Heather (WMF)

edit this template Welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation website.

Thanks for being here! This wiki does not exactly follow the same rules as the other Wikimedia projects, since it is not open to all for editing, and in case of disagreement, the organ of decision will be the Board. A rule of thumb however is that if we gave you access, that means we trust you. So please, do not be shy in editing this site. There is ample work for everyone :-)

• Please create your userpage with a short biography and other introductory information about yourself and the work you do. (Feel free to look at other user pages for examples.)
• All organizational pages may be found in the special category.
• For those willing to help with translation, please see m:Translation requests, especially its subpages /WMF, /WMFNews and sometimes /quick translation.
• Please watch for feedback on Meta-Wiki and start discussions there.
• More about this wiki...

Thehelpfulone 13:34, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

File:WMF join us button.svg

Hi. I don't really understand the purpose of this image. Wouldn't it be better to create something like this in HTML/CSS? --MZMcBride 02:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! i'm not sure what "better" would mean. I did actually create the button as you assert, earlier today, and decided not to use that solution because it didn't set the button off from the "page" enough (in my opinion). Mostly because of the lack of gradient (which I would love to learn how to do). heather walls 02:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Better in the sense that using HTML/CSS allows for easier changes to the text, easier localization/internationalization, and it's better for user accessibility. There are other reasons laid out here, though some are not as relevant (page load time won't significantly increase by using an extra image, for example). Unless there's a really compelling reason to use an SVG, you should go with an HTML/CSS solution. --MZMcBride 02:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Work with us

Hi. I cleaned up some of your code at Work with us. Tables should generally be avoided if possible. Lists should use HTML list syntax. <br> is not a substitute for using margins/padding. Those are were the key issues. The rest of the issues were largely tweaks/adjustments, I think. --MZMcBride 04:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi MZ. This is a heads-up that "Work with us" is going to change. I have waited to respond to your previous changes because 1. The page was in a temporary state, and 2. I am very busy and not interested in arguing.

I am taking your code advice into consideration for the new layout. Design of this page belongs to Jorm and Eloquence and myself (this includes "tweaking spacing"), and the content belongs to Matthew and Jay, this is not up for further revision. Please create a discussion for any changes you think would be important but they may not be included based on the needs required.

The Foundation wiki is not like a normal wiki.  It's controlled, restricted access, and it's not intended to be freely open to the world to edit.  There's a reason for that.  The Foundation has a specific goal and purpose with it, and sometimes (unlike on Wikipedia) pages DO have an owner.  This is one of those cases.

A Talk page discussion for this type of thing can mitigate a lot of hard feelings, and that's true here as it is on Wikipedia.  In both cases, the standard is to gather consensus for changes.  The cycle is "BRD", "Bold, Revert, Discuss".  You are okay to have "BOLDly" made changes (though it isn't ideal on this particular wiki), but the minute you were reverted, the next correct action is to DISCUSS, not to get into a revert war. I apologize if I did not take up the discuss aspect promptly.

I appreciate your help and advice, but please do not make visual changes to my work without discussing them; changes on these pages created for the Foundation will be reverted.

Thank you. heather walls 04:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll respond to this in a bit. Honestly, it sounds like a good portion of it didn't come from you, but if you want to stand behind some of these (incredibly stupid) comments, you're more than welcome to. --MZMcBride 18:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

So here's the confusing part (and why this doesn't seem like it was written by you, Heather Walls). I would think you would leave a comment more like this: "Hey. Thanks for cleaning up my shitty code. I was hired as a contractor to do some Web design work, but as you've seen, I'm clearly much more of a designer than a coder. I appreciate you donating/volunteering your time, and sorry about Jorm, he was out of line." Instead, you've given me a rambling mini-essay about the role of the Wikimedia Foundation and how it's appropriate for you, as an outside contractor, to come into this place and take (prideful!) ownership of bad code. One could safely say I'm a little lost why you're acting like this.

Inline replies below.

Hi MZ. This is a heads-up that "Work with us" is going to change. I have waited to respond to your previous changes because 1. The page was in a temporary state, and 2. I am very busy and not interested in arguing.

Well, yes. I can certainly see how you'd be busy: you've been contracted to do Web design work and you quite clearly only have a very limited grasp of HTML (much less CSS). I'm sure you'll be very busy in the days and weeks ahead. :-)

The Foundation wiki is not like a normal wiki.  It's controlled, restricted access, and it's not intended to be freely open to the world to edit.  There's a reason for that.  The Foundation has a specific goal and purpose with it, and sometimes (unlike on Wikipedia) pages DO have an owner.  This is one of those cases.

Err, thanks. I was here before you and I'll be here after your contract expires, but it's always nice to have a refresher... I guess. Again, I find it odd (though admittedly also fascinating) that you take such prideful—nearly boastful—ownership of what you've created. You're the cat; Work with us is the dead bird.

A Talk page discussion for this type of thing can mitigate a lot of hard feelings, and that's true here as it is on Wikipedia.  In both cases, the standard is to gather consensus for changes.  The cycle is "BRD", "Bold, Revert, Discuss".  You are okay to have "BOLDly" made changes (though it isn't ideal on this particular wiki), but the minute you were reverted, the next correct action is to DISCUSS, not to get into a revert war. I apologize if I did not take up the discuss aspect promptly.

What changes, exactly? With the exception of a few typo fixes and very minor aesthetic adjustments (hyphens to en dashes), all of my edits were to the code, not to the substance of the page (though the substance of the page most certainly needs work!). And who started multiple discussions about this page? Oh... right. God forbid someone remove the pointless and meaningless quotes from the page. (One day I'll come to understand what the hell "I don't have a nine to five job, I have a 24-7-365 lifestyle." means.)

I appreciate your help and advice, but please do not make visual changes to my work without discussing them; changes on these pages created for the Foundation will be reverted.

You have a very strange way of expressing your appreciation. I made an effort to not make visual changes to your work, though your work undoubtedly needs them. You're free to revert as you see fit, but I'd recommend not doing so as Jorm does. Reactionary, chest-thumping reverts are poor form on any wiki.

If you had simply coded the page properly the first time, there would have been no need for further edits by others. Wikimedia is an educational project (some might even say a knowledge project). The code that it uses should demonstrate best practices for standards and accessibility. No page or project should encourage contractors to thump their chests beside their mediocre work.

Good luck in redesigning the page. I'll continue to fix blatant errors as I see them. --MZMcBride 07:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Template:Jobs graphic/tr

Not sure if you saw, but Template:Jobs graphic was recently translated into Turkish: Template:Jobs graphic/tr. Yay for text overlays! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Wikimedia Foundation office camera shy.png

Hi. I think File:Wikimedia Foundation office camera shy.png without the "camera shy" text looks and works much better.

I'm curious about the image's size, though. Do you happen to have a higher resolution version of the image? I was looking to maybe swap out the photo used at Template:User info (currently it uses File:How Wikipedia Works.jpg), mostly for the sake of consistency. But Template:User info is using a slightly larger image size (250px instead of 140px), so using File:Wikimedia Foundation office camera shy.png isn't currently possible. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I uploaded a larger version. I try to use the actual size that is needed when I can because of the pixelation issue with the renderer. heather walls (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks. The redesigned page is really starting to look good. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Roarrr

Those sketches are soo good :) SJ + 18:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Wikipedia puzzle globe 3D render.zip

Hi. Can you please explain why you deleted File:Wikipedia puzzle globe 3D render.zip? As I recall, it took years to get these files finally published and they're a very important part of Wikipedia history, so I'm a bit stunned by the sudden deletion. --MZMcBride (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi MZ. The 3D file of the globe is a base element of the Wikipedia trademark. Feel free to chat with me on IRC if you want to. Talk to you soon, Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

And suddenly a red link is no longer red. Thanks! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Why is the license on the model so restrictive considering the logos are CC-BY-SA? It seems kinda weird to allow 3D printing, but not rendering. I can't render it in Blender, but I can 3D print it and take a photo? PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:33, 4 December 2014 (UTC)