Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2012-03
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in March 2012, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
Translate "Workflow states" in Japanese
Could you add translations of Special:Translate/translate-workflow-states in Japanese?
- In progress
- 翻訳中
- Needs updating
- 要更新
- Updating
- 更新中
- Proofreading
- 校正中
- Ready
- 翻訳完了
- Published
- 公開済
Thanks--aokomoriuta (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Done & set the status to "Proofreading". Please check if everything is OK.- Regards. —Marco Aurelio (Nihil Prius Fide) 15:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Account no longer needed; please delete my account and all pages per [1]. Whenaxis (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I've deleted your user page and other page you created. I'm not sure if I should delete your talk page as it is for public use. I will blank it as I don't believe it fits any deletion criteria, but I'm ok if any other sysop disagree with me.” Teles (T @ L C S) 22:08, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping that my talk page would fit under WM:CSD for G6 (author request), G1 (no meaningful content or history—you can say that I "mistakenly" created this account and has no meaningful content or history and it was legitimately blanked) and perhaps also M3 (unneeded talk) because I have not contributed significantly to this project since yesterday when I created the account. I'm not that familiar with the policies here but so far I haven't seen any policy discussing user talk pages like the English Wikipedia. Thanks! Whenaxis (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that non of these criteria is valid when other users has contributed to the page. I haven't seen a clear policy here on Meta when it comes to deleting user talk pages. I know of the policy on en.wiki, and on sv.wiki we basically never delete user talk pages. So as a compromise I would say leave it blank as it is now. -- Tegel (Talk) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hmm. Since there is no clear cut policy or provision under the current deletion policy and because other editors have edited the page would WM:RFD be a viable option? I appreciate you guys' help. Whenaxis (talk) 23:05, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that non of these criteria is valid when other users has contributed to the page. I haven't seen a clear policy here on Meta when it comes to deleting user talk pages. I know of the policy on en.wiki, and on sv.wiki we basically never delete user talk pages. So as a compromise I would say leave it blank as it is now. -- Tegel (Talk) 22:55, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping that my talk page would fit under WM:CSD for G6 (author request), G1 (no meaningful content or history—you can say that I "mistakenly" created this account and has no meaningful content or history and it was legitimately blanked) and perhaps also M3 (unneeded talk) because I have not contributed significantly to this project since yesterday when I created the account. I'm not that familiar with the policies here but so far I haven't seen any policy discussing user talk pages like the English Wikipedia. Thanks! Whenaxis (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- I would say that WM:RFD is overkill for this. Just leave it as it is is my recommendation. -- Tegel (Talk) 23:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
┌────────────────┘
Thank you for your help. :) Whenaxis (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- My2ct: There has only been one contributor to his talk page, and this was an admin who needed some info for another request. IMHO we should accept his right to vanish. a×pdeHello! 23:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not that keen in deleting the user talk page, but I will not revert it if someone else will delete it. -- Tegel (Talk) 00:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
RevDel needed?
[2] contains COIBot (talk · contribs) contribs to the main page, with some, but not all, edit summaries removed - I infer to hide spam website names. Perhaps the revdeling job ought to be completed? It Is Me Here t / c 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done - thanks. The Helpful One 00:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how that was necessary or useful at all. Are we going to start revdeling anything we don't like? Killiondude (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
- As long as a spam link is in the history it is available to the public. It's not "we don't like it", we have to make sure that wmf projects don't provide links that may be unappropriate. People relies on the good reputation of wmf projects that shouldn't be discredited. a×pdeHello! 00:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have several issues with that thought.
- How many people that are not Wikimedians visit meta?
- Of that (select) group that are non-Wikimedians, how many visit the history page?
- External links in edit summaries are not clickable. One would need to manually copy and paste to access it. In essence, it's not something being provided.
- There are links all over Meta-Wiki that are inappropriate. See all the requests for global URL blacklists. :) Killiondude (talk) 01:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with killiondude. Nemo 20:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with killiondude as well. Revision deletions are something best used very sparingly, and with great consideration. I think Killiondude has made a compelling argument here. -Pete F (talk) 22:14, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- Part of the reason that we remove spam on Wikimedia is because, as a top five website, search engines tend to give favourable results to our pages. This also transfers to links on our pages, and by including the spammed links in revisions, we potentially allow these spambots to boost their Google results because of their affiliation with our site.
- This being said, search engines rarely care about the edit summaries and focus more on the current page content. This is why I would tend to delete spammy revisions to pages (not on Wikimedia since this is against precedent here), to prevent search engines from picking up on them and perhaps giving more favourable results to the spammed link. Quite honestly I don't really care what happens to edit summaries here, but it is important to note that there are two sides to this story. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:50, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is very dubious. Only current content pages are crawled, surely not past revisions. If you know any evidence of the contrary, please show it. Thanks, Nemo 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, not past revisions - I say this because there is merit to deleting some spammy revisions, whereas the arguments above seem to suggest that none are worth hiding. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- The distinction is very weak, the arguments above apply to both cases. Nemo 23:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- My argument above was geared toward the deletion summaries from COIBot (where the "bad links" were in the edit summaries only) but I would also say that deleting old revisions is silly as well for most of the same reasons. And old revisions are not indexed, Nemo is correct. Killiondude (talk) 23:42, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for not seeing (and thus replying) to this discussion until now. You make a compelling argument Killiondude and reviewing my revision deletions, I acted hastily as I had seen that the edits had previously been rev deleted. With a lack of a Meta-specific oversight/rev deletion policy, and going from Oversight policy, it's clear that the policy does not cover this revision deletion, which should not have been done, and as such I am happy to restore the deletions, or allow another admin to restore the edit summaries. The Helpful One 01:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Once deleted, I think it is useless to restore these revision who contain no valuable information. IMO, things could be left like they are for now, but this should be an exception. Savhñ 10:03, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- My apologies for not seeing (and thus replying) to this discussion until now. You make a compelling argument Killiondude and reviewing my revision deletions, I acted hastily as I had seen that the edits had previously been rev deleted. With a lack of a Meta-specific oversight/rev deletion policy, and going from Oversight policy, it's clear that the policy does not cover this revision deletion, which should not have been done, and as such I am happy to restore the deletions, or allow another admin to restore the edit summaries. The Helpful One 01:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, not past revisions - I say this because there is merit to deleting some spammy revisions, whereas the arguments above seem to suggest that none are worth hiding. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- This is very dubious. Only current content pages are crawled, surely not past revisions. If you know any evidence of the contrary, please show it. Thanks, Nemo 22:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I have several issues with that thought.
- As long as a spam link is in the history it is available to the public. It's not "we don't like it", we have to make sure that wmf projects don't provide links that may be unappropriate. People relies on the good reputation of wmf projects that shouldn't be discredited. a×pdeHello! 00:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't see how that was necessary or useful at all. Are we going to start revdeling anything we don't like? Killiondude (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Interface messages translation - sl
Following are Slovene translations for workflow messages at http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=translate-workflow-states&language=sl .
| Message | English | Slovene translation |
|---|---|---|
| Mediawiki:Translate-workflow-state-progress/sl | In progress | V delu |
| Mediawiki:Translate-workflow-state-needs-updating/sl | Needs updating | Za posodobitev |
| Mediawiki:Translate-workflow-state-updating/sl | Updating | Posodabljamo |
| Mediawiki:Translate-workflow-state-proofreading/sl | Proofreading | V korekturi |
| Mediawiki:Translate-workflow-state-ready/sl | Ready | Pripravljeno |
| Mediawiki:Translate-workflow-state-published/sl | Published | Objavljeno |
Can an admin please implement this? Thanks, — Yerpo Eh? 13:05, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done quick check via translate google was ok, if there's still some improvement possible please drop a note. a×pdeHello! 13:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Interface edit request
Could an admin look at MediaWiki talk:Cascadeprotected. Thanks. Techman224Talk 00:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done, unless I messed it up, tho we should probably steal/craft a template akin to enwiki's. Snowolf How can I help? 00:29, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Removal of temporary sysop rights
According to this and this the temporary sysop rights of Mmovchin (talk · contribs) should be removed. Please do the necessary. Thanks in advance. Trijnsteltalk 15:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Done. -Barras talk 15:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)