Jump to content

Wikimedia Forum: Difference between revisions

Add links
Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Hipi Zhdripi in topic Copyright policy on Albanian Wikipedia
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 632: Line 632:
::To remember it to you, this means it is GFDL compatible. It's like Creative Commons BY. --<small style="background:#000">'''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Eagleal|<span style="color:#fff">eagle</span>]][[User talk:Eagleal|<span style="color:#fff;background:#f00">al</span>]]&nbsp;'''</small> 06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
::To remember it to you, this means it is GFDL compatible. It's like Creative Commons BY. --<small style="background:#000">'''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[User:Eagleal|<span style="color:#fff">eagle</span>]][[User talk:Eagleal|<span style="color:#fff;background:#f00">al</span>]]&nbsp;'''</small> 06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
::: That's a misunderstanding, I'm afraid. Please read up on [[:foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy]] and its application on [[:en:WP:NFC]]. Copyrighted media are only "free" enough for Wikimedia projects if they are free even for commercial re-use. "Free for educational use" is not free enough for us. What you describe is what we treat as "fair use" media on en-wiki. Those are okay, but only under very narrow conditions. And, as I told Cradel, if you want to invoke such rules, you need to spell out the exact conditions under which you wish to do so, in what the Foundation calls an "exemption doctrine". [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[en:User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 08:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
::: That's a misunderstanding, I'm afraid. Please read up on [[:foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy]] and its application on [[:en:WP:NFC]]. Copyrighted media are only "free" enough for Wikimedia projects if they are free even for commercial re-use. "Free for educational use" is not free enough for us. What you describe is what we treat as "fair use" media on en-wiki. Those are okay, but only under very narrow conditions. And, as I told Cradel, if you want to invoke such rules, you need to spell out the exact conditions under which you wish to do so, in what the Foundation calls an "exemption doctrine". [[User:Future Perfect at Sunrise|Fut.Perf.]] [[en:User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise|☼]] 08:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, and sorry I can not make a disscusion in english. I holpe thate somebody can understande this pise of text in albanian witch I'm writing dow here.

Nuk është problemi i figurave. Nuk është problemi i stampes. Është problemi i paraqitjes së administratorit të en.Wiki në një kohë të shkurtër pas paraqitjes së përdoruesit të mëparshëm në artikullin Kosova. Në fleten time të përdoruesit nuk ekziston asnjë shenjë ku shkruan se unë jamë njohës i ndonjë gjuhe tjetër. Është e vërtet që bisedat e lehta i kuptojë në disa gjuhë. Por kjo as se si nuk do të thotë se jamë në gjendje të diskutoj e aq më pakë për një temë që edhe për ne ka qenë e ''nxehtë''. Dhe po ta njihja unë gjuhen angleze në atë shkallë sa të diskutoja, nuk bënë që të harrohet që gjuhë e projektit në fjalë është gjuha shqipe dhe secili antarë i saj ka të drejtë të kuptojë se për çka po flitet. Së paku të përshëndetet dhe të informohet se për cilën gjuhë bëhet fjala.

Ky administrator i interesuar për mirëmbajtje në një projekt, komunitetin e të cilit nuk e njehë, gjuhen e projektit nuk e njehë, ky administratorë që nuk u mundua të paraqesë synimet e tija si wikipedianë, nuk mori pakë kohë që së paku të mësojë ''çelsin e mirësjelljes'' në atë projekt '''TUNG''', çelës i cili gjendet po thuaj se në çdo faqe diskutimi të përdoruesve. Ky administratorë që vije në projektin tonë, ashtu si të kishte zgjidhur gjitha problemet në projektin ku është zgjedhur administrator.

Zotëri të mi, deri më tani, sq.Wikipedia nuk ka marr asnjë ankesë nga poseduesit e të drejtave të figurave. Vetëmbrojtja apo disa figura të licencuara gabimisht me pavetëdije nuk do të thotë tragjedi.

Ne jemi vullnetar. Vullnetar në përhapjen e njohurime ndër njerzimin. Poseduesëve të figurave mund të u garatojmë që brenda projektit tonë (sq) nuk do të ketë keqpërdorime. Por atyre nuk mund të ju garantojmë për keqpërdorime në projekte të fondacionint dhe jashë tij. Fondacioni ësht i madhë, ne jemi të vegjël.

Ky admiministrator nuk është për t'u admiruar por përkundrazi. --[[User:Hipi Zhdripi|Hipi Zhdripi]] 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


==User Ali20 wiki is preventing me of voting for stuard elections==
==User Ali20 wiki is preventing me of voting for stuard elections==

Revision as of 09:16, 14 February 2009

Shortcut:
WM:FORUM

<translate> The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the [[<tvar|wmf>Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation</>|Wikimedia Foundation]] and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see [[<tvar|meta-babel>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Babel</>|Meta:Babel]].)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the [[<tvar|mediawiki>Special:MyLanguage/MediaWiki</>|MediaWiki software]]; please ask such questions at the [[<tvar|mw-support-desk>mw:Project:Support desk</>|MediaWiki support desk]]; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on [[<tvar|tech>Special:MyLanguage/Tech</>|Tech]] page.</translate>

<translate> You can reply to a topic by clicking the "<tvar|editsection>[edit]</>" link beside that section, or you can [<tvar|newsection>//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&action=edit&section=new</> start a new discussion].</translate>
You can reply to a topic by clicking the '[edit]' link beside that section, or start a new discussion
Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Participate:

This box: view · talk · edit
This page experimentally allows language localisation.

please help!!!!!!!!!!

Hi! when i go to a particular page for information i dont see an option to discuss or talk. moreover, i am a lot confused with a lot of information here and there. I was not able to reach Wikipedia Help..I had a query and did not find a place to write to you. I dont know if i am writing to you from the correct space. My topmost doubt is what are these "external links". How do they appear on the information's pages? for example..... if i browse info on paper, there are external links directing to private organisations. how do the external links happen to appear in that page of "paper"? I have a website that caters to industries and corporate organizations about information regarding manufacturers and suppliers of various products. external links such as TAPPI, internationalpaper.com & ecopaper.com are few of the links visible in the "external links" section under the article "paper".

if i want to exhibit an external link of my website where people around can get more information related to the topic what I need to do? after lookin at the external links I am confused about the Wikipedia policies. Please take this matter into keen consideration and reply to "augustgrace" so that I can avoid breach of policies here unknowingly Thak You, Augustgrace.

how to setup a discussion page with version 1.7

Hello

I would like to know how to setup a discussion page/forum with wiki 1.7

Thanks in advance

A Case Study - The meatpuppeting attack on LMO wikipedia - Origin (source) of the meatpuppets

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

About one year ago, in the days 2-4-5-6 december 2007, a lot of people accessed for the first time the LMO wiki, immediately or after few minutes voted 5 new administrators [1] and then disappeared. What was the origin of the voters?

It's about a couple of month that I'm analyzing that meatpuppeting attack case. I know that the word "meatpuppet" should be used with great care ([2]), so the word "meatpuppet" will be used according the main definition given in the page ([3]):

Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (allegedly) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position.

I also know that personal attacks must be avoided ([4]). In this analysis there is some nickname, but only because those nicknames were involved in the meatpuppeting attack, as demonstrated by the logs.

Analysis of the Fabexplosive's election

As an example, here will be analyzed the election of one of the five admins "elected" during the meatpuppeting attack. His name is Fabexplosive: he was not elected by the LMO community, but by meatpuppets (as definition) come from away.

The summary of the Fabexplosive's election to admin is as follow:

  • he has been candidate to admin after only 3 edits [5] ;
  • on 2/4/5 dec 2007 the meatpuppets (as definition) voted him;
  • on 9 dec 2007 he had the admin rights, after about only 20 edits.

But let we analyze the votes of 17 people on the total of 19 (89% of the votes):

  1. Dracoroboter - [6] - his vote is his 15th edit;
  2. Xaura - [7] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dec 2007, voted after 1 minute;
  3. Ilario - [8] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dec 2007, voted after 1 minute and then disappeared;
  4. Marcok - [9] - first edit on 20:06, 2 dec 2007, voted after 4 minutes and then disappeared;
  5. Paginazero - [10] - his vote is his 4th edit and then disappeared
  6. Veneziano - [11] - first edit on 20:53, 2 dec 2007, voted after 23 minutes and then disappeared;
  7. Tanarus - [12] - his vote is his 3rd edit;
  8. Balabiot - [13] - first edit on 10:06, 4 dec 2007, voted after 5 minutes;
  9. bramfab(=Barbapedana) - [14] - first edit on 08:48, 3 dec 2007, voted after 1 day and 8 edits;
  10. .snoopy. - [15] - his vote is his 5th edit;
  11. Nemo - [16] - first edit on 17:14, 4 dec 2007, voted after 38 minutes;
  12. Olando - [17] - first edit on 13:40, 5 dec 2007, voted immediately (WORLD RECORD) and then disappeared;
  13. Civvi - [18] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dec 2007, voted after some our and then disappeared;
  14. Lusum - [19] - first edit on 20:34, 5 dec 2007, voted after 1 minute and then disappeared;
  15. Ripe - [20] - first edit on 20:31, 5 dec 2007, voted after 1 minute and then disappeared;
  16. Loroli - [21] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dec 2007, voted after 2 minutes and then disappeared;
  17. giacumìn - [22] - first edit on 15:25, 3 dec 2007, voted after 6 days and 19 edits.

According to the cited definition, the voters of Fabexplosive (and of the other 4 admins) should be considered meatpuppets.

Origin (source) of the meatpuppets

The 5 admins "elected" in that way were: Fabexplosive, Snowdog, Barbapedana, DracoRoboter and Remulazz: according to the cited definition, they should be considered (allegedly) recruiters (=meatpuppeters). The detailed analysis of the attack is above [23]. But what was the origin of the meatpuppets (as definition) and of the meatpuppeters (as definition) ?

It's difficult to find were the meatpuppeting attack was organized, but perhaps the cultural environment origin (source) of the meatpuppeting attack can be found. Let we analyze the following evidences:

  1. the meatpuppets (as definition) DracoRoboter (as Draco), Xaura, Ilario, Marcok, Paginazero, Nemo, Fabexplosive, kiado and M7 (as M/) took part to the organization of the 2008 Annual Meeting of the Italian Wikimedia Association (WMI), as we can see [24]. In the page there are also Nick1915, but see later;
  2. the meatpuppet (as definition) Nemo (first edit on LMO 17:14, 4 dic 2007, voted after 38 minutes for 3 admins [25]) is one of the 5 people in the Board of the Italian Wikimedia Association, as we can see [26];
  3. a steward (Paginazero) was heavly involved in the attack (maybe naivly): he voted for 3 admins ([27]: only 4 edits in total and then disappeared. Here we can see Paginazero receiving a premium for the Italian Wikimedia Association [28];
  4. another steward (Nick1915) backed up metpuppets and meatpuppeters for a longtime, till in the RFC [29] was explicitly requested to stop to backup the attackers and to follow better the Steward_policies, where it says "Stewards should always be neutral";
  5. the meatpuppet (as definition) Remulazz is an active member of the Italian Wikimedia Association, as we can see [30];
  6. the (allegedly) recruiter Snowdog has been vice president of the Italian Wikimedia Association [31].

And so on ... but it could be enough for now.

Yattagat 21:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

All I know is that .snoopy is a well-standing admin here. I might return to comment more later. Fabexplosive himself is also a well-known global user. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately the main definition of "meatpuppet" is clear: "Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (allegedly) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position". And, in the same way, the logs are clear. Yattagat 21:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
This seems to be a Wikimedia horror story.--Kozuch 20:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Mike.lifeguard, erroneously you (on 20-dec, 21:07) destroyed the comment "A Case Study - The meatpuppeting attack on the LMO wikipedia - Corrective actions requested", writing "rm dupe section". Instead the informations and the analysis were not duplicated. May I restore the section? or almost the sections "Analisys of Dracoroboter's election" and "Analisys of Remulazz's election" ? Thank you, Yattagat 21:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply


Four day ago, I requested the permission to restore the informations and the analysis that Mike.lifeguard erroneously destroyed, writing: rm dupe section, while the informations were not duplicated. Having received no answer, I suppose that NULLA OSTA to restore. So, the analysis of the election of DracoRoboter and Remulazz will be restored. Yattagat 14:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Analisys of Dracoroboter's election

DracoRoboter was not elected by te community, but by people that came from away. Let we analyze the election of DracoRoboter, as we can see here: [32]. The votes of 18 people on the total of 20 (90% of the votes) were as follow:

  1. Fabexplosive - [33] - his vote is his 6th edit
  2. Xaura - [34] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD
  3. Ilario - [35] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted after 1 minutes and then disappeared
  4. Marcok - [36] - first edit on 20:06, 2 dic 2007, voted after 4 minutes and then disappeared
  5. Paginazero - [37] - his vote is his 4th edit and then disappeared
  6. Veneziano - [38] - first edit on 20:53, 2 dic 2007, voted after 23 minutes and then disappeared
  7. Tanarus - [39] - his vote is his 3rd edit
  8. Balabiot - [40] - first edit on 10:06, 4 dic 2007, voted after 5 minutes
  9. bramfab(=Barbapedana) - [41] - first edit on 08:48, 3 dic 2007, voted after 1 day, 7 hours and 52 minutes
  10. .snoopy. - [42] - his vote is his 5th edit and then disappeared
  11. Nemo - [43] - first edit on 17:14, 4 dic 2007, voted after 38 minutes
  12. Olando - [44] - first edit on 13:40, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD and then disappeared
  13. giacumìn - [45] - his vote is his 7th edit
  14. Civvi - [46] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dic 2007, voted after 03:38 and then disappeared
  15. Lusum - [47] - first edit on 20:34, 5 dic 2007, voted after 1 minute and then disappeared
  16. Kiado - [48] - first edit on 17:13, 5 dic 2007, voted after 04:03
  17. Ripe - [49] - first edit on 20:31, 6 dic 2007, voted immediately and then disappeared
  18. Loroli - [50] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dic 2007, voted after 1 minute and then disappeared

Analisys of Remulazz's election

Remulazz was not elected by te community, but by people that came from away. Let we analyze the election of Remulazz, as we can see here: [51]. The votes of 16 people on the total of 17 (94% of the votes) were as follow:

  1. Dracoroboter - [52] - his vote for Snowdog were his 5th edit; after 2 day he voted for Remulazz
  2. Tanarus - [53] - his vote is his 13th edit
  3. Fabexplosive - [54] - his vote is his 12th edit
  4. bramfab(=Barbapedana) - [55] - first edit on 08:48, 3 dic 2007, voted after 1 day, 7 hours and 52 minutes
  5. .snoopy. - [56] - his vote is his 7th edit and then disappeared
  6. Balabiot - [57] - first edit on 10:06, 4 dic 2007, voted after 5 minutes for Snowdog, voted after 7 hours for Remulazz
  7. Nemo - [58] - first edit on 17:14, 4 dic 2007, voted after 38 minutes
  8. Xaura - [59] - first edit on 20:01, 2 dic 2007, voted immediately for Snowdog, voted after 2 days for Remulazz
  9. Olando - [60] - first edit on 13:40, 5 dic 2007, voted immediately, WORLD RECORD and then disappeared
  10. giacumìn - [61] - his vote is his 9th edit
  11. Lusum - [62] - first edit on 20:34, 5 dic 2007, voted after 2 minute and then disappeared
  12. Civvi - [63] - first edit on 10:58, 5 dic 2007, voted after 1 day and then disappeared
  13. Kiado - [64] - first edit on 17:13, 5 dic 2007, voted after 1 day
  14. Loroli - [65] - first edit on 20:32, 6 dic 2007, voted after 6 minutes and then disapeared
  15. Ripe - [66] - first edit on 20:31, 6 dic 2007, voted after 18 minutes and then disapeared
  16. Veneziano - [67] - first edit on 20:53, 2 dic 2007, voted after 23 minutes for Snowdog, voted 5 days after for Remulazz and then disappeared

Corrective action required

The admins of the LMO wikipedia, Fabexplosive, Snowdog and Barbapedana were elected (as detailed above) by users that suddenly accessed the LMO wikipedia, immediately or after few minutes voted and then disappeared. If the main definition of "meatpuppet" (Editors of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia use "meat puppet" to deprecate contributions from a new community member if the new member was (allegedly) recruited by an existing member only to back up the recruiting member's position) will not be changed, the recruited users should be considered meatpuppets and the recruiters should be considered meatpuppeters.

The admins elected in the way detailed, don't have the trust of the LMO community, they only had the vote of the meatpuppets. As corrective action, the following are proposed:

  1. the admins Fabexplosive, Snowolf and Barbapedana should resign and leave the LMO adminship;
  2. all the votes of meatpuppets and meatpuppeters, involved in the meatpuppeting attack, should be discarded during the polls on the LMO wikipedia (until meatpuppets and meatpuppeters will demonstrate, with their contributions, to be good wikipedians).

Yattagat 14:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Some little news

On friday 16 jan 2009, the admin Fabexplosive resigned and leaved the adminship in the LMO wiki.

Users of the LMO wiki are waiting for the resignation of Snowdog (an ex steward) and of Barbapedana (alias Bramfab), the other two admins "elected" during the meatpuppeting attack of december 2007.

Yattagat 14:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Little problem with a user

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Hello, i came here because i have a problem on many wikis with an user. For information I'm an administrator on FR. (fr:Utilisateur:Gdgourou)

History
  1. I request a bot flag for user:Ptbotgourou on a lot of wikis few months ago (mostly august and september) and many are without response
  2. On 21 octobre 2008, I translate from french a mail send by user Budelberger in which he complain that admin on small wikis are "ignorants, incompetent and vandal"...
this user is blocked indefinitely of FR [68] since may 2008 after a little "history"...
since he works on small wikis rather good but don't accept any authority.
« rather good »… Since then he make a systematic opposition on most of unresponded request i have. I don't check every wikis but on some he write my real name and write that I'm "a vandal", "consanguine" (in french it means prejorativly "have fuck with a consanguine"),...

Sometime i could be happy, it's a simple opposition.

Some examples of pending request

I don't check on wikis i have already the bot flag but perphaps there's more. I made a research on google http://www.google.fr/search?q=gdgourou+consanguin. I'm not very happy to have results. Have you a solution ? --Gdgourou 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I also found an attack against Kahuroa

If you d'on't have any solution, perhaps some advices ? --Gdgourou 09:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried contacting local administrators? I'm not sure what could be done, but I'm not sure this is the venue for it. I'll try and think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Tsss… le vilain garçon ! il oublie de parler de la lettre d'insultes qu'il m'a envoyée en privé ! il tient absolument à ce que je la rende publique ?… -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ().Reply
C'est ma gloire ! Le Système acculé dans ses derniers retranchements ! Sa servilité établie ! -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ().Reply
Cet individu n'est jamais aussi bien décrit que par lui-même… (Cet individu est Français, et il fait honneur à une longue tradition nationale. Ils sont 178 autres comme lui – en ne comptant que les notables – sur «fr ». Dans les WikiMachins, « on » adore décerner des décorations à tout un chacun (les meilleurs larbins) : à Gdgourou, je décerne la Francisque d'or.) Quant à moi, je viens d'apprendre avec surprise que je figurais sur une « white list » ! (Et cet individu y figure à mes côtés : je suis mort de honte.) Il faut vite aviser « Huggle » de son erreur… --Budelberger 13:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) ().Reply
Comment appelez-vous en français ceux qui ne se reproduisent qu'entre eux ? Oui, je sais, la française langue, ça est un pneu ardu pour un individu comme vous ; ah ! que vous en ayez la fine connaissance d'un Andrew Dalby !… --Budelberger 13:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) ().Reply
Pour celle-ci, la tchouvache (et c'est vrai que vous êtes balaise en tchouvache, hein ? comment qu'on y dit « REDIRECT », par là-bas, hein ?…), vous auriez dû, monCanard, plutôt donner ce lien-ci, doux Seigneur ; une belle marque du vandalisme que vous vous croyez autorisé à pratiquer un peu partout, en proclamant urbite et orbite votre « qualité » d'administrateur de la fr.Wikipedia, ce ramassis de 179 cooptés (sans possibilité – pas fous, les frelons – de révocation ; quoi qu'ils fassent) IGNARROGANTS (sauf, bien sûr, et je m'incline : en manga ; que des mangarastes de première, les bougres). Alors, alors… on aurait un pneu honte de ses vandalismes, monBiquet ? -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ().Reply
(Le pauv' Chéri… il voudrait que partout partout partout il y ait un déluge d'ovations sur sa personne quémandant un flag ; c'est vrai que dans la Famille, on ne comprend pas le sens d'« Oppose » ; c'est bien simple, on efface les messages, et on bloque les comptes ; ailleurs comme ici, sur Meta : un seul choix, être d'accord. Les yeux rouges.)
Décidément, vous n'êtes pas doué, mon petit Délateur chéri (pas autant qu'Hégésippe, hein ?, mais Lui a l'antériorité – « pas autant chéri », entendez bien…) ; après avoir vandalisé la « cv », ou pas être foutu de rien connaître à l'histoire de la Carie, avec votre robot pour attardés, vous voilà pôs capab' – en tant que personne… – d'aligner un lien correct ; c'est icitte qu'il faut lire, monGrand ! --Budelberger 14:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (). (P.-S. : Comme toujours… « Serviteur » ! À votre avis, je reprends point par point votre poulet à la Kommandantur, ou vous vous en chargez ? « D'on't » you think so ?… Vous pourriez peut-être expliquer pourquoi, après avoir lu mes informations, « Lajsikonik » a changé d'avis sur vous ?…) (P.-P.-S. : Un conseil, Honorable Anonyme… Dois-je maintenant signer de ce doux nom (de section) : « a user » ? votre avis d'anonyme m'intéresse !)Reply
Qu'est-ce qu'il en sait, avec ses disniaiseries pour tout bagage, le gourou ?… Qu'il prouve une once de compétence pour apprécier ! -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ().Reply
Toujours à propos de ce délicat esprit nommé « Kahuroa », propriétaire exclusif et perpétuel de la Wikipédia maorie ; peut-être avez-vous remarqué que certaines villes (Kurów, Curitibia, Uetersen, Końskowola…) et certaine église… tentent d'avoir un article dans chacun des projet, dans chacune des langues… – même dans l'Incubator. Regardez ici. Pourquoi se gênerait-il, après tout : il est inamovible et assuré de la solidarité (et protection, comme on dit dans la Famille) de ses Consanguins : cette Wikipedia est sa propriété personnelle ; un deuxième « Hugo.arg ». --Budelberger 22:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) ().Reply
@ Anonymous Dissident : Yes I try, but often the fact that he doesn't disturb a lot... is a reason to not block him
One more time, he put my real name on a wiki, this one [69], and it's only one thing, lot of insult... on others please could you do something ? --Gdgourou 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I consider that outing other users (by purposely putting their real name on various wikis) is intolerable and should be treated very seriously (it reminds me of an ex-english user doing that on his website, which is no different from our case).
  • Also, Budelberger seems to be harassing GdGourou on many projects. This is another offense that should be treated seriously.
  • And last, I noted in this section that he has not been contructive at all. Instead, he mainly abused it to write personnal attacks and other non-sense.

Was it only for me to decide, this account would be already locked. But, since I has a bias, I'd prefer other steward to decide what kind of sanction should be applied.

DarkoNeko 11:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Err, so. Does that silence mean you all agree on the fact I should lock him ? :) DarkoNeko 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The case is not clear to me. Did Gdgourou disclose a private email? Guido den Broeder 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
If you speak about the mail that I translate, it was a mail send by Budelberger to wikipedia-l(at)lists.wikimedia.org (date : 21 october 2008 11:54, subject : Révocations d'Administrateurs). SterkeBak request a translation which was also provided by andrew.gray and thomas.dalton. I don't know if the other persons who respond to the mail have been harassed by Budelberger ? Should i forward you the mail ? --Gdgourou 09:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
For your information, Bastique respond to this mail the 23 october 2008 as Andrew Dalby. --Gdgourou 09:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Chinese Wikipedia control contents, and becoming official, or government information release agency!

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

I hate rise this problem to here, but I have to.

In Chinese and Canto wikipedia, there is a content argument about the page "Gigi Leung"梁詠琪梁詠琪, because some of wiki writer not agree with official version, but some writer does.

Wiki administrator use his administration force, change the content to his favor version, which happens to be the official version, and freeze it by protection.

This is not the first, and only case. From time to time, as seen in wiki history, that wiki administrator in Chinese version doing self censorship, use the administration power to control free wills, favor the rights of upper level, and synchronize information as their own wills.

In Chinese culture, we used to practice politic, rights and forces, from upper to under. Chinese official always have the mind that their wills be done. But as I understood, wiki's knowledge has to be gather from miners to major, from single to groups, from under to upper, which is totally opposite to what Chinese wiki administrator doing, right now at this moment.

At the moment, Chinese wiki writer is being kicked, Chinese Wikipedia become weaker and weaker, just because Chinese wiki administrator is not neutral. I hope someone would be concern about this, maybe before Chinese wiki become political correct, enough to enter the China Great Firewall, which will cover Hong Kong and Macau soon.--Onethe 15:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The same kind of censorship happens on all Wikipedia's. With the rules being what they are, it cannot be helped. Guido den Broeder 17:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
On most larger Wikipedias the rules explicitly forbid that a person involved in a content dispute use any admin tools to enforce their opinion. Is this not the case on zhwiki? --Latebird 23:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ce qui m'étonne, c'est qu'il y ait (encore) des gens pour s'en étonner. --Budelberger 00:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ().Reply
Onethe is pushing his own agenda and he has only told part of the story. For his actions on Cantonese wikipedia, here is a summary of the argument: the official birthyear (1976?) of the singer is different from the one circulated in the folklore (1972?). Onethe wants to push his version (1972), even engaging in edit warring, without sufficient evidence or attribution to a valid source of information. Per policies of most wikipedias, we have reverted it to the version (1976) prior to the dispute, and which has a better source. Hillgentleman 02:01, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
If such a controversy exists, it is better to make it explicit in the article rather than to seek victory for one of the two opinions. Guido den Broeder 11:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Only if such a controversy can be reliably sourced surely? Which from the sound of it it can't. While I can't say for sure without reviewing the discussion and sourcing, if I understand Hill correctly and he is telling the truth, I suspect the same thing would have happenedon the English wikipedia per BLP. BTW, how exactly is this 'becoming official or government release agency'? Is there some reason why the government is pushing the line he was born in 1976 as opposed to 1972? Or was that just trying to scare people? Nil Einne 17:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing much that we can do. Perhaps the Chinese WP community unite and request for removal of adminship for the particular admin. Diagramma Della Verita 16:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Alleged Commercialisation of the French Wikipedia

Latest comment: 15 years ago32 comments12 people in discussion

Initial discussion

fr:Projet:Impression (in English): the French Wikipedia now adds a "print this image" to every image description page via JavaScript. Of course, this feature is non-free and some part of money the commercial print service obtains is paid to WMF and Wikimedia France. Now, here is the question: how can this not violate the non-profitness principle that used to be one of Wikipedia's cornerstones. In their FAQ they claim that Wikipedia already has commercial links in Special:Booksources and so on, there is a blatant misinterpretation: Booksources always provides a number of alternatives. I urge the Wikimedia community to stop this madness immediately. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

  • I would like to remind you that all Wikibooks projects now offer a feature to collect books and print them via PediaPress. Special:Collection provides only one printer. This is exactly the same thing here (other printers are even considered in the case of the posters), so why should we react differently? Furthermore, it is blatantly false to say that "some part of money the commercial print service obtains is paid to WMF and Wikimedia France"; the money is donated on a voluntary basis by the printer, there has been no signed agreement. Last but not least, I fail to see how the "community" would have any right to interfere and to "stop" a project that has already been approved by the community of the French-language Wikipedia. guillom 09:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I think this is a seriously bad idea. It is comparable to replacing the ISBN magic link with an Amazon affiliate store, or flogging CafePress merchandise based on our content. I believe it would be a deterrent to people freely releasing images (which is already an issue in a lot of areas where images are scarce) and it makes us look bad. I would, however, have no objection to a pedia shop, where multiple vendors can be featured, with the community giving feedback or ratings. Separating it from being a direct off-the-page link, and making it explicit how much goes to WMF of each dollar spent, and allowing multiple vendors, would likely satisfy a lot of people's inherent opposition to the idea. On a related note, we purged CagePress from mainspace on enWP but see [70] for how many links are on frWP. I wonder if this should be blacklisted to prevent this abuse. Pity we don't have a per-namespace blacklist. JzG 10:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • As you link shows, CafePress is almost exclusively linked from various pages of frWP's village pump or userpages, as it is on enWP [71]. The only link from the mainspace on frWP is about NeoOffice. I fail to see the abuse. guillom 11:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • This "project" has the potential to be the first step in ruining Wikipedia. We let this slide and we open the door to all kinds of commercial shit. John Reaves (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I vote that it be stopped, but note my unsureness as to whether here is the place to have such a vote. Have you brought it up on fr.wiki itself at all? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm not seeing the harm here... looks like a great funding source to me. To remove charges of favoritism: Change the template or whatever that displays on each image page to include whatever other poster printers wish to be added (and note by each link how much per poster they currently are voluntarily donating per poster printed so that users interested in posters can make their own decisions) to be fair, but otherwise I see absolutely nothing wrong with this. I think those talking of abuse are perhaps taking things too far. "Non commercial" and "charity" do not mean "spurn every attempt to gather donations in a creative way". ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
    • There is no obligation for this company to make any contributions, as I read the information its actually making contributions to a chapter rather than the Foundation. If the Foundation with community support see this as a worthy way to raise funds thats fine but ATM a small group of editors has added a link to every image to benefit that group, there in lies the problems. Gnangarra 15:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
The printer donates to the local chapter because of the 60% french tax deduction. He couldn't get it with a donation to the foundation. Plyd 16:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Does Wikimedia France do anything useful for all Wikimedia projects, like WMDE's Toolserver, for example? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 09:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Yeah. this; and Wikimedia France actually FUNDS the German tool server Anthere.
Hello, I've been working on this project for six months now. Here is what I think:
Please don't consider this project as a way to gather money for the foundation or for some chapters. This is only a (good?) side-effect of the project.
This project first goal is to encourage distribution of free knowledge by an other media: the posters. Why wouldn't free knowledge be on classroom's posters? Why couldn't our pictures decorate our walls?
I really think this project is a great opportunity to spread our great content outside the internet.
I hope many other printers will join us and help us fulfill that dream to give everyone access to knowledge, by posters or by any other mean.
Thanks. Plyd 16:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I find it ironic that your arguing that paying for free content is the best way to make it free. Gnangarra 12:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can we please get a link to to fr community OKing this? I know the enWP community strenuously disagree

date against ads for optional for
2008-12-21 888 (48+479+361) 30 (23+7) 34 (9+10+15)

with affiliate links and ads like this. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-21t07:10z

  • While I am of 2 minds on this (I guess only 1 company expressed their interest in reprinting commons pictures, that's too bad) I'm unsure what meta can do here. This needs to be addressed by the local project. Also, free encyclopedia does not mean that we can't offer merchandise if we wish (see the WP mugs). They are not infringing our copyright and trademark, and are free to do these prints without us having anything to say about it (that what free means). I don't think this is advertising at all anyway. -- lucasbfr talk 16:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely disagree. Such thing should not be in local projects' area of competence. Only WMF, or multilingual community at large, if the foudation delegates this particular decision to them, should decide on such things. Last time I checked, Wikipedia was a non-commercial project that does not advertise anything. Apparently, it's no so anymore. Sigh. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 17:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
(I guess only 1 company expressed their interest in reprinting commons pictures, that's too bad) -- lucasbfr, there were "no expressions of interest" called for this was arranged by one user then implemented. Gnangarra 00:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's pretty much how 90% of the stuff is done here :). If someone else wants to do it, I wish them the best of luck, the design looks like other providers can easily be appended. -- lucasbfr talk 20:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
This is bizarre. How is this in any way whatsoever different to WMF's partnership with PediaPress? A partnership is made with a business to conduct a useful service that furthers our aims (disseminating content effectively and globally), that would not otherwise we possible. Printing things costs time and resources. Profit gives businesses the motivation to do this: make our works conveniently available in formats that volunteer-driven no cost models don't make possible. And it's exactly the same level of "advertising": unobtrusive, appropriately placed links. (The link is on the image page, not every article page or anything.)
What the French Wikipedia community has done, is not an exclusive arrangement (probably unlike PediaPress I might add).
How else can I easily obtain a printed book from Wikibooks? How else can I easily obtain a poster print of a Wikimedia Commons image?
--pfctdayelise 04:42, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
Large format posters do not print themselves and spontaneously appear at my doorstep in a neat and tidy mailing tube. Or at least none have so far, perhaps I've been doing something wrong? Free content doesn't mean free as in beer. A reasonable copying charge has always been fine under GFL and GFDL after all. No one is prevented from buying a printer and printing off their own posters under this arrangement, but I don't have the money to buy a large format poster printer at the moment so I'd rather not have to do it myself. That, to me is the essense here. ++Lar: t/c 06:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's a good question, how should they be credited (it does not have to be on the poster itself but I guess it has to be somewhere). I think it is done, since their website states that the images are free as long as the license and author are stated. -- lucasbfr talk 20:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I think the should be on the poster. Because when I take a very nice image from Commons and lets say make 20 posters and are willing to sell them there will be no license and author on it. If the Author and License are somewhere else but not on the poster its kind of easy yo lose the attribution. Abigor talk 21:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
That's not a requirement, and how would you do if there's more than 1 author? The commons page is apparently printed with the poster, and a link to every page where the image is used is included too. [72] [73] [74] [75] (links from fr:Discussion_Projet:Impression). -- lucasbfr talk 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
If you intend to resell the posters, you are solely responsible for making sure the license is provided with each copy. guillom 10:53, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
  • Comment Comment I think there is a gross misunderstanding of this project. This is a very interesting new way to promote the idea of free content and Wikimedia projects at the same time. Offering a poster can spread free content awareness beyond the usual computer savvy people which are the usual contributors of Wikimedia. At the same time, a small profit can be made for Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimédia France. It is an exciting possibility which is also not very expensive. Unless traditional advertising, there is no impact on the content. Best regards, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Yann 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Another problem

Where's my license, dude?

Here's a screenshot made on my laptop: you can see the "print this image for $$$" link on this page, but you need to scroll down to find out that it actually comes under a license that permits free reuse and you don't need to pay to print it yourself. Given that we regularly receive emails from people who don't have a clue about the rules of reusing our images even after they visited the image description page, doesn't this link add even more FUD? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps some redesign to make that clearer is needed, then. ++Lar: t/c 17:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
It doesn't say "print this image for $$$" but "get a poster of this image"; that's quite different. Pretending it reads "print this image for $$$" is FUD, though. guillom 11:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

What happening

This appears to still be unresolved, the instruction page is still quoting GFDL licensing for images and saying it prints them with that license yet the licensing of the images is CC-by-xx. That is a violation of the license under which our contributors have provided the images. Gnangarra 22:47, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I was told that this is the forum to ask that the donation request banners at the top of Wiki pages be changed to read co-founder Jimmy Wales rather than founder. Can this be corrected by a sysop? Thank you, --98.182.54.151 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

That is a can of worms that will not be opened by a Meta-Wiki sysop. The only person who would change that is a Foundation staff member in the Fundraising team. Cbrown1023 talk 03:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
You think they would change it? Can you imagine Jimmy sipping his coffee and opening his browser to see "co-founder" at the top of the page? Talk about spitting out your coffee. Anyways, thanks! --98.182.54.151 18:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
It is nice when controversy is sought by anonymous cowards.. thanks, GerardM 11:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am sure they have consulted Jimmy on this before it is published. Diagramma Della Verita 16:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Saving spaces

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

One of many problems in Wikimedia is a space problem, actually in english wikipedia. After i looking around of it. I have a suggestion, erased an Sockpuppet Wikipedians and Sockpuppeter Wikipedians user page and user talk are the good way for saving the space.  CHJL  Discuss 07:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to save space. All the Wikipediae together are small enough to fit on one disk and leave room for ages to come. Regards, Guido den Broeder 12:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
But on somewhere wikipedia's page, i've found the saving space policy? What does wikimedia want to do if not to be saving their space? 118.136.51.211 07:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The policy is we don't save space.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 07:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
The English Wikipedia must be several terabytes, uncompressed (I think most of it is stored compressed, though, but I'm not sure what kind of ratios they get). All the projects together wouldn't fit on one disk. However, there is no need to use one disk - hard drives aren't particularly expensive these days. --Tango 20:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
If it is several TB uncompressed (which may be about right), than it will easily go on one disk. The compression factor is quite strong, as most edits only change a fraction of a page, and maximum HD size is beyond several TB now. Guido den Broeder 20:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please note that deleting stuff doesn't actually remove it from the database, it just makes it harder to access. Everything still exists. See also en:Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Google vs other search engines

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Forgive me if this isn't the best place, but it seemed like it might be. Has Google worked more closely with the foundation and developers then other search engines to make things work well (in recent times)? Nil Einne 14:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

No. As far as I know, there's been no interaction at all on technical issues.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 02:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

bugzillia help

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I saw that gurch on bugzillia had a name on his posts instead of a plain e-mail adress. Please tell me how I can do that and post the awnser on my english wikipedia talk page.--Ipatrol 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=account Cbrown1023 talk 02:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vietnamese Wikipedia and Non-free content

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

When dealing with a user's interwiki linking on enwp, I discovered that the Vietnamese Wikipedia had fair use images. When going back through the pages of the policies, I also discovered that these policies were put into place four months following wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy was passed. Does this mean that the Vietnamese Wikipedia is violating foundation policy or am I not reading things properly?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

As a side note, here are the non-free content policy pages vi:Wikipedia:Nội dung không tự do & vi:Wikipedia:Tiêu chuẩn cho nội dung không tự do, which appear to be English-to-Vietnamese translations of en:Wikipedia:Non-free content and en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, respectively.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Redirect from eo.wikisource.org

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be able to create a redirect from "eo.wikisource.org" to "wikisource.org"? The apart Esperanto subdomain hasn't been launched yet but we need to create links to the documents (now situated in the commons repository) so that they would be valid also after creation of a subdomain: ex. eo:s:Baza_Radikaro_Oficiala should be now redirected to oldwikisource:Baza_Radikaro_Oficiala. Is it able? --PAD 19:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Try bugzilla. Cbrown1023 talk 21:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

International year of astronomy 2009

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Betawiki

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could somebody please tell me what Betawiki is and if it has any place in the Wikimedia Foundation? I was over at http://id.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Warung_kopi#Betawiki:_better_support_for_your_language_in_MediaWiki , where it is advertised on the link, http://nike.users.idler.fi/betawiki. I had gone to "Warung Kopi" to ask why I could edit talk pages but article pages there and in Japanese kept throwing up .php's when I tried to edit them. It sounds great but it just seems a bit suss (suspicious) to me. It asks me for information I do not usually give out. Please, help. :)--Thecurran 15:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hoi, Betawiki is where most of the Localisation and Internationalisation for the MediaWiki software. We have been doing this for quite some time now.. All in all there are currently over 300 different localisations under way. Meursault2004 has been doing much of the Indonesian localisation at Betawiki.. Thanks, 20:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The preceding comment was left by User:GerardM. Are there any links to Beta wiki on a Wikimedia page, rather than a talk/user-page? :)--Thecurran 23:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

betawiki: works. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 00:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
OMG... It worksuss... :| --79.72.182.150 02:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Language code guidelines?

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Currently, there has been a debate going on both of the two Norwegian wikipedias (Bokmål and Nynorsk) regarding the domain of the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia, which is 'no'. 'no' is not the ISO two-letter-code for Bokmål, but the code for both of the two official written standards of Norwegian. The ISO two-letter-code for Bokmål is 'nb:', which already is a redirect to 'no:'.

Whether the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia should be moved to 'nb' is the subject of the debate; and upcoming might be a vote on that wikipedia. Personally, I feel that this is not an issue that should be settled through a local vote, but one that should adhere to central guidelines (one important point for this particular case is that the number of Bokmål users greatly outnumber the amount of Nynorsk users).

Originally, Nynorsk was also allowed on the 'no' wiki, but after a Nynorsk wikipedia was set up in 2004, Nynorsk was disallowed there in 2005. At this point, it was not truly 'no' wiki anymore, but rather 'nb' wikipedia. --Harald Khan Ճ 17:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is clearly a question of minority rights, as nynorsk is the written language of a minority of Norwegians. It is therefore deeply problematic to let the bokmål wikipedia decide on this. As far as I can understand, nynorsk wikipedia must have the same right to "no" as bokmål has. The only right solution is to move no.wikipedia.org to nb.wikipedia.org --Oddeivind 19:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Using the prefix no: for only Norwegian bokmål isn't becoming for a website dedicateded to spreading knowledge. This arrangement leads to the misconception that there is Norwegian and then there is Nynorsk, and that Nynorsk isn't proper Norwegian. The ISO-code no: belongs to the macrolanguage Norwegian, with the two written standards Norwegian Bokmål, with ISO-code nb/nob, and Norwegian Nynorsk, with ISO-code nn/non.
It is also creating errors with the interlanguage links for the no: projects that are open for content in both the written standads of Norwegian, like no.wikinews. Because the no: interlanguage link in the In other languages section is set to show "Norsk (bokmål)" that is what is shown also for no.wikinews even though on the wikinews project the correct would be just "Norsk". (See for instance en:n:West Wing of White House evacuated)
Developer Brion Vibber has anounced on Foundation-l that he would like to get some language codes renamed soon.
The nn.wikipedia community has had a vote on the matter and it is clear that we want no.wikipedia moved to nb.wikipedia.
I would like to see input from other Wikimedia users on this matter. --Jorunn 04:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Remember, no-wikipedia is Bokmål/Riksmål wikipedia. The nb-prefix excludes Riksmål and can therefore not be used. Riksmål, also known as Standard Eastern Norwegian, is the only Norwegian standard with a complete dictionary and a standard pronunciation (comparable to Received Pronunciation or Standard American English). While Riksmål is regulated by The Norwegian Academy, Bokmål was introduced by the Labour Government during the 30s as a step towards "samnorsk", an artificial language based on Nynorsk and Riksmål. Since then, the state-controlled Bokmål has largely reaffirmed its Riksmål roots in order to be accepted by the Norwegian People. It is still possible to write in a samnorsk way, but most people write close to pure Riksmål.
Bokmål is actually a cluttered standard with great divergences. For instance, the sentence "skogbunnen ble dekket av dugg" (the forest floor was covered in mist) has been the same in Riksmål since 1917, but there have been up to 72 different ways in Bokmål. 81.166.4.30 16:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
'no' is still an incorrect code. You will have to find another one. --Harald Khan Ճ 17:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
There are Wikipedias in languages with no firmly set written standard or anyone regulating the language. Try figure out in how many different ways they can write "skogbunnen ble dekket av dugg". --Jorunn 19:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is a problem to be solved by the Norwegian Wikipedia communities, and I don't think anynone said or done here at Meta will have any influence on the result of the ongoing poll. I recommend to leave this discussion dead here. More or less everyone who has left a comment are involved in one of these projects anyway. --EivindJ 09:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

If left to the Norwegian wikipedia community, it will most likely never get solved. The majority tramples the minority, and so the conflict loops. --Harald Khan Ճ 17:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I need urgent help! IP deletes pages on Upper Sorbian Wikipedia

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Urgent help needed! IP 84.243.224.24 deletes articles. I'm not a sysop, I can't block it! Tahnks, --Michawiki 13:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

The danger has been eliminated. Thank you for your readiness and help. --Michawiki 14:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Planet Wikimedia

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For those of you who have worked with blogging, or with the feed at Planet Wikimedia, there is a draft scope at Planet Wikimedia/Draft which I intend to move and transclude to the Planet Wikimedia page. I want the community to take a look and please edit or suggest, discuss on the talk page. Thank you for your time. NonvocalScream 19:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gives sysops to "suppressredirect" right

Latest comment: 15 years ago45 comments40 people in discussion
The following discussion is closed.

Why don't sysops of Wikimedia projects have suppressredirect rights? sysops can delete pages, but unefficient to caring them. When moving vandals raised, sysop should do 3 things at least per a page. move page and go to redirect page and delete it. Global rollback has this right. No reason to give this right to sysop at all. I'm suggesting enable this. 

$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['suppressredirect'] = true;
--Kwj2772 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
I certainly agree. See bugzilla:14998  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 03:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just to note that people must show support for making this change, or nothing will happen.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree. According to tim we need to have a vote on this here. Prodego talk 01:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

And it has been done. Thanks for commenting! Prodego talk 02:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Transfer from wa.wiki to wa.wikt

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. In wa.wiki Wikipedia in Walon there is a Walon dictionary embedded: w:wa:Wikipedia:Pordjet_Motî is the portal to it and the lemmata are in the namespace Motî:. I would like to know about the technical feasibility to transfer those lemmata to wa.wikt and where is the proper way to apply for it. Thanks. -0 º 00:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello0º :)
I would say via wikt:wa:special:import, either You need to ask for sysop rights on wa.wikt and open a bug at bugzilla: that they enable transwiki from wa.wiki to wa.wikt (prefered method imho) or You ask for import rights on wa.wikt and import via xml file. For sysop or importer rights please open a local request on wa.wikt and then on rfp. Atm. there are no sysops there wikt:wa:Sipeciås:Liste_des_utilisateurs/sysop
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply


Thanks, Birdy. There are several thousand pages in Motî: so I actually had thought of some kind of automated transfer with one or some bots so that they could transfer the lemmata without the Motî: bit and with the whole history of every page once trnaswiki from wa.wiki to wa.wikt has been enabled. Can it be done this way if the bot operator is a sysop in wa.wikt? Regards. -0 º 11:52, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hm, I don't know that, maybe that could be done by bot, but I would not know how. Only thing that comes to my mind right now would be special:export on wa.wiki and exporting all pages that one wants to import and to import them then via the import function (that would be easiest and preserve the version history, note that with that import from an xml file You can import more than one article at once). The only problem is, that these pages are not really in an extra namespace, the namespace "Moti" does not exist there, they just put that as prefix and obviously never requested it at bugzilla.
Therefore the imported pages would be created with the same prefix, so it would be necesary to modify the xml-file before import and replace that moti: beforehand (but that should not be too difficult).
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Such mass transfers can be done by a friendly sysadmin. You can make a shell request in Bugzilla, like bugzilla:12659.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Update asked

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. Is there anybody here able to update the wikimediafoundation site with this french page I corrected some days ago ? Thanks. Kropotkine 113 21:56, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done Cbrown1023 talk 22:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Stanton Usability Initiative

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Do you want to share views on usability ? I have just began to turn Talk:Stanton Usability Initiative from a red link into a blue one. Teofilo 15:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Script for changing sites.

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, there is this site: [76] which change the text about the selected website. This could be used for editing wikipedia too for example it could potentially affect all the projects [77] also the script usage is limited of course but we must take care about this. Otourly 16:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Gender specifier

Latest comment: 15 years ago18 comments7 people in discussion

What's the go with the new gender specifier in myprefs? Does it do anything or is it just to remind me in case I forget? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Huh, good catch. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
We can use {{GENDER:}}. If your language has strict rule about grammatical gender, It will be useful. (I think it will be good in de and ru)--Kwj2772 13:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Can you go into detail about how that magic word works? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well. I'm testing :) Kwj2772 13:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, age could be useful for languages which have different forms of address for different ages. --::Slomox:: >< 02:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Localisation of error message

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if it was possible to translate the Wikimedia Error message into more languages than those it is localised for at present. Thanks. --Harald Khan Ճ 20:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I once asked the same question and got told, that no futher languages would be supported cause the page would become too long. That was at least a year ago, perhaps it has changed (at least I am under the impression that the list was shorter then than it is now). --::Slomox:: >< 02:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Seems, it was extended from 11 to 28 supported languages on Dec 5 2007. Filing a bug on Bugzilla or asking on wikitech-l could help. --::Slomox:: >< 02:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Aromanian Wikipedia

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Aromanian Wikipedia seems to be abused. There are many articles refering the inexistent state of Pohlania, which appears to be an alter-ego of Romania. Google, apart from placing Aromanian Wikipedia at the top of search results' list for "Pohlania", suggests that the word itself is a misspelling of a Polish verb "pochłaniać". Informing Aromanian Community about the problem did not cause any feedback. That is the reason I seek potential interest here. Remigiu 22:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried to ask the local admin, roa-rup:User:Eeamoscopolecrushuva, directly? Perhaps nobody has read your question on roa-rup:Wikipedia:Community Portal. --::Slomox:: >< 02:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
His last contribution is from 2 February, the earlier one from 1 December and the earlier from August. It's really hard to catch him, as one might see looking at his contributions' list. Remigiu 14:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps he has "E-mail me when my user talk page is changed" activated. Or you can directly send him an e-mail. I think Meta cannot do anything if there is an active admin on that project. --::Slomox:: >< 19:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sidebar

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Could an admin here please update MediaWiki:Sidebar so that the Wikimania link goes to the 2009 page? Thanks. Aude 23:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Done but you might want to try WM:RFH in the future. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 23:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for making the change. Also, would it be okay if I added the RFH page to {{Meta}}? I looked around for an admin help page, but didn't see it linked anywhere. Aude 02:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I wouldn't have a problem with you adding it. I know it's linked from {{RF}} and Special:Recentchanges, but another place couldn't hurt — it is pretty hard to find. Cbrown1023 talk 22:59, 5 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

can the number of versions be limited?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello all,

i am looking for a possibility to limit the number of versions in my privat wiki. For example i just want to keep the last 10 versions of a page.

Thanks for all hints Thomas

Hi, I don't know whether or not that's possible, but I suggest checking mw:Project:Help and possibly leaving a message at mw:Project:Support desk. --Erwin(85) 09:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I do think it's possible to make various altercations to the History interface, but I'm not sure about the details. I advise you follow Erwin's links. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oriya Wiktionary closure notice is hidden

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am writing here as well just in case this message is not noticed. Could a steward please redirect the default Main Page of the Oriya Wiktionary, which is empty, to this one? By doing that, the information about the closure of the project would stop being hidden in the site. Thanks. --79.78.6.163 14:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, Birdy --79.78.6.163 23:37, 8 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Username policy

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Moved to meta:babel by Anonamous Dissident. 220.142.1.161 10:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Copyright policy on Albanian Wikipedia

Latest comment: 15 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

What's the strategy for dealing with situations where one of the smaller projects does something blatantly against the rules in terms of copyright and image policy? This time it's the Albanian Wikipedia. They have an image template saying that certain media are published only for use on their own Wikipedia and must not be copied elsewhere, not even other Wikimedia projects. The template was created by one of their administrators and is currently used on some two dozen images, some of them historical photographs, others graphics that would quite obviously be replaceable with fully free media. I can see no indication of anything like a non-free media rationale, a source declaration, or an explanation of the supposed copyright status, or what the special sq-wiki-only licensing is supposed to be based on. Copyright policy on other images appears to be rather sloppy too, to put it mildly. (these are all claimed to be public domain, and hardly any of them even has a source provided.)

I don't speak Albanian. I tried speaking to one of their admins who I know does speak English, but he rather rudely refused to talk to me in anything but Albanian [78]. It's a very small project and competent English speakers appear to be rare there. I've asked him to join us over here. What else can be done? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

It is GFDL violation. MUST be deleted unless it is used for fair use images.--Kwj2772 (論) 07:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
cf. wikimedia:Licensing policy.--Kwj2772 (論) 07:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I read your conversation at sq:Përdoruesi diskutim:Puntori. English is not this person't first language so it's tough to tell for sure, but I think he is confusing "free" (it didn't cost me anything) with "free" (free content). That's hard enough to explain to someone when we both speak the same language. ;) --B 15:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
You mean that "speech vs. beer" is not instantaneously intuitively intelligible across cultures? :) -- Avi 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Words fail me. [79] --B 15:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, if he wants it on his village pump rather than his user talk page, I'll gladly oblige. Let's have a kuvenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
How about not destroying the content of projects and instead 'helping' them? Instead of saying "your images are bad, solve the problem or the Foundation will delete them all!" you could rather tell them how to create a local fair use policy. Or try creating or finding free alternatives to the images. Or try helping them to find the sources of the images.
There is not a single "obvious" or "dangerous" copyvio among the images, just some very old pics where the source is not known exactly. No reason to make this a big issue. --::Slomox:: >< 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's not quite true. While the old photographs are likely to be unproblematic, the maps (like sq:Figura:P. Romake në Ballkan shk.V.PNG) are not; they are certainly more modern, and in the absence of source information must be presumed to be copyvios. Also, the particular images with this particular tag are only the tip of an iceberg, of a project crammed full of bad image uploads with all sorts of sloppy, missing or false copyright declarations. – As for helping, that presupposes that local editors are prepared to listen, to explain, and to do their homework. I can't help them create a fair use policy if they are not prepared to acknowledge that non-free content requires any consideration on their part at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Slomox, I follow this discussion here and on the sq.wiki. My opinion is that the colleagues here do not want to critisize only but are helping a bit with advices etc. The fact is though, that a tag or template "this image can be published here only and do not copy or use it elsewhere" an absolute nonsence is. Everybody who see it once can use it and that is the point: there is a copyright violation. Fair use is a obscure happening on the enwiki because of the US laws, but I do not think that somebody can help the sq.wiki to create a sq.fair-use-policy. The images must be deleted, and as somebody says on the sq.wiki, after learing the point they can be renewed. -jkb- 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Every project can create an Exemption Doctrine Policy if local law allows rights similar to "fair use". Whether this is the case can only be said after reading the Albanian copyright law. If you haven't read it, don't say, that they cannot create one.
This thread was about a specific template. 14 old images, 7 maps and one console screenshot. The maps and the screenshot can easily be recreated as free images. I cannot judge how prevalent problematic content is among the other uploads on sq. If it's a general problem, the original post shouldn't have asked about the specific template.
The fact is though, that a tag or template "this image can be published here only and do not copy or use it elsewhere" an absolute nonsence is. It's not a license tag but a warning tag. --::Slomox:: >< 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It is evidently meant to be a licensing tag. There is nothing else at all on the image description pages. That's indicative of the overall level of copyright practice there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Slomox, I did not read the Albanian law and I will not as I do not speak the language. But I would be very surprised if there is the possibility for fair use (see also the appropriate pages in commons, there are such tags not mentioned). But this does not matter. Important: there are no warning tags in the wikipedia projects. There is only a notice on the bottom of every page saying "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License". Therefore all texts and all images which do not fullfill GFDL cannot be published here. I know the discussions about this from many projects, sometimes I am sorry about it, but this is the fact. -jkb- 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) - - - P.S. Fair use according to the US law is sometning else and an exception of the en.wiki. -jkb- 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
FYI, sq:User:Dan has blanked the discussion on their village pump. --B 02:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not only blanked it, but also welcomed both you and me with nationalist insults ("barbarians" and others) [80], [81], [82]. It is clear now that this project as a whole is not willing to comply either with standards of content nor with standards of behaviour. I'm hardly surprised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Finally I decided to lose time to write to you. It seems that you like a forum discussions. I wonder what are you doing here. Go and do forum talks.
Anyways, just as I said in my talk page: "This template is permanent". Is that hard to be understood? Let it be like it is until the right answer is found.
I told you that I can give license to the content (next 5 min). Then what?
I understand English Language very well and I can understand what means free in this topic, BUT THIS TEMPLATE IS TEMPORARILY.
So MR. B if I make the content FREE as you say than it means that that content is licensed which is not true, because the content is not licensed (it's not found the right license).
In sq.wikipedia almost all active users understand and write good English, but they do not lose time talking not important things with "forumist".
Some one have written that "he is not convinced" that we are "investigating" the the true license: Is that matter if you are or not convinced? Man, man, man. One time visit to sq.wikipedia and immediately want to be King. I told once if you do not understand the language and the situation in one wiki DO NOT BOTHER, go away.
So, what you are talking about? I can't understand. Puntori 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Some people here are worst than me in understanding English. I said: "Those images are not licensed, and the template is temporary eadded". They say: The text in the template meant to be license text. This is not funny. I think that those users either want to bother us, or are playing stupid with the words I write.Puntori 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I think the expression of the template should be changed. "This file is only for sq.wikipedia.org" can cause misunderstanding like this case.--Kwj2772 (論) 14:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
The text is :"Don't copy to other Wikimedia projects or in other web sites." Puntori 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hi Puntori. I hope it is OK when I mention some ideas. The text on your template is not only a bit not common for the wikimedia projects. It is also quite irritating. Sure, you say the image should not be copied etc., but on the same page (see e.g. w:sq:Figura:Asdreni.jpg) everybody can read on the bottom the sentence "Përmbajtja është në disponim nëpërmjet licencës GNU Free Documentation License". This is not compatible. Therefore, as some other colleagues suggested here already, it yould be better for all to delete the images as long as the licence and copyright are not clear. Later you can renew the images. I think this is the only and also the right way to avoid a copyright violation and to avoid a problems with the Wikimedia Foundation. Cheers and good luck, -jkb- 15:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to say, but it is hard to discuss with you. I say "let it be like it is until we clear this situation. You are dieing to delete this content. You can see in my delete log how many pictures I have deleted, and I do not like this kind of content. We are a few who actively work to protect sq.wikipedia and there are many who post stupidities and upload images by adding "fake" license.
So this situation with those pictures is clear, I mean, we know that those pictures are free to be used and we want to find the right license. At the other hand we do not have time do delete then turn back then delete then what whoever comes to sq.wiki ad judges things without knowing the situation.
I say: Give us a time. You say that you want to delete. So, delete, and I hope you'll be happy with that. Puntori 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Please understand that these comments and advices are intended to help, and written with the best intentions. Apologies if this seem like interfering with an independent project, but the fact remains that there are certain rules that every wikimediaproject must follow. I understand that the template in question is meant to be only temporarily, used until the proper sources/licenses are found. The problem is that we (=wikimedia projects) should not nost&use files without sources/free licenses even temporarily. Files of unknown origin should be deleted, and only restored when/if the source is found,
Some projects (like en:wiki) host files that could not be used at other projects, and thus tag them "Do not move to Wikimedia Commons" or such. That is however files that fulfill a certain fair-use rationale as adapted by that particular project, not files where the source or copyrightstatus is unknown. Regards, Finn Rindahl 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
There is a behaviour dimension to this too. This project has a hostile, nationalist "us-versus-them" mentality towards other language communities. A fellow wikipedian from a foreign-language project comes to your place, to help. He is met with a flow of crass nationalist insults, from a local admin. The new user removes the insults from his own user talk page. You, Puntori, instead of rebuking your abusive fellow admin, have a friendly chat with him and then go and reinstate the abuse [83]. Is this how you usually deal with guests in your place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Puntori, you can believe me, not only on sq.wiki there are trolls. I am editing since May 2004 and I have been admin om three projects. There are thousands of trolls everywhere uploading nonsence and false informations. C'est la vie, such is the life, such is wiki. But here we want to point out what is the right way to handle images. You upload images and then you try to find a licence for it. Normally the way is the other one: you must know the licence and you must be sure the licence is right, then - and not earlier - you can upload it on commons or other wikimedia projects. This is the point of this discussion. So, when there are people who are like to help you here, let them help you. Nobody here is like to delete the sq.wiki I hope. Cheers -jkb- 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I will comment to all with this last text.
I do my best in Albanian Language wikipedia (you can see my log aobut this).
I make discussions to make dessidions (with users and admins in sq.wiki). Not all the time thinks are going good, so I look for the best solution even for temporary solution.
We are just few editors and not 100 or 1000 so there will not be problem if I just stay deleting.
We need a motivation there, so some times I decide to move arund regulation and mean time find the right solution.
And for the wikipedian which discussion I recoverd I say: You do not have right to delete the discussion, no metter is that good or bad.
This is my lest comment about this topic. If you whant you can delete the images. I will not, because I am searching information about the true license.
Kind Regards, Puntori 22:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This is getting more and more bizarre. Now I'm getting blocking threats from the most abusive of the admins there [84], [85]. This is the same guy who insists on calling non-Albanians "Barbarians" in every single posting of his, and who is actually edit-warring with his fellow admins to reinstate his insults against me [86]. And this because I dared to document that this same guy is a serial copyright offender [87].

So, what can be done? The state of affairs on that wiki is such that the cross-wiki community and the Foundation can't simply ignore it and let them be. From what I've seen, I'm very pessimistic about that wiki community finding the strength of cleaning itself from the abuse. It needs some pushing from outside. But I don't see how I can do much there, since I'm being threatened with blocks simply for the very act of posting there. The project is in effect using the language barrier to shut itself off from criticism and control.

Is there a way of starting a process here on meta to reach some binding, enforceable sanctions on such a wiki? I'm getting more and more convinced that at least one desysoping is absolutely necessary, and I don't see how that can be achieved through any process internal to the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Future and other ones. It really seems to be a problem or at least a lack of knowledge about copyright atd. there. But, after all, I have the feeling that we can cooperate with some users or admins from the sq.wiki, or at least to discuss with them, althoug some other ones are like to block etc. So, I would suggest, let us slow down and see if there is a possibility to gin somebody to mediate this problem. I just hope to solve a similar problem on the multisource. Let us slow down, the users on sq.wiki should recognize that we do not press them. -jkb- 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Under the [88] (8 and 11) [it is in english], the images such as w:sq:Figura:Asdreni.jpg are freely usable for educational purposes, even if they are copyrighted.
It can also be a logo, a copyrighted software screenshot, a patent, or everything else that is IP, can be used for non-profit (direct or indirect) educational purposes.
To remember it to you, this means it is GFDL compatible. It's like Creative Commons BY. --  eagleal  06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's a misunderstanding, I'm afraid. Please read up on foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and its application on en:WP:NFC. Copyrighted media are only "free" enough for Wikimedia projects if they are free even for commercial re-use. "Free for educational use" is not free enough for us. What you describe is what we treat as "fair use" media on en-wiki. Those are okay, but only under very narrow conditions. And, as I told Cradel, if you want to invoke such rules, you need to spell out the exact conditions under which you wish to do so, in what the Foundation calls an "exemption doctrine". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, and sorry I can not make a disscusion in english. I holpe thate somebody can understande this pise of text in albanian witch I'm writing dow here.

Nuk është problemi i figurave. Nuk është problemi i stampes. Është problemi i paraqitjes së administratorit të en.Wiki në një kohë të shkurtër pas paraqitjes së përdoruesit të mëparshëm në artikullin Kosova. Në fleten time të përdoruesit nuk ekziston asnjë shenjë ku shkruan se unë jamë njohës i ndonjë gjuhe tjetër. Është e vërtet që bisedat e lehta i kuptojë në disa gjuhë. Por kjo as se si nuk do të thotë se jamë në gjendje të diskutoj e aq më pakë për një temë që edhe për ne ka qenë e nxehtë. Dhe po ta njihja unë gjuhen angleze në atë shkallë sa të diskutoja, nuk bënë që të harrohet që gjuhë e projektit në fjalë është gjuha shqipe dhe secili antarë i saj ka të drejtë të kuptojë se për çka po flitet. Së paku të përshëndetet dhe të informohet se për cilën gjuhë bëhet fjala.

Ky administrator i interesuar për mirëmbajtje në një projekt, komunitetin e të cilit nuk e njehë, gjuhen e projektit nuk e njehë, ky administratorë që nuk u mundua të paraqesë synimet e tija si wikipedianë, nuk mori pakë kohë që së paku të mësojë çelsin e mirësjelljes në atë projekt TUNG, çelës i cili gjendet po thuaj se në çdo faqe diskutimi të përdoruesve. Ky administratorë që vije në projektin tonë, ashtu si të kishte zgjidhur gjitha problemet në projektin ku është zgjedhur administrator.

Zotëri të mi, deri më tani, sq.Wikipedia nuk ka marr asnjë ankesë nga poseduesit e të drejtave të figurave. Vetëmbrojtja apo disa figura të licencuara gabimisht me pavetëdije nuk do të thotë tragjedi.

Ne jemi vullnetar. Vullnetar në përhapjen e njohurime ndër njerzimin. Poseduesëve të figurave mund të u garatojmë që brenda projektit tonë (sq) nuk do të ketë keqpërdorime. Por atyre nuk mund të ju garantojmë për keqpërdorime në projekte të fondacionint dhe jashë tij. Fondacioni ësht i madhë, ne jemi të vegjël.

Ky admiministrator nuk është për t'u admiruar por përkundrazi. --Hipi Zhdripi 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

User Ali20 wiki is preventing me of voting for stuard elections

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Can somebody stop user User:Ali20 wiki from mobbing me, please. I voted on steward elections, clearly stating that I am in process of changing my name from Armchoir to Lasta, and that my contributions will be migrated as well. Therefore, to find out my contributions both nicks should be checked. But, insteaqd of checking my contributions, he cancelled my vote. I complained on his talk page, and he stated that I should vote under my old name (that is stupid because all my contributions are migrating as well, and sooner or later there be no contributions under Armchoir). I voted again at the same spot, signing my old name together with my new name, but he cancelled my vote again.. He cancelled my vote again, despite more than 4000 contributions under both names. Obviously, he is using his power to create false outcome of this elections, and now I am questioning his motives. Clearly, that is not an act suitable for wiki, and I am asking somebody to stop that user of simmilar malpractice. --Lasta 08:34, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Lasta/Armchoir. Lasta followed Ali20's instructions, only to find that Ali20 continues to cancel the vote. Even if it's not Ali's intention, he did make it look like he's tampering with votes. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Toki Pona Wikipedia

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why Toki Pona Wikipedia can't be edited? Is that closed? - Matema 09:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, and database locked. See http://tokipona.wikia.com/ for the moved content of that Wikipedia. --- Best regards, Melancholie 00:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
oooU.. Thanks for the info. - Matema 07:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

election question

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I'd like to know if there are any elections planned for this year (beside the steward election) and the eligibility criteria for voting in each case. Thank you! cristixav 13:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

blocking live mirrors?

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello! I am often working on de:WP:WN/M, comparable to en:WP:MF. Both WPs ask for reporting live mirrors of WP contents on live mirrors because they cause significant load on our servers, funded by donations. But as far as I can see nobody blocks these sites on Wikimedia's servers. Is there a decision to tolerate live mirrors or what else is the background? Thanks for your answers and greeting. -- Martina Nolte 15:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

"movefile" right

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It has "movefile" right listed at Special:ListGroupRights, but sysop still cannot use so. Is it possible to enable it? --J.Wong 07:43, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Technical question for stewards

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Does the steward interface work correctly with users who have the @ symbol in their names? I ask in connection with an RFA on enwiki. If I, as an admin on en, go to en:Special:UserRights and enter a name with an @ symbol, I receive the error "You do not have permission to edit user rights on other wikis" because it interprets the symbol as attempting to access another wiki. Question 1: Do bureaucrats also have this limitation? Question 2: If it is possible to sysop a user with an @ symbol, is the steward interface correctly able to desysop that individual? In other words, if this account were to, in the future, become compromised, would we have created an unstoppable account? Thanks. --B 22:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

You can edit userrights by using the userid number instead of the username if need be, see the Steward handbook. Cbrown1023 talk 02:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Trouble updating to 3.1

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This is my first ever attempt at administation of a media wiki server, and I am stuck:

following the instructions at [http://svn.wikimedia.org/viewvc/mediawiki/branches/REL1_13/phase3/UPGRADE?view=markup]

I run php update.php from the maintenance dir of the new version 

 
[root@intraweb /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/mediawiki-1.13.0/maintenance]# php update.php

I get this error: 

Error, Setup.php must be included from the file scope, after DefaultSettings.php

There is a Setup.php both in the include directory of both the original installation and in the new installation directory I am trying to run update from.

my existing installation is at /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/wiki vs the new installation at /usr/local/apache2/htdocs/mediawiki-1.13.0/

Any help would be appreciated.

(I think I am updating from version 1.8 but am not sure, and not sure how to determine that)

Thanks

This page isn't for support for the MediaWiki software. You should probably ask in #mediawiki or mediawiki-l.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&oldid=1391023"