19:54] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: But I still don't like the "Did you find what you were looking for?"-question. [19:55] <howief> yeah we should find something that's a little more specific to the content of the article [19:55] <fabriceflorin> Yes, good point. We can try some variations when we select which form option to implement. [19:56] <rmf_> Hm.. if they say no, there shuld be a follow up... but it is rather closed. See http://xkcd.com/214/ for how people actually use WP. [19:56] <fabriceflorin> Note that the text prompt in the text area below would be context-sensitive, as shown here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Form-Option1-A-No-Wireframe-11-10.png [19:57] * rmf_ nod nods "Exactly what I meant>£ [19:57] <Ironholds> rmf_: I actually brought that comic up as a thought experiment when discussing this tool a few weeks back :D [19:57] <fabriceflorin> We will also test Bensin's suggestion of "How could this article be improved?" in one of these options. [19:58] <fabriceflorin> I made a mockup for it, but haven't uploaded it yet, sorry. [19:58] <Utar> Ironholds: That "A" on the right, in that mockup A-Mockup-11-08.png of [feedback] thing, is from article or from AFT? [19:59] <Ironholds> Utar: sorry? [19:59] <Bensin> fabriceflorin: So, wait... Are we just talking cosmetic differences now? [19:59] <rmf_> looks like a fair bit of work has been done, no need to apologise :) [19:59] <Utar> File:AFT-v5 Feedback-Button-Option-A-Mockup-11-08.png, right side [19:59] <YairRand> gtg [19:59] * YairRand (63ee0d28@gateway/web/freenode/ip.99.238.13.40) Quit (Quit: Page closed) [19:59] <Ironholds> Utar: the A is just a "this is example A" thing :) [19:59] <rmf_> The A is the inticator o where the AFT is , not part of the screenshot [20:00] <Utar> Ironholds: A and an aroow [20:00] <rmf_> A lable if you will. [20:00] <fabriceflorin> Utar, no the A would not be part of the page. It's just here so we can discuss it. [20:00] <Utar> Ironholds: So AFT will open above the part? [20:01] <Utar> ...so you can see it while commneting? [20:01] <Ironholds> Utar: I think it'll be just below the link, if that's what you mean? [20:01] <Ironholds> ooh, that's a good point [20:01] <fabriceflorin> Good point, we should put it above the section link, so you can read the section below. [20:01] <Ironholds> mind if we get back to you on that? [20:02] <Utar> Ironholds: That AFT window was opened via the link on which A is pointing? Or via the upper one? [20:02] <fabriceflorin> I love the thoughtfulness of everyone's suggestions today! [20:02] <Utar> Smile! [20:02] <Ironholds> Utar: you should've just heard the reaction to your comment :) [20:03] <Ironholds> three people simultaneously going "ooooooh....that's a good question" [20:03] <howief> Utar: i think we'll need to play around with this one [20:03] <howief> opening up above allows the reader to see the text of the section [20:03] <howief> however, most web conventions (i think) would probably have the link open the dialog below [20:03] <fabriceflorin> Utar, the option A mockup suggests that the feedback form opens above the University of Chicago section, so you can read it while commenting: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Button-Option-A-Mockup-11-08.png [20:04] <rmf_> I presume the feedback box will be draggable? [20:04] <howief> this is a tricky one [20:04] <Utar> Ironholds: So it was opened via the upper one. And that "A" is there only to confuse us. NIce try. [20:04] <Ironholds> Utar: it's all a cunning conspiracy to confuddle the editors. you've caught us! :P [20:04] <fabriceflorin> Not sure if it can be draggable initially. Will check with the developers and get back to you. [20:04] <Ironholds> and we would've got away with it if it wasn't for you pesky kids [20:04] <fabriceflorin> Yeah, we love your trick questions! [20:05] <Ironholds> so, do you have any quick questions before everyone heads off? I will (of course) be staying around :) [20:05] <Utar> Here comes the Questioner. [20:05] <Utar> Maybe it could opened below but move the text down. [20:06] <Ironholds> Utar: that's a statement, not a question ;p [20:06] <Utar> That should not be that tricky. [20:06] <Utar> ? [20:06] * Ironholds takes his "Official Pedant" wizard hat off [20:06] <Utar> puts the hat on [20:06] * Mrmatiko (~Adium@wikipedia/Mrmatiko) has left #wikimedia-office [20:07] <fabriceflorin> Thoughtful suggestion, Utar. Let us review this with devs. It may be a bit disconcerting for the readers, so it's not my first choice. [20:07] <Ironholds> Utar: we'll work something out. thanks for raising a serious issue :) [20:08] <Utar> Try below/above the link, above/in text, moving down text, draggable and combinations of it. [20:08] <Utar> For phase do just one and others could be done through Preferences. [20:08] <Utar> phase 1 [20:09] <howief> okay i gotta jet [20:09] <Utar> Will there be some teams "we have this 300 articles and will go through any comment there"? [20:09] <Utar> WikiProjects maybe? [20:10] * howief (~howiefung@216.38.130.166) Quit (Quit: howief) [20:10] <Ironholds> Utar: I think everyone has to pop off :(. [20:10] <Ironholds> well, howie predeceased them, I guess [20:10] <Utar> Or something like "Adopt a typo" -> "Adopt a comment"? [20:10] <DarTar> bye folks [20:10] * DarTar (~DarTar@wikimedia/DarTar) Quit (Quit: DarTar) [20:10] <rmf_> Up to the projecyts I guess [20:10] <Utar> bye [20:10] <rmf_> byr those who are jetting [20:11] <Utar> I can stay. [20:11] <rmf_> At soem point I have to go and loose my ArbCom virginity. [20:12] <Utar> What about that Speed/bandwidth? Was anything about that said? [20:13] <Ironholds> Utar: I've stuck it on my notes page :) [20:13] <Ironholds> basically, I maintain a page on one of the office wikis with all the notes and ideas and suggestions on, and the devs swing through once a day to check for new stuff ans answer it [20:13] <Ironholds> so there should be responses either later today or early tomorrow morning, and I'll post them when I'm given them :) [20:14] <Utar> That's OK, just going throught Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5. [20:15] <Bensin> Ironholds: Are you opening up the floor for questions or do you have more "talking points"? [20:15] <rmf_> Cool [20:16] <Ironholds> Bensin: sorry, had to nip down for noms :) [20:16] <Ironholds> hmmn [20:16] <Ironholds> well, the talking points I'm interested in I think we've covered [20:16] <Ironholds> so - ideas, suggestions, opinions, comments, .45 ACP rounds - shoot! :P [20:17] <Bensin> I think YairRand brought up an excellent point with talk page redundancy. [20:17] * Ironholds nods [20:17] <Bensin> How do we avoid that? [20:17] <Ironholds> I think we may be looking at it the wrong way around, to be honest [20:17] <Bensin> go on. [20:18] <Utar> Yes, maybe the Earth is not flat. [20:18] <Ironholds> like, talkpages are difficult and complex and don't attract a 10th of the attention that the AFT does. That's because you need to know you can edit (which, scarily, most people don't) you need to know wikimarkup, you need to know where a talkpage is, what to do on it...so on, so forth. [20:19] <Ironholds> so really where this overlaps with the talkpages is about making commentary easier and enabling it [20:19] <Bensin> Yeah. Talk pages suck (for lack of a better word.) [20:19] <Ironholds> Bensin: amen [20:19] <Ironholds> they don't suck as badly as liquidthreads *shudders* [20:19] <Bensin> Noooo! Don't say that! LQ RHUHLES! [20:19] <Ironholds> so, I don't think it's going to detract from talkpage use [20:19] <Ironholds> and if it does, any detraction is going to be made up by 10 times the number of suggestions coming in [20:20] <Ironholds> it's also worth pointing out that half of the AFT's goal is actually unrelated to commentary or improvements - it's about dragging potential editors in :). And that's something you don't get with talkpages. [20:20] <Ironholds> in fact, with wikimarkup for the uninitiated, commenting on talk pages is (I'd imagine) a pretty good way to drive people off :P [20:20] <Bensin> I'm coming to that in a moment :-) [20:21] * Nemo_bis (~Nemo@wikimedia/Nemo-bis) Quit (Quit: Vale atque vale) [20:21] <Ironholds> okies :) [20:21] <Ironholds> see, ideally I'd like to see the AFT made redundant [20:22] <Bensin> Re: Talk pages... Maybe we should talk about what defines the feedback page from talk pages? [20:22] <Ironholds> I'd like to see a visual editor come in that's so nuanced, so simple and so obvious we have no problem with attracting new editors or them making improvements [20:22] <Ironholds> but untilt hat happens... ;p [20:22] <Bensin> 'cuz I think editors will ask. [20:22] <Ironholds> by defines do you mean differentiates? [20:22] <Bensin> Yes, thank you :-) [20:22] <Ironholds> cool :) [20:22] <Ironholds> well I think the above points should be reiterated [20:23] <Ironholds> what differs the AFT from talkpages: the AFT doesn't suck for readers :P [20:23] <Bensin> Good point :-) [20:23] <Ironholds> it also enables a far greater capacity for comments [20:23] <Ironholds> I mean, lets say we get..I dunno, 200 helpful suggestions a day on United States or whatever [20:23] <Ironholds> that's one of the more high-profile (in AFT terms) articles [20:23] <rmf_> Also look for collision with the revison control indicator currently on Test wiki. [20:24] <Ironholds> can you imagine 200 distinct talkpage sections added every day? [20:24] <Ironholds> it'd melt! [20:24] <Ironholds> the existing talkpage structure simply isn't designed for really high volumes of info [20:24] <rmf_> Yes, 200 comments is par for the course on theings like Fort Hood Shootings [20:24] <Ironholds> but hopefully the feedback dashboard (or whatever) will be [20:24] <Utar> And can you imagine how much of work to go throught it is? [20:24] <Ironholds> rmf_: and is it easy to navigate or make them actionable? [20:25] <Ironholds> Utar: it's also very restrictive; the longer a page gets, the more difficult it is to navigate for low-bandwidth (or even high bandwidth) people [20:25] <rmf_> Good question, I have that issue on my talkpage - but I have a bot to help solve it. [20:25] <Ironholds> I've noticed firefox tends to get very clunky around big articles, for example, but maybe firefox just sucks :P [20:25] <Ironholds> rmf_: *nods* [20:25] <Utar> Hey [20:25] <Bensin> OK. Is it fair to say that talk pages is for discussion and the feedback page is for suggestions? [20:25] <rmf_> It's not just Firefox, it;s (shh) the mediawiki softwaware. [20:25] <Ironholds> Utar: hey! :) [20:26] <Utar> Yeah, better. [20:26] <Ironholds> rmf_: don't say that! the servers have a big sign on them! [20:26] <Ironholds> THIS MACHINE KILLS HERETICS [20:26] <rmf_> I wrote warnig poems on two of my servers once... [20:26] <Utar> Still recording this session? [20:26] <Ironholds> Bensin: I think that's probably accurate, although I think the distinction covers more than just the intended purpose [20:27] <Ironholds> Utar: logging? Indeedy :). you got something you don't want anyone to see? [20:27] <rmf_> Will there then be some way of recording which feedback has been read/actioned? [20:27] <Utar> 7 rowes above [20:27] <Ironholds> rmf_: yup; there's going to be a "mark as done" or (hopefully) "mark as bloody stupid" button [20:28] <Ironholds> Utar: I'm afraid I can't see a question :(. mIRC is all black-text-on-white-background, so this is just a wall of pixels as I scroll up. Could you repeat? [20:28] <Utar> better no :D [20:28] <rmf_> .. "no action required..." I beleive in tact, even though my accusers say I'm "negative" :) [20:28] <Ironholds> rmf_: indeed; that's probably the wording used :P [20:28] <Ironholds> I get rather flippant in my spare time. Or in my work time. Or in any time I'm awake. Sorry ;) [20:29] <Utar> Nd all users can mark a comment as done/stupid? [20:29] <Ironholds> Utar: I imagine it'd be autoconfirmed-or-above [20:29] <Ironholds> 'angon, I have it in my inbox [20:29] <Ironholds> (I've been meaning to post this to the talkpage, but gmail buggered up and lost it, so I had to have it resend) [20:29] * Ironholds searches through [20:29] <Utar> And there will be reopen, won't be? [20:29] <rmf_> We had this discussion (socially, not tchnically) on bugzila... bug I need to re-open, that reminds me [20:30] <Ironholds> Utar: most definitely :) [20:30] <Bensin> Ironholds: Speaking of looking at something the wrong way around: AFT is aiming to recruit new editors... Is there an ongoing project to retain/welcome new editors? [20:30] <Ironholds> it just says "editors/admins can moderate"; I don't know what he means by "editors". I assume autoconfirmed, but I'll find out [20:30] <Utar> And those done/stupid will be a bit hidden, won't be they? [20:30] <Ironholds> Bensin: most definitely! Maryana and StevenW are doing some work on warning and welcome templates right now [20:31] <Ironholds> (we have some interesting data on welcoming templates themselves, which means they utterly suck) [20:31] <Bensin> Ironholds: And is there a tool to easily identify potential recruits? [20:31] <Ironholds> Bensin: in what sense? [20:31] * fabriceflorin (~fabricefl@c-98-210-230-160.hsd1.ca.comcast.net) Quit (Quit: fabriceflorin) [20:31] <rmf_> They need it, I improved just oen half as much as I would like and it took a long time [20:31] <rmf_> People who feedback a lot or knowledgeably [20:32] <Ironholds> so, like, "show me everyone who has posted multiple comments that have a vote of +5" or something? [20:32] * jorm_ (~bharris@wikimedia/jorm) has joined #wikimedia-office [20:32] <Utar> Bensin: What that should be like? Their IP number could be divided by 7? [20:32] <Bensin> Ironholds: The same way we can patrol new pages, we should patrol first time editors and immediately welcome them if they are editing constructively. [20:32] <Ironholds> Utar: that's a good point, yeah. Or, to flip it the other way around, they could have a dynamic address with 40 contributions, all good, all from different IPs [20:32] <rmf_> No, diveded by 256 remainder 255.... [20:32] <Ironholds> Bensin: I think there already is one, in theory [20:32] <Bensin> Utar: Well, 7 is a lucky number, you know ;-) [20:33] <Ironholds> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Welcoming_committee [20:33] <Utar> yeah [20:33] <Bensin> Ironholds: I need one practically :-) [20:33] <Ironholds> Bensin: touche :P [20:33] <Ironholds> personally the bit I'm most going to enjoy working on here is this stuff [20:33] <rmf_> ...waits to see who gets IP address joke... [20:33] <Bensin> Ironholds: Yeah. You should be bleeding from that one ;-) [20:33] <Ironholds> the call to action, what guidance we see them, so on and so forth [20:33] <Ironholds> Bensin: well, you were only using an epee [20:33] <Ironholds> *we send them [20:34] <Ironholds> rmf_: nooo idea ;p [20:34] * Ironholds is an editor, not a server monkey, alas [20:34] <Utar> Ironholds, repeating: Those done/stupid ones will be a bit hidden, won't be they? [20:35] <Ironholds> Utar: I think I replied (or maybe I missed it again, argh) [20:35] <Utar> or I [20:35] <rmf_> : ) lame joke anyway. [20:35] <Ironholds> offensive ones, hidden. Stupid and done ones I'm not sure what'll be done - they could be hidden, or deprecated beneath undone-and-not-stupid ones [20:35] <Ironholds> I'll find out :) [20:36] * jorm (~bharris@wikimedia/jorm) Quit (Ping timeout: 255 seconds) [20:36] * jorm_ is now known as jorm [20:36] <Utar> So if somebody starts marking lots of comments as done (when they are not) then....? [20:36] <rmf_> er.... [20:36] <Ironholds> they can be unmarked, I would assume [20:36] * Ironholds goes to look at the latest wireframe [20:36] <rmf_> tricky becasue it might be legitmate to make a lot as "not needing doing" [20:37] <Utar> Yes, but you came to article with 5 comments undone (while down there are dozens of them bad marked). How to find out it? [20:37] <Ironholds> Utar: an excellent point. I'll add it to the "to ask" list :) [20:38] <Ironholds> (there's a wireframe around here with all the moderation tools shown, but I'll be damned if I can find it) [20:38] <Utar> Maybe a system "in this articles somebody marked 20 comments as done in 1 minute, that's too fast to be good"? [20:38] <Ironholds> Utar: yeah, we could have some sort of throttle [20:39] <Utar> Then unmarking, banning that silly man out of AFT for some time... [20:39] <Ironholds> hehe [20:39] <rmf_> Wellif the feedback page is a Wikipgage with some chrome, we could look at the history [20:40] <Ironholds> rmf_: I'm not entirely sure if it'll work that way - I think the plan is t have it as a Special: page in the same way the feedback dashboard is [20:40] <rmf_> and it's all subject to normal Wiki social (hem) process. [20:40] <Utar> It's the same problem as going to page after a flamewar/vandal attack. [20:40] * Ironholds nods [20:40] <Utar> Yes, there you have History. What you would have here? [20:41] <Utar> Some answer maybe? Just noding is not enough... [20:41] * howief (~howiefung@216.38.130.166) has joined #wikimedia-office [20:41] <Ironholds> welcome back, howief! [20:41] <rmf_> Weebies Howie [20:41] <Ironholds> Utar: here there'd be some sort of record of who did what with what comment, but there is a question of what record [20:42] <Ironholds> I know the comments will be appearing in contribs, so there's no reason why marking them shouldn't appear in the logs [20:42] <Ironholds> but that isn't page specific. hmn. I'll find out :) [20:42] <Utar> Will be comments seeable in the Watchlist? [20:42] * LauraHale is now known as Laura|Away [20:43] <Ironholds> so you can see if there's been a response from someone? [20:43] <rmf_> It seems to me foolish to duplicate exisitng fuctionality, since we have history, undo, rollback etc in wiki pages, I would recommoned making this a wiki-page with raw editing disabled. [20:43] <Ironholds> rmf_: that'd probably work nicely. I'll forward all these ideas [20:43] <Ironholds> sorry I can't be more helpful - I'm the community liason, but cannot code to save my life ;p [20:43] <Utar> no prob [20:44] <rmf_> Inded, i's not to relevant to the discussion to have codeability. [20:44] <Ironholds> rmf_: sure, but I more meant "I'm not one of the devs", so I can't comment in excruciating detail on what their plans or prototypes are [20:44] <Ironholds> but what I can do is ferry your concerns over to them and get back to you with a reply promptly :) [20:45] <Utar> Will that [feedback] way of development need allowing of new windows showing? [20:45] <Ironholds> are you User:Rmf? Just so I know where to stick the talkpage message when I've got a response [20:45] <Ironholds> Utar: I don't believe so; it's an overlay inside the new window. You'd just be enabling existing code within the page, not requesting a new window [20:45] <Ironholds> otherwise every popup blocker on earth would go mental [20:46] <Ironholds> (but again, I'll find out just to be on the safe side) [20:46] <Bensin> Ironholds: Will the comments be licensed CC-by-sa? [20:46] <Ironholds> Bensin: that's a "most definitely" thing. We don't accept any content without a CC-BY-SA or looser license [20:47] <Utar> 10 points hit [20:47] <Ironholds> Utar: sorry? [20:47] <Utar> Bensin's question was marked as really good one (10/10). [20:48] <Ironholds> ahhh [20:48] <Ironholds> indeed, I agree! [20:48] <Utar> And more to [feedback]: [20:48] <Ironholds> ugh, last month I went to a bar conference with videoed presentations that were being released [20:48] <Ironholds> and the release form had "this will be released under a CC-BY-SA 3.0 license yadda yadda...you retain all performance rights" [20:48] <Ironholds> cue headdesk. [20:48] <Utar> Will links show next to everywhere title as [edit] does? [20:48] <Ironholds> Utar: next to every single section, you mean? [20:48] <Utar> yes [20:49] <Bensin> How do we notify the user giving feedback that they are releasing the comment under that license? [20:49] <Ironholds> well, I did suggest to them they might want to limit it to say, ==headings== rather than ===headings=== [20:49] <Utar> or only == X ==? [20:49] <Utar> or == and ===? [20:49] <Ironholds> Utar: the current design is "every heading". I'd prefer just ==these ones== because otherwise it gets too clogged [20:49] <Ironholds> also, you sometimes get ==heading== [20:49] <Ironholds> and then immediately below ===subheading=== [20:49] <Utar> That could be better than to everyone. [20:50] <Ironholds> the risk, I guess, is that the AFT buttons could be really far apart. But so what? they'll still be more accessible than the current layout :P [20:50] <Ironholds> awesome! I'll forward that too :) [20:50] <Ironholds> Bensin: there's a button on the box...hangon [20:50] <Utar> But maybe to hard to make. Maybe it is easier to make is like [edit] and then to enhance. [20:50] <Ironholds> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AFT-v5_Feedback-Form-Option1-Mockup-11-10.png [20:50] <Ironholds> "by posting you agree to transparency under these terms" [20:50] <Ironholds> I imagine that'd contain licensing info [20:51] <Bensin> Ahhh. Loockatthat. I'm all good :-) [20:51] <Ironholds> Utar: the devs don't, I think, find limitations like that too hard to make [20:51] <rmf_> Nope, User Rich Farmbrough. [20:51] <Ironholds> I mean, I told them "you might want to include an exception for standardised headings like References or External links" and they were fine with that [20:51] <Ironholds> so it shouldn't be a problem [20:51] <Utar> Because they are "the devs". I see. [20:51] <Ironholds> rmf_: ahh, the legendary Rich Farmbrough :P [20:52] <Ironholds> Utar: well, more "I ran similar things past them and they sort of shrugged and went 'that's cool'" [20:52] <Ironholds> so I can't imagine this'd be much more difficult. I'll throw it, see if it makes them shriek in terror or not [20:52] <Utar> That's their part of work. [20:52] <rmf_> Mhm, very dev-ey thing to say that. [20:53] <rmf_> Then they realise that it means standard appensies need to be part of the config file, and translated thrugh translatewiki.... [20:53] <Ironholds> and THEN they shriek in terror :P [20:53] * rmf_ nod nods [20:53] <Ironholds> they give an update each week - if it's getting too difficult I'm sure they'll say so [20:53] <Utar> Yes, "Reference" and "Externí odkazy". [20:54] <rmf_> Yes.. but that inofrmation is also useful. [20:54] * Ironholds nods [20:54] <rmf_> I am gathering it wrt half a dozen languages anyway .. . for my research. [20:54] <Ironholds> rmf_: ooh, fun! personal research, or academic, or...? [20:54] <Ironholds> because I'm sure the research committee would be happy to help if they can [20:54] <rmf_> Academic. [20:55] <rmf_> It's on Mets. [20:55] <rmf_> It's on Meta. [20:55] <Ironholds> ahh. awesome :) [20:55] <Utar> And are [feedback] links now planned as always visible/with ability to not be showed/not showed but wit ability to be showed? [20:55] <Ironholds> Utar: I think it's "visible, but you can turn it off" [20:55] <Ironholds> like with the [edit] link, actually [20:55] <Ironholds> I shall make sure, though [20:55] <Utar> So in preferences will be: [20:56] <Utar> "Turn [feedback] links off" and [20:56] <Utar> "Put [feedback] link in first part too"? [20:56] <Ironholds> what do you mean by the second one, sorry? [20:57] <Ironholds> (apologies if I'm unusually dense today, btw - I have a hideous chest infection and the meds are making me slightly woozy. So I'm even dumber than is normal :P) [20:58] <Utar> In preferences: "Enable section editing via [edit] links" and "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page". [20:58] * StevenW (~stevenwal@wikimedia/steven-walling) has joined #wikimedia-office [20:58] <rmf_> So there's no feedback for the lead. [20:58] <Ironholds> Utar: ahh. Possibly! I'll also find out [20:58] <rmf_> Without that. [20:58] <Ironholds> rmf_: dang, that's a great point. [20:59] * rmf_ waves to Kingpin [20:59] <Ironholds> (don't worry - I use the logs to build up a big report and then forward it to the devs, so these questions, suggestions and issues will be addressed) [20:59] * Kingpin13 blinks [20:59] <Utar> It is but only down, in the central one for whole page, isn't it? [21:00] <Utar> The AFt window will still be down there? [21:00] <Ironholds> Utar: I'm still a wee bit uncertain what's happening with the centralised one, but I *think* it's staying. So that'd work. [21:01] <Utar> So you can comment the whole page (down) or some part ([feedback]) but you can't feedback just the lead section now. [21:01] <Utar> Not good. [21:01] <Ironholds> that's an issue. thanks to both you and rmf_ for highlighting it. As said, I'll find out :) [21:02] <Utar> I would advise to do it as the [edit] links are now and later maybe to tweak it. [21:02] * Ironholds nods [21:02] <Utar> and tries to not shiver in terror (and sickness) [21:03] <Ironholds> Utar: you're ill too? :P [21:03] <Utar> Hopefully not. That was for you. [21:03] <Ironholds> ahhh [21:03] <Ironholds> no, I like chatting to my fellow editors. you lot don't scare me! [21:03] <Ironholds> (that is not a "please try harder" request :P) [21:03] * rmf_ takes extra vit C just in case of bit bourne viruses [21:03] <Utar> OK, as you want. [21:04] <Utar> bourne viruses? [21:04] <Utar> but nice one [21:04] <Ironholds> Utar: but-bourne as in "conveyed via bits" [21:05] <Ironholds> okay, I have to head off soon, so - last points? [21:05] <Utar> It is sometimes not easy to read even without you making typos. [21:05] <rmf_> I'm done. Thanks for the opportunity to feedback, and the work you guys put n. [21:06] <Ironholds> Utar: oh, I can't read what I write either ;p [21:06] <Utar> I will try to prepare some new thrilling questions for you, Hermes. [21:06] <Ironholds> rmf_: I'll pass your comments (and thanks) on! Thanks so much to all of you for the feedback. The tool designed a month ago is now pretty much entirely different from the current implementation, and is only getting better, and that's thanks to feedback from sessions like this one (and, of course, the talkpages) :) [21:07] <Ironholds> on that subject (woo, great segue, ollie) the talkpage has a few new sections if you want to comment. I'll get all this feedback to you ASAP :) [21:07] <Ironholds> and I should have a long-term schedule for office hours set up within the week [21:07] <Ironholds> (although the foundation is evidently on holiday tomorrow. Lucky, lucky people) [21:08] <Utar> lost again [21:08] <Ironholds> right - Bensin, rmf_, Utar and everyone else, have a good night. I'll talk to you next week :) [21:08] * Ironholds waves Session Close: Thu Nov 10 21:08:40 2011