Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2011-11

Essays for Wikimedia

Does Wikimedia take essays written in regards to cross-wiki involvement? I felt inspired, and I'd like to write an essay myself. WhisperToMe 01:37, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, if you have something to say that's general in scope, this is a great place for it. You might want to look at Category:Essays to see some of the things others have written. Often people will start by creating a page in user space before transferring it to mainspace. I don't think that's required, but it's a good way to give yourself space to fully develop an idea before inviting others to contribute to it. Hope this helps! -Pete F 06:00, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Ironic?

Does no one else find it ironic that quoted stats show that only about 9% of contributors to Wikipedia are women, whilst maybe 90% of comments are to do with complaining about this - as if it was the fault of males.

It isn't. For around 100 years, at least in the West, there has been little to stop women from doing anything, except for lack of interest.

No man forced Lady Gaga to be what she is. And no man ever forced women to buy womens magazines which thrive on scandal,trivia and gossip.

Wellhere is one woman who breaks the mould of both gossip and the perpetual whiners about women not getting a fair go - Ellen Brown - http://www.webofdebt.com/ — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.179.235.156 (talk)

I know what you mean. Women are now totally free to exploit themselves as pop-music sex icons. And we even let them vote (except in Vatican City, the dude's paradise). What more do they want? Kaldari 23:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari... that kind of humor is... weird. Seb az86556 23:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Use of Wikipedia logo on Google Chrome advertisement.

I just noticed that some Google Chrome advertisement distributed by Google AdWord, contains the different logos of Google products and unexpectedly the Wikipedia logo.

Screenshot (hit enter again on URL bar): http://image.bayimg.com/eakkgaadn.jpg

direct link (not always work): http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CNOEuYCcjPSXwQEQ2AUYWjIINcKFo_7spzI, http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/imgad?id=CNLpqe_Vt7DdzgEQ2AUYWjIIBMV_3ndyqFg

Is this authorised by the Foundation, or it's an infringement? --Kiyokoakiyama 04:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting question. I've forwarded a link to this item to the WMF legal team. By the way, are you aware that your screen shot leads to a "403 forbidden" error? Maybe you could upload it here, temporarily, until this issue is resolved? -Pete F 05:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

http://bayimg.com/eakkgaadn , annoying referrer blocking --Kiyokoakiyama 06:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Done I checked with the Wikimedia legal team, and am pleased to report that this is properly licensed use :) -Pete F 18:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote the quality objective of the 5 year strategy?

Hi. I'm looking for a point of contact. Someone who worked on (ideally led) the development of the quality objective of the 5 year strategy. Am looking for old discussions, documents, debates, etc.71.246.144.154 20:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd check here: strategy:Task force/Wikipedia Quality -Pete F 07:40, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi - I was the facilitator for the Strategy project. You can email me at philippewikimedia.org. Philippe (WMF) 10:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Public Library blocked from Wikipedia - why?

Why can't people who use the Public Library because they don't have their own computers get blocked from editing. I live in Tampa, Florida and I can't edit. The whole site is blocked forever.

71.41.38.234 15:21, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

not for "forever," 6 months.

You can still create an account on a different computer and then log on from wherever you are. Seb az86556 16:37, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't work. I tried it. 71.41.38.234 15:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

6 months=enough to put off a lot of people. Even if it wasn't so, my own experience in public libraries when in London shows once a long block is over, a new overstretched period of blocking is likely to be applied shortly. Most of the times, especially after the few first months, I just gave up gnoming whenever an IP block did not let me do so. Actually, that is one of the reasons why I mainly edit under IP addresses. Fortunately one can still help fairly well in many Wikimedia sites other than enW and enWikt. --87.217.184.204 15:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC) And what 71.41.38.234 has just said is also true. Often it is either impossible or too much aggravation to log in/register from a blocked IP address. Usually it is faster or easier just to leave a message in the IP's talk page stating what you were going to fix/add and where, even when they are often ignored. --87.217.184.204 16:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

hopeless. PillowTalking 16:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: "new wiki importer" global group

This is a proposal of Wikimedia Incubator admins (at least me, User:Danny B. and User:MF-Warburg) for a global user group "new wiki importer". This is needed 1) so that we don't have to ask for permissions each time a new wiki is created, and 2) to guarantee the work is done by experienced importers (in the last few new wikis, there were problems twice).

• Rights: import, importupload, editinterface, delete, undelete, move, autoconfirmed, editprotected, protect, noratelimit, skipcaptcha
• Wiki set (three possibilities):
  • opt-out using the global sysop wiki set
  • a separate wiki set, e.g. opt-out all existing wikis
  • opt-in and new wiki importers get the "globalgrouppermissions" right to add a new wiki to the set temporarily

What do you think? Regards, SPQRobin (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Either option 2 or 3. Seb az86556 03:04, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Offtopic about import feature

Not all Wikis have the same importing feature. You would have to create a universal standard, which will probably be difficult. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) How do you mean? We import by file upload, which is the same everywhere. SPQRobin (talk) 07:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Nope. Each Wiki has only a small amount of things it can import from. I was able to use import on multiple Wikis and I confirmed this a long time ago with others. Each Wiki's import set is different. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC) No. There are two different ways to import, see Help:Import: directly from other wikis, which have to be set it the wikis settings (this is the import permission, which all sysops have), and importupload through an XML file created by special:export (this right only the importer group has). --MF-W 14:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC) The XML files are not easy to use, nor are they able to move files as you claim. en.wiki, for instance, cannot easily take XML files from a wiki it does not allow importing from. There is a limited set any importer can take from, and that is an indisputable fact that most people involved in importing realize. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• I oppose, since this may cause confusion. And I think it should come with the import usergroup on incubator. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 10:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  How could this cause confusion? The group will be limited to importing content into new wikis, as its proposed name says. How do you mean your 2nd sentence? Most people who regularly import to new wikis are Incubator importers/sysops. --MF-W 11:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Re-imports are annoying and this will happen more often. I think that this should be gave with the import group on incubator. Or put it in GS since this is just adding import, and importupload. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Question. What problems? Could you be more specific? Ruslik 12:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  nsowiki was imported using the wrong character encoding. So now all non acsii character are broken. Now this wiki is locked and must be reimported, but first roots must clear the database. Merlissimo 12:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  I learned, and this is just to say to not use TextRangler and Microsoft Office. Use Dashcode and TextEdit even though Dashcode crashes often. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 19:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• +1 option 2 perferred, so new wikis can decide themself when then want opt-out. At them moment stewards grand importers one month tempadminship. Often this is not enought, so the inital importers start a local vote for permadminship, althought most wiki need there help only for about half an year. Merlissimo 12:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
• A good idea to both simplify and clarify the current (non-)process. Options 1 and 2 for the wikiset seem overkill to me: this not worth maintaining a wikiset or defining criteria or processes for opt-out, and if they still have to ask stewards to edit the wikiset every time then there's is no simplification. Hence I support option 3; we just have to specify that only new wikis can be added and that they have to be removed when the job is done and not more than 6 months (or whatever) later. Other things the policy should contain for the stated purposes (obvious but worth mentioning): the right is permanent (inactivity removal to be left to common sense), no more temporary importers will be added for new wikis. Nemo 18:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  If I see it correctly, option 2 will require one action by a steward to opt-out all current wikis, and then a steward action each time when a new wiki was created and the "job was done" to opt it out; option 3 will require a steward action after the creation of a new wiki to opt it in, and afterwards to opt it out. --MF-W 18:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  No, it wouldn't be a steward action because the new wiki importer would do it. Not all new wikis require import (e.g. chapters wikis), and someone should check all new wiki creations to add new wikis as they're created. Moreover, with an opt-out wikiset it's slightly more difficult to tell where the group is active. Nemo 08:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Would not it be simpler to add 'importupload' userright to global sysops? Ruslik 18:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

  Global sysops were meant originally to fight vandalism. Ok, I requested the flag to unlink deleted pictures on commons and meanwhile we gave the global flag upon other requests. This this widening the global sysop tasks another time ... a×p_de^Hello! 09:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  I personally don't see a broadening of scope as a bad thing, especially in this case when it would really help to give the importers all of the tools that they need, while reducing the bureaucracy of creating another global group. Ajraddatz (Talk) 15:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

  All the rights where we can tell from our experience in the past that they are needed are included in the proposal. The scope of global sysops can change of course, but this is not really a global thing, only "one week per new wiki". --MF-W 15:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Offtopic about import feature, reloaded identical

No, because each new Wiki would need to determine its import set. It isn't as simple as some people have claimed. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC) @Ruslik: The importupload right should be used with care. So only people having expierence with importing and are very trustful should get this right. You can do many very, very bad thing having this right. Thats the reason why local admins do not have this right and local importupload can only given by stewards. @Ottava Rima: the import set (defined by $wgImportSources) is only important for the import right. Here we are mainly talking about importupload. Having this right you can import everything you like. On dewiki i could import contribs of yours that you have never done anywhere (and i am having this right only because i'll never do that). Merlissimo 19:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I am not proposing to give it to local sysops, only to global sysops. In fact, all stewards already have it. "local importupload can only given by stewards"—this is not completely true as on some wikis the 'importuload' userright is a part of sysop package and on some wikis users can be assigned to the importer group by bureaucrats. Ruslik 19:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Okay, so if "import" and "importupload" are two different rights, then why would the proposed importer need both? Anyway, my comments were mostly about the import right (not importuload). Other people have mentioned problems with importuload. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Because the functionality of the "import" right is much easier and can't do as much "harm" as "importupload". And I don't see any reason not to add "import" as a right. SPQRobin (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC) You only need one or the other. The import right, as I pointed out, is limited and determined by the system. The other is long, tedious, and has lots of problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Not at all - have you ever actually used importupload? Quite to the contrary, I find it fast and easy, especially with more than one page to import. In regards to adding that right to the gs group, I'd support that. I really don't think that trust is an issue for a group with sysop access on literally hundreds of wikis, and if it is then there is a major problem here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC) "have you ever actually used importupload? " Yep, and it is an annoying, pain in the ass that has a lot of problems that transwiki patently does not. Other people have mentioned the major problems with it. That is indisputable, and if the developers had their act together they would disable it completely. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• +1 - an import-upload-group could be more efficient and quicker for new projects; if there will be a opt-in so the new wikis should be informed in time about it (the best: before creating the wiki), -jkb- 20:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC) - - - and yes: experienced users only should get the right, it si not for everybody -jkb- 20:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - ill conceived, both import and importupload have flaws that this group would not be able to overcome. New wikis don't have the ability to have a strong consensus to determine where all they can import from and xml files can be dangerous, take too much effort, etc., to be worth while. This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

do you really know what are you talking about? Regards -jkb- 21:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Offtopic about how import is, can or would be used, again

Probably far more than you do. I've used the Import feature on multiple Wikis dating back a few years. I'm not the only one who thinks that the proposal is extremely problematic and there is quite a bit of false claims from those who want the additional features. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC) These aren't additional features, they already exist and are being used. This proposal is just to save stewards some work in granting and revoking the rights, in order to simplify the creation of a 'new wiki'. --MF-W 22:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC) I said additional features, not new features. Please do not make up claims about other people's statements especially when you are trying to argue for something that seems utterly unnecessary and potentially very dangerous. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Excuse me, I did not mean to "make up" anything about what you said or not said. By saying "these aren't additional features" I wanted to express that the import/importupload rights are not some features that some users, power-greedy as they are, want to be added to them, but that these users (read: people who regularly import new wikis) in fact receive these rights already each time a new wiki is created. --MF-W 17:48, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Your own proposal says "new wiki importer" in the top, so it contradicts exactly what you are claiming here. You blatantly asked for a new user group. Why you are playing word games is beyond me, but it shows that you don't have a legitimate request. Furthermore, it has already been demonstrated that XML not only takes a long time for importing but that it is dangerous. You would have to have known that going into the request, so that alone shows that this request was really, really faulty. You need to withdraw this request and stop it. Maybe if you came to a discussion first, actually asked for something reasonable, and not played games which makes you appear really untrustworthy, then you could get help. But not only has it been proven that you don't need it, but that your actual request is almost scary. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Of course we do propose a new global group. I never said anything to the contrary. And what has been demonstrated here about XML imports, is your inability to understand what it really is as you are the only one here claiming it would be not working (that it can be misused is true, though, as also others said here). --MF-W 19:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)/changed 20:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Multiple people above have pointed out problems with the XML importing. Your claims that they didn't are highly inappropriate and incivil. You need to stop. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) And as a side note, your user page denotes that you have adopted a radical and dangerous anti-WMF political ideology, so even giving you anything close to the above privileges would be extremely risky. I think it would make more sense to give Greg Kohs full access to toolserver than the "White Bag Movement" the ability to import at wiki and upload XML files to potentially hundreds of Wikis without any oversight. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Ottava Rima, in the last one or two weeks you diffamed some users, mostly from the German WP, once even as a whole community ("...manipulated a lot of users...", "...There is a reason why all of the porn is coming from a handful of white males...", "...In Germany, there is a dying culture of nudism/exhibition...", "...against the pornographic content and are at odds with the German community...", "...The arguments on de.wiki ... were ... an attack and manipulated a lot of users....", "...It isn't a coincidence that only de.wiki protested ... I would estimate that the trouble makers amount to less than 300 people ..." and so on, all to be found on the page User talk:Sue Gardner). Now you try to continue here: "...your user page denotes that you have adopted a radical and dangerous anti-WMF political ideology...", "...discussion first, actually asked for something reasonable, and not played games which makes you appear really untrustworthy...", "...your actual request is almost scary..."... Don't you think you should stop it immediately? If you have some problems, so discuss it with your friends. But do not discredite very experienced users and even a whole community. Thanks. -jkb- 20:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC) Already proved you wrong and shown that your comments amount to nothing. See below for a 100% critique on why there is no legitimate reason to go through with this. Nothing else matters. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC) I guess you are still talking about transwiki or transwiki import; but this is on import upload, something else. I really do not believe you practitized import upload in the past and then on some more wikis (!) as the importers are very rare exceptions on the whole wp project. You most probably practized transwiki import. -jkb- 23:48, 4 November 2011 (UTC) Import upload is long, tedious, and you are not going to transfer over 100s of pages to a new wiki. Only a transwiki would make sense. However, transwikis need a set that would have to be community determined. Thus, neither possibility is practical nor acceptable. Others have already shown why. And trust me, you can look in my global contribs and see that I have many contribs on Wikis I've never actually edited on because I was involved in testing various things, which also meant I was involved in the importing of those pages. That is in addition to where I was involved with importing on two different projects. I also have incubator experience - beta.wikiversity - which was quite successful without any of the problems that could be from having people with a global import right and without any local say or the rest and with the possible problems associated as listed before. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC) It is indisputable that to upload via an XML file is not efficient, takes a lot of effort, and would not be done by anyone who wishes to move files from the incubator to a new wiki. The only logical approach would be to use the importer transwiki rights to quickly move over files. This does not need a new group. There are no arguments that can be made. There have been multiple people opposed to it. The proposal is unnecessary and completely unsound. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) In fact, import via an XML is very efficient, takes little effort and is always used to move projects from the incubator to a new wiki. Ruslik 08:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Unless you are using an outside script, it takes quite a bit to download then reupload XML. And that allows for them to be edited, corrupted, etc. Transwiki is the only truly safe method, and also goes far, far faster in my experience. No one has made a convincing argument about XML, and I have talked to many people with backgrounds in importing besides myself who feel that XML is probably too dangerous to allow anyone to upload with in any situation. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:54, 6 November 2011 (UTC) "in my experience": that's good for you, but in my and others' experience, XML works better. "many people besides myself", I haven't seen anyone else complain here. SPQRobin (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support, seems like a great idea to me. I'd also be willing to help out with my global sysop tools if help is needed with new wiki imports, though I guess that would require the importupload right. Ajraddatz (Talk) 16:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  It should also be noted that the import right is already in the gs toolset. In some ways, adding importupload to the toolset would be easier and less bureaucratic than creating another group, especially since it would give the new wiki importers a larger variety of rights that they might need for setting up the wiki. Also, that would allow the community to have some input in terms of a discussion of each new user with the right. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:04, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Questions

Help me out here, as there seems to be a lot of polemic discussion around what is meant to be something that is simple in concept the initial configuration and population of data. Merging political with technical with grand aspects of "nay saying" just makes it difficult to separate out the components and we grind to "too hard/cannot be bothered/wtf/etc."

I believe that the proposal is for new wikis to have a global import group capacity. At this point, I believe that the clarification needs to be made:—

• is this configuration just for these wikis in their initial phases, or is this expected to be a permanent right allocation to the wiki? If this is only required with start up the wiki, when would it be turned off and by whom?
• Which mw:import method is looking to be done, and is this prior to going into wild? Or is it being done when the punters will also be unleashed? ie. if a complex method is being used that might hose data, are we minimising data loss from editors?
• Security issues. We have people at WMF who write the application, and can make more informed decisions than pretty well any of us. If they are comfortable with the process, and we can run a check across the data before going live, and they are still comfortable, then who are we to try to be more expert?
• Can this "import" look to be undertaken and complete before the vast bulk of the users are allowed in, or before a beta label is removed from the wiki. Removal of the beta/creation sign means that import has been done, testing undertaken and the risk of corruption is back to normal levels.

billinghurst sDrewth 07:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea behind this is that when a new language version of one of the Foundation's projects is given final approval, the pages of the "test wiki", which is required by Language proposal policy and hosted on Incubator, BetaWikiversity or Old Wikisource, will be imported to the new subdomain wiki. The current process is that a user (typically a sysop from Incubator) requests temporary import access to the new wiki on SRP, imports the pages, and then immediately notifies stewards once he is finished and sure that no pages are missing (this doesn't take longer than a few days, usually). - So also the proposed global group is only for the new wikis' starting period, too. In no case is there any justification to make it permanent. Stewards would in the future be asked to remove a wiki where the import is done from the wikiset instead of managing individual users' rights.

The import method that is used is that XML files created by Special:Export on Incubator are stripped from the prefixes, and then imported via Special:Import on the new wiki. Please have a look at incubator:I:Exporting, which is a detailed description of this (in some parts rather a longbreathed how-to).

Regarding your last question, this is usually achieved. New WMF wikis get this [1] as their initial main page; most users are also well-informed that importing (instead of e.g. copying the pages) is better for reasons of license and traceability of the page history; and the only edits that happen before the import is complete are user page creations. --MF-W 17:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Additional notice: the problem is that a sysop of the new project mostly doesn't have any experience with importing pages from one to another project (sometimes, there is no sysop at all as the procedure of voting and getting the rights can sometimes take a logner time). More over, when a sysop starts with a new project (I have this experience from more then one), he has another problems to solve than learnig importing. -jkb- 18:14, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

"(this doesn't take longer than a few days, usually)." It was claimed elsewhere that the reason why temporary requesting isn't appropriate and that we need a global permission instead was that this would take "over a month". Which is it? I don't like the idea of the story changing to meet different questions and critiques. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While it is now an actioned group, as has been explained above seems quite okay to me, that is temporary import rights existing during the early portions of the creation of a wiki, and the rights withdrawn early into the piece. Any hosed import can be redone before the world is particularly inconvenienced. I don't see particularly what the problem may be. Presumably if new admins need assistance, then temporary adminship an be assigned by normal processes by the stewards. I can understand why OR is a little concerned where he sees deviation in the explanations, however, the clarification through the discussion processes seems to have worked. Seems reasonable and practicable, and presumably if there are issues seen by the process, especially as OR expressed earlier that this would either be able to be resolved, or would put a halt to the methodology. It would seem worthwhile for some later feedback to the community about the success or otherwise of the proposal. Thanks for the work that you do undertaking the incubating and rollout processes. billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Need to follow proposal standards

This is the previous extent of a vote for the last major group like this. At the very least, we would have to have a long period of discussion, put forth an actual proposal, have a global RfC, etc. Why this is being pushed through with few people to see is beyond me. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

No; global sysops have a large impact, while this proposal is only for making the technical process of importing new wikis easier. SPQRobin (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Saying that there is not as big of an impact does not mean that it doesn't affect multiple Wikis and must follow the rules. You don't get an exception to that. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is on you, and there is no way to claim that you can download and reupload faster than using what is already built into the code (i.e. transwiki). Ottava Rima (talk) 19:27, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

For the amount of pages we are talking about (usually several hundreds) it is faster. Another advantage is that the prefixes from Incubator can be removed before importing so there is no need to rename (and edit, in the case of wikilinks) every page afterwards. --MF-W 19:48, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The only way to do hundreds of pages of downloading and uploading via XML (because there is no other way to do XML than that) would require a script that would be fundamentally flawed, as has already been demonstrated in a previous oppose. This is a major problem and it is compounded by you guys not following the rules for proposals. This is not something you can pass in less than a year worth of discussion. Meta doesn't work the way you are trying to right now. You don't even have consensus and you tried to slip it by. You guys really need to do things the right way and actually listen to real concerns instead of acting the way you are acting. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Why would every Wikimedia community need to vote on something that doesn't affect them? This group will only have access on new wikis. The entire reason the global sysops required a big vote (which they technically didn't pass either, but that's a different story) was because it was originally planned for the group to affect every wiki on Wikimedia. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"Why would every Wikimedia community need to vote on something that doesn't affect them?" Uh, what? That is like saying why allow anyone to vote on the global sysop proposal. We are one big WMF community. The global sysops just like the proposed global importers will not be native members of those communities. Based on your own rationale, if outsiders weren't allowed to vote on the proposal then outsiders shouldn't be allowed to gain the privileges. That is kinda silly. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

As I already said, the originial gs proposal would have it active on every wiki, thus making it applicable to every wiki's community. Outsiders are able to vote on this proposal, however, it is not being advertized - and I support that decision. When the new group is being used, there will not be any community around - and when the wiki is set up and there is, that wiki will be removed from the wikiset. Ajraddatz (Talk) 19:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

"the originial gs proposal" No, it didn't. I've been active here for a very long time and saw the various discussions. Global sysops was always intended to be for small Wikis who were too small to keep up with cross wiki vandals. I'm sorry, but you just don't know what you are talking about and you are using it to justify things that are absurd. You've been around for less than a year, you have no right to act like you know old history. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it was always intended to be for small wikis, but the concept of a wikiset wasn't introduced until the last(?) proposal I believe... I do know what I am talking about. It is my personal opinion that the vote for gs was because it would affect Wikimedia on a wide scale, whereas this proposal will not. That is what I have been saying, and while you are free to disagree with that, I'd appreciate it if you would avoid resorting to essentially calling me incompetent. Just so you know, I've read through literally all of the proposals for gs and the talk page archives... I have a pretty good idea of what it was about. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, after looking through the archives again the wikiset was available for the 2009 proposal as well. Regardless of this, global sysop affects many wikis - this new group does not. I do not see the need for excessive bureaucracy in the form of a vote for something which will literally affect one wiki at a time. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time the confirm what I stated. It is frustrating to me to see all sorts of statements that don't really match up. As for the other part - I don't know if this "wont" affect many wikis - there is no way of oversight, no accountability, no real way to monitor, and no standard for when the new wikis (whatever "new" means) would no longer have people with deletion, importing, etc. abilities. The only thing this set doesn't do is block, CU, or OS. But it does give all the other user rights that are very damaging with very little control. There are very few new wikis, and even fewer need material to come from another Wiki. Right now, we have a Steward making one click and a record of the individual and the wiki that they are at. The proposal removes any record and makes them a power unto themselves. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The users that will be in this group will be trusted (elected preferably) so I don't see power being an issue here. To some extent I agree, though, in that this would remove quite a bit of oversight from the process. Given the choice, though, I'd take reduced bureaucracy over small potential for abuse. Ajraddatz (Talk) 03:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"this group will be trusted" Really? Because very few people will know that it even exists because they didn't bother to go through the normal proposal process for a new global user group. There are already very few active people on Meta who vote in normal elections. This will be almost zilch. There have already been contradictions in the statements and misleading comments by those who would most likely be the first to be nominated. I don't know how you can have trust in such situations and such people. Oversight should never be seen as a problem, especially when it takes 2 seconds for a Steward to grant import rights. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Just a question to avoid misunderstandings: dou you think that the users User:SPQRobin, User:Danny B. and User:MF-Warburg can be trusted or not? Thanks -jkb- 08:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Of those three, the most I could trust is Danny B. I would not support any of them for sysop or global sysop. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Back to the original point: see recursive-export, API_High_Limit_Requestor, CUlogview, Indic_Bots, editinterface for some more global groups and compare the process for their creation. Nemo 07:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Those aren't global permissions people can request. They are mostly established by the Foundation for Foundation purposes. However,one was created by Ruslik as "(Experimenting)" which is clearly crossing the line again and will be brought up as a reason why he cannot be trusted with Steward permissions in 2012. He has a strange habit of using Steward tools to do experimenting outside of any right under the Steward manual to do such. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong here. Some of those permissions can and are requested. There is even a special section on SRGP to request the 'editinterface' permission. Ruslik 08:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Testing

I created the 'New wikis importer' global group based on the 'all existing wikis' opt-out wikiset. Ruslik 10:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for that. It has just successfully worked during the re-import of nso.wikipedia, see nso:Special:log/import (I was given the New wikis importer status). nso.wp could now be added to the "All existing wikis" set, but I suggest to wait a few days in case any pages were by accident not imported. --MF-W 19:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've created the page New wikis importers to summarize. With regard to the technical details of the implementation, I'd suggest to reconsider option 3 for the wikiset, see above. Nemo 09:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Good points. In favour of option 2, it might be said that new chapter wikis are created less often than new wiki projects, and can of course be immediately opted out. But I wonder what you meant with "it wouldn't be a steward action because the new wiki importer would do it" - does this mean the wiki importers would be able to edit their own wikiset? --MF-W 14:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC) - Indeed they would be, as I was told. Good, then for transparency of the wiki set log, option 3 should be used, I think. --MF-W 21:39, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems like no consensus. So why was it implemented. I at least hope this is just a trial. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It was also marked a policy instead of a proposal. If these shenanigans keep up, I will be asking for blocks all around. This abuse is really egregious - defying consensus, asking for privileges without following standards, outright making up things. It really has to stop, and the people involved really should have known better. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I know. And all this is even defing IAR, by doing this is causing drama and IAR was to prevent drama. Well, I'm stoping this before it goes to another wiki Western Punjabi Wiktionary or Ingush Wikipedia ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 13:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re-start

Because this thread iss long with a lot of off-topic discussion, I'm re-starting a sane discussion/poll about this on Talk:New wikis importers. SPQRobin (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning up fj.wiktionary

In the Wiktionary in Fijian there are ~50 ~70 pages to be deleted (wrong titles, unnecessary redirects, etc). There will be more in the next days but I would appreciate if somebody could clear up all or some of those so that the next turn is not too much work. The link is this. Thanks. Regards. --87.217.184.204 13:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you are quite active there. Could you consider registering and and requesting temporary adminship to delete them yourself? - The place to request deletions by stewards or global sysops is SRD. --MF-W 15:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I prefer not to. Thanks for the link. Regards. --87.217.184.204 16:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews failed?

Maybe Wikinews isn't quite "dead" (as Matthiasb posted in the English WN), but it surely isn't a very successful project. It seems that currently the German Wikinews is the most active one - with less than ten active contributors. People turn simply to Wikipedia if they want to know about recent events, confident that Wikipedia will be up to date, which the big language editions usually are indeed. And for headlines like the (fairly) current "Greek PM survives confidence vote" (well, it's four days old news but still the top headline in English Wikinews) based on AP and BBC sources, readers have no reason to use Wikinews. They get the same content with more detail and more up to date by using established news sites like BBC, CNN etc. The claim of Wikinews "we can combine all the facts available from all sources about a news event into a single article for the reader's convenience" is most often fulfilled by Wikipedia, not by Wikinews. Of course, Wikinews could be far more than a repeater of already widely known news. As original reporting is allowed there, indeed it's encouraged, Wikinews could be a portal for news that don't make it to the commercial news sites, for "grassroots" reporting - but this doesn't happen a lot. As far as I can see, there is nothing original on the current English and German Wikinews main pages - just stale re-reporting. And as Wikinews isn't a new project, I think that the question must be asked whether it may have simply failed. Maybe Wikinews should be closed so that the Foundation's resources can be better focussed on the successful projects, namely Wikipedia, instead of wasting a lot for something reminiscent of a zombie? A little bit like Google's recent clean-up, they're closing down ten flopped services... Regards, Gestumblindi 20:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC) (admin in German Wikipedia, member of Wikimedia CH)

I couldn't agree more. Concentrate on core activities, and please integrate all the smaller projects into Wikipedia proper. We could have namespaces of their own for original news reporting, for dictionary entries, or for books. No one out there knows about the smaller projects nor ever will. Wikipedia is the only brand all users turn to.--Aschmidt 23:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

[Note, I'm addressing this mainly through the particular instance of en.wn.]

Sorry, no, can't agree (I'm not going to sort through every specific claim, there, but the sum shows an error occurred somewhere). If you choose to define the sole purpose of Wikinews to be acting as a firehose of regurgitated current events, it isn't being that at the moment. Indeed, it can't do that usefully; think about the nature of synthesis, and you'd realize that synthesizing major events is a dubious activity: synthesis is inherently behind the major outlets, so when they're scrutinizing an event, it makes more sense to turn to them. en.wn provides publication to high standards, which means (let's see, I'll likely miss a bunch of obvious ones —we spend most of our en.wn time on the actual work itself, leaving little time for meta-talk) anyone on the web has the opportunity to publish in a venue where they will be recognized to high standards (e.g., we're listed on GNews); we can publish on stories that could use more mainstream attention than they've gotten, and our article will get that attention; and individuals can seriously improve themselves as citizens of the world by learning to improve their stills at contributing. I did post an item on foundation-l a while back about the educational aspect (in the midst of that extensive sprawling thread that, to be honest, had an awfully high ratio of posts that, although many of them may have been sincerely meant, came across with substantially the same effect as if they had been trolling). I'd amplify that there is a fundamental weakness in the Wikipedian model, which we're particularly aware of over at en.wn, and frankly it's a truly daunting problem that I suspect has been accumulating for the past decade and will continue to get worse — unless we figure it out, and as I say, that's daunting. en.wn has a hold of a different end of it than en.wp, but it's all one, er (metaphors visibly twisting to become mixed) iceberg under the surface. Even though Wikipedia articles eventually approach a neutral accurate status, more-or-less asymptotically (though there's a sort of upper bound on the precision there), individuals who contribute to it do not, in practice, learn themselves to view the world in terms of accuracy and neutrality. It's becoming something of a lost art to check facts first and reserve judgement till later, to think of claims of fact in terms of relative reliability, to recognize what is claimed fact and what is opinion. To naturally ground one's perception of the world in a neutral point of view, relative to which one recognizes one's own opinions. It's been remarkable to me to realize, observing Wikipedians from en.wn, that often, anyway, Wikipedians bring whatever skills of that sort they have in with them, having somehow acquired them from somewhere else. Even many experienced Wikipedians seem to be trained by Wikipedia in the bad habit of writing down what they think is true (which could be a mishmash of opinion and bias-skewed "fact") and waiting for someone else to correct them. Society(-ies) run best with people who are able to sort out claims of fact and reocgnize their own and other's opinions, and for some insidious reason the Wikipedian model isn't doing that, even (as I say) for many experienced Wikipedians. On the other hand, we've got university journalism students being directed to en.wn by their professor to learn those skills. Okay, I started out addressing en.wn, but really, this is something looming over Wikipedia that's incredibly subtle, the sort of problem that can easily just keep getting worst till the whole system comes to grief and it's never noticed until, perhaps, decades or centuries later an historian puts the pieces together and writes a scholarly book about it (or whatever the equivalent of a book will be, by that time).

(Oh, I could address the OR issue; another time, perhaps, as there's a lot that could be said just about that, I've written an awful lot already, and besides which, this Wikipedia matter seems to me to be of far wider/deeper concern.) --Pi zero 12:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

BTW, over at English Wikibooks its been suggested that Wikipedia should really be a subproject of Wikibooks — likely in a subspace of its own, like Cookbook. Wikipedia is just another book, after all. :-) --Pi zero 12:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, second addendum, just in case of misunderstandings: It's fundamentally undesirable to have a single undifferentiated pool of admins who have free rein (not to say reign) over all the projects; it'd be an epic fail, as each project has a unique set of concerns that admins need to understand. The point of the Wikibooks comment is that if (a hypothesis of dubious merit) there were a hierarchy of admin privs, it'd make sense to give the power over other projects to admins on a non-Wikipedia project, because they're far more likely (statistically) to be sensitive to the differences between projects (at least, they'd start out sensitive, before power started corrupting... :-). --Pi zero 13:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

wikinews is run by two people, Pi zero and the Red Blood guy. They pretty much shoot down any new blood, new ideas, new editors. So should wikinews be kept open so a couple of guys have something to do every day? PillowTalking 15:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikinews is dead because 1) it's full of bureaucratic rules that stand in the way of actual newsmaking (i.e., many of its policies only create obstacles in the journalism process); and 2) it has a generally unwelcoming community who tries to run things as perfectly as possible and focuses on enforcing the aforementioned bureaucratic rules rather than encouraging content creation. A group of former Wikinews users, me included, formed a similar site with fewer restrictions: OpenGlobe. With a little refocusing, elimination of some rules, and a more user-friendly design, it seems that OpenGlobe is doing fairly well, as opposed to Wikinews. ←fetchcomms 18:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

All the computers in all the public libraries in Hillsborough County, Florida are blocked for one year from editing Wikipedia

Hillsborough County, Florida is a very big county with many poor people who don't have computers. To block all the school kids and others who can only use public library computers from editing Wikipedia for one year seems unreasonable.

"The 2010 population was 1,229,226. Its county seat is Tampa, Florida." (This is from the Wikipedia article.)

Is this the way Wikipedia wants to increase partitipation? By blocking those in the 1,229,226 population who don't have computers or internet access except through the county's public libraries?

The Hillsborough Public Library system can do nothing about this.

Thank you,

71.41.38.234 18:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You can still register an account and be able to edit. You don't need to edit anonymously from a terminal that obviously has a lot of vandalism connected to it. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you totally sure of what you state, Ottava Rima? What you say was not my experience on a certain percentage of chances. Maybe things have changed in the last 6 months or so but I came across different kinds of library IP blocks for ~a couple of years. With some of them registration or log in were impossible, if I remember properly one only could edit the IP's talk page or send an e-mail to a sysop. Hope that has changed. Anyway, a one year IP block seems not very sensible to me, even with the full chance of registering. --87.217.184.204 18:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe you would have to first create the account from a different location; then you should be able to log in from the library, once the account has already been created. This is of course not an ideal requirement; but it may be that the administrators on English Wikipedia have found there is so much vandalism originating from that IP, that they have little other choice. If you would like help creating an account for yourself, feel free to contact me here on my talk page. I can probably help you, but I'm not sure there's much I can do about the broader problem you identify. -Pete F 19:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, it is not possible to create a new account from a Hillsborough County Public Library on one of their computers. All account creation has been disabled for one year. It is also not possible to edit on Wikipedia as an IP from a Hillsborough County Public Library computer. 71.46.49.251 19:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Further, where is the evidence that Hillsborough Public Library computers have more vandalizm than other public library or school computers? How many IP's serving a population of 1,229,226 persons are blocked for one year? 71.46.49.251 19:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Pete F, not always in my case (I am not the one who started this discussion). Sometimes I was logged in (maybe in Wikipedia, maybe in Wiktionary, maybe in both... not sure) and when I went to the site in English, my nick turned into an IP number and nothing could be edited. I moved to a site in another language and there my nick was. As I say, this is maybe different now. I do not know nor have the chance to check it. Anyway, imho the problem is not one specific case. --87.217.184.204 19:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I have to admit I'm not an expert in this, but what you describe sounds like a bug in the Single User Login system (which I have also found to be buggy), not an intentional block from logging in. When that happens, I strongly suspect it's still possible for you to log in at the English Wikipedia site, if you already have an account. Can you test that and let me know if it works? -Pete F 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• It really means that anyone with the resources to create an account on a private computer can edit on a Hillsborough Public Library computer, i.e. someone that has a home computer and internet access. But no one without those resources to get around the block is punished. Isn't there something wrong with this way of doing things? 71.46.49.251 19:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand and agree that this is a problem. I want to be clear: I didn't mean to dismiss your concern, only to say that I, as an individual, have neither the resources nor the expertise to help with that problem. I think there is a lot to be desired in the handling of IPs that cover a large number of users and attract a significant amount of vandalism; I agree there is a big problem, but I don't know what is the solution or how to accomplish it. -Pete F 19:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• It is obvious that the individual can create an account here on Meta, as they are obviously posting from the IP here on Meta. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. So, this invites an interesting technical question, that I'd like to know the answer to: if account creation is blocked on enwp for a certain IP, and a user has an account elsewhere, does that mean he/she cannot "create" an account via SUL? I bet that's the issue. The account doesn't already exist at enwp, so when switching from meta to enwp, the user is automatically logged out, instead of a new account being created locally. (This does not get me closer to seeing a solution, only helps me understand the problem better, but that's a start, right?) -Pete F 19:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean Ottava Rima? Does anyone wanting to edit in, say, in en.wikipedia has to know or think about creating an account somewhere else previously? Weird. That could be "solved", though, with a notification about it in the info one sees when blocked (if the user does not dispair or lose interest before the load of text, of course). --87.217.184.204 19:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It is true that the blocking policy on en.wikipedia does not apply to other wikis. Hillsborough County Library computers are not blocked on any other wikis. Ottava Rima has described the situation. Only those who can figure out how to register an account on a private computer with internet access can edit en.wikipedia through the library computers. However, they can edit all the other wikis. Strange? 71.46.49.251 19:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fundraising for the democrats or for Wikipedia?

[2] You're going to alienate a lot of potential donors by comparing advertising to propaganda, demonizing "huge tech companies", and suggesting Wikipedia is there to promote "tolerance and understanding" (as in what, left-wing bias?). This guy is certainly entitled to his opinions, but after reading the request we all know where he stands politically, and is that really what you want in a fundraiser? That kind of drivel is just not appropriate, and will cost you donors. Just my 2 cents.

Yes, we do.

I'd say that it's pretty obvious that Wikimedians would generally lean towards the left in terms of political ideals, since Wikimedia is founded on a rather liberal principle; to provide free knowledge to the world. If people are going to not donate because they realize that we aren't hardcore conservatives, then that's really their problem and not ours. I don't think that the statement made on that page is going to alter that at all. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to think that promoting "tolerance and understanding" is not a "democrat vs. republican" or "right vs. left" issue. Are you suggesting that conservative republicans are "anti-tolerance?" I don't believe this is the case. I think that "empathy" is post-politics, and attempting to reframe my comments into a "left vs. right" argument is a red herring.

I don't believe that I am demonizing "huge tech companies". I've a personal bias, but I clearly have worked for them (and will possibly work for them again). There is a radical difference in culture between the two, however, and if you think otherwise you simply have not experienced both ends of the candle. Large corporate companies have an onus to provide loyalty only to their shareholders and never to their mission. That's an important thing to understand and that small language means everything.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss this with you further. My "home" wiki is probably mediawiki.org but the English wikipedia is okay as well. I don't check meta very often, I'm afraid, but I'll try to do so more often in the near future. However, I should warn you that I'm travelling to India for a conference over the next six days, so my responses may be slow.

Cheers. --Jorm (WMF) 01:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Most huge tech companies donate to Democrats (Gates, Jobs, etc), so it makes sense to think that your comments are more anti Democrat. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm . . . I'm just gonna say "citation needed".--Jorm (WMF) 02:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Seriously? That is really common knowledge. Large tech companies were heavily backing Obama and the Democrats, and have for a long time. Why do you think so many people from Apple, Windows, Google, Cisco, etc, were all advisers at one point? 98% and staying stable from just Google over the past 6 years. These are all public records and really well known by anyone who follows the industry. More. There are thousands of these articles and there still are new ones printed every day saying the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jorm, you are traveling to India? May I please ask you, who pays for your travel expenses, and how necessarily it is to travel to India versus having a conference via internet communications?

Also you stated: "I’ve worked at huge tech companies, doing some job to build some crappy thing that’s designed to steal money from some kid who doesn’t know it." Could you please name the company and the product you are talking about.

One more question. In your appeal for donations you have never mentioned thousands upon thousands of volunteers, who make wikipedia possible. Why? Thanks.--Mbz1 19:01, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Mbz1, I can't begin to relate to why you would make this kind of absurd insinuation. Or why you would feel it's OK to do so from behind a veil of anonymity. I also can't imagine what would make you voluntarily request that your account be blocked from editing Wikipedia, and yet return to Meta to stir shit up about Wikipedia.

Maybe there are good reasons for all of that, but you know what? I don't care. I can't imagine I'm the only one who feels like that. -Pete F 03:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't an insinuation so much as a common "watch dog" question that I've seen raised about multiple people (lately, NYBrad) regarding Wikimedia events and travel. We already have some public requests for travel funding, but that is mostly for non-WMF people. We rarely get any statement on where the WMF is paying for things and people are paying from their own pocket. This is necessary information, after all, you want donations and people want to know where their donations go to. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If you do not care why do you scream at me?

What "insinuations" are you talking about? The one that wikipedia is made possible by the work of thousands upon thousands volunteers?

What shit I stir up about wikipedia?I was not even talking about wikipedia, only about WMF.

Do we have the right to know how donated money are spent?

How dare you to claim that I am hiding "behind a veil of anonymity", if my real name is well known, and is written a few times at my own talk page, and at the most of the thousands of images I uploaded to wikipedia!

Why I left wikipedia? Because of administrators like you, administrators that remind me agents of KGB that torture people just for asking questions, and sent people to concentration camps because they dare to criticize the system.--Mbz1 04:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, and now I see why you got so upset with my question.You have been Wikimedia Foundation employee, as it is written at your user page. BTW have you seen what Malleus Fatuorum said about WMF just the other day? No? No worries, here it is: "What exactly does the WMF do, except provide nice well-paid jobs for their cronies?" :-)

Please have a nice day. --Mbz1 04:52, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ITI Khamariya upgraded by world bank

Last year ITI khamariya Seepat Bilaspur Chhatisgarh upgraded by World Bank project and Chhatisgarh Govt. for training in COPA trade.

For FA Quality Comparison across pan-Wikipedia

I had removed the question I posted previously because it is not well-suited for this forum. If you are interested in the title of this message, please visit my user talk page, Question) How to choose featured article(s) from different languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldenny (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 March 2011

College student researching participatory culture

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate place to post this, but I figured it would be worth a shot. By all means, delete this if it doesn't belong here.

I'm currently working on a project about participatory culture and media that is driven by user-generated content...like Wikimedia's several services and resources.

I'm looking for people who actively contribute to participatory culture to answer a 5-minute survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XSXG5B8

All help is greatly appreciated.

References used in this page

()

How can I disable the "Redirected from..." message?

I have a question. At the Dutch wikipedia we try to find a solution for the "wrong link problem" which turns out when using the 'primary topic' disambiguation system. The 'What links here' tool can not be used in such cases since there are hundreds of links.

A known 'solution' is to work with a detour. Instead of linking directly to the page one can link to a redirect page. E.g.: a link to [[Amsterdam]] would be a link to [[Amsterdam (primary)|Amsterdam]]. In this way the 'What links here' tool can be used after all (because, ideally, no pages should link to 'Amsterdam' itself, they all link to 'Amsterdam (primary)').

However, by doing so, a rather ugly redirect notice is shown .

We find some of a solution for that problem. Namely this script:

addOnloadHook ( fix_hoofdbetekenis ) ;

//fix _(hoofdbetekenis) links
function fix_hoofdbetekenis()
{
  if (typeof(disable_fix_hoofdbetekenis)!="undefined")
    return;
  var els = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
  for(var i in els)
  {
    if (els[i].className == "mw-redirect")
    {
      var oldhref = els[i].href;
      els[i].href = els[i].href.replace('_%28hoofdbetekenis%29', ''); // remove '_(hoofdbetekenis)' from URL
      els[i].href = els[i].href.replace('_(hoofdbetekenis)', ''); // remove '_(hoofdbetekenis)' from URL
      if (oldhref != els[i].href)
      {
        els[i].title = els[i].title.replace(' (hoofdbetekenis)', '');   // remove ' (hoofdbetekenis)' from tooltip
        els[i].title = els[i].title.replace('_(hoofdbetekenis)', '');   // remove ' (hoofdbetekenis)' from tooltip
        els[i].className = '';                                         // unset redirect class
      }
    }
  }
}

This script made it possible that this code: [[Amsterdam (hoofdbetekenis)|Amsterdam]] is internally transformed into a simple link to Amsterdam without that pages are included in the 'Whatlinkshere list'.

The only problem is that the script seems to be a bit to slow. When the link is already visited it took a second or so when the link turns out purple (this is because the redirect page is not really visited).

So my question is: do you know another way to make this work, eg a way to disable the "Redirected from..." message in some cases (by a code or so).

Greetings, Zuydkamp from the Dutch wikipedia.

help changing Revision History page design

Hi all

Can you advise me if it is possible to change the design/layout of the revision history page?

thanks

Hey guys I would like to know too!

Global blocks and bans

I wrote up a set of suggestions about how to address global blocks and bans, and how to deal with chronically problematic editors who also do great work:

Global blocks and bans

1) [Technical] Implement cross-project messaging, status flags, and contribution-history review.

2) [Technical] Implement tools for blocking, and for granting flags, across multiple projects.

3) [Policy] Define a Dispute Resolution Committee to evaluate global ban requests and guide related Meta policy

Dealing with chronically problematic editors

4) [Technical] Create permanent options other than banning.

5) [Technical] Create activity reports that can be shared across projects

6) [Tech and Policy] Offer more nuanced ways to profile new users.

7) [Tech and Policy] Define ways to share checks on problematic users, including private data, across projects.

8) [Policy] Define the negative impact of toxic contribution.

9) [Policy] Define when 'clean starts' are appropriate, and how they should be carried out.

Details at Talk:Global blocks and locks#Global blocks and bans; comments and suggestions welcome. –SJ talk | translate  

RTL navbox

I saw navbox that I want to translate to hebrew. The problem is that I can't align it to the right.

This is the navbox:

{{Navbox
|style=wide
|name=Products
|title=Products
|group1 = Resources
|list1  =[[Chemicals]]{{·}} [[Coal]]{{·}} [[Cotton]]{{·}} [[Grain]]{{·}} [[Iron]]{{·}} [[Oil]]{{·}} [[Wood]]
|group2=Consumer Goods
|list2=[[Ammunition]]{{·}} [[Armour]]{{·}} [[Beer]]{{·}} [[Book]]{{·}} [[Food]]{{·}} [[Fuel]]{{·}} [[House]]{{·}} [[Medicine]]{{·}} [[Transport]]{{·}} [[Vehicle]]{{·}} [[Weapon]]
|group3=Intermediate Goods
|list3=[[Paper]]{{·}} [[Power]]{{·}} [[Steel]]
}}

Please tell what to add to the navbox in order to align it to the right. Thanks!

Tellicherry [ Thalasserry ] Heritage Quadrangle

'Tellicherry [ Thalasserry ] Heritage Quadrangle The Anglican Church [St. John’s] on the western side of the Tellicherry Fort standing on a small Cliff above the beach always fascinated me. When I was a child it was a “mysterious” place with over hanging creepers over the many tombs of the Britishers who lived and loved Tellicherry .and the Church desolate and standing forlorn with its gates locked up always.

Hon. Minister for Tourism, Government of Kerala Shri .Kodeyeri Balakrishnan took lot of interest and revived and revitalized the whole area. The Church and the surrounding place has acquired refreshing freshness and takes one back to the pristine days of the glorious period. Please see some snaps attached.Thanks and congratulations to Shri Kodeyeri.You can also meet Mr.Ajay kumar very enthusiastic Tour guide in the church premises,

I am yet to know of any ship wreck impacting the shores of the place it happened with such a powerful positive effects. Master Attendant Edward Brenan Esq. reached ashore the small town of Tellicherry .From that day onwards he loved this beautiful place with cliffs reaching up to the coast , populated by a friendly people. He then joined the East India Company and stayed on till he died here in this place. He funded and established a “FREE SCHOOL” to give children of all caste, creeds and colour a sound English Education”. This institution later on became the Brenan High School and in 1890 was made the Government Brenan College. During the last century countless boys and girls passed out of this pioneering institution and occupied all walks of life, some great, and some normal. On the northern side of the fort he built a house for himself .After his death on the 17th Of August 1859, this was taken over by the East India Company for its Resident and when the British rule came , it became the “Sub - collectors Bungalow. Locally it was known as “ Thukkidi’s Bungalow”. Quote Mr.Ramachandran.C.K.”The word thukkidi is supposed to have come from the Urdu word 'tukdi' which is the name for a section of the army. It harks back to Tipu's conquest of Malabar when he had established tukdis at various places like Cherplassery and Tellicherry. The administrative system was adopted by the British who continued with the practice of having a Malabar Collector stationed at Calicut and two tukdis (sub collectors) at Cherpalcherry and Tellicherry.”

Edward Brenan before his death had donated funds for building a church close by to his Bungalow. To this fund, many had contributed and on 1869 Lord Napier established this St. John’s Anglican Church and Edward Brenan Esq.’s body was laid to rest here in the grave yard. Many people who has earned a place in the history of Tellicherry are also laid to rest here in this grave yard..Some are – Mr. MurdockBrown who established the well known extensive cardom estate in Ancharkandy. He is also credited to have introduced the cake in Malabar through Sri. Mambally Bappu who had established his ‘Mambally’s Royal Biscut Factory “in 1880 in Tellicherry. Some of Murdock’s family members are also buried here. Thomas Henry Baber Esq. who shot and killed Pazhassi Raja , after his term of duty as the Sub. Collector was over returned to England. After some time he came back to Tellicherry the place he cherished and died here.

We cannot ignore the start of all the causes of history which brought the English traders here to Tellicherry. The proximity to the land –Kottyam Territory comprising of present Muzhappilangad, Edakkad, Iruveri, Mavilayei, Chembilode, Ancharakandy, and the Periya area in Wayanad on which the first rated Pepper and Cardom grew in plenty. The French had established a trading post in Tellicherry and when it became a losing venture they abandoned it. The trouble created by the Britishers hastened there departure. In 1682 the French abandoned the post fully. Two British officers Mr. Chaise and Mr. Mitch Lou in the British trading post in Dharmadom approached Kolathri Prince and obtained permission to take over the abandoned French trading post. The first and most important trading post [1863 ] of The British was in Tellicherry. To safe guard the trade and the personnel the East India Company obtained permission from the local ruler, Vadakkan KoorThamburan to built a fort in Tellicherry. The cliff designated for the fort was known as Thiru Vel Appan Kunnu- [ Murugan son of Lord Shiva –always makes his abode in elevated place - the hillock ] and comprised of Punnol Poduval’s house ,Chaliyar [ Weavers] Street on the side of the hillock. Vadakkan KoorThamburan laid the foundations of the fort, which was completed in 20th August 1708..In the subsequent wars with Hyder Ali [Mysore wars] Tellicherry was the base of operation for the ascent of Wayanad Ghats.. Arthur [later Sir] Wellesley formulated his battle plans in this fort. The St.Joseph’s Boys high School and the Catholic Holy Rosary Church are adjacent. Kindly note that this write up is not the result of any extensive research but the result of casual reading. There is bound to be some corrections, All corrections are welcome

Premnath.T.M

Two suggestions

Hi there, Two suggestions for improvement of wikimedia projects especially wikipedia:

1. Periodically build a standalone & offline version of the Encyclopedia along with a good installer and software suite, then advertise about it in the web site. I promise a lot of people and organizations will purchase it or even register for long time subscriptions. This can be a good resource for the foundation.

Yes, people are doing that, but informally. See Wikipedia 1.0 and related projects. –SJ talk | translate  

2. Put a link such as "Give us your suggestions" in the foundation web sites. For sure, a lot of wiki-readers have brilliant ideas for the foundation projects.

Good idea! Where on the page? –SJ talk | translate  

Cheers,

Majid Tajamolian

A few updates made on Civipedia

Hello! I've made several edits to a new proposal on the metawiki.

The idea was originally proposed by somebody else, as a means to take up the wiki community to do something productive towards the cause of governance.

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Civipedia#A_possible_scenario_and_the_question_of_expertise

Italian Wikipedia

This discussion has been moved to a subpage: see /Italian Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angr (talk • contribs) 06:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Help me please

Hello

Can I customize Wikimedia to make it look and work like www.wikihow.com ??

And is it easy to do it?

Thanks

Worst site ever.

I have silently observed Wikimedia for many months.

It is the worst site ever and totally dominated by a feminist agendum which uses stats to 'prove' that women have no say.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.179.235.156 (talk)

Food for thought, knowledge for change

Here's a possible new fundraising source that may be both practical and able to generate significant funds, submitted for consideration.

Aside from the annual fundraising drive which appeals to many Wikipedians, its possible to have a separate benefactor microdonation system linked to every article page. It would permit readers of Wikipedia articles to make payments to both the contributors of an article, and to Wikimedia itself.

I'd recommend involving an electronic payment company such as PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, Amex... (companies which I have no employment relationship with) to administer the actual processing of payments. We can believe that such companies can provide the electronic payment processing for Wikimedia on a pro bono or at cost basis, since it wouldn't likely involve a great deal of effort on their part because of the use of their existing infrastructure.

The Wikipedia encyclopedias have several stakeholders -let's reward the two principals. This would benefit both Wikimedia and the quality of its encyclopedic articles at the same time. The two most important stakeholders are, naturally, Wikimedia, which runs and enables the entire organization, and the editor/contributors who both create and upgrade its encyclopedic articles. A new system can benefit both stakeholders, and at the same time provide greater motivation for expansion of its articles, depth and quality, all without conflict to Wikipedia's traditional fundraising.

New microdonation system:

1) DONATION SYSTEM PROCESSOR: a donation processing agreement is coordinated with a company such as PayPal. The processor would receive the payments from readers, aggregate them and then bill them monthly to the readers that volunteer to make such payments. As per the procedure schedule and formula, the payments would be made to both the registered-contributors/editors and to Wikimedia itself.

2) ENROLMENT OF MICRODONATORS: the Wikipedia encyclopedia would offer readers, via a hyperlink, the opportunity to register themselves for microdonations, and then make such donations while reading its articles. Registration of benefactors would be handled by the processing organization, which would obtain valid credit card or bank account information from those wishing to donate. Doubtlessly, many readers have been impressed by the broad scope of articles available, and by the depth and quality of its many individual articles. Let's allow such readers the opportunity to provide a modest award to the article's contributors and to Wikimedia at the same time. The range of donations can be set with minimum/maximum limits: expressed in U.S. currency, perhaps 5 cents at the minimum, and perhaps $1 at the maximum, per article, that the reader wishes to award. For simplicity, such donations would be tax exempt: no formal donation paperwork would be issued regarding donations for income tax purposes.

If a reader found an article compelling and educationally satisfying to him/herself, the reader clicks on a micropayment button to make one-time donation payment, either for a default amount or for another amount within the min/max range. After confirmation, that payment data would be registered by the donation system processor. At the end of the month, the payment processor would aggregate the donation data and bill the benefactors' registered credit cards or other accounts. Ex: if a casual reader read 20 quality articles in a month, and then donated 10 cents for each one, that person would be billed exactly $2.00 on his or her credit card or other account, paid to both the article's registered editors who wish to receive such payments, and to Wikimedia, as applicable.

3) ENROLMENT OF ARTICLE WRITERS AND EDITORS: contributor/editors would be permitted to register themselves if they wish to receive such payments.

• Payments could be make to valid PayPal, direct deposit bank accounts and possibly to credit card accounts.
• To reduce the operational costs, payments would only be made electronically, and would not be made unless the registered contributor/editors had such accounts, i.e.: no time-consuming or expensive payment methods would be utilized, such as mailed cheques.
• Registration of the editors/contributors would be entirely voluntary; they would receive such payments only if they personally take the time to register themselves.
• Any such payments would be classified as a contract service: no withholding taxes or other fees would be applied, and it would be up to the contributor/editors to register their own earnings if income taxes were applicable.
• If a minimal payment transaction fee were required by the payment organization or the bank or credit card company to handle the cost of the payment service, it would be deducted from the payment. If a registered contributor/editor were to receive a payment of $25 and a 15 cent service fee was required to cover the transaction, then he/she would receive a net payment of $24.85. Wikimedia would obviously have the ability to veto the use of any payment service that proposed exorbitant rates for such payment transactions.

4) PAYMENT CALCULATIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS: Do not award contributors by the number of edits they make to an article that receives donations! Some contributor/editors (of the 'starving artist' category) might change their edit style to inflate the number of edits performed to create or upgrade articles.

a) Award the payments on the basis of the percentage of article's length that the editor has written which has not been reverted. If the hypothetical article 'The History of Pie' was written and upgraded by a total of three award-registered editors, and a combined total of seven unregistered/IP editors, and if editors A, B and C hypothetically wrote 20%, 15% and 10% respectively of that article, then at the end of the payment period Editor A would be awarded 20% of the aggregated payments collected, Editor B would receive 15%, Editor C would receive 10%, and the remaining 55% of the amounts collected would be awarded to Wikimedia itself.

b) The percentage each individual registered contributor/editor would receive would be calculated by the amount of editorial material he or she contributed, minus any materials reverted by others. If the case of 'The History of Pie', if Editor A had contributed 40% of the article, but 20% of his/her contributions had been reverted due to inaccuracies, then that person's net contribution to that article would be calculated at 40% - 20% = 20%, resulting in an award of 20% of the aggregated collections for that article.

5) NET BENEFITS:

• Readers who wish to reward article writers for the efforts would now have a vehicle to do so with;
• Article writers who have a need for some extra funding would be able to receive such payments;
• Article writers would also be encouraged to create more articles and expand existing ones: exchanging 'knowledge for change';
• Article writers would be encouraged to improve the quality of their articles, since the greater the quality, the greater the reward. Its exactly like busking: the more you impress and move your target audience, the more change they'll drop in your hat;
• Many writers will not wish to register themselves to receive such payments; those portions, as well as the portions performed by IP editors will default to Wikimedia. If the hypothetical The History of Pie article receives an aggregate total of $100 in donations in a one month period, and only $45 is awarded to the registered editors, Wikimedia would benefit by receiving the remaining $55 for that article;
• Finally, a certain percentage of unregistered IP editors may be encouraged to sign up for Wikipedia accounts! Hooray! More registered Wikipedians creates more Wikipedia involvement (hopefully of the positive type)—another plus!

For your consideration; feel free to contact me if I can be of help in refining the suggestion. Best regards: HarryZilber

User talk:71.46.49.251 has very few vandalizm warnings on en.wikipedia page, yet the IP is blocked for one year

If little or no warnings are given, how is it possible to determine that there has been an inordinate amount of vandalizm from Hillsborough County Public Library computers? There are only four warnings this year for 71.46.49.251, the last one in July 2011. Where is the evidence to justify a block of one year for the public library system for one of the largest counties in the United States? (And also one of the poorest.) 71.46.49.251 20:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

• The fact that you know what the warnings are, that you know what log in accounts are but wont log in here, that you were able to find this obscure page, etc., all shows that you are most likely a sock puppet who is trolling. I hope an admin blocks you here. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

By the way, "very few" is apparently 15 vandalism warnings on just one IP and it is a CU block so that means the person was operating vandalism accounts most likely on the IP. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Fifteen warning this year on an IP that serves 1,229,226 persons? That is less than most university IPs. What university IP would be blocked for one year for 15 warnings? And surely a university serves far fewer than 1,229,226 persons. And those persons are more privileged.

By the way, the fact that I am defending access of the computer to en.wikipedia for the public library system of Hillsborough County does not mean I am stupid. I am speaking up for those who are not as fortunate as I am and have to depend on the public library's computers to create an account. But I personally don't want to get blocked under my account and I am not going to log on here.

So you think the whole Hillsborough County Library system computers should be blocked from Meta because of one IP editor, me? 71.46.49.251 20:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

From what I know of County Libraries, it would be impossible for all of the terminals to have the same IP address. However, you were blocked as a blatant sock master over at en.wiki and everything shows that you are trying to manipulate people here. You deserve to be blocked. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say your knowledge is quite limited, then. Do you really think individual terminals in a school or public libraries have actual, uniquely-identifiable IP addresses? These sorts of places use private networks routed to one actual IP address to reach the outside world. Tarc 19:32, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, Tarc, are you really gullible enough to believe that 48 different buildings with different servers, some part of schools, etc., are all under 1 single IP address? Especially when some are within a city's limit (Tampa) while others are not? The county I am part of has 6 different public libraries each with multiple IP addresses as many of them use different internet providers. w:Hillsborough County, Florida and w:Tampa, Florida#Public libraries makes it obvious that these are distinct buildings and most of them are operated individual even if they are under one complete system (i.e. an inter-library loan system). You fell for one of the oldest tactics used by sock masters. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

P.S. if you bothered to check, on en.wiki the IP claimed that the range was blocked (yes, a range which you claim couldn't exist) yet it is obvious only a single IP was blocked when reading the logs. The sock master used multiple Tampa IPs consistently: [3], [4], etc. The guy was using named accounts also. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really the proper forum to give you a lesson in networking, but yes, is quite plausible. Tarc 16:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Except not. Sorry, but you are being rather disruptive right now. They use a range. That is obvious if you bothered to even look it up. You didn't. You are just making snide comments because of a long negative history which can be seen mostly offline and is filled with some of the worst incivility. This Forum isn't for you to make up stuff in order to justify bad attacks on others. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry but a wide range has been blocked. 71.41.38.234 16:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Something strange happening on Cro Wiki

Hello everyone,

I'm not sure if this is where I should be reporting this. If this is not the right place, please tell me where I should move this. :)

I'd like to report SpeedyGonsales who blocked me on the Croatian Wikipedia. I created an article titled Boris Malagurski, which has an article on English, Spanish, Serbian and German Wikipedia, but is disputed on Croatian Wikipedia for vague reasons. The article meets the Notability criteria (plenty of secondary sources, author is well-known in the Balkans), but the Croatian admins, who seem to have personal animosities towards this person, want to delete the article. The reasons given were: "Doesn't meet encyclopedia criteria" (Roberta F), "Delete" (Jure Grm) and "the fact that the young propagandist's films were shown somewhere doesn't mean that they're any good, or that the author presents something in the world of films. References towards Russia Today and Tanjug? When it's about an author of a propaganda film? Hello?" Speedy Gonsales.

All this is merely stating that the article shouldn't exist, without providing actual arguments as to why they believe so. By the way, Russia Today is the first Russian English-language digital satellite channel broadcasted in over 80 countries worldwide, while Tanjug is the leading Balkans news agency. I added a ton of links (here and here) that support the case that this person is notable, and tried to engage in a conversation in a civilized manner. For that, I got a block, for "indirectly promoting hate speech" (I did no such thing) with the explanation from Speedy Gonsales that "Wikipedia is not the place for propaganda. Boris Malagurski was permanently blocked from Serbian Wikipedia for some reason (I don't want to assume it was due to extremism as I wasn't involved in the case). His film (at least according to what is said in the article) is propaganda that has nothing to do with common sense, propaganda that in its alleged condemning of extremism conceals what really happened, and it thus propaganda and at the same time an example of that same extremism it should be condemning. Wikipedia is not the place for extremism. You can write about it, but only if you condemn it, while I see that extremism is justified. Therefore, you're blocked for a month, and I warn you that if you propagate extremism any further, you'll get blocked indefinitely." link

How I'm "promoting extremism" by writing about a man whose film was screened at the famous Raindance Film Festival in London last month, and in many other places and media outlets - still boggles my mind. And to get a block for posting references on a talk page of an article is shocking to me. I'm no extremist, I'm just interested in this topic and in the person in question, so I decided to contribute to Wikipedia by adding an article about it on Cro Wiki. It seems that the admins there are attempting to hide something from the Croatian speaking population that uses Wikipedia. In any case, even if this guy is a propagandist (like I believe Alex Jones is a propagandist), that isn't reason enough to not include an article about this person on Wikipedia. And it's definitely not a reason to block someone who just wanted to contribute and discuss things on the talk page with credible references. Help :)

--UrbanVillager 18:33, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

about Wikipedia is a great... and "Personal Appeal" banners and commentaries (above)

hello, I transfer here 2 messages on Wikimedia Forum (section) ; 1 : the message of an unknown person, and 2 : the question I sent to him or to her in the same space : I put it, in italique too (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Forum&diff=0&oldid=3024422) :

2 : hello, I'm Buster Keaton, working essentially in French Wikipedia ; my English is not very clever today, it seemed to me I haven't understood perfectly your message ; so would you explain to me (as if I were a “debutant” in English) what you exactly meant : is it necessary to put a (good) ad at the top of each page of the Encyclopedia to fund and sustain the organization ? if I'm right, I agree, but the portraits/photos of Susan Hewitt or Jimmy Wales for example are useless for me ; I personnally have took away these posted ads because I was embarrassed -- in working -- ; these photos were too much importants on the simples, discrets et elegants pages of Wikipedia, its quality, and too intrusives for the comprehension of the articles ; it would be necessary to put an ad in each home pages, always in the same place, and well “mise en page” ; thank you for your answer ; with my best salutations, Buster Keaton 18:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

maybe these 2 interventions in this discussion will give others points de view about these "banners asking for money" ; if I havn't choiced the wrong place for giving my opinion, I hope it will be “une pierre de plus” on your construction ; I thank you for your attention ; apologize my mistakes in English ; with my best salutations, Buster Keaton 14:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC) >> I agree with this comment - you wonder if a survey was run whether there would be so many people against ads

what a good idea ! so why not this image to ask for money ?

hello, I found a new messager, a discreet, charming, hungry Racoon :

(photographied at the estuary of the Caloosahatchee River, Florida (United States) found of Wikipedia Commons, so free.

an idea : let's look for an image and a message well done and well placed at the top of the home page ;

yours, with my wish for another banner, Buster Keaton 17:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

cc.bingj.com if non-functional ...

We have bits of cc.bingj.com addresses around the sites, primarily used as <ref>s, and those that I have checked are now failing miserably. Could not find the requested document in the cache. I cannot say that I have followed these, or know much about their use, however, they are somewhat problematic, and if they are all going to expire, I feel that their use should be discouraged in preference to a direct reference. If this is going to be an ongoing issue, I am wanting to know what are the opinions on what to recommend to people all the way through to should we be blocking the use of the url component as it is such a non-permanent marker. billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)