User talk:Doc James

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from User talk:Jmh649)
Jump to: navigation, search

wht u deleted page[edit]

Trophy.png wht u deleted page
wht u deleted page ThakurSaabji (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Not sure to what you refer User:ThakurSaabji? Do you own the copyright to this[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

File tagging File:SkinInEosinCell.jpg[edit]

беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ | català | čeština | dansk | Deutsch | Deutsch (Sie-Form)‎ | Ελληνικά | English | español | euskara | فارسی | suomi | français | galego | עברית | hrvatski | magyar | Հայերեն | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | lietuvių | македонски | മലയാളം | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | norsk | polski | português | română | русский | sicilianu | slovenčina | slovenščina | svenska | Türkçe | українська | اردو | Tiếng Việt | 中文(简体)‎ | 中文(繁體)‎ | +/−
Warning sign
This media may be deleted.
Thanks for uploading File:SkinInEosinCell.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or send an email with copy of a written permission to OTRS (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). This also applies if you are the author yourself.

Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, and Commons:Permission if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own.

Unless the permission information is given, the image may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

Smooth O (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

User:Smooth O please look at the source in question which says "This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited." Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Why is the WMF warring over Flow?[edit]

As you probably know, Commons reached consensus to uninstall Flow.[2] A volunteer developer had already written the patch to complete the Phabricator task, however the WMF halted deployment with no explanation. The WMF has just posted a response refusing to uninstall.[3] Again with no explanation.

I do not understand why the WMF is fighting consensus here, and more importantly I think the only result will be to pointlessly worsen the WMF-community relationship.

While my first preference is of course for the consensus task to be completed, as a Board member I was hoping you would at a minimum take an interest in investigating WHY the WMF feels it is worth fighting the community over this. As I said, the WMF has given no explanation whatsoever. Alsee (talk) 05:14, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

P.S. The WMF is responding by building a superprotect for Flow.[4] Alsee (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay will look. Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Doc James I'd like to make a correction. I said no explanation was offered. However the commons post was so upsetting that I missed the asserted rationale. They're citing the log entries for deleted pages. This was not a problem on EnWiki, it was not a problem on Meta, and no one cares about log entries for non-existent Flow pages. And people care even less about logs for Flow-test pages, which is all Commons ever had. Alsee (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
User:Alsee Okay so my understanding is that currently Commons does not allow Flow pages. And that currently their are no Flow pages on Commons. While the software may be lingering in the background, if it is unused is that not sufficient? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I've heard there are two Flow pages on Commons. At the moment I can only point to one: Commons_talk:Flow.
Regarding leaving Flow in the background, this is the third time it's being redebated. Here's the meta-discussion:
  • On EnWiki, the WMF proposed leaving Flow installed in the background. The involved editors and WMF discussed it and came to agreement that would not be sufficient. There was WMF-editor agreement that consensus was sufficiently obvious without need of a formal RFC. Flow was amicably uninstalled.
  • On Meta: The RFC proposal was "Proposal to remove Flow on Meta-Wiki". I foresaw that the WMF might interpret it as leaving Flow in the background. I opened an RFC subsection Clarification_of_purpose. Among those who supported the RFC, they explicitly and unanimously ruled out leaving Flow in the background. Two of the RFC opponents also commented in that section. One merely reiterated opposition to the RFC as a whole, however the other opponent notably affirmed the RFC intent was explicitly for uninstall and not leaving Flow in the background. I would like to note that the section got hatted, and I'd like to offer an opinion on why. I think people considered it blindingly-obvious that the intent was explicit uninstall. I think some people considered it unnecessary/offensive/bad_faith to question whether leaving Flow in the background would be acceptable. It turns out I was right to open the section. When the Phab task was filed, the WMF did initially interpret it as leaving Flow in the background. I cited the explicit consensus that against that option. That initial misunderstanding was quickly and amicably cleared up. Flow was uninstalled.
  • On Commons: The proposal was absolutely explicit on uninstall. Many supports were brief, but some support rationales explicitly preclude any interpretation of leaving Flow in the background. The WMF ignored the public discussion, the WMF had their own non-public discussion, the WMF refused repeated requests to shine light on the nature of those internal discussions, then the WMF spent five days building a super protection mode for Flow in secret.[5][6] The WMF plans-or-planned to roll out the undiscussed new Flow feature. When that was announced, a number of people from the RFC began explicitly objecting that it was not an acceptable alternative. I, and I'm sure others, consider it perverse and offensive for the WMF to assert that we were requesting development of a yet another Flow feature.
Given that Flow isn't wanted on Commons, given that the WMF agrees that Flow isn't going to be here in any functional form, is there any credible reason for the WMF to damage relations over this? The WMF is citing Flow logs as a technical-reason not to uninstall. However that rationale makes no sense, and the WMF's insistence on covert discussions compounds questions about the sincerity of that rationale. Instead of wasting time and money developing a Flow-lockdown mode, the WMF could have addressed the log issue instead. That is clearly the correct technical answer, that would clean up any log concern for EnWiki and Meta. I see no good-faith way the WMF can claim the log issue is severe enough to prevent a Commons uninstall while simultaneously prohibiting the logs from being cleaned up for EnWiki and Meta. Alsee (talk) 23:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I am with you in not liking flow. IMO we do not need three different way to edit Wikipedia when two is enough. And unfortunately flow has distracted from the development of wanted changes to talk pages. Though developing stuff for communities other than EN WP is something I support.
With respect to "delete and disable" versus "uninstall" both results in the same outward result and thus I am not seeing this as a critical issue. Any return of this software IMO would need a clear super majority. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"flow has distracted from the development of wanted changes to talk pages" - that is passive phrasing. The WMF has been actively rejecting work on Talk pages. Every single time, the WMF politely states they won't do squat for us unless we switch to Flow first. As long as key management are married to the idea that Flow is going to eventually replace all talk pages, they don't want to engage in wasted/counterproductive work improving a system they want to eliminate. It's a slow form of sabotage-by-neglect. By the way, that is one of the reasons people want Flow uninstalled rather than hidden. Maybe we can finally get things like section watchlisting if the WMF accepts that Flow isn't on a slow-roll to replace Talk pages. Alsee (talk) 09:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I think the last bit you raise is by far more important than the uninstall / disable discussion IMO. If dreams of "flow" are being used to prevent development of the primary talk page system than we need to be discussing that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:39, 8 March 2018 (UTC)