MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice/Archive 5

message: I've added an apostrophe and s so that it now reads: "Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales's...". If I remember correctly, this is the proper way to place a possessive apostrophe in names of people which end in "s". Alternatively, we could just reword the whole statement to avoid apostrophes. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: Is it me, or is there a missing </div> at the end? (I count two opening DIV's, then a close, then another open, and then a single close). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing /DIV?

message: Hey mav, please add in the ID for the personal appeal. E.g. - . Thanks! —Locke Cole • t • c 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. - Mark 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ID of personal appeal

message: We take in less money on an average non-fund dive *month* than we do on an average fund drive *day*. Much of that is likely due to the near invisible donations link in the sidebar. Our costs are growing nearly as exponentially as our traffic. So increasing the non-fund drive donation rate is very important to ensuring the financial health of the foundation and its projects. It will also lesson the pressure we have during fund drives and may even reduce their duration. Let me reiterate some other points: 
*The board, by unanimous consent, agreed to keep the sitenotice up for awhile longer at least on the English Wikipedia. No specific time period was mentioned, so *they* need to clarify that at the next meeting. Until then, the notice *must* stay. Anthere, a board member, is 100% correct. 
*That the notice is not on any other wiki is *my* fault and my fault alone: I was supposed to coordinate translations, but since I was never completely happy with the wording of the notice, I did not do that. I had hoped we could all work right here, as adults, to find the best wording. 
*The board also agreed, again by unanimous consent, that we need to permanently have more prominent reminders that we need donations. No specific method to do that was decided on. That may require a message in the sitenotice, a donate button replacing the nearly invisible donations link in the sidebar, a footer message, or any combination of those things. I hope this will be one thing we can brainstorm on in the upcoming meeting. 
*Very important: the primary target audience for all the donation and fundraising messages are people who mainly or only just read Wikipedia. I personally do *not* expect any regular editor to donate a dime since they are already donating their time. Savvy editors already have the ability to edit their Monobook.css file to make the notice disappear. One of the things I would like to talk about in the upcoming meeting is to add that functionality to the preferences of user accounts (perhaps graying it out until the account is x days old in order to mitigate against readers creating accounts for the sole purpose of removing the donation/fundraising message). 
So, please stop removing the message up until the board decides what to do. Everybody also needs to understand that a top 20 website requires serious revenue to keep going and donations made through the various foundation-supported websites is where the vast majority of its funding comes from. --mav 13:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A few questions. Is the foundation going to collapse in the next two days? Did the board agree in a formal meeting? What have translation issues got to do with the failure of the notice to appear on wikibooks? How about you stop putting the message up until the board decides what to do? You know following process and all that. Geni 13:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the foundation will not collapse in the next two days. But if you are willing to cover the amount of money we will fail to get in that time if the sitemessage is blank, then please say so. :) BTW, we got a $5000 donation yesterday, likely due to the continued existence of the sitenotice. It was not in a formal meeting; it was sparked from me asking questions on the internal list and getting either support or silence from the board members. Basically somebody says they will do something unless somebody opposes. If at least one board member opposes or wants to have an email vote, then we have to poll each board member. Requiring formal board meetings for everything would lead to deadlock since it is very hard to get everybody in the same place at the same time. The fact that I did not like the wording would make me hesitant to spread it any other place until I like that wording. But instead of working on that wording we have argued if any wording should be present at all.  --mav 14:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While that's fair enough, please don't use that as an excuse to keep the fundraising stuff in the sitenotice any longer than absolutely necessary. When is this meeting? This is already teeing off good editors, if we're going to have to run around instructing hard-working editors how to use the CSS trick, it really should be for as short a time as possible. Ambi 14:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Our budget and finance meeting will be tomorrow afternoon eastern U.S. time (add 4 hours for UTC). --mav 14:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You can have a meeting in quite a few ways without people being in the same place Just as long as all members are present or offer their excuses and minutes are taken and the like. Geni 14:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is the way most decisions take place.  For three board members and three officers to be present at one time (as is currently happening in St Petersburg FL) is a rare occurence. Sam Korn 16:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need to increase non-fund drive donation rate 

message: We are not trying to be consistent with other languages. The English Wikipedia gets far more donations than any other language. Please stop disrupting the sitenotice, it looks unprofessional to have it appear/disappear/appear. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 01:19
:We generaly do try to be consitant across lanaguages (or should we get rid of meta? and rethink commons?). Et, da, ca, uk, sr, ru, bg, he, ko, de, fr, ja, pl, it and sv  do not have this in their site notice. All have over 10K articles. De and ja at least have in the past made significant donations. How about you stop putting it back? I belive that would solve your problem with appearing unprofesional.Geni 01:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little late to the discussion here, but I've been watching the notice change quite a lot. I'm in complete agreement with Brian here: if the Board and CFO want it up, it stays up until they decide to take it down or ask us to come to a consensus. While I don't necessary support having the link up there, we shouldn't be revert-warring a Board member and our CFO. Let's not get in a revert-war over this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Board members should not be threatening to break the 3 revert rule but hey. We don't know if the board want it. They held a meeting. We don't know the results. We do know from the failer of the notice to appear on other languages that they are not that serious about it.Geni 02:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Consistent with other languages

message: Upon request, Robchurch has created a version of the sitenotice only viewable by anonymous users (ie, most of our readers; the target audience for requesting donations), at MediaWiki:Anonnotice (not yet live). I'll ask the CFO and/or board members about this, but I think one of them originally suggested the idea. So, we would be blanking this one, and putting some form of it in the anon-only version. Comments? — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-16 02:12
*I've read the above discussion and can't understand why. Are registered users not supposed to donate? Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As Brian says, this is now live. During fundraisers, delete the anon. notice or set it to - - MediaWiki will fall back to MediaWiki:Sitenotice, if it exists, so you can standardise. Rob Church (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I notice that they have the same CSS style and placement, should I understand from your comment that only one will work at a time?  If so, which has precedence?  Dragons flight 04:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. If it wasn't clear already, anonnotice is shown to anonymous users when it exists, otherwise sitenotice is shown if that exists. Logged in users see sitenotice if that exists, else nothing. Rob Church (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Great job, guys! Thanks! I agree with Angela, though, that this should probably be just a test at first - in my opinion, registered users would be more likely to donate than unregistered users, but I guess we'll see. I doubt this is possible, but is there a way to see (or perhaps ask?) when someone donates whether or not s/he is a registered user? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 03:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anon-only version

message: Now that the sitenotice only appears to logged-in users (at least as long as there's content in the anonusers pages), should we not advertise the arbcom elections here? I think that anyone who created an account would be interested in voting. Dan100 (Talk) 10:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we advertise the arbcom elections here now? 

message: Since the people most liekly to be interested are people with accounts should this not be at MediaWiki:Watchdetails?Geni 10:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site notice only appears to logged in users now, anons see MediaWiki:Anonnotice which is still the donation message. the wub "?!" 11:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikimania

message: The notice overlaps with the Spoken Wikipedia icon , see India. There is more competition for this area of the screen, see Boston, which uses , another top-roght icon. Can we agree on and standardize what should go where, so an article with a sitenotice (or anonnotice) that is spoken, featured, sprotected and has coordinates doesn't look weird? Kusma (討論) 16:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All that needs to happen to avoid hitting the spoken icon is for a couple of nbsp;s to be added to the end of the notice. Can an admin insert a couple then check how it looks? TheGrappler 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positioning and overlap with icons 

message: Please remove the id attribute from the div tag.  The site notice is automatically wrapped in , and per W3C standards, ids must not be duplicated, even if they differ in case.  The message can already be linked to via the wrapper div. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 22:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the redundant id.  Dragons flight 23:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invalid XHTML 

message: Wikimedia this, Wikimania that, register now, register later, gis us your money, pay it in here, vote over there. 
Does anyone have a use for this other than advertising things at me, or shall we just delete this spamoid page and be done with? -Splash - tk 16:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, those are useful notices providing important information to users who may otherwise miss the information. If it bothers you, you can always hide the current Wikimania notice by removing the div class on your monobook. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think Splash's point is that the recent notices seem to be trivializing the sitenotice (and imposing on thousnads of registered editors), which is supposed to be for important stuff. Are Wikimania scholarships that important? --maru   (talk)  contribs 02:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia isn't meant to have ads, I think the sitenotice should be scrapped. I think all connected users talk on the IRC channels anyway, and the rest dont care. MichaelBillington 03:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The site notice is not used for spam.  It is used for issues a site-wide notice of something..and does it just fine. — xaosflux Talk 03:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with Xaosflux here. We have to take note of the context in which the site notice is being placed. It is clear that this is not used as spam. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam 

message: Try MediaWiki:Watchdetails and waiting a week.Geni 01:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please let the election officials do their job to ensure that the elections run smoothly, fairly, and properly; please don't revert again, Geni. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the arcom elections ran mostly somthly and I gave people two days final warning to declare their candicy on MediaWiki:Watchdetails. You have 28 days. I think that is long enough to allow you to hold some level of discussion (something which would have hopefuly prevented you from say useing big text in a site notice).Geni 01:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the first day of this notice; it is not planned to run all month, and had you bothered to ask rather than just unilaterally blank it, you would have been told that. We are quite aware of the watchlist notice, and we plan to use it when we take this notice down on the 3rd. Anyone blanking it before then will find thier sysop flag missing. Essjay (Talk) 01:41, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had you bothered to discuss and inform first (yeah I know it slows things down but people keep telling me these things are important) we might not be in this situation. So now we are what is so magic about those three days that MediaWiki:Watchdetails can't handle it?Geni 01:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be confused about how the Wikimedia Foundation works. You see, there is a Board of Directors, and they control the whole place. If they say "Shut it down" the site shuts down. If they say "Make it green" all the pages will suddenly become green. And if they say "We hereby appoint three election officials to coordinate an election for a replacement Trustee, and we grant them those powers necessary to do so" then that's what happens. Designated officers of the Foundation, including the Election Officials, then have the authority to make such changes as are necessary in order to do what the Board has charged them with doing. This was done as an official action of the Election Officials, who are officers of the Wikimedia Foundation, and is being done on all sites, not just this one. The Board, and it's officers, are not required to obtain the consent of users to do the business of the Wikimedia Foundation; indeed, it is the other way around, users must obtain the consent of the Board in order to do things. You lack said consent, and no amount of grandstanding on your part is going to change that. The simple fact of the matter is that you deliberately overruled a directive of the Board of Directors with no authority whatsoever to do so. Essjay (Talk) 02:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am well aware of what the foundation can do. In this case your argument fall apart at the line "such changes as are necessary". I assume you are going to make some argument based around people not looking at their watchlists but past experence suggests that they have this tendancy to find out anyway. Geni 14:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: True, I have to agree with Essjay here. There is no harm to have this notice here for three days. However, having it for a month is a little bit too much. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, please take the notice down after three days. It is extremely ugly, distracting, and irrelevant to the absolute majority of people visiting wikipedia. Belongs on watchlists at most. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Per this talk, and the note that it was meant for 3 days only, I've moved this to the other suggested location of MediaWiki:Watchdetails. — xaosflux Talk 03:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The developers did a direct insertion for us to all wikis where there is no notice specified; blanking the notice caused this to take over, effectivly rendering the blanking inoperative. I've replaced the totally blank notice with &-emsp-; (without the hyphens), which doesn't show up as any text, but is enough to override the default. Essjay (Talk) 04:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Election notice

message: My antivandalism scripts are being broken by the new site notice.  Please change  to  in the mediawiki template to make it proper xml Kevin_b_er 05:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. —Ruud 12:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix template please 

message: OK, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but at least out of respect for the community, is it possible to do a better job at explaining the "will of Gods" to us, mortals? 
Adding the election notice back, knowing fully well that it will show up on a million Wikipedia pages and be seen by millions of people, only with the explanation "restoring per Aphaia on IRC" and without any explanation on this talk page strikes me as a very poor thing to do.
Would anybody care explain why that notice can't be on watchlists only? (And don't tell me see the IRC channel.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, this is nly the site notice for logged in editors, anons see MediaWiki:Anonnotice AFAIK. — xaosflux Talk 16:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I just pulled this off of the watchlists, but only because it is here.  Personally, I don't care where it is, but DON'T PUT IT ON BOTH AT THE SAME TIME! — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: appears to be a ruleing of the Communications committee so not Essjay's fault.Geni 22:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nobody said it was Essjay's fault. But it would be nice if anybody who actually knows what is going on explain on this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Aparently the communications committee had a meeting and decided to put the message in sitenotice. Removeing it = de-admining and all that stuff. I've sent them an email in the hope they will clariffy some stuff.Geni 22:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Aphaia asked me to revert the change on IRC and I did so.  If you have any more questions, I'd advise you to contact her.  Naconkantari 02:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And here we have the problem of wiki-related decisions being made off-wiki.  Ahh well, it's now hidden for me, so I guess I'll miss it when something actually interesting/important comes up next.  violet/riga (t) 11:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Decisions regarding the election to Wikimedia Foundation, and how it should be announced, will of course never be taken on English Wikipedia. The election should probably be announced in the same way on all projects in all languages - English Wikipedia included. // Habj 10:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: slightly more info from Aphaia on foundation-I "- found some wikis lacking sitenotice; contact to the local peoplethrough irc and other media and ask them to restore (by me; needed three days in a sum; I hope local community realises the global sitenotce is the notice on the global issues from the Foundation, based on many discussions between several involved parties [this case, Election officers, Communication committees and some developers], and even if they don't want, it is unthoughtful to remove it without reporting to the global community in a proper channel like foundation-l)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) 08:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the specifics of the re-addition, but the sitenotice was probably placed on again because the deadline for the registration of candidates is approaching, and the SiteNotice has been proven to be more effective than the Watchlist for notices. In addition, most other languages don't use the header of the watchlist for notices; it wasn't intended for such a use, and the use of it for such notices hasn't caught on in other projects and languages. I will, however, relay your concerns to the ComCom and the elections officials. Violetriga: you can simply remove this particular message, not the entire sitenotice, by using the div class/id ("BoardCandidateNotice"), instead of "siteNotice". The siteNotice will continue to be used for important announcement and messages, and we don't want anyone to miss out on them. Thanks for your understanding! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but it seems that I keep having to do that for each and every notice that appears on here.  violet/riga (t) 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do recognize that this can be a hassle, but I'm just pointing out that you don't have to remove the entire SiteNotice, and you can just remove that message. Of course, it's your choice, but I'm trying to convince you otherwise. :-) (Way to go with bluntness, Flcelloguy... *grins*) Seriously, though, I will let the elections officials and the rest of the ComCom know your concerns, and advise them to try and keep the use of the SiteNotice to what is essential. However, I do highly recommend that you don't turn off the entire sitenotice; there may very well be important messages there in the future, and situations where the SiteNotice is the only way to convey urgent information. In addition, while there may seem like a lot of different SiteNotices, there have only been a few this year; it is only this time of year that makes it seem so busy, with Wikimania and the Board elections. Rest assured that the use of the SiteNotice will indubitably decrease after the Board elections. Thanks a lot! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: But if we de-spam the spam then the spam will not be able to spam the spammy spam-eaters and then they won't be able to spam the spam-vote spam with their spam; on top of all that spam, we have to consider the spam aspects of all this spam. Those on the Board made of spam can really affect the spammy taste of all the spam we produce for spam-searchers like Spamoogle or Spamhoo!, not to mention our spam-slicers, so it is as important as spam that it get spammed and seen. --maru   (talk)  contribs 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good point well made: I had overlooked the spam-slicers in my consideration. Perhaps then the SpamCom (and its deSpamCops) could have us a Mediawiki:Spamslicernotice? Then we can include it in our .css file only if we want the spam. -Splash - tk 22:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I have baked beans with my spam?  Sam Korn (smoddy) 22:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do I hear a proposal for Mediawiki:Spamandbakedbeansnotice? Just think! We could have a whole menu of different spam accompaniments for our editors to choose from. -Splash - tk 22:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so long as all of them are made of spam. --maru   (talk)  contribs 23:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think registration for Wikimania 2006 affected the entire site or all wikipedians.Geni 03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The site notice is overused. There is absolutely no reason to have a notice (as we do now) that essentially says nominations have closed, and voting hasn't yet begun. It's pointless and an eyesore. Considering how long voting will go for, I can't see any importance in telling everyone the exact moment voting will open. - Mark 02:58, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but how will other users find out in a clear manner that the nominations have been closed? But I have to agree that not all users of Wikipedia would find this information relevent to them. In fact, most Wikipedians would not be too bothered about this. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By going to the relevant page of their own accord, out of interest, and discovering that it is closed? Before long, the ComCom will be announcing that voting will shortly be about to open, then that it will be open very soon, then that it is open. Following this, that it continues to be open, that the close of polls is approaching, that the close of polls is upon us, and that the polls have closed. Naturally, that has to be rounded off by the announcement that the results are now available. (Someone keep this diff somewhere, and see how many I get right.) -Splash - tk 21:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks again for all of your concerns. As promised, I did relay your feelings to the ComCom, and we will take into account your opinions - the number of Sitenotice messages should be reduced drastically after the end of the elections. Though I cannot promise that it will not be used again for any specific time period, I can say that Board elections are extremely rare, limiting the potential uses of the SiteNotice. In addition, I can also assure you that we will never place a SiteNotice which we don't think is necessary and extremely important at that time. The Board elections are important, however, and thus the current notice reminding users that voting will end in less than 48 hours. After the conclusion of voting, though, the SiteNotice will be immediately removed. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The election notice again 

message: Just to be on the safe side, I feel that it is about time to archive parts of this page. It is getting too large. Any comments about this would be welcomed. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive? 

message: I added an archive box above. I left this notice because I know that this is a sensitive name space. --Meno25 05:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive box 

message: Please remove that donation box at the top. It looks awful to have this big thing at the top of every page. (I don't know if logged in users see it, so if you don't see the ugly box at the top log out and then view wikipedia). 72.139.119.165 12:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have sympathy for your opinion, but the box has been placed there by the Foundation and it is not allowed to be removed.  Sam Korn (smoddy) 13:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can we make it less awful? Just a line of text with a link where people can find further information? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No it is part of the fundraising drive people are meant to notice it.Geni 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right, the notice is here to stay. and ugly at that, per  this mailing list reply. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove form 

message: The current version here and for MediaWiki:Anonnotice, with the paypal option is not the version that is approved. Please remove the paypal option. See also meta:Fundraising_sitenotice_2006_Q4#The_current_default_sitenotice --Walter (Communications committee) 16:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have put in the default notice, per this note.  I'm sure that if the other version has been approved somewhere, someone will fix it soon enough. - BanyanTree 16:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Eloquence is on the Board, so there may be a good, approved reason. —Centrx→talk • 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A comment from Brad Patrick, our general counsel and interim executive direction, on the above page may be pertinent: "Comment from Executive Director: We spent a lot of time to work to get the Fundraising page to be the right way, meaning to offer alternatives. We are trying to get people to land there; the idea of the Paypal form "shortcut" undermines that for lots of potential donors. We never discussed or agreed that such a thing would be placed in the En:WP site notice." Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove version with the paypal box 

message: Would it be acceptable to note that the "Financial statements" link leads to a PDF, i.e. "Financial statements (PDF)"?  (I think this is a pretty standard thing due to some computers' issues with Adobe.  For me, for example, the IE plugin takes ages to load, and I would rather download PDFs to disk first rather than open them with the plugin.)  Perhaps another alternative would be linking to a non-PDF version, if one could be made (although would that need some sort of "the PDF is official, not responsible for typos, etc. etc." notice?). —AySz88\^-^ 02:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --mav 04:42, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note PDF format, or non-PDF financial statements? 

message: The background of this template should be transparent, not white. BigBlueFish 20:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background 

message: Not sure where this should be brought up at, but the sitenotice now has DEAD LINKS on it to all of the virgin places. — xaosflux Talk 00:22, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is currently being discussed in #wikimedia on IRC. Naconkantari 00:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The site seemed to crash when we linked to them, and I guess they just blanked the page we link to to ease the load and keep their servers up. Shanes 00:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like the foreign site is back up. — xaosflux Talk 01:01, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead Links 

message: Am I reading this correctly? Wow! El_C 03:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was our "anonymous donation matching" being accounted for, I believe. Shimgray | talk | 03:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: +$286,000?

message: Could this go here on April Fools Day:
You have new messages (last change)
It wouldn't really bother anybody...maybe make it so it could be hidden after they figure out what it is? Anon 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would bother people; I know it would bother me for one. Little jokes are OK, but something major like this is not acceptable. —Mets501 (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agee with Mets501. I would be fooled, for one, by this bar, and would not find it so funny to start with. There are better venues of showing humor I think. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what you guys are talking about!  This is a great idea!  But why stop there?  We should also make all of the article links lead to random pages.  It wouldn't really bother anybody.  Oh, and we could set up the "edit this page" link to download a virus that deletes all of the files on the user's hard disk drive.  This is going to be hilarious!  —David Levy 03:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or, you know, we could add body {display: none;} to Common.css. That would be even better. Titoxd(?!?) 05:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April Fools 

message: I'm trying to add a show/hide (similar to the one that was here during the fundraiser) function on another wiki for the site notice and I was wondering if anybody would be willing to give me something I could copy and paste to enable this. John Reaves (talk) 08:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Show/Hide function 

message: Please see Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community_discussion#How_do_we_get_rid_of_the_banner? --wL<speak·check> 00:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not in the sitenotice, it is in MediaWiki:Watchdetails. — xaosflux Talk 00:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:ATT]] reversion. 

message: Cute. And by that, I mean it scared the crap outta me. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 09:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 1 '07 

message: Is there some reason this message is on two lines and not one? — Dan | talk 02:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess to make it more prominent. I don't know for sure. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 06:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  br 

message: Hi. For several months, I've noticed that at pages like India that carry one or more of the non-coord title templates have top icons (the  speaker, the  star, etc.) overlap with the "[hide]" handle attached to Sitenotice's template. This makes it a tricky business to either hide the site message or click on the SW or other metadata icon links. If it helps, I happen to use the Firefox browser and can provide screenshots. Thanks. Saravask 12:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It might also help to create :Category:MediaWiki notice templates (or a similarly named cat) and include this template in it. This might help less-experienced editors find their way here. Saravask 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ugly overlap issue 

message: I have a wiki of my own and I was thinking of doing something similar to these on my wiki, how do you get it so that it is at the top of all the pages? 82.27.19.152 15:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Viewing 

message: A well intentioned admin added a notice about the WMF election to Mediawiki:Anonnotice, the site wide notice shown to not logged in Wikipedia visitors.  Since non-editors cannot participate in the election, I feel this is a pointless distraction to the vast majority of Wikipedia visitors, and he disagrees.  Since nearly no one watches Mediawiki talk pages, I am posting in a couple common places to hopefully draw further attention to this.
Please comment at Mediawiki talk:Anonnotice#Election notice is bad.  Dragons flight 03:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon election notice 

message: Do we need two commons logs in the sitenotice? I believe it is overkill and looks distracting. Also, on my screen the sitenotice is now on too lines, and adding one more logo doesn't help (I know it can be dismissed, but that is not the point). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here. The last logo comes on a line of its own on my screen. It certainly doesn't make the note look more symmetric, which was Cyde's (well intended) reason for adding it. This depends, of course, on the reader's resolution and window size. In general we often forget that some of our readers don't read Wikipedia with a very good screen resolution. All those top tags stacked on top of each other in various articles is another example (they often use up over half of my screen), but I digress. Shanes 02:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted to one logo.  —David Levy 02:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's excessive and makes it look worse, to me anyway. Grandmasterka 02:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two logos? 

message: Is the plan to do this for all English-language wikimeetups? --SB_Johnny|talk|books 11:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you hear about this?  I think that's a bad idea. -- John Reaves (talk) 16:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think he was referring to the notice about the upcoming D.C. meetup shown at the top of the watchlists of all those who lived near the D.C. area (by IP address).  This was created by altering the mediaWiki:Common.js, not the sitenotice. Cbrown1023 talk 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Things on the watchlist may be tolerated. About the sitenotice itself, it should of course stay blank except for very few exceptions for really important announcements. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah sorry, I figured out that it wasn't actually sitenotice shortly after asking the question. --SB_Johnny|talk|books 23:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikimeetups on the sitenotice? 

message: I believe the current 
 The results of the 2007 board elections have been announced.
notice not to be so essential as to be seen by all editors on all pages  (unlike say the actual election notice). Is it possible to remove it say 24 hours after it was first posted, that is, in 13 hours from now? Thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results notice 

message: I suggest some mention be made of the commons thumbnail image problem as it seems to be getting worse. Something like
*Some image thumbnails are not rendering correctly. The problem is being worked on...
See WP:VP/T#Image absence (and other discussions there) and also :Commons:Commons:Village pump#Image Problems (also other sections discussing the issue). Commons already has a mention of that in their site notice, see :Commons:MediaWiki:Sitenotice Nil Einne 12:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to make the change, but I'd prefer to see a greater consensus before I do so. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 16:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that sitenotice should be updated, but the text should mention Commons. FunPika 16:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree fully, including commons mention, GDonato (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is pretty annoying, and I imagine any number of people are trying (unsuccessfully) to fix the problem on their own, believing to be an issue on their end. (I tried that first, before reading WP:AN). Perhaps something like this: "Wikipedia Commons is currently experiencing a technical problem; some thumbnail images will not render properly. Attempts to fix this issue are being made at this time." RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's worth mentioning Wikimedia commons - there is no reason a reader would differentiate between technical problems with commons and technical problems with enwiki (and since the developers are the same, it doesn't make much sense to distinguish them here, either). Just saying "Wikipedia is currently experiencing technical problems. Some thumbnail images will not render correctly, or may not appear at all." should be clear enough. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the sitenotice to explain that Commons hosts some media files for Wikipedia, but would not be opposed to just saying that Wikipedia is having technical problems. WODUP 19:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

text: If you still have issues, and action=purge doesn't help, please join #wikimedia-tech on the Freenode IRC network and show the devs your problem. --ST47Talk·Desk 20:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image problem 

message: See here. • Lawrence Cohen 23:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's uber distracting.  I could deal with the giant bar at the top, but that scroll bar makes Wikipedia almost unusable. --JayHenry 00:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find it ultra annoying (needs to be slower or have an off button) user:Bawolff 01:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's gone; now it shows a random quote on page load. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:31:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scrolling banner in header 

message: We must have a fundraiser, no question about it. The quote under the progress bar is neat too. But, do we need the image with the Jimbo video on the right? Jimbo is our God allright, but the image is very distracting though. Can we remove it please and link to it from the fundraiser page indeed (that is linked from the banner)?
(Yes, I know the whole thing can be turned off.) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The picture on the right 

message: I wonder, is it appropriate that the Wikimedia scholarship notice show up at the top of every Wikipedia page? I would argue that it belongs on watchlists only. Comments? Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It only shows to logged in users, so it really doesn't make a difference. Plus, it's got a convenient dismiss button. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarship notice 

message: (Cross posted from WP:VPT) I can't get the message to stay hidden in Firefox (Classic skin). I have all cookies enabled, but though the message disappears when I click hide, it returns when I go to a different page. IE6 seems to be ok. Any suggestions? —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 14:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hide function doesn't work 

message: Guys, I suggest you all log out for 5 seconds and look at the 3 marvelous banners anons see on our website. This is getting ridiculous. Wikimania is not that important. Put it on the logged in notice if you wish, but we really are cluttering our pages and don't look professional at all. -- lucasbfr talk 21:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree 100% AmiDaniel (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, technically this is the wrong page to be complaining about anons seeing the Wikimania notice. : - P But, I agree that it is a bit much at the moment. I propose that we keep the Wikimania notice visible to anons for another three or four days. And, in a month or so, we merge the anon tips with the donation banner, with a bias in favor of the donation messages. The merged code is written and is waiting at Common.js' talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  advertising Wikimania to anons, is it useful? 

message: please! theyre annoying together. either/or 24.68.135.43 (talk) 04:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  alternate the anontip with the sitenotice 

message: Maybe it's just me, but if we are going to announce this in the site notice, doesn't it make more sense to actually say who won?  It simplifies things for people who are interested in the outcome, but don't necessarily want to know all the details.
Something like:
:Ting Chen has been announced as the winner of the 2008 Board of Trustees election.
Dragons flight (talk) 21:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's necessary, and would be distracting. Also, I plan to remove the note from the site notice in a day or so, there's only that long this has got to be there. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did have something along the lines of that when I first wrote it, but then I changed it to the 2007 format, which I thought would reduce the need to keep re-writing it. Rudget  (logs) 10:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it doesn't particularly matter what the message says, as I imagine most people had already dismissed it, and as no one thought to bump the Sitenotice id, those who had already dismissed it wouldn't see the new message at all. : - )  Perhaps we should add a note about that somewhere. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As OA mentions above, its probably best removed now since its outdated, a little at least. Rudget  (logs) 11:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election results 

message: On my wiki I am trying to move the site notice to the top left (where the top left of the logo would be is where I want it to start).  What would I put in Mediawiki:Monobook.css to do that?  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.234.160 (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably possible, but I don't know, and this isn't the place to ask. You might try the computing reference desk or http://mediawiki.org. Good luck. WODUP 05:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there a way to move the site notice? 

message: I was in the middle of filling out the survey when it timed out and I got the following error: 
ネットワークがタイムアウトしました
　survey45.wikipediastudy.org のサーバからの応答が一定時間以内に返ってきませんでした。
　接続リクエストに対してリクエスト先サーバが応答を返さなかったため、接続を中止しました。
　
　    * サーバに負荷が集中したり、一時的に停止している可能性があります。しばらく後で再度試してください。
　    * 他のサイトも表示できない場合、コンピュータのネットワーク接続を確認してください。
　    * ファイアーウォールやプロキシでネットワークが保護されている場合、その設定に問題があると正常に表示できなくなることがあります。
　    * 問題が繰り返される場合、ネットワーク管理者またはインターネットプロバイダに問い合わせてください。
--Zaurus (talk) 04:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Survey of Readers and Contributors 

message: I would suggest a correction in the italian version: the word "Obiettivi" should be "'Obiettivo'" with "o" instead of "i". --Lucas (talk) 04:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ps: I can't do that editing the MediaWiki:Sitenotice because of globalization. Should I ask here? --Lucas (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Contact: meta:User talk:Cbrown1023.  Dragons flight (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks --Lucas (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Change the italian version

message: I hid the sitenotce. How to make it reappear??--Abhishek Jacob (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are talking about the campaign banner, you will need to go to the gadget tab within Special:Preferences and uncheck the box next to "Suppress display of the fundraiser banner". If you are instead talking about the messages displayed on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, I believe you have to clear your cookies (though I'm not completely sure on that one). - auburnpilot talk 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hide 

message: After a longish gap. there's a move to restart Featured sounds. Can a sitenotice be set up, perhaps:
Featured sounds, part of the featured content series, has recently relaunched. Reviewers, nominators, and people with a passion for music and sound are needed to help make it a success.
It would also be necessary to increment MediaWiki:Sitenotice id. Featured sounds is a fairly new process that has had  major problems attracting attention, a sitenotice may be just the thing to revitalise it. 
Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The sitenotice is for 'vitally' important notices like Board elections or steward elections or whatever. Just post to some village pumps and noticeboards. :-)  --MZMcBride (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. We use it so much more frivilously at Commons. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A watch list notice might be better suited for this. Peachey88 (Talk Page | Contribs) 09:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Sounds 

message: I would like to have a sitenotice created that reffers to WP:Notability/RFC:Reevaluation. This was already proposed on its talk page. Notability is an important document that determines what is kept here.--Ipatrol (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please propose the exact wording on the notice and obtain consensus on this page before putting an editprotected request. Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: You may be looking for mediawiki:watchlist-details (already been discussed on the talk page). The sitenotice is always blank, there are (almost) no exceptions nowadays. - Cenarium (talk) 15:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Not done: No consensus (and I doubt you'll get one).  This proposal is better meant for a watchlist notice as you were told above, not the sitenotice.  Please do not restore the  template until you reach consensus. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC reevaluation of [[WP:N]] 

message: The blank MediaWiki:Sitenotice is pretty useless, can we redirect it to this talk page? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  16:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly, not advisable... I tested on testwiki and it would have the effect to put 1. REDIRECT MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice as sitenotice, so at the top of every page. No problem with a blank editnotice... Cenarium (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Huh? It's blank because there are currently no sitenotices.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirect to talk?

message: There is a proposal here to create a talknotice, a dismissible notice displayed on all talk pages, for community announcements. Your input is welcome there. Cenarium (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal discussion is archived here, and led to  being filed. Rd232 talk 12:28, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Talknotice