User talk:JohnF/Archive1

This page uses the LiquidThreads discussion system. Try discussing in sandbox. Click "Start a new discussion" to begin a new discussion on this page.

Welcome to the Wikimedia Foundation's strategic planning process. We appreciate your interest in taking part. You can start by reading our Community guidelines (en). Check out the links on the Main Page (en) and find an area that interests you. Please feel free to ask me any questions, or you may leave a message on the Village pump (en).

Gopher65_talk 23:37, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File uploads

Hi John -

For the purposes of this project, we're uploading files to Wikimedia Commons, so that they're available to all of the Wikimedia projects for reference, and not just to the strategy wiki. I noticed that you uploaded a couple of them here. It's no big deal, but would you mind re-uploading them to Commons? The license should be CC-by-SA, I believe. If you have any problems, give me a call. You should have my phone number in previous emails, but if not, send me an email. -- Philippe 23:49, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page etiquette

Hi, John. I understand you have more than 20 years in executive search. I hope you will please review the Strategic Planning:Community guidelines which mentions the golden rule, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments which states, "Do not strike out or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

While this edit may have seemed sound to you, did you realize that you were deleting an authentic answer to the question which linked me, the author of that comment, to that page? Would you want people to delete your talk page comments based on their sole judgment as to whether they were on-topic?

I harbor no ill will about this, as I understand your motivation, thinking you were removing an insincere comment. However, the comment was sincere and I ask that you undo the deletion. Thank you. 99.60.1.164 03:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Base Concern

Hi John, I posted this on Eugene's talk page as well which is where I found your post about posting to the fact base content pages -vs- talk pages for Participation:

I actually have some problem with this approach. The "fact base" is really missing some important information and perspectives...along the lines of the wiki way - the more perspectives the closer to fact we get.... And the fact base that is there represents quite a bias toward Wikipedia and English. Or maybe I'm just not seeing the whole picture? I put some additions both to one of the Participation fact base content page and talk page.

Let me know if you prefer my contributions and input in another manner. I want to be constructive and productive! Thanks Jennifer Riggs 18:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Hey, Jennifer! Thanks for the thoughts. I love the contributions that you've made, and what you raise is a great point around a focus that's heavy on Wikipedia, and in particular, English Wikipedia. We're trying to make the page as inclusive as possible and actually thought that too much direction might be a bad thing: in the spirit of the Wiki way, we hoped that it could be a collaboration. Does it seem like we've gone astray of that?"

Thanks for your response. My opinion (keep in mind, I'm still a relative newbie at editing and in the Wikimedia world): You might not be astray for the most active users in the sense that within many of the projects, Be Bold means if there isn't a direction not to change something, you should change it if you have something to improve it. But within some projects (especially different language versions like Indonesian and Japanese) and with newbies like myself, the lack of direction sent me searching for permission to change a page in the "Fact Base" section.(Which led me to your comment on EEKIM's page that I thought was saying that you'd prefer people not alter the fact base pages). I think we have to recognize that the guideline "Be Bold" means very different things to different people. So while the usual voices will probably jump right in, many other valuable voices that we don't hear from may not add their ideas.

I was actually a little surprised that there wasn't any comment about the focus on English and Wikipedia. We do have some regulars that are usually pretty vocal about that. So that was another reason that I assumed I was doing it the wrong way =-). I love the idea of this project and really want to help it be truly successful at eliciting a very broad range of perspectives! Keep up the great work.Jennifer Riggs 18:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency?

I'm trying to get page layout consistent with style at Wikipedia: having a summary paragraph before the first heading and before the table of content. You are reverting my attempt while I am busy changing this consistently across many pages. So please, get the page layout readible and consistent with Wikipedia style. Dedalus 20:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]