Hi Drdee, I'm interested in taking part in discussions about page metadata, but I'm not sure how much I'm ready to be the main one who comes up with proposed implementations, solicits comments, pushes for specific ideas at the architecture meetings, etc. Is that the responsibility I'm taking on by being listed as the author, or is that just for historical information? I'm not even really the original author of that page; I just promoted it to RFC.

It seems that WMF already has some ideas for how it wants to implement page metadata and is already working on it. I was unaware of that when I made it an RFC and in fact, I tried to demote it from being an RFC when I found out it was already on the roadmap. But it was reinstated on the grounds that when decisions are made to go forward, an RFC remains listed as an RFC, just in a different section of the RFC page.

I thought Wikidata was going to be the way forward on metadata, anyway? Or maybe SMW? In the meantime, and for those wikis that won't have their own Wikidata installation, there probably should be a metadata table. Some would say we already have such tables (e.g. I've (mis)used page_props (Extension:BedellPenDragon) and user properties (Extension:InterwikiMap) for such purposes). I don't have a lot of ideas about what the optimal structure of the metadata table should be, though, or whether there should be more than one of them, with different structures, to serve different purposes. Leucosticte (talk) 17:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Hi Leucosticte,
I don't think you are committing to the actual implementation if you are the author of the RFC, so if you could help shepherd the RFC to a good-enough state that would be awesome, else I could do that as well. Drdee (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[]
I could use some help in figuring out the best proposal to put forward. What do you see as the best realistic way forward on metadata? Should we focus our attention on Wikidata? If so, I think that a solution similar to InstantCommons (maybe we will call it InstantData) will need to be implemented for non-WMF wikis. Non-WMF wikis will need to have their own local data repositories too, though, much as they have their own images folders for files uploaded by their users. They will need to supplement WMF's metadata with their own metadata. Leucosticte (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[]

Architecture meetings/RFC review 2014-01-04Edit

"Wednesday, January 4, 2014" doesn't actually exist. The Wednesday two weeks from the previous RFC review is on January 1, and January 4 is a Saturday. Could you please fix this page to show the correct date for the next RFC review, whichever it is? Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 17:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[]

Hi Yair rand
Yeah you are totally right, fixed it, thanks for notifying me. Drdee (talk) 10:14, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[]

MediaWikiEdit

Capital W. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Duly noted :) Drdee (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[]

Infinite loopEdit

They're fun but I think it breaks your user page a bit. :) -24Talk 23:28, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[]

Notice: Admin activity reviewEdit

Hello Drdee,

I hope that this message finds you well.

I am writing to inform you that you may lose your adminship (and other advanced permissions) on mediawiki.org because of inactivity.

A policy regarding the removal of advanced permissions (e.g.: administrator, bureaucrat, interface-admin, etc.) was adopted by community consensus in 2013. While initially that policy did not apply to this site, the mediawiki.org community decided in August 2020 to opt-in.

You are being notified because we have identified that your account meets the inactivity criteria stated in the policy: no edits and no administrative log actions for the last 2 years.

  • If you want to keep your advanced permissions, you should inform the community (at Project:Current issues) about the fact that the stewards have sent you this information about your inactivity. A community notice about this process has been also posted on said page. If the community has a discussion about it and then wants you to keep your advanced permissions, please contact the stewards at the stewards noticeboard, and link to the discussion of the local community, where they express their wish for you to continue to maintain your advanced permissions.
  • If you wish to resign your advanced permissions, you may do so by filing a request for removal on Meta-Wiki.
  • If there is no response at all on one month after this notification, the stewards will proceed to remove your advanced permissions without further notice.

In ambiguous cases, stewards will evaluate the responses and will refer a decision back to the local community for their comment and review.

If you have any questions, please let me know or feel free to message us at the stewards. If you feel we've made a mistake and your account is active, we'd also appreciate to let us know, and please accept our apologies.

Best regards,
--MarcoAurelio (talk) (via MassMessage) 22:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[]

Hello, today your flag has been removed. Einsbor (talk) 09:27, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[]