Wikimedia Forum: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: possible vandalism
Line 187: Line 187:


Disclaimer: The Erectile Dysfunction (ED), Male Impotence and male upgrade pill and item data contained in this article is expected as instructive just and not planned to analyze, treat, cure or keep any illness. Viagra® (Sildenafil Citrate) is an enrolled exchange characteristic of Fizer. Cialis® (tadalafil) is an enlisted exchange sign of Lilly ICOS LLC. Levitra® (Vardenafil HCl) is an enrolled exchange characteristic of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp.
Disclaimer: The Erectile Dysfunction (ED), Male Impotence and male upgrade pill and item data contained in this article is expected as instructive just and not planned to analyze, treat, cure or keep any illness. Viagra® (Sildenafil Citrate) is an enrolled exchange characteristic of Fizer. Cialis® (tadalafil) is an enlisted exchange sign of Lilly ICOS LLC. Levitra® (Vardenafil HCl) is an enrolled exchange characteristic of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp.


Article Source: http://sexuallubricants.org/paravex-male-enhancement

Revision as of 06:28, 20 November 2016

Shortcut:
WM:FORUM

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other 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.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit

COLEMETER

Some East Asian countries (China) insist on using "COLEMETER" for measuring equipment. Does anyone have a real definition?

AIpedia

Hello,

I'd like to know if the idea of an encyclopedia written by (and only by) an Artificial Intelligence has already been raised. IA which would be fed with high quality sources, able to synthesize all the stuff.

Ok, it looks like science fiction, but with the progress as Watson's, it doesn't seem to me unreachable. Is there already a project on this ?--Markov (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Markov: I don't know of one but for many years bots have been creating articles on Wikipedia and one of the functions of d: is to seed potential new articles in WMF projects. I don't think we are at the point where creating an encyclopedia from scratch is possible (that may never occur) but we are doing some babysteps. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Some softwares are already able to generate text for media as economic publications. And I don't think that Watson uses the same kind of database as Wikidata does. The next step would be to use deep learning to create articles from scratch (but not the basic way the bots already do). --Markov (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some Big Picture perspective (and I'll remark separately, at the end, on what it implies about courses of action). The value of the wikimedian sisterhood to civilization lies in empowering ordinary human beings to have a voice in information providing. People downstream having access to the information provided — yes, that matters, but the point goes further than that, into what information they have access to: they have access to information by The People. When Wikipedia was first created, the obvious threat to this empowerment was simply ownership of web sites: the way things were headed in the late 1990s, it looked as if in the future all non-propaganda information would be paywalled. We've avoided that (not that it's "over", obviously it never ends), but a more subtle threat has been rising to ordinary people's voice in information providing, which is naively factoring humans out of the equation through failing to recognize the importance of keeping them in the equation. Our technological information processing can do some things that we can't, and there are immensely powerful capitalist motives to emphasize these things and ignore (or, not even look for) the things that we can do that our technological information processing can't; and educators, in struggling against superstition-based resistance to science and technology, have also strongly emphasized what technology can do while demphasizing what we can do that technology can't; and, insidiously, we lack good means to quantify what we're good at because we keep trying to measure things using some structured means, and anything sufficiently structured can be assigned to technology (even the Turing test suffers from this problem). The benefits of having information pass through human hands on its way to being provided are subtle and cumulative, and we don't have means to quantify them — it may even be that the nature of the benefits prevents them from being quantified — but if we don't work at preserving that passing-through-human-hands, the cumulative result will be the loss of something important without our ever really understanding what it was that we lost. It's conceivable this might even be the explanation for the Fermi paradox.

As for courses of action, my conservative conclusion from all this is that the greatest benefit to civilization lies in keeping the wikimedian sisterhood a bastion of human empowerment in the information flow. --Pi zero (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Global autopatrolled

I am not sure about global patrollers. But I am sure that a global autopatrolled status is needed for administrators and filemovers of the Wikimedia Commons since they correct file names in many wikis, and also for other trusted users who edit in many wikis. Gamliel Fishkin 05:30, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MarcoAurelio: it is possible to define, who are eligible for such a status: if an ineligible person would ask for a status, the application would be closed automatically. And is it a hard work for 30+ stewards to give a status to 300+ users? Gamliel Fishkin 12:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@MarcoAurelio: The number of active filemovers and admins at Commons is likely under 100. I would suggest this right be given on request from Commons admins and filemovers who can show a significant amount of activity. You'd might end up with 100 passable requests for the right, but those 100 editors account for thousands of cross-wiki moves and replacements. Also, how do local communities give somebody a right who can't request it in their language? I've nostly been surprised by an email saying my rights on another wiki have been changed. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose some wiki's don't even want separate autopatroll groups. We should not force this change upon local communities. Plus trusted Commons users often are problematic for other wiki's. (Global replace wars, renames in closed archives, removing files from the user namespace because they fancy the svg, you name it.) Natuur12 (talk) 13:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Natuur12: But they're fine with Global Sysop which includes the block and deletion functions, or Global Rollback? What? Global Autopatrol seems like less of a risk than the other two. As I suggest above, people should have to apply for this right here just as they do for GRollback and GSysop. As regards problems at other wikis, you and I don't have any, and neither do most of our highly active filemovers and admins at Commons. These concerns, if present, would very likely be brought up and addressed at an editor's request for the right here. Obviously any abuse of the right would warrant removal of it. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Global sysop follows a WikiSet. --Vogone (talk) 05:01, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support as per INC. Yann (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is an idea for commons admins, I would suggest to make it part of the Global file deletion review which still lacks technical implementation, instead of creating an entirely new user group. --Vogone (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not true, it's fully implemented on a technical level. See phab:T16801#191940. Legoktm (talk) 23:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It lacks community implementation, i.e. when the RfC was closed and taken to stewards we disagreed that there was consensus to create the group. – Ajraddatz (talk) 23:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is interesting. Is there any public record of this decision? The RFC at least speaks of a consensus for implementation. --Vogone (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Stewards' noticeboard/Archives/2015-04. Note that it was essentially vetoed by myself and Billinghurst, with no other stewards offering their opinion. That wasn't my intention at the time, however, and it might be worth revisiting this. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    How did we get global sysop and rollback, but no autopatrol? Global sysop is 2nd only to steward... lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @INeverCry: To be fair, bureaucrats are above sysops but below stewards. (And oversight/suppressor and checkuser have very specific privileges...) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Koavf: But there's no global crat group. Having been a checkuser myself for a couple years, I can tell you there were many many times when I wished I was a global checkuser because another wiki had a fresh sock I wanted to look at, or because I would've loved to run check on a certain range to see who was on it on Commons after it was found to be dirty on en.wiki, etc. In the end, though, have you ever seen a crat actually do anything? lNeverCry 02:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @INeverCry: That makes sense--in terms of global status. I wasn't thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Sounds like collecting of privileges. Unclear what problem is solved by this. The Banner (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    In this case, if a Commons admin moves a file and tries replacing its global usage through his or her account, there are many wikis where the edit will be flagged by pending changes as needing to be reviewed (major wikis like de.wiki and ru,wiki for example). This review is unneeded. The file is moved already, so all the reviewer is doing on the local wiki is wasting his or her time confirming something that's already been done. They can't even revert it locally since the original will be a redirect. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've been autopatrolled at 17 different wikis. I would think the reason for those autopatrols was mostly people on those wikis were sick of having to review pending changes that were simple filemoves or dupe processes. It seems strange to me that other wikis are willing to have people with global sysop privileges, but autopatrol would be going too far. BTW, I've actually had people on other wikis revert my edits when I replaced a file through a file move. Then they had to go through the hassle of figuring it out by seeing a redlinked file name, and going back to my good edit. This right would allow other communities to see that the person doing the move is trusted with a global right. I would certainly agree that granting of this right should be done as carefully as global rollback. lNeverCry 02:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even more, I seen a case, one of the Commons' filemovers was indefinitely blocked at one of the wikis: a sysop thought it is an unauthorised bot (the block was cancelled after my intervention). Gamliel Fishkin 04:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose Centralizing rights like this weakens the local projects, in fact it's interesting that local projects don't get to run their own votes on fundamental changes to their own project rights or a chance to opt-out of changes. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support It makes sense to me for cases like those mentioned by Gamliel. Files move in Wikimedia Commons are just innecessary extra work for wikis with a revision system in place --Poco a poco (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Global rollbackers's edits automatically marked as patrolled, and it is central permission and no conflicts before, so the idea is not new nor impossible, I thinks this permission will make some users like filemovers's work easier --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange comparison, global rollback follows a pretty high standard (only very few applications are successful). The proposed user right however would probably be given out to many more users. Whether that is a bad thing is a different question, but the comparison with global rollback seems inappropriate to me. Plus, I don't see how autopatrolled makes filemover's life easier, it's a very passive user right. If anyone "profits", then it's likely the group of local administrators/patrollers; and whether they want this external review is probably different per wiki. --Vogone (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vogone: global autopatrol would be a less strong right then global rollback. Yes, such a right can be dangerous if given to a vandal; but stewards are not bots to make something without thinking. This right would make filemover's life easier at least in the sence that their risk of being blocked in some wiki would be less high (I seen such an error block). Gamliel Fishkin 02:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand. Why would an error block be less likely in case of patrolled edits? Because admins don't check edits without red exclamation marks? --Vogone (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sysop of one of the wikis seen edits by one of the Commons' filemovers and thought there is an unauthorised bot (that filemover is a human being and so has not local and global bot statuses). The sysop written to the filemover in a language he does not understand; there was no reply, and the sysop blocked locally the filemover for 15 minutes. 16 minutes after the end of the first block, the sysop blocked the filemover for one day. Six days after the end of the second block, the sysop blocked the filemover indefinitely. More then three years after these events, I written to the sysop with a link to global replace, and he unblocked the filemover with description "File renaming/Global replace". I think the problem would not occur, if the sysop would see at the filemover some global status like global autopatrolled (most edits of that filemover on that wiki have edit summaries starting with "(GR) File renamed"; so, these links in edit summaries are not enough). Gamliel Fishkin 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    This is perhaps an argument for assigning random dummy flags to trusted accounts (although a weak one, since global group membership is barely visible to users who don't know where to look), but certainly not an argument for global autopatrolled. --Vogone (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Most technical flags grant an access to some functions. But flags like autoeditor, autopatrolled, autoreview, etc. do not grant an access to any function; they just mean that a person is trusted. I think most sysops know about tools like Navigation popups and CentralAuth. Gamliel Fishkin 01:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this does not reflect reality at all. And no, I have seen many admins who have never even heard of CentralAuth before and I for instance have never heard of "Navigation popups" either. --Vogone (talk) 19:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    "Navigation popups" is a tool, whish displays some contents of a wiki page when a cursor is over a wiki link to that page; when it is an user page, also statuses and some other user info is displayed. You can enable it at your preferences (Browsing gadgets). Gamliel Fishkin 10:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose, I do not think is is a good idea to give a user autopatrolled rights on the project X if the user does not speak the language X. These edits are not so many and are better checked manually.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ymblanter: renames at Commons "are not so many": few thousands per week. It would be a hard task for local patrollers to explore all such edits; it is the cause, why many of the Commons' administrators and filemovers have big collections of local autopatrol statuses. If some person do not make, on some local wiki, edits which require to understand a language, but modifies file links often, and that person is trusted by few other wikis, what is the cause not to trust that person in that wiki? Local administrators explore such trusted persons and give to them an autopatrol status; would not it better if a steward would make this work one time instead of local wikis' administrators to make it many times? Gamliel Fishkin 02:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think this proposal doesn't even solve what the proponents want. The only effect of autopatrol is that no red exclamation mark will appear next to a user's edit on Special:RecentChanges, if this annoying setting is at all turned on (see mw:Manual:Patrolling), which on WMF wikis it is by default for new page creations. Flagged revisions rights are completely unrelated. --MF-W 01:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @MF-Warburg: I speak not about these red exclamation marks, but just about a right, given locally by statuses like autoeditor, autopatrolled, autoreview, etc. Gamliel Fishkin 02:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read his message again, he said: The only effect of autopatrol is that no red exclamation mark will appear next to a user's edit on Special:RecentChanges, in other words: users have their own edits automatically marked as patrolled. If that is not the point in granting this right to filemovers & commonswiki admin, what is it? Matiia (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I read her message again because you asked me for it; I found in the message nothing I not replied yet. I already replied, that I speak not about these useless red exclamation marks, but about that patrolling who is named in other words as flagged revisions. Gamliel Fishkin 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read mw:Extension:FlaggedRevs#User rights. Here you are proposing to create a global user group with autopatrol right, not autoreview. Matiia (talk) 18:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the link, I think that system is somewhat redundant. I speak about the right which is named there autoreview. Gamliel Fishkin 01:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - on the basis of essentially no change with or without the rights. As people have said above, removing the red ! beside an edit isn't going to make much difference, and could infringe on how local communities want to handle content evaluation. That said, I'm not at all opposed to making the lives of commons users easier because I understand how cross-wiki in nature their activities are. I would be glad to support another attempt at the global file deletion review group along those lines. – Ajraddatz (talk) 07:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Such a global status would make the work of Commons' sysops and filemovers easier just a bit, but it would make work of sysops and especially patrollers of other wikis much easier. If some Commons' sysops and filemovers rename mostly unused or poorly used files, they do not need such a status. But many of them rename files, many of which are widely used. If a renamed file is used in hundreds of wikis, local patrollers at those hundreds of wikis have to explore just the same edit to flag it as good; one work is made hundreds of times. The local patrollers do not need to make it, it the person has a local autoeditor/autopatrol/autoreview status. I am a sysop of Wikipedia in Esperanto; when I see a person, who just correct file links, makes nothing bad and is already trusted by some wikis, I ask him/her for an agree and grant an autoreview status (for now, fifteen persons, in this number five Commons' sysops and five Commons' filemovers). Why this work have to be repeated many times by local sysops, when it can be done one time be a steward? Gamliel Fishkin 17:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I did in fact read the proposal. But I disagree with your conclusion that removing the ! would make things any easier. Not all wikis even use that system of patrolling, and even among those that do, I imagine that people will still review edits that they find suspicious, regardless of whether they have been marked as patrolled. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    There in the world do exist some human beings who believe to nobody. But it does not mean that the entire system of patrolling/reviewing is useless. Gamliel Fishkin 01:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    At no point did I suggest that it was. I think that there is no useful benefit to be gained from a global autopatrolled group, and a little bit to lose. That makes it a net negative to me, and thus I oppose. What you should be thinking of is why all of the stewards/global sysops here have opposed this proposal. We are the ones with arguably the most cross-wiki experience, and best understanding of the situation. We are all aware of the cross-wiki nature of Commons, even if we aren't active on it. You've taken the time to argue every single one of the opposes here, but why would we all be incompetent with our opinions? Instead, I think it might be wise for you to step back, read what we've wrote, and maybe work with us to re-formulate a proposal or accept that it won't do what you want it to do. – Ajraddatz (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the main negative side of my proposal is an additional load on stewards; it can be one of the causes why the stewards oppose. I have a diffident idea how to minimize that possible additional load; firstly, eligible for the proposed status would be only persons who match two conditions: to be at least a filemover at Commons or a sysop at Wikidata or some mature local wiki (I think about wikis with al least ten sysops, in this number at least two bureaucrats) and to be at least autoeditor/autopatrol(led)/autoreview(ed) at not less than two other wikis (Meta, Commons, Wikidata, mature local wikis); secondly, applications for a proposed status would be sent not directly to a steward but to a bureaucrat at a wiki where the candidate is a sysop, and only positive decisions of a bureaucrat would be transferred to a steward for a final decision, positive or negative. I have read all I replied just before to reply, you can be sure. Gamliel Fishkin 10:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The increase in steward workload isn't too big of a deal, at least not to me. I'm concerned that the proposal a) won't do what you want it to do, in that the edits of commons users will (rightly) still be reviewed on these projects, and b) will infringe on how local wikis want to run their systems of content patrolling. This doesn't give them any say, and will have implications beyond just edits to where files are. How wikis grant their passive approval rights is up to them for the most part. The only exceptions to this are groups which are either restricted technically, such as global sysop, and/or go through extensive review processes, such as steward and relatively global rollback. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I understand, global bot status is valid only in the wikis who allow it, and in some wikis a global bot still needs a local bot status. Even if it is not, such an idea seems to me a solution: global autopatrolled status would be enabled only in wikis who allow it. Gamliel Fishkin 05:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Support Because otherwise, how do you think users that have Internet censorship issues (e.g. Mainland China) could have time to login, edit, patroll, review... and others everyday or every week? The opposers in this section seems don't care about it. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Oppose the original request, global autopatrolled. If this is about global autoreviewed (or autochecked), it's a different thing. --Stryn (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, there is a spaghetti mix between different statuses in different wikis. There in Wikipedia in Russian exists a status with technical name "autoeditor" and Russian name "автопатрулируемый" (verbatim translation: autopatrolled). The same status in Wikipedia in Esperanto has a technical name "autoreview", its name in Esperanto was previously "aŭtomata kontrolanto" (automatic checker) and now is "mempatrolato" (selfpatrolled). If you think about renaming of the proposed status from global autopatrolled to global autoreview(ed), I do not oppose. Gamliel Fishkin 01:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess there is no consensus to implement this. The last comment was more than a week ago. Jianhui67 talk★contribs 09:47, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am blocked from wiki

As discussed earlier i want to contribute to wikipedia but i can't find any reliable medium in getting this through that is why i get blocked.Suggest something better that i can learn this effectively and contribute effectively as well. Mudasir18 (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]

You can create a new account and try to start anew. Regards, Tuanminh01 (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the English Wikipedia, that's considered sock puppetry. WP:CLEANSTART only applies to people who do not have any current blocks. However, if you got blocked shortly after joining and only because of some kind of newbie mistake that you're unlikely to repeat, it's unlikely that anyone would even notice you were the same person. Still, the best thing to do would be to appeal the block through established channels. @Mudasir18: Is it a regular block or an AE block? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mudasir18: Unless you are hugely obsessive with wikipedia, I recommend you rest for a month to calm down, then make a new account and try again. Tuanminh01 (talk) 05:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SineBot for Meta?

The licensing discussion here is overflowing with unsigned comments. I have asked the maintainer of SineBot to step in and yield some comprehensibility from the chaos. Hopefully, that will occur. However, his talk page does state that he is currently very busy and might not respond promptly. If that is the case, is there anyone else with the ability to run SineBot (or equivalent) on the licensing discussion once or twice a day until the discussion closes? Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information about ongoing policy discussions, requests, etc.

I noticed with shock that I only noticed the proposal to create a global right in the above section #Global autopatrolled a week after it was created. Even when I count in that I was on holidays until the 2nd of November, that are still 4 days. Shockshock. This made me remember an idea I had some time ago: to create a template which links to ongoing policy proposals, rights requests etc. of global effect. Meta-only things might or might not be included as well, or get their own template. Such a thing exists on dewiki with de:Vorlage:Beteiligen, and it seems like en:Template:Centralized discussion is also an equivalent. I believe this could be helpful both for "regular" Meta users and for users who aren't very active here but who would like to stay informed about what "global discussions" are being had at the moment, which might after all, affect them as well. So, are there others who would find such a template useful? Others who also would help to keep it updated? Is a template the most suitable means, or would it be better to deliver it as a weekly(?) massmessage? --MF-W 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Kiswahili

hey I ask for administrative rights in the Kiswahili Wikipedia. I am very familiar with the language and the errands in the wiki. Trunzep (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Trunzep: Permission requests goes to Steward requests/Permissions. --Stryn (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Swahili Wiktionary

Can any bureaucrat or steward grant me my admin rights on sw.wiktionary.org. Confirm frm here Trunzep (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm not sure if there is a language barrier here, but every request needs to be open for one week. 7 days. To allow anyone to comment, even if nobody does. Please stop asking, as you've been told this multiple times already. – Ajraddatz (talk) 18:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Password reset

I apologise that this message is in English. Help with translations!

We are having a problem with attackers taking over wiki accounts with privileged user rights (for example, admins, bureaucrats, oversighters, checkusers). It appears that this may be because of weak or reused passwords.

Community members are working along with members of multiple teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to address this issue.

In the meantime, we ask that everyone takes a look at the passwords they have chosen for their wiki accounts. If you know that you've chosen a weak password, or if you've chosen a password that you are using somewhere else, please change those passwords.

Select strong passwords – eight or more characters long, and containing letters, numbers, and punctuation. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And administrators, you may now sign up for two-factor authentication. — xaosflux Talk 00:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link for translation does not work. Gamliel Fishkin 04:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JSutherland (WMF) and Xaosflux: I, as admin on cs.wikiversity, folloved this recommendation and changed my password from strong enough (more than 10 signs, combination of more groups numbers and more groups letters with no sense. I changed case of letters somewhere (not first letter), added very special signs... If I'm logging on Meta - no problems. If I try log in on "my" projects, loggign page send me info, that my (new) password is incorrect and requests rewrite control code. After all, I can't log in at all. Is this a bug or what??? I'm afraid I because of this bug loss control of my account, what means also missing adminship. I'm totally sure, I remember my new (and old too) password precisely. Can someone help me? Please! (these problems occured many times). --Kusurija (talk) 22:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusurija: you appear to be logged in already, your post above was made from a logged in session. @JSutherland (WMF): I have been noticing a recent problem (may be coincidence) - when going to other projects I'm not logged in instantly, but have to wait for a toast notification to say logged in then for the page to reload. — xaosflux Talk 22:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Kusurija and Xaosflux - I'm going to ping BWolff (WMF) of the Wikimedia Foundation's security team who's better placed to answer this. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi User:Kusurija, I'm not sure I understand you correctly. Can you copy and paste the exact message that MediaWiki gives you? (It is ok if it is in your language). BWolff (WMF) (talk) 23:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on issue of Arabic Wikipedia

I posted about serious issues with the Arabic Wikipedia (see here, here, and here), but it is surprising that almost nobody commented, although the issue became clear at the end. They refused even to comment, even though they were asked to respond not only by me but also by another user from the community here.

I posted very serious things about them but they chose not to respond in anyway. What does that tell you? Do you find that acceptable? Please comment on this.--HD86 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose to reactivate superprotect

Many enwiki admins are compromised and vandalizing main page. I propose that some vandalism targets can betemporary superprotected so that only WMF staffs can edit.--117.136.0.202 16:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Oppose if WMF staff. But if stewards, it is a rational idea. Gamliel Fishkin 00:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to discuss this on enwiki instead. – Ajraddatz (talk) 00:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WOT - Web of Trust

Why not offer to take over the ownership of WOT - Web of Trust. Good open source security application, useful for Wikipedia authors, but it lost its credibility since the current owners sold private info to third parties. I believe the current owners can not regain their credibility. They should sell it to some reliable organization, such as Wikimedia.193.10.117.191 17:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@193.10.117.191: That's a little outside the scope of Wikimedia--would you call WoT an educational project? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best Male Enhancement Products For Erectile Dysfunction Sufferers - Natural Male Enhancement Pills

Not each man needs a remedy level medication answer for address Erectile Dysfunction (ED) or male feebleness. A mix of a few intense common herbs and supplements, for example, those found in regular male upgrade pills can be an immaculate arrangement much of the time for male barrenness and Erectile Dysfunction sufferers. What makes male upgrade pills and items so viable? The uncommonly detailed elements of male enhancers and their reliable impacts for Erectile Dysfunction and male weakness sufferers are what have made them the best Male Enhancement item other option to physician recommended drugs. What's more, not at all like numerous doctor prescribed medications that treat Erectile Dysfunction, the home grown male upgrade items are common, quick acting, dependable (up to 72 hours), purportedly don't have the symptoms, some can likewise be compelling notwithstanding when liquor has been expended, and most are sponsored by unconditional promise that they work...

Gives clear up a couple of things before we a chance to get on with this instructive article...

Do male improvement pills work? Yes...some in as few as 20 minutes and can last up to 72 hours.

Do male upgrade pills work for ALL men? NO...Let me rehash myself...NO male upgrade pills don't work for all men. To date there are NO male improvement pills whether medicine, non-remedy, or common natural male upgrade pills that work 100% of the ideal opportunity for everybody. On the off chance that any male improvement item producer asserts their item works 100% of the ideal opportunity for everybody, they are making false claims and misdirecting the buyer that it will work for everybody. What numerous male improvement pill companys do guarantee and back is that their items do workfor 85-90% of all men who have taken them. That appears to likewise be sponsored by the a large number of sexually fulfilled male upgrade clients. Yet, more imperatively, on the off chance that you attempt a male upgrade item and end up to be that 1 out of 10 men that the item does not work for, most creators offer a 30 day unconditional promise that expresses that you basically give back the unused item and they will discount your cash.

Help For Erectile Dysfunction and Male Impotence Sufferers - Male Enhancement Pill Ingredients

Numerous male upgrade pills incorporate fixings that are a deliberately chosen blend of the perfect measure of uncommon tropical herbs, typically 4-7 herbs, prepared through a mystery extraction handle that creates the unfathomable aftereffects of these items with consistency, so you can simply depend on that same stunning impact on your penis, consistently! Male improvement items will never abandon you hanging, no play on words proposed!

Male enhancers don't simply give conceivably the quickest erection feasible for male feebleness and Erectile Dysfunction sufferers, yet numerous creators have planned the elements of their male upgrade items to deal with all levels of the male body's endocrine framework! This permits them to animate the mind and body science to bring the regular sexual excitement and fascination figures back to a higher than typical level! A considerable lot of these male enhancer pills act quick in mitigating Erectile Dysfunction, untimely discharge and male impotence.They are additionally known to expand male charisma, affectability and sexual drive that can last up to 72 hours. In spite of the fact that most male improvement item creators assert their fixings have been broadly tried for your affirmation and wellbeing as a primary concern and to be sans synthetic, steroid free and agrees to all universal security measures, dependably check their item fixings and names before you buy.

What is Tongkat Ali (Eurycoma Longifolia) or Malaysian Ginseng Long Jack?

Tongkat Aliis from a little tree in Malaysia and Indonesia. It is utilized as a help for an assortment of afflictions and local people in Southeast Asia are persuaded that it can enhance seek and sexual start. Tongkat Ali is Asia's main drive tonic and has been utilized for a considerable length of time as an exceptionally intense love potion for weariness, loss of sexual yearning and barrenness. It has been appeared to upgrade sexual ability and virility and increment quality and power amid sexual action. By expanding androgenic impacts and significantly expanding testosterone, Tongkat Ali increments sexual excitement and inspiration and recurrence of sexual movement. This supplement underpins a long haul general sound sexual drive and capacity in men and improves the inflexibility of erections.

What is Horny Goat Weed (Epimedium Sagittatum)?

Horny Goat Weedis a solid enduring answered to have love potion qualities. This influence was purportedly found by a Chinese goat herder who saw sexual action in his run after they ate the weed. Used to reestablish sexual craving in both men and ladies, this supplement invigorates tangible nerves and reestablishes low levels of both thyroid and testosterone hormone back to ordinary. Horny Goat Weed has been utilized to treat barrenness, builds sperm creation and amplifies the penis.

What is Tribulus Terrestris?

Tribulus Terrestris is a blooming plant local to southern Europe, southern Asia, all through Africa, and in northern Australia. Tribulus terrestris has for quite some time been utilized as a tonic and male love potion in Indian Ayurveda. It is a characteristic testosterone sponsor utilized for building muscle and expanding sexual craving and dreams. Tribulus terrestris invigorates discharge of sex steroids from the gonads, expands sperm motility and raises satisfaction and joy levels in sexual action in both ripe and barren men.

Lepidium meyenii or Maca is a herbaceous biennial or yearly plant local to the high Andes of Peru. Maca's high grouping of proteins and imperative supplements increment vitality levels and improve richness. Little scale clinical trials performed in men have demonstrated that maca concentrates can increase drive and enhance semen quality. This supplement has likewise been utilized for hormone substitution treatment and to beat sadness. Maca beats weariness, raise sexual vitality levels, lessen stress and increment sexual incitement.

(Ginkgo biloba) is a remarkable tree with no nearby living relatives. Ginkgo remove treats course issues of feebleness and expands blood stream to most tissues and organs, including the penis. It amends atheroscerosis, hypertension and gloom, absentmindedness and memory issues. Ginkgo likewise shields against oxidative cell harm from free radicals and it pieces a considerable lot of the impacts of PAF (platelet total, blood coagulating) that have been identified with the improvement of various cardiovascular, renal, respiratory and CNS (Central Nervous System) issue.

In the event that you are searching for characteristic male improvement pills that work as a contrasting option to a professionally prescribed medication, for example, Viagra®, Cialis®, or Levitra®, make sure to look at the numerous regular male upgrade items and pills available. Regardless of what Erectile Dysfunction or Male Impotence treatment you pick, doctor prescribed medications or a characteristic male upgrade item, never forget to audit the fixings and measurements precisely. Distinctive items and supplements work contrastingly on various people so your outcomes may shift from others. Obviously, general great wellbeing is vital to great sound sexual living. Survey your present wellbeing and medicines with your specialist, eat right and get a lot of work out, then consider characteristic male improvement items if necessary.

Female sexual upgrade pills, female drive enhancers and other comparable items will be the subject of a future article.

Disclaimer: The Erectile Dysfunction (ED), Male Impotence and male upgrade pill and item data contained in this article is expected as instructive just and not planned to analyze, treat, cure or keep any illness. Viagra® (Sildenafil Citrate) is an enrolled exchange characteristic of Fizer. Cialis® (tadalafil) is an enlisted exchange sign of Lilly ICOS LLC. Levitra® (Vardenafil HCl) is an enrolled exchange characteristic of Bayer Pharmaceuticals Corp.


Article Source: http://sexuallubricants.org/paravex-male-enhancement

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&oldid=16082490"