Wikimedia Forum

←Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives→

+/- 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.) Български: Wikimedia Forum е основното място за въпроси и обсъждания за Фондация Уикимедия и нейните проекти. (За обсъждане на Мета-Уики, вижте Meta:Babel) Тази страница не е предназначена за въпроси, свързани със софтуера МедияУики; такива въпроси се отправят на MediaWiki support desk. 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 wende dich hierzu an unser Support Desk. ‪Deutsch (Sie-Form)‬: 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; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page. བོད་ཡིག: ཝེ་ཁེའི་སྨྱོན་སྦྱོར་གླེང་མོལ་ནི་གནད་དོན་ཞིག་ཡིན། ཝེ་ཁེའི་སྨྱོན་སྦྱོར་ཐེབས་རྩ་ལྷན་ཚོགས་དེ་བཞིན་དོན་ཚན་འཚོང་གཉེར་ལྟེ་གནས་བྱེད་པ་ཡིན། ༼ཝེ་ཁེ་མ་ཁུལ་དང་འབྲེལ་བའི་གླེང་མོལ་གནང་འདོད་ན་པ་པེའར། ལ་གཟིགས།༽ དེ་ནི་ཝེ་ཁེ་སྨྱོན་སྦྱོར་གྱི་འབྲེལ་ཡོད་གཉེན་ཆས་ལག་རྩལ་གྱི་གནད་དོན་བྱས་ན་འཚམ་པོ་མེད་པས་ཝེ་ཁེ་སྨྱོན་སྦྱོར་གྱི་རྒྱབ་སྐྱོར་ཐོབ་པའི་ཞུབས་ཞུའི་སྟེགས་བུར་བློ་དྲི་གནང་རོགས། ཝེ་ཁེའི་སྨྱོན་སྦྱོར་གྱི་ཝེ་ཁེའི་ལག་རྩལ་དང་བཀའ་མོལ་གནང་རོགས། ཡིན་ནའི་ཤོག་ངོས་སྟེང་ལག་རྩལ་འཇོག་ན་འགྲིག 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 sihtasutust puudutavate küsimuste esitamise ja arutamise koht. (Meta-Viki arutelu on leheküljel Meta:Babel.) 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 Wikimedia-säätiöön 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 Foro da Wikimedia é un lugar central para preguntas e conversas sobre a Fundación Wikimedia e os seus proxectos, parecido á Taberna dos proxectos galegos. Para as conversas sobre Meta-Wiki, vai a Meta:Babel. Alemannisch: S Wikimedia Forum isch e zäntrali Syte fir Froge zue un Diskussione iber d Wikimedia Foundation un ihri Projäkt. (Fir Diskussione iber Metawiki, lueg Meta:Babel.) Do isch nit dr richtig Ort tächnischi Froge zue dr MediaWiki-Software; bitte wänd di fir des an unser Support Desk. עברית: פורום ויקימדיה הוא מקום מרכזי לשאלות ודיונים על קרן ויקימדיה והפרויקטים שלה. (לדיון על מטא־ויקי, ראו מטא:בבל.) हिन्दी: विकिमीडिया फोरम विकिमीडिया फाउंडेशन और इसकी परियोजनाओं के बारे में सवाल और विचार विमर्श करने का मुख्य स्थल है। (मेटा विकि के बारे में विचार विमर्श के लिए देखिए मेटा बेबल) मीडिया विकि सफ्टवेयर के बारे में तकनिकी सवाल करने के लिए यह स्थल नहीं है; ऐसे प्रश्न मीडिया विकि सहयोग डेस्क में कीजिए। Hrvatski: Wikimedia Forum je središnje mjesto za pitanja i rasprave o Fondaciji Wikimedia i njenim projektima. (Za rasprave o Meta wiki vidjeti Meta:Babel.) Ovo nije mjesto gdje se postavlja tehnička pitanja o MediaWiki softveru. Za takve stvari pitajte MediaWiki službu za podršku. 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。） ქართული: ვიკიმედიის ფორუმი არის კითხვებისა და განხილვების ადგილი ფონდი ვიკიმედიისა და მისი პროექტების შესახებ. (მეტა-ვიკის გაიხილვისათვის იხილეთ Meta:Babel.) ეს არ არის მედიავიკთან დაკავშირებული ტექნიკური საკითხების განსახილველი ადგილი; ამისათვის, გთხოვთ იხილეთ MediaWiki support desk. 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.) Македонски: Wikimedia Forum е централно место за прашања и разговори за Фондацијата Викимедија и нејзините проекти. (За разговори во врска со Мета-вики, видете Meta:Babel.) Ова не е место за поставување на технички прашања во врска со programot МедијаВики; таквите прашања поставувајте ги на Бирото за поддршка за МедијаВики. 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.) नेपाली: विकिमीडिया फोरम विकिमीडिया फाउंडेशन र यसका परियोजनाहरुको बारेमा प्रश्न र विचार विमर्श गर्ने मुख्य स्थल हो। मेटा विकिको बारेमा विचार विमर्शको लागि हेर्नुहोस् मेटा बेबल मीडिया विकि सफ्टवेयरको बारेमा तकनिकी सवाल गर्ने स्थल यो होइन; त्यस्ता प्रश्न मीडिया विकि सहयोग डेस्कमा गर्नुहोस्। 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-stifte og dens prosjekter. (For diskusjon om Meta, se Meta:Babel.) ‪Norsk (nynorsk)‬: Wikimedia Forum ein sentral stad for spørsmål og ordskifte kring Wikimedia-stiftinga og prosjekta hennar. (For ordskifte kring Meta-wikien, sjå Meta:Babel.) Dette er ikkje staden for å koma med tekniske spurningar om MediaWiki-programvara; gjer vel og still slike spørsmål hjå MediaWiki-svartenesta. 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). Română: Wikimedia Forum este un loc central pentru întrebări şi discuţii despre Fundaţia Wikimedia şi proiectele ei. (Pentru discuţii despre Meta wiki, vezi Meta:Babel.) Acesta nu este locul pentru întrebările de ordin tehnic despre software-ul MediaWiki; vă rugăm puneţi întrebările de genul acesta la biroul de asistenţă MediaWiki. 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(简体)‬: Wikimedia Forum（维基媒体论坛）是让大家讨论维基媒体基金会及其各项计划或提出相关疑问的地方。（若要进行有关元维基本身的讨论，请移步Meta:Babel） ‪中文(繁體)‬: 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 page experimentally allows language localisation.

Wiki donation

You should add CVC code from back side of bank card to donation web form.

Begging for donatioon

I don't use Wiki P for any serious research and, as such, would never give you money.

You allow domination by US intelligence (??) agencies as well as the Catholic Church who use your site for propaganda. You might even venture to say "The devil is in the deatail".

Change your site name to Wiki Goebbels and at least you are being open about it instead of this pretence and begging. Ask the Catholics and CIA for money buddy, it's really their site.

Even topics such as depression are constantly misused for propaganda and spreading of misinformation. You may think you are well intended and maybe you are but the truth is your site is full of lies and cannot be trusted.

It's the oldest story in the book really. Winners rewrite history as they want it shown. You know that and you not only allow it, you encourage it.

What a dumb idea to use on the internet where every liar, miscreant, devious govt and religion can say what they want and keep changing it back to their misinformed rubbish.

Go do something useful as this is not it.

how to solve this problems?

running the scf calculation for Si..../run_example: line 126: /home/rooti/espresso-4.3.2/bin/pw.x: is a directory

Error condition encountered during test: exit status = 126 Aborting

problem

hi when i run examples in espresso . this message appeare. how can i resolve this problem?

running the scf calculation for Si..../run_example: line 126: /home/rooti/espresso-4.3.2/bin/pw.x: is a directory Error condition encountered during test: exit status = 126 Aborting

Incubator down?

http://incubator.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ZeaForUs&action=submit

Database error A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was: (SQL query hidden) from within function "LinksUpdate::incrTableUpdate". Database returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.44)".

a few minutes later

Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties.

Try waiting a few minutes and reloading.

(Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.6.32))

You can try searching via Google in the meantime. Note that their indexes of our content may be out of date.

Wikimedia Incubator WWW

Improving movement-wide communication: a proposal for whips

Discussion at Talk:Finance meeting 2012/Program

citing on wikipedia is difficult and time-consuming-technical barrier-suggestion

As a new contributor to wikipedia, I want to raise the issue that citing on wikipedia is complicated, difficult and time-consuming. It is a technical barrier to contribution. It can certainly be overcome by a drop-like system. Google scholar can detect automatically the characteristics of a reference (author, journal, etc...), why not wikipedia?

If your question is specific to Wikipedia, can I suggest you post it here? This is where new ideas for Wikipedia are discussed (on the English Wikipedia. There will be different pages for other language projects). QU ^TalkQu 21:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I recommend you try our tool for this, ProveIt. I think it could ease your citation work. Superm401 | Talk 05:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Translation tools workshop: pick your preferred time to participate

I'm planning to give a Translation tools workshop in about two weeks. If you want to learn more about the special pages Special:PageTranslation, Special:Translate, Special:LanguageStats, Special:Translations and Special:MessageGroupStats, go to Translation tools workshop and read up! Thanks. --Siebrand 23:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

FYI: the workshop will be held on 2011-01-28 20:00 UTC. For other time zones, see: http://hexm.de/dn. --Siebrand 23:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Announcing Wikipedia 1.19 beta

Wikimedia Foundation is getting ready to push out 1.19 to all the WMF-hosted wikis. As we finish wrapping up our code review, you can test the new version right now on beta.wmflabs.org. For more information, please read the release notes or the start of the final announcement.

The following are the areas that you will probably be most interested in:

• Faster loading of javascript files makes dependency tracking more important.
• New common*.css files usable by skins instead of having to copy piles of generic styles from MonoBook or Vector's css.
• The default user signature now contains a talk link in addition to the user link.
• Searching blocked usernames in block log is now clearer.
• Better timezone recognition in user preferences.
• Improved diff readability for colorblind people.
• The interwiki links table can now be accessed also when the interwiki cache is used (used in the API and the Interwiki extension).
• More gender support (for instance in logs and user lists).
• Language converter improved, e.g. it now works depending on the page content language.
• Time and number-formatting magic words also now depend on the page content language.
• Bidirectional support further improved after 1.18.

Report any problems on the labs beta wiki and we'll work to address them before they software is released to the production wikis.

Note that this cluster does have SUL but it is not integrated with SUL in production, so you'll need to create another account. You should avoid using the same password as you use here. — Global message delivery 16:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue with the password is regarding the testwiki but not here, right? —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 18:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the announcement on the password is about the testwiki. There are concerns that errors / bugs in testing might expose password details, hence keeping it out of SUL QU ^TalkQu 12:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Support for the SOPA Blackout Protest from an Average, Small Contributor

I just wished to let the Wikimedia Foundation know that, as an American man who contributes annually, and consults the Wikipedia almost daily, I applaud you, and am deeply grateful to you, for deciding to "black out" on the 18th, in protest of growing encroachments by government on the internet. I hope that this "fast day" will have an impact on people and awaken them to the danger of allowing government to throttle the free atmosphere of "cyberspace" which has done so much to revolutionize life on this planet in such a short time.

Robert S. Kissel Hamden, Connecticut

A black flag

The historic event has come which is a precursor of The movement. Concentrate all known, we have to prove that a news can't be suppressed.

Thanks for your work on SOPA!

I just made a small donation to Wikipedia - not loaded, but it is the first time I've made a donation.

THANKS for your work on SOPA.

I think you done at the very least managed to get the media to cover the issue.

Keep it up!

Yours, Dora Smith

Thanks Dora, that's much appreciated, both the donation and the Thanks. WereSpielChequers 14:30, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Italian translation of Sue's statement

Hi, I've translated the statement into Italian here, please upload it to the foundation's wiki or call for someone who can. Thank you :-) --g 22:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Simple English Wikipedia

We are seven hours away from the SOPA "protest" on English Wikipedia. However, the black banners are being displayed on both English Wikipedia and Simple English Wikipedia. (I have checked other projects, and they do not seem to have this problem.) Could someone please re-check the banner code to make sure that the "protest" is not accidentally implemented on unintended projects? You might want to read this. Many thanks! 98.141.198.236 23:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

We are now less than one hour from the blackout, and there are still more votes against a "protest" at Simple English Wikipedia than in favor of a protest. Please assure us that WMF is not taking down the project by mistake or as a result of programming error. Thanks, 98.141.198.236 04:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry nobody answered you sooner. I'm afraid that the WMF does not necessarily follow this project, which like Simple is run by volunteers. If you need quicker attention from staff, you may be able to get it by reaching out to answerswikimedia.org. Currently, I handle emails there. :) If I do not know the answer, I may be able to find out or to direct you to the inbox of a staff member who can help you directly. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 17:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Blackout good, squinting bad

Any chance of displaying the en.wikipedia blackout notice in a somewhat larger font? Rivertorch 05:43, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the same! Rd232 09:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to be all fixed now. Rivertorch 17:00, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

CENSORED

CENSORING THE INTERNET TO PROTEST CENSORING THE INTERNET IS LIKE KILLING A DOG TO PROTEST ANIMAL CRUELTY. I have shit to do, and I have donated to Wikipedia. I will make sure not to do that again.

I posted the above comment and it has been deleted each time, so clearly, Wikipedia/media is 100% cool with censorship.

I think your analogy is wrong. This is not "hurting animals", it is taking away all pets from all animal lovers for a day so they might realise how different their life would be without their pets. It brings home what the world might be like if what is being proposed comes to pass. Nothing is being censored, rather the English Wikipedia is demonstrating to the world what might happen if SOPA is allowed to proceed in its current form. QU ^TalkQu 08:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe if you didn't feel the need to SHOUT AT US it wouldn't have been removed. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

What, EXACTLY, is in threat of censorship?

Are we talking porn, hate sites, the like - or swearing, general opinions and such? Because No censorship is almost as bad as too much. I am all for the censorship of the first mentioned things. Most Americans take the freedoms we have for granted. If you think you're being oppressed, you are sorely delusional. Besides, the more freedom Americans have received, the more crime, immorality and just general indecency is acceptable - it's disgusting and makes me ashamed to be from this country. I agree with freedom of speech - to a point. I do NOT believe people should be allowed to have hate rallies, like the KKK marching and minority police officers having to protect them! It's sad and wrong. I don't have children BECAUSE I don't want them growing up in a country where there is sex/nudity and drugs everywhere and everyone is okay with it. I don't mean the existence of these things - I mean ads, commercials, daytime TV, music, clothing - it's EVERYWHERE- out in public It isn't a matter of "if you don't like it, don't look" - you'd have to be blind to avoid these things. Americans whine about freedom, yet so many want to take away others' freedom. Hell, you have things like the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Talk about censorship - these jerks are hating on religious people. How about uh...just not having a religion? But NO, that's not good enough, they have to flap their gums to put down others' beliefs instead. People think it's weird these days when a person doesn't drink or do drugs. Immorality has become the norm. There's a reason (or several) while some other countries hate us, you know.

Why not put your time and effort toward a REAL CAUSE???

Sincerely, -a multiracial, gay, liberal, devout Buddhist who doesn't appreciate not being able to use a website she donated to just because they have some agenda that I don't agree with 100% and yet they are taking away my right to use the damn site. Way to go, guys.

This is exactly my concern. There are a lot of hard working volunteers who have built a non-political resource here to serve people of all political beliefs. Yet, 1% of the total editor corps hijacked this work to support a particular political agenda through a ill-formed 72-hour "RFC" publicite. The "blackout" protest should never have happened. The "threat to Wikipedia's existence" was bogus.

The threat is real enough, and self-defense is hardly a "political agenda". As far as "hijacking" goes, it's called consensus and it worked exactly as it was supposed to. (N.B.: Signatures are easy, and rants may be taken more seriously when they're signed: use four tildes (~~~~) to sign.) Rivertorch 16:58, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that both the House, Senate and White House have said that the DNS provisions are dead, and the Senate bill is limited to websites which have been found by a Federal Judge to be an "internet site dedicated to infringing activities" I think Wikipedia has very little to fear from the current legislative proposals. Both Nancy Pelosi and Eric Canter have said that the bill will not come to the House floor until the various industry segments agree on new text. So, the time has come for the industry to negotiate an approach which focuses on copyright infringers without burdening legitimate websites. Wikipedia is not endangered by taking a more targeted approach.

Non-editable SOPA pages on en.Wikipedia

I support the blackout on en.Wikipedia as part of the efforts against the pernicious SOPA and PIPA legislative measures; however, I think it is a mistake to make the relevant pages regarding SOPA to be non-editable by Wikipedia editors. For example, on the Wikipedia:SOPA_initiative it currently says that "you may": "display a userbox on your userpage with the {{SOPA}} template." This is patent nonsense at the present moment due to the fact that en.Wikipedia user pages are currently "blacked out", that is, inaccessible to editing. I would normally correct such a misstatement, however the edit option has been disabled (at least for the lowly editors). I strongly urge that any future black outs not disenfranchise the en.Wikipedia editors so egregiously: let us retain the ability to edit "our" user pages as well as publicly posted messages regarding the black out/protest. Blacking out encyclopedic content in each and every article makes an important point against this proposed legislation; and, again, I completely support the black out/protest against SOPA/PIPA: but, this does not mean that the hardworking volunteer editors should completely lose their voices and it is wrong that only official announcements be allowed to be promulgated at this time, without opportunity for modification by auto-confirmed editors. A total blackout would be different, but in what way is it possible to support the choice to execute such a poorly chosen selective blackout? Dcattell 08:55, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Since it's currently under the blackout, that means logically no one can check anyone's en.wp user page or the anti-SOPA user category. Please be patient and you can add the userbox at anytime after the blackout is lifted. -- Sameboat (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

... or you can add &banner=no to the URL :) SPQRobin (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Or turn off javascript to read SOPA initiative. Allen4names 16:33, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:SOPA initiative "If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here." This page has not been blacked out, but it is also false that the "community", as opposed to the Foundation, can post to this page. In fact, the ability to post to this page through the edit function has been disabled. The "community", despite the false claims made upon this page, cannot post questions here for the Wikimedia Foundation. I think one main lesson to be learned from this black out is that turning en.Wikipedia even temporarily into a one way street where only the official bulletins and pronouncements from the Wikimedia Foundation can be posted but nothing from the "community" can be is not a good thing, or fair to the alleged process. A more complete quote from the Wikipedia:SOPA initiative page is:

"The Wikimedia Foundation is going to support whatever action the community decides to take. The community has asked the Wikimedia Foundation to keep it informed as events unfold: to that end, the Wikimedia Foundation will use this page as a central place to post information. If you have questions for the Wikimedia Foundation, you can post them here—staff will monitor this page. However, this is not a Wikimedia Foundation page: it's a community page, and the Wikimedia Foundation is playing a support role here."

Again, this may have been and even still be the intent of this page, but it is obviously the case that this is no longer at the present time a community page: the Wikimedia Foundation may be monitoring this page, however it is not now a community page (other than as a historical archive). "Supporting role"? No this is full control of an alleged community page by the Foundation. Shutting out the community seems to be a mistake, but one that cannot even be pointed out through the process alleged on the en Wikipedia:SOPA page. I think that there is a crucial lesson that needs to be heeded here. Dcattell 18:32, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Except that you're quoting without context. The quote was in reference to making the decision on whehter or not to do the black out in the first place, not in reference to what would happen during the blackout. As a side note, I believe the way the blackout was implemented was by changing who has the userright that allows editing - this means that the removal is an all-or-nothing thing; a whitelist isn't an option. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought I was quoting in the context of the blackout! Part of my point is that a total blacklist would have seemed more fair and consistent in this context. However my main point concerns the lack of fora for community input in the context of this actual scenario; or more, raising the question of what happens in potential future contexts. Dcattell 06:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

SOPA blackout

Ridiculous. We're not here to promote our noble cause. Hurricanefan25 13:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the page you were attempting to link. It's an essay whose relation to the SOPA blackout is unclear. But if survival is a noble cause, I'm happy to sign on to it. Rivertorch 17:05, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

black out

Thank You for bringing my direct attention to a situation that is important. I would have other wise not felt it's importance! Again Thank You!!!!!

Blackflag

See Talk:Wikimedia News.

Can we make a news.Can we make a thing which is non-existent. This news is the relation between u and me. News: new+s: new+ sense. A news: a new sense. This is the news. A black flag to All who oppose a news. Gd Mn —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ansha (talk • contribs) 07:19, 18 January 2012‎ (UTC).

Why does work at en.wiki chug on during the blackout?

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChanges

I can see the need for Sue Gardner and the like to update certain SOPA-related pages and whatnot, but

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/delete

Why does Wifione feel the need to A7 some run-of-the-mill non-notable articles right now? Tarc 18:04, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll say this; the lack of traffic there now makes it a bit easier to deal with a couple of things that have fallen by the wayside. We have to do it really quickly, but there isn't the same amount of pressure to move on to the next thing; I just restored something that I've been meaning to for months now, but kept forgetting about because the Orange Bar of Doom popped up every time I was thinking about it. Maybe not what you want to hear, but that's the pragmatic reality. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:18, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

I should add; all the regular admins can do is revdel at this point. Must have changed something. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:40, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems funny that some are allowed to edit routinely through the black out, but the rest of us nada. MathewTownsend 23:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the only people who can edit are stewards and staff, and you'll notice that they are limiting their edits to blackout-related content (at least when I checked last). Even as an en.wikipedia admin, I can't edit, since that userright was locked down for the blackout. The activity Tarc was referring to was the use of administrative tools, some of which weren't locked. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Pledges for SOPA Strike

I pledged a dollar if Wikipedia was blacked out in protest of SOPA and E-Parasite. I just donated $20 because of how pleased I am with Wikipedia's efforts in raising this issue's visibility.

Why more banners on Simple English Wikipedia?

Given that there was not a consensus to join the protest, I am very surprized to see SOPA banners appear on Simple English Wikipedia thanking us for participating in the blackout. We didn't black out. Neither the banner nor the jump page are written in Simple English. Could you please fix this? Thanks! 98.141.198.236 05:23, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Current SOPA banner jump page

At present the SOPA banner takes the reader here. This page claims, "Big media companies may seek to cut off funding sources for their foreign competitors, even if copyright isn't being infringed." There is no factual basis for this claim. It should be removed. Unfortunately, it is the foundation for the claim that Wikipedia's existence is threatened by SOPA and PIPA. The facts are that a Federal judge would have to rule on a Big media company lawsuit and would have to find infringement before the PIPA provisions are triggered. Since Wikipedia is not a website devoted to infringing copyrights, the current proposals do not threaten Wikipedia existence. This is all scare tactics that undermine Wikipedia's credibilty.

There is a basis for the statement. As soon as a claim is issued, the owner of the web site will need to defend it, even if it is spurious. This could lead to enormous legal costs that the web site owner cannot afford in effect forcing them to "comply" with the request because they can't afford to defend it. It is in any case merely your supposition that Wikipedia would not be viewed as a "website devoted to infringing copyrights". How exactly is "devoted" defined in the law? How will judges interpret it? If an investigate found 10,000 copyright images and 20,000 pieces of copyright text on Wikipedia would that make it "devoted" to infringement? Until a suit is issued we don't know, and when it is issued the costs will escalate rapidly. That may make Wikipedia have to change its approach from "anyone can edit anonymously" to protect itself from litigation and that, in effect, is the end of the Wikipedia project. QU ^TalkQu 17:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a serious flaw in QU's logic, which is also the same flaw in the jump page. Today, if a copyright holder or the Justice Department sues a website, the website will have legal expenses. SOPA does not change that fact. Wikipedia has survived for 11 years with that possibility, so that possibility is not a threat to Wikipedia's existence. There are remedies against spurious lawsuits and umbrella insurance is available to handle the financial risks to websites like Wikipedia. There is no evidence that "big media companies" are going after anyone other than piracy websites. This propaganda is very misleading because the jump page uses vague phrases like "foreign competitors." Does "foreign competitors" mean companies that make competing movies or does it mean piracy websites? PIPA has a very precise definition of "website devoted to infringing copyrights". If Wikipedia is taking technically feasible steps to limit infringement it is outside that definition. Again, please correct the jump page.

Your claim of logic is flawed.

• " Wikipedia has survived for 11 years with that possibility, so that possibility is not a threat to Wikipedia's existence". That is not a progression of logic, merely a supposition. If you haven't had a road accident in 11 years you aren't safe from one now.
• "There is no evidence that "big media companies" are going after anyone other than piracy websites." There is equally no evidence to the contrary. In fact there is no evidence either way because the law is not in effect and therefore you cannot logically infer the conclusions you make later.
• "umbrella insurance is available to handle the financial risks to websites like Wikipedia" the premiums for which will be paid by whom? How much are they? Will they increase given the new laws? Again you don't know. Therefore the question of the viability of Wikipedia has not been settled.

You make this claim that the page is inaccurate and should be corrected, but you haven't actually presented any evidence or facts to demonstrate it is inaccurate. Rather you are trying to claim your beliefs are more valid than those of the Wikipedia community and the WMF. As such it is just an opinion that the majority seem to disagree with QU ^TalkQu 23:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Policy on private correspondence

In Wiki.pt we are discussing if private correspondence may or not be published by the recipient in wikipedia. Some have pointed out that this may be a global policy or custom. Is it? If it is, what exactly would be rationale? I mean, can the recipient report on the contents of the letter (but not include it)? Can he cite exerts from the letter?

Thanks for the help, Chico 23:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Course of action for editor POV pushing across multiple projects.

There is an IP editor, 130.204.43.239 (contribs), who has been pushing a pro-Shia point of view across multiple projects over the last 2.5 months by adding uncited information in the form of pro-Shia/pro-Islam-washing the belief systems of various people groups (see w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#User who seems to have an anti-Christian (or pro-Islamic) agenda) and has entirely ignored reqeusts to discuss (even going so far as to likely be the one removing a section on a noticeboard talking about the issue[1]). What is the procedure for this type of thing? Magog the Ogre 22:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

block IP on sight, infinity. Seb az86556 13:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, but I don't have admin access to all the different wikis. Magog the Ogre 20:57, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Steward requests/Global is probably what you want, after reading Global blocks and deciding if it is warranted. :) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 16:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Campus Ambassadors

Where can I discreetly enquire to verify a user's self-identification as a "Campus Ambassador"? Knowing whether the designation was officially conferred could influence the approach I would take for providing assistance to a user who appears to be unfamiliar with some mechanics of MediaWiki markup or with some core policies. ~ Ningauble 00:00, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You would start with determining under which program this person is an Ambassador. There are lists of Campus Ambassadors: en:Wikipedia:Canada_Education_Program/Campus_Ambassadors, en:Wikipedia:India Education Program, en:Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Campus_Ambassadors, pt:Wikipédia:Wikimedia_Brasil_Educação/Embaixador_de_Campo, en:Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Current ambassadors. If they aren't on one of those lists, it may not prove that they aren't an ambassador, but of course if they are that will eliminate all questions. :) If they aren't there and you want to check further, if you send me an email at liaisonwikimedia.org, I may be able to assist you. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) 16:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, verified. (I find the role of ambassadors who are themselves neophytes a bit perplexing, but I appreciate the challenge of trying to bootstrap an academic contributor base.) ~ Ningauble 19:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

opendata

Shoulden't there be a site opendata here, as a 'focus' to things related to this term within wikimedia? --Itu 17:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain what you are meaning. What sort of examples of information are wishing to see? billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know in detail what there should be written or explained. But i feel this is an really important issue with close relationship to a 'all-over'-open-content-organisation like wikimedia.... --Itu 04:13, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

interwiki's

There is something strange going on with the iw's at wiktionary Jcwf 00:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The problems is in all projects----Antur 00:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it seems... A software problem?? Jcwf 00:24, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki map was updated very recently, techs are working to see what has gone wrong. billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jcwf 00:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There back. If a page is broken, purge the page, and if it continues, please report back here. billinghurst sDrewth 00:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

They are broken again. --birdy geimfyglið _(:> )=| 19:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

People are working on it at the moment. It´s known. --WizardOfOz ^talk 19:50, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

 Fixed --WizardOfOz ^talk 20:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Number of active users equal to -1

Why number of active users is equal to "-1" for some Wikipedias? For example, for Polish: (pl:Special:Statistics) or Northern Sotho (nso:Special:Statistics). -- Ace111 01:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like something screwy in the database. If it really bothers you, feel free to lodge it within bugzilla:. If you are only after the stats then please look at http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/SummaryPL.htm billinghurst sDrewth 03:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to be discussed already for 3 years: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=20017. -- Ace111 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

)-: Special:Statistics has dodgy bits, the article count per use is wrong, so not much we can do until the MediaWiki programmers prioritise it. Bugzilla is that tool, and not much we can do from in here. billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Expanding the abilities of global countervandalism on Wikimedia

Hello all, I present you with a proposal that I've been considering putting forward for a few months now. Over a year of countervandalism on Wikimedia has taught me two things; we don't have enough stewards and global sysops, and we don't have many good tools for fighting vandalism and spam across many wikis. Since it is pretty clear that the lack of stewards and global sysops isn't going to change quickly (only 10 steward candidates up for election this year), I'd suggest that we instead focus on improving the countervandalism tools available to stewards, global sysops and I'd even say global rollbackers. Below are sections for two extensions which would drastically improve our response to cross-wiki countervandalism. Feel free to add another section if you know of a tool or extension which would also help.

Please note that this is not a vote for whether or not we enable these; this is a proposal to see if the current global community would be accepting of them. If there is a good response here, I will organize or help to organize a global vote on this matter. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

SpamRegex

SpamRegex is an old extension used by Wikia to block abused text and links in page content, edit summaries and move summaries. Essentially acting as a global AbuseFilter, SpamRegex would allow a user with access to it to block the word hello from being added to any page on any Wikimedia site. I would suggest that this extension be used only in emergencies, to block phrases which are being spammed crosswiki on a temporary basis. An example of when this could be used is when a cross-wiki vandal with lots of proxies is adding Ajraddatz is funny looking to many pages across many wikis. Instead of waiting for the vandal to get tired of creating new accounts, simply add that sentence to the SpamRegex and it is blocked from use everywhere. More info can be found on the extension page linked to above.

Benefits

• Better response to cross-wiki vandalism and spam.
• Easier than needing to block IP after IP or user after user.
• Doesn't require sharedDB, meaning we could actually use this in its present state.
• Could replace the spam blacklist, allowing for easier logging and expanded functionality.

Could be considered as either benefit or disadvantage

• Currently does not have a public log - This could be good in that vandals couldn't see how to bypass the extension, though bad for transparency. Solution could be making a semi-public log viewable by autoconfirmed, or just a public log.

Disadvantages

• Older extension, obsolete on many wikifarms and *could* need some work before being enabled here. At the same time, this is more modern than what we use.

I would recommend that this be available to stewards and global sysops (though I doubt anyone will support it for gs). Even without a public log at this point (which is easily fixed), there is a list of all blocked phrases so abuse of this isn't really an issue here. Please discuss. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Note - It has been brought to my attention that global AbuseFilters could be possible - if this is true, I will strike out this section because global AbuseFilters would be far better than this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks to Dferg, who has provided me info on the global AbuseFilter. See the section below. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Global AbuseFilter

Global AbuseFilter would give us all of the functionality of SpamRegex, and even more. It is the AbuseFilter, but on a global level. It would be used to prevent cross-wiki vandalism.

Benefits

• All of the benefits of local AbuseFilters, but global!

Disadvantages

• Not fully developed.
• Lack of active development and bug fixing (?) / Sometimes a bit complicated to program. [added by MarcoAurelio (talk · contribs)]

This needs a bit of work before it can be used, but I am more than willing to contact the required people and get the ball rolling on this if consensus is achieved. I recommend that it be available to stewards and global abusefilter editors (and global sysops if possible). We could also use SpamRegex until global AbuseFilter becomes available. Please discuss. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• Support using SpamRegex until global AbuseFilter becomes available. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Approach with extreme caution. If global work has taught me something, is that regexes that may be "bad" in some language not rarely match harmless and frequently in other languages. There's for example english regexes filtering new account names and regularly they trigger common usernames on spanish.

Moreover, within a single language, only very specific and limited regexes have neglibible false positives. Add a few hundred languages andyou're up for blocking a lot of good contributions. So this only would work if blockings were extremely narrow both in scope and time. Otherwise, better not. es:Magister Mathematicae 21:18, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

You bring up a great point, and I agree. Policy around the use of these tools should reflect a very short time-frame and a very specific target. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• I would support global abuse filters, but I do not know how developed they are + I'd like to know if anybody is currently working activelly on the extension. There's currently ~95 open bugs regarding this extension. AbuseFilter is one of the best antiabuse tools I've used, but it can turn into a nightmare if we enable it at a global level and there's nobody there working on the bugfixing thing. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 22:42, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• I've contacted the person who made abusefilter, and he tells me that global filters are indeed possible and viable. I am now asking him if there is any way for communities to locally disable a global filter. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
• I think this is a good idea, and that it would be very helpful in combatting cross-wiki spam/vandalism. I have some questions:
  1. Does this mean we need a new group for global abusefilter management?
  2. How can we override/disable these locally? Can we?
  3. How stable is this? Is it ready at its current state?

Also, the proposal above looks ok. πr² (t • c) 03:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• We will not need a new group for this, although it would be good to nail down who will have access to it if it is enabled. I am currently enquiring into the possibility of disabling filters on a local level. This is very stable, and ready to release in its current state. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

RegexBlock

RegexBlock uses a sharedDB to block either an exact username, or a regex from editing all Wikimedia projects. That means that instead of locking KittiesOnFire1568, KittiesOnFire1567, and KittiesOnFire1542, stewards could just regexblock KittiesOnFire with the correct regex and be done with it. This would not only prevent quite a bit of abuse, but it would allow for stewards to more efficiently deal with cross-wiki vandals.

Benefits

• Allows for regex and exact match blocking.
• Actually shows the blocked user a reason, instead of CentralAuth's password not accepted message.

Could be considered as either benefit or disadvantage

• Currently does not have a public log - One could be made.

Disadvantages

• Doesn't currently work with CentralAuth, meaning that we would either need to start using a sharedDB (yes, I know the technical complications) or modify it to work with CentralAuth. The latter is more practical I bet.
• RegexBlock does not allow for oversighting of usernames - CentralAuth would still need to be used for that, or local oversighting.

I would recommend that this be enabled (when ready) for stewards and global sysops, though again I doubt anyone will support it being enabled for global sysops. Please discuss. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• I'd say that it's well worth the time put in to modifying the extension, as it takes us out of the dark ages in terms of global blocks and locks. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Hello Ajraddatz. Thanks for proposing this move. I don't say it won't be useful, but quite frankly there are far more things to do before this to improve the way stewards work... A global title blacklist still exists but is never used : if we forbid the creation of user accounts including the name "KittiesOnFire", this vandal will simply move to an other username and we will no more be able to detect it. But this present several disadvantages as it will higher the delay pages are loaded.
  There are several bugs, even critical bugs with the CentralAuth extension. Sometimes we check the "oversight" box and things are not oversighted. But nobody wants to handle that, apparently. That's the same as global blocks, stewards would really need a way to autoblock IPs globally when locking an account. But this does not seems to be a priority for coders as only 40 people are needing it... -- Quentinv57 ^(talk) 20:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

  Part of the current problems is that everything is spread out - we have two interfaces for gblocking users and IPs, the spam blacklist is not available to all stewards and not used as it should be. I am going to be spending some time over the next few months creating a large initiative to "fix" global countervandalism. This is what I see as a temporary first step, to temporarily solve some of these problems without needing to redo the system. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:52, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• While this is not as problematic as content filtering in the previous section (usernames are much less likely to cause false positives), there is already a system for blocking username creations based on regexes. That is, if we determine any username matching a regex is to be blocked, we simply forbid creating matches on that regex instead of allowing creation and then blocking it if matches. es:Magister Mathematicae 21:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that you have some misunderstandings as well. This is *NOT* the spam blacklist. And yes, all stewards have access to both blacklists. es:Magister Mathematicae 21:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I know this isn't the spam blacklist, it's the Title blacklist which is the candle to this extension's electric light. There are some stewards who aren't local admins, and because of the grey area in scope there it could be suggested that they can't use it. My point is that this extension will combine the title blacklist with an effective global blocking system that shows users why they were blocked. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Note - Actually, after further research and organizing of my thoughts I don't think that this extension is what we need. This only includes aspects of what we need, not all of the functionality such as autoblocking on user blocks, etc - as such, consider the regexblocking proposal withdrawn. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
• Ideally we need the abusefilter on a global level, but I'm quite happy with these proposals. It will make the stewards' role somewhat easier, if used with caution. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

• Opposed to any of this. Local control is always superior. Seb az86556 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  This isn't changing anything in terms of local control. All that is proposed is already possible through various global tools, the point here is consolidating some of them for efficiency and expanded functionality. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:38, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

  I don't think so. You want a global filter which will of course override local filters lest it will be useless. Seb az86556 00:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

  We already use the spam and title blacklists which override local blacklists - these filters are not much more than those. That being said, your concern is definitely a valid one. If any of these are enabled, there needs to be a clear method of reporting false positives and the filters themselves need to be very specific and only enabled as long as they need to be. However, upgrading our current methods of fighting crosswiki vandalism is important - ultimately, we need to recognize that preventing crosswiki abuse can come before giving local communities complete control of what links and content is blocked.

  Allowing projects to disable a global filter locally would be a great addition that would solve this problem. I am looking into the technical feasibility of this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

What is Meta For?

As I understand it, Meta used to cover some things which are now covered elsewhere:

1. "meta" stuff about Wikipedia project operation, which is handled in Wikipedia: namespace on local projects.
2. tech: wikitech.wikimedia.org
3. MediaWiki documention: MediaWiki.org
4. WMF stuff: wikimediafoundation.org
5.  ? others

So what is Meta for today? According to Meta:About Meta

Meta-Wiki currently serves several distinct roles:

1. Discussion and formulation of the Wikimedia projects, and in particular policy discussion relevant to all projects, such as open content licensing
2. A forum for personal essays about the Wikimedia projects (as these are usually not delivered from a neutral point of view, they should be summarized on neutral issues pages from multiple point of view using formats like TIPAESA or its subset IPA)
3. A place to discuss interlanguage co-ordination issues concerning the Wikimedia projects, including discussion in languages other than English

Oddly, this doesn't mention global policies (Meta:Policies and guidelines) or Steward action coordination (Stewards policy), or the various Wikimedia committees.

Anyway, my basic concern is this: most fundamentally, Meta is about multilingual coordination across WMF projects, yes? Yet the multilingualism seems generally quite poorly developed compared to Commons (where it isn't exactly stellar, but certainly better). A lot of the backend of templates and the like is just outdated or non-existent. So... Devil's Advocate: why not get rid of Meta as a separate wiki? Whatever isn't better merged to other wikis (like WMF) can be merged to a Meta namespace at Commons. Then there will only be one multilingual infrastructure to maintain. And whilst the move would be quite a lot of effort, the shakeout would make it clearer what Meta is really for... Rd232 04:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta primarily serves as a place for requesting help from users with global rights, requesting global rights, seeking a second opinion in terms of local blocks or crosswiki issues, coordinating fundraisers/elections/etc. Quite honestly, meta could be divided into three wikis - one for a Global Requests Committee if that is ever made, one for global requests and one for coordination. However, meta is actually working quite well even if what actually goes on here isn't apparent to "outsiders". I would be rather opposed to moving parts of meta to content wikis. One of the great parts of meta is that it can act outside of local drama for the most part. Ajraddatz (Talk) 05:25, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

"meta is actually working quite well ..." - for speakers of English? Or for everyone? And if the reason it works "quite well" is obscurity (only insiders know what and how it works or bother to engage with it when not absolutely necessary), I'm not sure that's much of a recommendation for something of meta's purpose. PS I'd hope that at least this thread might lead to improvement of meta:About Meta. So - add a point 4. on Global Rights? Rd232 05:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Meta undertakes the global coordination of the wikimedia product too (miscellany, administrata and administrivia) so it is the host of the global blacklists, title lists, and all the other things that you want to do cross wiki that are cross wiki and need a home. It hosts numbers of gadgets that are project neutral, can be excluded from global blocks, and allows a central coordination. It is that drawer at your desk where you put all those important things that you want to keep but don't fit in the order of any other drawer. 121.79.17.54 11:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure. What I'm trying to get at is that it's not really obvious what the added value is to having Meta and Commons as separate wikis. If multilingualism were not such an issue, it wouldn't matter much; but maintaining two sets of multilingual infrastructures is inefficient at best (and it seems to me Meta is quite lacking there). Commons, by virtue of being Wikimedia's central media repository, is already a place where multilingualism is very important and reasonably well-developed; I'm looking for some idea of why a merge of Meta into a Meta namespace at Commons (let's call the concept Meta@Commons, say) would not (in the long-run - leaving aside transition issues) make Meta perform its coordination role better. Rd232 23:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

• It seems you're attacking the problem with the wrong solution. Commons is about creating a free file repository. Meta-Wiki is about interwiki coordination and communication. Meta-Wiki is also the former home of a bunch of projects, as you note, and continues to serve as an incubator for others. And Meta-Wiki serves as a Meatball Wiki of sorts. Among other things. Is there overlap in the two wikis' needs in terms of multilingual support? Of course. They're both used by people speaking different languages and they run literally the exact same software (MediaWiki). There's going to be some overlap in their needs. But the answer isn't to try to merge the two sites. High-level content separation is a good thing. One site is devoted to free media. One is devoted to being a catch-all and global (Wikimedia) wiki.

  For what it's worth, I think most people agree with you that Meta-Wiki is heavily focused on English and that Meta:About Meta is in need of improvement. Workable solutions for either of those problems is, of course, always welcome. :-) --MZMcBride 05:24, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your reply, but that's not really entirely convincing, because Commons isn't just "a free file repository"; by its nature it involves some coordination across projects because of the way other projects rely on it for some or all of their media. "High-level content separation is a good thing." Sure, but why can't a "Meta" namespace on Commons do that job? Or even something more radical, like a "Meta" namespace which exists simultaneously on all projects through some sort of transclusion or mirroring? Anyway, I'm not really expecting anything to happen here, I just want to prompt some people to think about these things. And possibly improve the About page. Rd232 19:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notification about block expiries

Hi,

I see open proxies beeng blocked for a year, after what they should be reviewed. Is there any mechanism for tracking their expiry? Now I am able to send various notifications about expiring local blocks with my bot, and will soon be able to do the same with global blocks. Is anyone interested in such a bot? What would the correct place for such notifications be? Bináris ^{tell me} 10:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I discontinue watching this section, should anyone be interested or want to tell that the idea is useless, please write to my talk page. Bináris ^{tell me} 21:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Network connectivity from 82.113.119.254

Hi, sorry for asking right here but I am having loads of problems connecting to various wikimedia/wikipedia projects and thus can not even find where to look for help:( In wireskark I see a HTTP get from my side, followed by

5820       1624.264335     10.45.177.254   91.198.174.225  HTTP    GET /w/index.php?title=Kolleg_St._Blasien&curid=9388891&diff=475478323&oldid=454779940 HTTP/1.1 
5821    1624.685130     91.198.174.225  10.45.177.254   TCP     http > 42053 [ACK] Seq=1 Ack=756 Win=7360 Len=0 TSV=1919350797 TSER=408872611
5822    1624.685132     91.198.174.225  10.45.177.254   TCP     http > 42053 [RST, ACK] Seq=1 Ack=756 Win=7360 Len=0 TSV=1919350797 TSER=408872611

This is the end of the connection most of the time. My IP is behind a NAT of my mobile provider afaics and worked perfectly till today. Thanks for any help. Richiez 11:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Renaming of the Local Embassy

I have proposed a renaming on the Village Pump of the English Wikipedia of this useful but misnomered program. Here's the text of the proposal and the comments posted by other editors, who suggested that it be placed here. I am the user identified as DCItalk. DCI2026 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure how difficult a task this would be, but I am suggesting that the "local embassy" feature on Wikipedia be renamed to a less confusing title. Currently, despite the numerous disclaimers, there are still visitors who post comments that might be expected at a foreign nation's embassy or consulate. Wikpedia is not a governmental institution of any kind, and does not need to have a program called the "local embassy," in my opinion. Below are two ideas for a new title:

• Inter-language assistance
• Multilingual Help Desk

These are not ideal titles, but could do as temporary ones until a better name could be selected, or a reversion to the "local embassy" title could be put in place. I'm venturing into fairly unfamiliar territory here, but, from my experiences, a renamed program would be more efficient and understandable. Thanks, DCItalk 04:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support 2nd As we could have a noticeboard. Simple, and "Inter-language" is not as good as Multilingual. ~~Ebe123~~ → report on my contribs. 00:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support 2nd However, considering this will affect all Wikimedia Foundation projects, shouldn't this be taken up at meta? Establishing a consensus here will be meaningless, as it will only receive input from English Wikipedia users. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support 2nd Sven Manguard Wha? 14:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support Either - The slightly strange banner at the top "This is not a real embassy" could therefore be removed, and it would also cut the messages of people looking for embassy-like advice. LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Two questions. (i) shouldn't all embassies be renamed then (cf Wikimedia Embassy)? (ii) does the thing actually serve any purpose in its current form? A bot-maintained list of active users (perhaps based on the Babel templates + users who express interest) would be a meaningful directory of welcoming volunteers ordered by language. This manual thing, full of inactive and barely active users and contradictions between the supposed "master" list at Wikimedia Embassy and local equivalents, seems like it needs a lot more attention than just a name change. Not that a name change wouldn't help: call it "multilingual volunteer directory" and you have a purpose that you can focus on meeting. Rd232 02:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Erik Evermtus block

Dear the Wikipedians, I want to say something. I saw User: Erik Evermtus has been approved for release tuh global block here: Steward_requests/Global/2012-01#Global_block_for_Erik_Evermtus But strangely not be opened until today. In fact in favor of a steward named user:Vittuzu. I have contacted to the proposer and the blocker Vittuzu user:PeterSymonds to ask him to open the global block Evermtus status but no reply let alone implemented. So again I say that hope quickly open the blocked status Evermtus because it is clear already been approved by the steward Vittuzu. Mahali syarifuddin 09:29, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It was not approved; the steward evidently misinterpreted the request and thought it was a lock request. The lock had been performed by myself, so it was marked as done. However, there has never been any agreement to unlock this user or any of his sockpuppets. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:14, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki 1.19

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to upgrade MediaWiki (the software powering this wiki) to its latest version this month. You can help to test it before it is enabled, to avoid disruption and breakage. More information is available in the full announcement. Thank you for your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ortodosso

Vorrei capire, le doveri e le interdizione che una donna ortodossa deve rispettare la domenica?