Wikimedia Forum

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

(Redirected from Meta:Metapub)

Wikimedia Forum

Shortcut: WM:FORUM

+/-

Afrikaans: Die Wikimedia Forum is 'n sentrale plek vir vrae en besprekings aangaande die Wikimedia Stigting en sy projekte. (vir Metawiki besprekings, sien Meta:Babel.)

العربية: منتدى ويكيميديا هو المكان المركزي للأسئلة و النقاش المتعلق بمؤسسة ويكيميديا و مشاريعها (للنقاش حول ميتاويكي ، انظر ميتا:بابل.)

বাংলা: উইকিমিডিয়া ফোরাম একটি কেন্দ্রীয় স্থান যেখানে আপনি উইকিমিডিয়া ফাউন্ডেশন এবং এর প্রকল্পসমূহ সম্পর্কে প্রশ্ন এবং আলোচনা করতে পারেন। (মেটা উইকি সম্পর্কে আলোচনার জন্য, দেখুন Meta:Babel।)

Brezhoneg: Wikimedia Forum zo anezhañ ul lec'h kreiz evit eskemm ha sevel goulennoù war diazezadur Wikimedia hag ar raktresoù stag outañ. (Evit kaozeal diwar-benn Meta wiki, gwelet Meta:Babel.)

Català: El Wikimedia Forum és el lloc central per a preguntes i discussions sobre la fundació Wikimedia i els seus projectes. (Per a la discussió sobre Meta wiki, vegeu Meta:Babel.)

Česky: Wikimedia Forum je stránka určená pro dotazy a diskusi o nadaci Wikimedia a jejích projektech. (Diskusi o Metě vizte na Meta:Babel.)

'Dansk: Wikimedia Forum er et centralt sted for spørgsmål og diskussioner om Wikimedia Foundation og dens projekter. (For diskussion omhandlende Meta, se Meta:Babel.)

Deutsch: Das Wikimedia Forum ist eine zentrale Seite für Fragen und Diskussionen, die die Wikimedia Foundation und ihre Projekte betreffen. (Für Diskussionen über Metawiki, siehe Meta:Babel.)
Hier ist nicht der richtige Ort für technische Fragen zur MediaWiki-Software; bitte wenden Sie sich hierzu an unser Support Desk.

Ελληνικά: Το Wikimedia Forum είναι ο κεντρικός χώρος για ερωτήσεις και συζητήσεις σχετικά με το Wikimedia Foundation και τα εγχειρήματά του. (Για συζητήσεις σχετικά με το Meta wiki, δείτε Meta:Babel.)
Αυτός δεν είναι ένας χώρος για να κάνετε τεχνικές ερωτήσεις για το λογισμικό MediaWiki. Παρακαλούμε κάντε τέτοιες ερωτήσεις στο MediaWiki support desk.

English: The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk.

Español: El Wikimedia Forum es un lugar central para las preguntas y las discusiones sobre la fundación de Wikimedia y sus proyectos. (Para la discusión sobre Meta wiki, ver Meta:Babel.)

Eesti: Wikimedia Forum on Wikimedia Fondi puudutavate küsimuste esitamise ja arutelu koht. (Meta-Wiki arutelu on Meta:Babel lehel.)

فارسی: متاپاب محل مرکزی برای سوالات و بحث‌های راجع به بنیاد ویکی‌مدیا و پروژه‌های آن است.برای بحث راجع به متاویکی لطفا ببنید.متا:بابل

Suomi: Wikimedia Forum on keskeinen paikka Wikimediasäätiöön ja sen hankkeisiin liittyville kysymyksille ja keskusteluille. (Meta-Wikiin liittyvä keskustelu löytyy sivulta Meta:Babel.)

Français: Le Wikimedia Forum est un endroit central pour des questions et des discussions sur la Wikimedia Foundation et ses projets. (Pour des discussions à propos du Metawiki, voir Meta:Babel.)
Ce n'est pas l'endroit pour faire des requêtes techniques concernant Mediawiki; posez vos éventuelles questions au MediaWiki support desk.

Frysk: It Wikimedia Forum is it sintrale plak foar fragen en diskusjes oer de Wikimedia Foundation en de projekten dêrfan. (Foar diskusjes oer de Metawiki sjoch Meta:Babel).

Galego: O (Wikimedia Forum) é un lugar central para preguntas e conversas sobre a Fundación Wikimedia e os seus proxectos, parecido á Taberna dos proxectos galegos (para conversas sobre o Meta-Wiki, vexa Meta:Babel).

עברית: פורום ויקימדיה הוא מקום מרכזי לשאלות ודיונים על קרן ויקימדיה והפרויקטים שלה. (לדיון על מטא־ויקי, ראו מטא:בבל.)

Interlingua: Le Foro de Wikimedia es un loco central pro questiones e discussiones super le Fundation Wikimedia e su projectos. (Pro le discussiones super le Meta-wiki, vide Meta:Babel).

Bahasa Indonesia: Wikimedia Forum adalah pusat untuk pertanyaan-pertanyaan dan diskusi mengenai Wikimedia Foundation dan proyek-proyeknya. (Untuk diskusi mengenai Meta wiki, lihat Meta:Babel.)

Italiano: Il Wikimedia Forum è il principale luogo dove si pongono domande e si discute sulla Wikimedia Foundation e i suoi progetti. (Per le discussioni che riguardano Meta wiki, si prega di guardare la pagina Meta:Babel).

Magyar: A Wikimedia Forum a Wikimedia Alapítványt és projektjeit érintő kérdések és megbeszélések központi helye. (A Meta-Wikiről szóló megbeszélésekhez lásd a Meta:Babel oldalt).)

日本語: ウィキメディア・フォーラム (Wikimedia Forum) はウィキメディア財団とそのプロジェクトについての質問と議論の中心となるページです。（メタ・ウィキについての議論はMeta:Babelをご覧ください。）

ភាសាខ្មែរ: មេតាផាប់ (Wikimedia Forum) ជាកន្លែងសំរាប់សួរនិងពិភាក្សាអំពី មូលនិធិវិគីមេឌា និងគំរោងនានារបស់មូលនិធិនេះ។ (ចំពោះការពិភាក្សាទាក់ទងនឹងមេតាវិគី (Meta wiki) សូមមើល Meta:Babel។)

한국어: 위키미디어 포럼은 위키미디어 재단과 그 프로젝트에 대해 논의하는 곳입니다. (메타위키에 자체에 대한 논의는 바벨에서 해 주세요.)

Ripoarisch: Dat Wikimedia Forum ess è Sigk öwwer'et Wikimädia on dämm sing Projäckcher ze klaafe. (Övver't Metawiki sällver kallt mer op Meta:Babel.)

Lietuvių: Wikimedia Forum yra pagrindinė vieta klausimams ir diskusijoms apie Wikimedia Foundation ir jos projektus. (Apie Meta Wiki diskusijas žiūrėkite Meta:Babel.)

Bahasa Melayu: Wikimedia Forum ini merupakan pusat pertanyaan dan perbincangan tentang Yayasan Wikimedia dan projek-projeknya. (Untuk perbincangan tentang Meta wiki, lihat Meta:Babel).

Malti: Wikimedia Forum hu post ċentrali għal mistoqsijiet u diskussjonijiet fuq il-Fondazzjoni Wikimedia u l-proġetti tagħha. (Għal diskussjoni fuq il-Meta wiki, ara Meta:Babel.)

Nederlands: Het Wikimedia Forum is een centrale plek voor vragen en discussies betreffende de Wikimedia Foundation en haar projecten. (voor discussies over de Metawiki, zie Meta:Babel.)
Dit is geen plek waar je technische vragen over de MediaWiki-software kunt stellen; stel zulke vragen in de MediaWiki support desk.

‪Norsk (bokmål)‬: Wikimedia Forum er et sentralt sted for spørsmål og diskusjoner om Wikimedia-stiftelsen og dens prosjekter. (For diskusjon om Meta, se Meta:Babel.)

Polski: Wikimedia Forum jest miejscem na dyskusje i pytania dotyczące Fundacji Wikimedia i jej projektów. (Dyskusje na temat Meta wiki toczą się na Meta:Babel.)

Português: A Wikimedia Forum é uma central para questões e discussões sobre a Fundação Wikimedia e seus projetos (para discussão sobre o Meta-Wiki, veja Meta:Babel).

Русский: Wikimedia Forum — место для вопросов и централизованных обсуждений, касающихся фонда Викимедиа. (Обсуждения, связанные с Мета-вики, ведутся на странице Meta:Babel)

Shqip: Wikimedia Forum është një qendër për pyetje dhe diskutime mbi Fondacionin Wikimedia dhe projektet e tij. (Për diskutim mbi Meta wiki, shihni Meta:Babel.)

Slovenščina: Wikimedijin Forum je osrednji prostor za vprašanja in razprave o Fundaciji Wikimedija ter njenih projektih (za razpravo o Meti glej Meta:Babel.)

Српски / Srpski: Wikimedia Forum је централно место за питања и дискусије о Викимедијиној фондацији и њеним пројектима. (За дискусије о Мета викију, погледајте Meta:Babel.)

Svenska: Wikimedia Forum är en central plats för att diskutera och ställa frågor om Wikimedia Foundation och dess projekt. (För diskussioner om Meta wiki, se Meta:Babel.)

ไทย: Wikimedia Forum เป็นศูนย์กลางสำหรับสอบถามและอภิปรายเกี่ยวกับมูลนิธิวิกิมีเดีย รวมไปถึงโครงการของมูลนิธิ (สำหรับการอภิปรายเกี่ยวกับเมต้าวิกิ ดู Meta:Babel)

Tagalog: Ang Wikimedia Forum ay isang sentral na pook para sa mga tanong at usapan ukol sa Wikimedia Foundation at mga proyekto nito. (Para sa mga usapan ukol sa Meta-Wiki, silipin ang Meta:Babel)

Türkçe: Wikimedia Forum Wikimedia Vakfı ve onun projeleri hakkındaki soru ve tartışmalar ile ilgili ana sayfadır. (Meta viki hakkındaki tartışmalar için Meta:Babel sayfasına bakınız.)

Tiếng Việt: Wikimedia Forum là nơi tập trung những câu hỏi và thảo luận về Quỹ Wikimedia và những dự án của nó. (Để thảo luận về Meta wiki, mời xem Meta:Babel.)

Volapük: El Wikimedia Forum binon top zänodik ad bespikön eli Wikimedia Foundation e dotis tefü on äsi tefü proyegs valik ona. (Pro bespiks tefü vüki it: Meta, dabinon pad: Meta:Babel.)

中文: Wikimedia Forum 是讓大家提出有關維基媒體基金會及其各項計劃的疑問和討論的地方。（而有關元維基本身的討論，請到Meta:Babel。）

You can reply to a topic by clicking the '[edit]' link beside that section, or start a new discussion

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki
About Meta Discussion pages Request pages Policies and guidelines Information and statistics Categories Help pages Participate: How to edit a page MetaWiki discussion page Meta-l mailing list This box: view • talk • edit

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view • talk • edit

This page experimentally allows language localisation.

[edit] Wanted: Wiki-Links in new window/tab

Hello! We want to open all files in an new window or a new tab (target="_blank"). All links to another sites will be open in the same site (target="_self"). do you know a solution? Thanks SABINE - 04-08-2009, 11.00 Uhr

you, as a visitor with your browser have one chance to open the new site with the right click on the link: "open Link in a new window" - otherwise see the options-general in Firefox, here you can choose the browsers behavior. IE8 sets this in his Internetoptions - general - hope it helps Reinhard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.168.34.26 (talk • contribs) 25 October 2009.

[edit] Problem in printing the PDF created by the Wiki Creat Book feature

Hi, I created a PDF file from 7 pages of Wiki. But while taking printouts it showed a problem. The spaces between words is showing as a box in the printouts. Please let me know if there is any solution for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raje sam (talk • contribs) 11 March 2009.

[edit] translation

hi, I don't know if this is the right place, I made a translation of the main page into my native language (venetian - veneto). I put it here: Pazina prinzipal. Can someone please link this page from the english main page? thank yu very much bye bye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.24.53.53 (talk • contribs) 14 March 2009.

[edit] Using wiki methods outside wiki

Hello everybody,

I try to create an external page (just a search field, like the wikipeda splash screen with the search field) before the main page of wiki is entered and don't get it to work properly. I want to use some skin methods (like text(), msg(), and other methods from the wiki library but I just got half of them working. I am not shure if I instantiate them at the right time or if I miss something.

For example if i do

$skin = $wgUser->getSkin();

$skin->tooltipAndAccesskey( 'search-go' ); // --- print the 'search' label for button

works all ok.

But a

$tpl = new UcbTemplate(); // --- init skin 'ucb'

$tpl->text('searchaction'); // --- empty string

returns nothing but an empty string.

My main problem is I am not sure if I initialized everything the right why. I just want to have that splash screen dynamic and try to get all the strings from the wiki definitons just to be dynamic, so the user is able to switch languages of the splash screen and I do not have to define all these strings in that splash screen (to prevent double work). So basically I try to find a way to use the skin methods (also the inherited ones like msg, text, etc

So the initialization part of my splash screen is just the ones that is used in the index php, calling

require_once( "$preIP/includes/WebStart.php" );

require_once( "$preIP/includes/Wiki.php" );

$mediaWiki = new MediaWiki();

If I print out the $skin object to see what in there nothing is initialized, I see not the skin name 'ucb' and all that. So I think my initialization process is wrong or I am missing something. I also googled for an hour but nothing similar turns out. And first of I thought building a seperated / additional start page for wiki would be simple just putting out some strings (defined in wiki) and making that search box, maybe to integrate and outout of the newest additions in wiki. This would be alo interesting if there is a class or method where I could put out newest wiki additions.

Can anybody give me a start point where to look or how to initialze wiki or in what order I have to do the initialization part to use wiki methods? I am new to wiki and try to find out how it works but that can't be done in one day also my time is a little limited at this time.

So any help or hints are greatly appreciated. Maybe there is somebody out there that did the same thing and can drop me some science on that.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Andreas W Wylach —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derdre (talk • contribs) 20 March 2009.

[edit] WikiPorn.org did exist for a while twice as a succesful independent entity.

This project has become a reality not once but twice as a separate independent entity from Wikimedia and in both cases it has been deleted by outside sources. As in outside of the creator of the domain who both times had paid in full for the domain and server only to be nullified by the PTB even when the servers in question host adult content. Go figure that one out...

Anyhow at this point in time no Wiki containing adult material or subjects of any kind worth a damn exist anymore. That is a given. Much to the delight of of probably many here Oh well... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PunkMaister (talk • contribs) 21:40, 22. Mär. 2009.

[edit] Why is it on topics...

Why is it on topics where there is a potential for harm to the general public is there not a section that allows for common sense warning statements

I have noticed that there have been several topic pages that have had what seemed to be common sense warning statements posted that would have been good information for the general public to have in order to better protect themselves from potential harm either to themselves or those important to them.

Two examples are a common sense warning involving the potential dangers to a persons computer where P2P file sharing of any type is concerned on the "Lime Wire" page, and on an even more important level a common sense statement warning people to simply research deeper into the dangers involving the possible adverse health effects of the most common artificial sweeteners on multiple pages involving those products.

Both of these statements (which were removed in a very short time frame) were listed in the areas of the articles involving criticisms or known problems of these specific items.

It would almost seem that any article involving a potential hazard where a profit is being made by someone is being very tightly "policed" by those with a vested interest in keeping knowledge of the potential harm to the public under wraps.

I would hope that a project that puts itself out there as something intended to bring all possible knowledge into the public light for the betterment of the common man (as described by your founder in a TV spot on the "USA" Network) would zealously protect the right of the public to know all sides and would not allow information that could prevent harm to be suppressed.

If I may make a suggestion - simply put a link to a subpage or a discussion board where such public safety minded warnings/statements could be posted without the threat of being removed by someone with an agenda involving keeping information out of the public view (for example a chemical company not wanting the public to know where to look for data challenging it's own PR statements about a highly profitable product) - with a disclaimer that the statements posted are not a part of the official article but are posted responses to the article involved and that the person viewing the sub page/discussion board should use the information contained therein as a potential starting point for further research of their own.

As a matter of fact I challenge you to take this bold step in the spirit of what Wikipedia has claimed itself to be.

Thanks --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.62.153.254 (talk • contribs) 27 March 2009.

Very simply we do not advise people to use or not use, say aspartame. There are ~~two~~ [many] reasons for this ~~(possibly three)~~, first were we to do that we would be taking a responsibility for someone's health - suppose someone dies from hyperglycemia, and they have been reading our warnings on aspartame, we would be open to court action, even if someone died of aspartame poisoning, it could be claimed that our warnings were not strong enough. Secondly we are NPOV - we do not have an "opinion". Thirdly the information is there: with links to references

The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974. Concerns have been raised about the quality of the research supporting its safety and the long-term effects that increased consumption could have on the public.[22][23][24] Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame.[25][26]

We even have an article en:Aspartame controversy with 97 references. Similarly LimeWire is nearly half "Criticism" with a prominent link to the "Risks" section of "File sharing".

Fourthly we could end up with warnings on every page - knife, hammer, stroboscope, shoe (tight shoes permanently deform children's feet), dog, Bulbophyllum abbreviatum (allergies), Superman (remember you cannot fly)....

Fifthly: we already have a disclaimer linked to from every page, it includes the following:

Not professional advice If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

Sixthly, seventhly and eighthly it would obscure content and frighten the horses, and maybe be a case of en:WP:BEANS.

Ninthly it would be (another) maintenance nightmare.

Rich Farmbrough 23:45 1 September 2009 (GMT).

[edit] Opt-in global sysops

Hello. Comments are welcome on the draft policy for opt-in global sysops. Please don't comment about implementation, which is entirely up to the local wikis who choose to enable them. Rather, is the policy wording adequate? Are there situations it doesn't cover, or sentences that are too vague? Do you have suggestions?

Global sysops will be live (only on wikis that decide to enable them) once the first wiki enables them. —Pathoschild 22:24:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Skinning Issues

I've been looking to install the skin found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gallery_of_user_styles

The one called "Black Background w/ banner, similar to game forums"

I followed the instructions, placing the CSS file in myskin, renaming to main.css, changing the localsettings, however it just wouldn't work. When I manually change my skin to the "myskin" one it doesn't have any formatting at all! I'm probably doing something very simple wrong but any help would be appreciated. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 94.195.15.181 (talk • contribs) 5 April 2009.

[edit] Dark shemes problem

I not sure my solution is match to your task. All Wiki engines and included themes is not friendly with dark backgrounds, while white background is burning our eyes. But, you can upload own css file. I try to upload monobook.css or common.css (with same content). You need to register to upload own CSS. I've spent 3 weeks and tear out many hairs to get almost working CSS for dark BG. It's --

/* this magic set is from 'Глобальный сброс Эрика Мэйера' */
html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe,
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, blockquote, pre,
a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code,
del, dfn, em, font, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp,
small, strike, strong, sub, sup, tt, var,
dl, dt, dd, ol, ul, li,
fieldset, form, label, legend,
table, caption, tbody, tfoot, thead, tr, th, td
 
{
background-color: #080808 !important;
color: #eeeeee !important;
font-size: 16px !important;
# font-family: Arial;
-moz-border-radius: 6px; border-radius: 6px;
text-decoration: none; 
border: none;
/*font-style: normal;*/
} 
 
input {font-size: 16px;} /*'important' here is work, but search line size bad*/
 
a, a * {color: #00aaff !important;}
a:visited, a:visited *  {color: #9060ff !important;}
a:link.new {color: #ff0000 !important;}
a:visited.new {color: #ee0077 !important;}
 
a.external {color: #ff7700 !important;}
a.external:visited {color: #aa7733 !important;}
a:hover, a:hover * {text-decoration:underline !important;}
 
h1, h1 *, h1.firstHeading {font-size: 24px !important;}
h2, h2 * {font-size: 20px !important;}
big, big * {font-size: 18px !important;}
h3, h3 * {font-style: bold;}
strike, strike *, .strike {text-decoration: line-through;}
 
.editsection, .editsection * {font-size: 16px !important;}
small, small * {font-size: 14px !important;}
.prefsectiontip {font-size: 14px !important; color: #cc9977 !important;}
 
#content {border: none;}
#toc, #toc *, .toc, .toc * {font-size: 16px !important;}
 
pre {
	color: #ffddaa !important;
/*	background-color: #000000;*/
font-family: monospace;
}
 
div.thumb {border-color: #000000 !important;}
div.thumbinner { border: 1px solid #00aaff; background-color: #000000 !important;}
 
#preftoc li, #preftoc li.selected {
/*	background-color: #222222;
	color: none;*/
	border: none;
        margin-left: 0px;
        margin-right: 1px;
}
#preftoc li.selected  /* , #p-cactions li.selected  */
  {
/*	background-color: #222222;*/
	border: 1px dashed #ffaa55;
}
 
 
#footer { border-top: none; border-bottom: none; font-size: 14px !important;}

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 93.182.12.2 (talk • contribs) 29 August 2009.

[edit] Problem using templates

I recently set up my own wiki using MediaWiki software for a facebook group I am a member of. AANR I am attempting to copy templates from Wikipedia in order to boost the functionality of my wiki, but I am encountering numerous problems that I have so far been unable to solve.

The most apparent one to me at the moment involves receiving an error message of "Template loop detected." I understand what this is, but not why or what I can do to fix it. Example page: Template:!. I've been browsing for answers for hours and am just completely burnt out.

I already have the ParserFunctions extension installed if that makes any difference.

Any help at all would be most appreciated.

Thanks! Adam Christ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.5.204.173 (talk • contribs) 29 April 2009.

You pasted the documentation there instead of the template. That template is the single "|" character. Rich Farmbrough 23:48 1 September 2009 (GMT).

[edit] Dropdown box with predefined and selectable items.

I am trying to add a dropdown box with a number of selectable entries to a template page.

The help and documentation doesn't mention dropdown boxes.

Can anyone help me out ?

Thanks in advance —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ColmDelaney (talk • contribs) 19 June 2009.

[edit] Error while accessing wikipedia URL

Hi all,

In our project, each one of us used to have access to our wikipedia(customized only in logos and extensions allowed).Recently, one of our project member lost access to it. The eror message that he got is as follows.

Notice:Undefined index:standarf in D:\sites\Wikipedia\includes\skin.php on line 116.

Warning:Skin::require_once(D:\sites\Wikipedia\skins\.php)[function Skin-require-once] failed to open stream. No such file or directory in D:\sites\Wikipedia\includes\skin.php Fatal error: Skin::require_once()[function require]:Failed opening required 'D:\sites\Wikipedia\skins\.php' (include_path=D:\sites\Wikipedia;D:\sites\Wikipedia\includes;D:\sites\Wikipedia\languages;c:\php;c:\php\ext)in D:\sites\Wikipedia\includes\skin.php on line 122.

Please help me to solve this issue.

I would really appreciate if someone could provide any inputs on this error.

Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ramya r (talk • contribs) 29 June 2009.

[edit] Importing data from other applications

Does anyone know whether there is currently way to import data (such as a table) from another program (ie: MS Word, Excel, etc) so that they can be inserted into a Wiki page without manually reformatting them??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.11.224.4 (talk • contribs) 14 July 2009.

Did you check the metawiki table help? I don' have the link handy, but there is a section there for conversion. Not sure about the having to reformat it to wiki afterwards or not though. I have never tried importing a table. 69.182.174.55 21:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] dump download problem

I want to download the pages-articles-xml.bz2 file for importing of wikitaxi which build database base on this dump file for a offline wiki. The size of this dump file shows 5.1G in page, however, the dowload file size is actually 1.09G, how this can happen?

Looking for your answers.

Thanks a lot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.96.107 (talk • contribs) 26 August 2009.

URl to the dump page please. Rich Farmbrough 00:08 2 September 2009 (GMT).

[edit] Wikimedia wasting money?

Read this. --Kozuch 11:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation of the FAQ was that more is to come. It sounds like an overhaul of more than the bare interface is part of the change. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 11:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No matter what the goal is, the results are rather poor, and that is a fact.--Kozuch 11:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think the goal does matter – they're not finished. Let's hold of the complaints till after the update is completed. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with Diss. After all, the goal is the intended results, and you cannot judge based on any results in the mean time, that might (and more than likely are different than their intended results. If they get finished, and you are still unimpressed, then that would be the time to say something. That is like trying to eat a cake someone is making while they are still mixing the ingredients and judging it then, instead of waiting until they are done baking it. 21:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] removing abusive user from English Wiktionary

The user is Mr Ivan Štambuk, who has engaged in trolling, extreme personal abuse, and vandalism across several different projects and over a period of several years. Despite repeated blocks on various projects he has shown no sign whatsoever of modifying his offensive behaviour.

He was at one point blocked for a year in the Croatian wikipedia, and has been warned and blocked numerous times, essentially always for his vicious personal abuse of anyone disagreeing with him.

On being blocked in the Croatian wiktionary in February, he set about deleting Croatian from the English wiktionary, under the extreme POV idea of merging the language into "Serbo-Croatian". (about the subject in his own words)

That was voted on, and firmly rejected by the community; he continued (and continues) to delete Croatian regardless. Having been defeated in the vote, he then set about modifying the voting eligibility, that was also rejected. He then returned to the Croatian wikipedia, where he was fairly promptly blocked, this time permanently, for his continued personal abuse and threats.

Unfortunately, he was granted sysop status on the en.wikt some time ago, before we were aware of his history on the Croatian projects. He now repeatedly mis-uses that status to block those who disagree with him.

Would a steward please remove his "sysop flag" on en.wikt, so that his continuing misbehaviour can be addressed?

Thank you, Robert Ullmann 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

(just a note on something you will probably discover here quite promptly: Mr Štambuk's usual response is to write pages and pages of vitriolic attacks, in the expectation that everyone will stop reading or simply not want to get involved; intimidation does work. My apologies for the nastiness he will inevitably reply with. And, like any other vicious schoolyard bully, when someone stands up to him, he immediately starts whining that he is the victim.) Robert Ullmann 15:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I support this assessment of fact on en.Wiktionary. There are additional factors - one of which may mitigate - but this is not the venue to argue them. - Amgine/^{meta wikt wnews blog wmf-blog goog news} 16:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Support; not a regular user at en.wikt, but have been following the situation for a while and I'm familiar with the user's approach. Although a great contributor, he proved on countless occasions his unwillingness to consider opinions of others, and shouldn't continue to abuse his sysop status. — Krstulović 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I do rather think that this is not the right place to discuss the admin removal on a other wiki, the wiki where you are talking about has his own community and therefore its a community decision, my best guess is that you need to start a desysop vote on that wiki and than stewards can act on it, this vote doesn't mean a thing because it isn't in the right place.

There has been a desysop before and I think that is the road you must follow also. Huib talk 17:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this should take place locally, or at least in a request for comments format. A vote like this means nothing. Majorly talk 17:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment (ec x 2) Not sure why this has turned into a vote. Surely issues like this should be discussed locally. Has that been attempted? If such attempts have been disrupted by this user then I could appreciate why this would now be the appropriate venue. Is this the case though? Can multiple clear examples of this user misusing their admin rights be provided? Adambro 17:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

This is (by plan) turning to a vote-like harangue because Ullmann's despicable trolling cannot pass on Wiktionary, since the regulars there (and I mean real regulars, not canvassed self-proclaimed "regulars" like Krstulović above :) are already familiar with the history of his psychotic behavior, and tolerate it simply because we don't want to lose the services of bots that he provides. Ullmann's crusade against me lasts for the last several months, and includes (among other things) abusive blogposts (where I've been called names such as "genocidal Serb nationalist" - quite an epithet for a Croat! ^_^), and defamatory e-mails to the Wikimedia Board as well as the entire Wiktionary community person by person. Ullmann very well knows that this type of formal vote against me on the local-community scale would fail miserably, so he must "simulate" the vote here by means of his blindly-supporting puppets._{And in case someone's interested in the history of my blocks on Croatian Nazi-pedia a few years back: these were maliciously organized by several hardline nationalist admins, all of which are now desysoped and blocked by the local ArbCom for their abusive behaviour. Ever since I've "migrated" to English-language wikiprojects, I had no problems of such kind, but it's amusing to observe the same pattern of "organized hatred" against me reoccurring as embodied by Ullmann. Everyone: please simply ignore this "problem" (or sit back and enjoy the show :)} --Ivan Štambuk 06:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Are you trying to say that most Croats support you? Looks like it to me, since their opposition has been lackluster.--Pepsi Lite 08:04, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I was not intending to start a "vote" here. Voting on a de-sysop is not appropriate in any case, on any level. It would be disruptive and used as an opportunity for personal attacks.

(people on the en.wikt have run de-sysop "votes" on two occasions, the first a silly spat between two editors who are friends, the latter, fairly recently, a pointless vote on a user agreement to be de-sysopped that could have and should have gone directly to Steward requests/Permissions. Apparently a steward told them to go to a local process; but voting is not a good idea. There is no policy on such "votes".)

Larger projects have ArbComs, that make decisions like this for cause, not as some kind of poll. That is the only appropriate basis for a de-sysop, not that someone has become un-popular, or has a "cabal" against them, or vice versa, is destructive and abusive but has gullible support or a cabal. The English Wikipedia, properly, does not conduct votes on de-sysop, only on sysop (RfA).

The English Wiktionary has not been big enough to require an ArbCom, and really will not be for a while. The decision to remove a sysop for cause must therefore go to the Stewards or some other meta or Foundation procedure. (Ask youself, what would happen on a project with perhaps 10 users, with 3 or 4 active, and one that has a sysop flag and is trolling? Would it be left to a "community decision? What "community"? The troll and a friend or two? ;-)

Also, one only need to look at his response above with some perspective to see the problem, while being seriously abusive, he sees himself as a victim. In fact he was blocked repeatedly for abuse, and while some were years ago, the most recent was two months ago, on hr.wp (the "Croatian Nazi-Pedia"), permanently, for making threats. The fact is he got into serious trouble several independent times on the Croatian projects, was blocked by a number of different people at times spanning several years, and then came to the en.wikt and got himself in trouble again for the same kind of behaviour. The common element to all of the events is his behaviour.

As noted above, when last blocked on the hr.wikt, he came back to the en.wikt, started a proposal to delete Croatian from the en.wikt on an extreme political POV basis diametrically opposed to the positions he had taken up until 3 months before, and began deleting sections; he persisted during the policy vote, and persisted after the proposal was rejected. This is simple trolling. He was blocked twice recently, for very short times (1 day), the second time un-blocking himself with the comment "LoL". Note his comment: "enjoy the show" is exactly what a troll wants, and thrives on; he is clearly enjoying the damage he is doing, both to content and to the community. Robert Ullmann 10:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For a brief moment I actually considered replying to your hideous trolling, point by point, but the fresh reminiscence of countless hours wasted elsewhere in futile efforts to educate you and other monolingual Americans on what my mother tongue "is" and "isn't", as well as to refute your cheap lies and chop-logic non-sequiturs to the general-readers public quickly overwhelmed me, averting me from the needlessly wasteful activity.

Look Ullmann: stewards have no power to exercise when the local community is large enough. Out of 30-40 relatively active Wiktionary admins the overwhelming majority (i.e. everyone excluding you, Amgine and perhaps some other puppet of yours) would be against your hateful cause to desysop me for being "abusive troll". By transferring the discussion here, you won't accomplish anything but make even more people aware of what kind of person and what your true motives really are. Folks here are more like the last commentator on the DailyKos post of yours, the ones who click on links and like to check out "facts" for themselves before making hasty judgments, only to be shocked in horror when realizing what BS they've just been maliciously served.

You should really be doing something more constructively instead of orchestrating "wiki-conspiracies" and playing psychological games which you cannot win. I really hope that I won't need to reply here any more. --Ivan Štambuk 04:39, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, it proved that Robert Ullmann was wright.
But, admins on Meta have missed one thing.
Ivan Štambuk showed offensive behaviour even here, on the Meta. So this isn't "local problem of en.wictionary" anymore.
"Croatian Nazi-pedia" [1] (posted Nov 5 2009) ???
Admins on Meta, where are you? Has anyone sanctioned him because of that etiquetting[2]? Not a single warning on his talkpage on Meta because of Štambuk's abusive language (last message on his talkpage is from Feb 6, 2009)!
That's very rude way of defamating of a whole community. This is not funny and this kind of language is a not discussion, but punching, punching below the belt. That's dirty talk. That kind of expressing does not belong to this project.
Regarding hr.wiki, you were blocked because of personal attacks, harassment, wikihounding, trolling, explicit provocations, disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point, disrupting of Wikipedia generally, persistence in personal attacks after being explicitly warned "don't do that", deleting of admin's warnings etc..hr:Razgovor sa suradnikom:Ivan Štambuk/Arhiv4
Now see how it's on the project where such person has admin powers. Kubura 22:04, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I think it is called interwiki...

I did not know where else to turn to (besides the local wiki, which I have already asked, but the local knowledge base seems to be somewhat limited about the higher ideas) to get an answer to this question.
What it is that I am asking about is involving the transclusion process. Now I know you can edit subpages to not be included when being called from another page, and I have also read up on how you can have stuff only be shown on the calling page, but not on the local view of that transcluded page.
My question is, can you select, without changing the page you are getting the text and information from, only certain parts (sections) from that source page?

So, for example: Page 1 being the page that has the information you want on another page, and Page 2 being the display page of that information.

Page 1

== Section 1 ==

The section one text is here.
== Section 2 ==

The section two text is here.
== Section 3 ==

The section three text is here.

Page 2

This is the text of page 2, and collects information from other pages to display.

== Section 2 ==

The section two text is here.

I hope this makes it clear what it is I am asking.

Also, a related question, is it possible, using the above example as a guide, to transclude that information section from another wiki? Specifically, I am a GuildWars Wiki user, and I want to be able to show information (page chunks) from the metawiki or english wiki on the GuildWars wiki page, using the usual transclusion style re-posting of that information. I am not sure if you would be able to get a hold of me here on this wiki, so this is my talk page on GWW GWW 13eowulf Talk page

If anyone knows for sure one way or the other, please let me know. And if you could, please post the links you found your information on. It would be very helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.182.174.55 (talk • contribs) diff, please sign discussions with --~~~~.

Hello, I could think of making what You are asking for like this: You put on page 1, where it should only display the information the subpages as inclusions, then if someone clicks on the section of the subpage he will be redirected to it and edit only that subpage. Here is an example of how it looks:

page 1, which should not be edited

Could look like this:

the display page looks like:

{{Page 1}}
{{Page 2}}
{{Page 3}}

the page 1 with the exact name 'Page 1' looks like:

<noinclude>
This is the text of page 1, and collects information from other pages to display.
</noinclude>
== Section 1 ==

The section one text is here.

the page 2 with the exact name 'Page 2' looks like:

<noinclude>
This is the text of page 2, and collects information from other pages to display.
</noinclude>
== Section 2 ==

The section two text is here.

I hope I understood You well, what You meant.

Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 11:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimedia forever

It is just embarassing that the fundraising banner says "Wikipedia" instead of "Wikimedia"... I am just stunned how this could pass through.--Kozuch 15:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That was an oversight, and will be fixed in the future. More information is available at Talk:Fundraising_2009/Alternative_banners#An_update_on_the_fundraiser for example. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary Hover: a JavaScript on double-click

Wikinews proposes a script to display the Wiktionary definition in a small board, when one double-click on a word. It's already been installed in the following Wiktionairies gadgets: in French and in Italian. The interface of the board depends on the user's language preferences.

To add it here, we should vote for an administrator, in:

MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js, copies without the guillemets : "importScriptURI('http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');"
MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition, adds "* dictionaryLookupHover|dictionaryLookupHover.js"
MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, describes the gadget. JackPotte 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I added the first one but I cant add it to the definitions until I have a description, please give a good description on the talkpage for the mediawiki page :) Huib talk 19:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Huib! The en.Wikinews description of the gadget is:

Wiktionary Hover: Double click a word, and get the definition in a tooltip. (click anywhere else on screen to get rid of it). [ More info ]

The gadget retrieves the top definition in the source language from the English Wiktionary (or the user's preference language wiktionary if the user is logged in and a translation of the gadget has been installed in their language wiktionary) and displays it in a floating box. You can try it out by going to fr.Wikinews and double-clicking on any word (fr.Wikinews has it enabled in common.js, giving anonymous IPs the advantage of the tool.)

Please see commons:MediaWiki:Gadget-dictionaryLookupHover, Regards, Otourly 22:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

But I think we should create a page on meta. Otourly 22:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

A stub there: Wiktionary/Look Up tool. Otourly 00:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] New RC patrolling concept

Hello, is there any needs to add the site in https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21517? JackPotte 15:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Wikis requiring configuration changes will make their own requests. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Twitter

Not sure if this is the right place; is the Wikipedia Twitter account (and the associated @Wikimedia account) a real account? If so, who runs it, and if not, perhaps we should force it over? Microchip08 ^sewb 15:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is a offical account, don't know who runs it do. Huib talk 15:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The staff collectively run it. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A kinder, friendlier Meta

Every so often, new topic-specific wikis about meta subjects are created -- such as the advisory board wiki and the quality wiki. The wiki founders don't feel comfortable working on Meta, for whatever reason; and, most of the time, the topic-specific wikis flourish for a brief while before fading into disuse.

I'd like to see if we can address the initial problems that inspire people to launch new sites. Is it that Meta isn't seen as a safe place for newbies to work? Are we too troll-friendly? Is it because there is no culture of portals here? What can we do to make it easier for new projects to make their home here, and integrate themselves into the site? Sj + translate 14:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Good to bring this up. To create a brand new wiki when a portal will do just fine make little sense to me. The meta community is already spread so thin. Regards, Guido den Broeder 17:58, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is, of course, a question for the staff creating the wikis. I'd be happy to hear their answers. In particular, why Wikibooks isn't being used for textbooks and other similar learning materials. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

At Wikimedia's strategic planning project, I've argued that meta should get a more important central role. I think meta doesn't live up to its true potential. Meta could be used as the means to communicate between local communities in so many extra ways. This post made me aware that there was a deliberate choice to make the strategic planning project itself independent. I wonder why. Woudloper 07:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. By moving all these projects to independent wikis, we hamper Meta's mission - which, I think, is an important one. Fragmenting the community concerned with meta issues is a bad idea, no matter how attractive a fresh wiki may be. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 16:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

For those of you interested, I proposed a couple of ideas to make meta better live up to its potential role at the strategy project. The thread (in a Q/A section) can be found here. Woudloper 05:21, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Sj, I always wondered why there are so many separate Wikimania wikis, one for each year too. I suppose the work could be done here, with subpages possibly providing the basis for the many independent articles in those individual wikis. -- Menti fisto 09:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Three thoughts:

1. Multiple wikis makes searching for documents harder as you do not always know which wiki they reside on.

2. There is the setup effort of creating templates, userrighst, etc with each new wiki that could be avoided on Meta.

3. Meta could set up specific namespaces for each project Wikimania2009:, etc to maintain the appearance of independence with the functionality of a single wiki.

MBisanz ^talk 08:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Project growth stats

How does one pull up data on the growth of a WMF project? Am looking for 12 or 18 month growth stats on the Turkish Wikipedia, in absolute and relative terms. They happen to have the second largest Wikipedia featured picture program (after en:wiki, not counting Commons), but are currently 19th overall in terms of total articles. Am seeking data to correlate whether that language experienced unusually strong article growth as their FP program expanded. Assistance welcomed with fact gathering. Durova 23:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Letras griegas

Hola a todos: necesito ayuda para llevar adelante un proyecto en Wikilibros y no dispongo del alfabeto griego arcaico de que ES NECESARIO PARA ESTE. No tengo los Conocimientos técnicos que se precisan para traer las herramientas al sitio. ¿Podria alguien indicarme la forma de proveerme de ese material para llevar adelante mi proyecto? De antemano, muchas gracias. - Virginia 00:04, 1 de diciembre de 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum"

Categories: Communication | Multilingualism | Meta-Wiki organisation