User talk:MPelletier (WMF)

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki


As a user of this Meta-Wiki, I'd greatly appreciate if you refrained from insulting its community defining its conscious decisions and policies «asinine»[1]. Personally, I disagreed with the decision at the time, but the respect for the others' opinions and the decisions a community takes by consensus are paramount, and as a member of this community I am offended by your behaviour. --Nemo 20:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then you are offended for no reason; the adjective applied to a specific concept (shared visual identity without protection) and not to anyone proposing or supporting it. Unless any of them claimed infallibility, anyone can make mistakes or bad decisions – even horrible ones – without it being a reflection on them. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Incidentally, the decision you link to does not appear to say anything about trademark protection, nor is the issue even mentioned. I see nobody there arguing that the Meta logo should be free for anyone to use without restriction, just that the globe logo should be used for Meta. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I suggest you read better. Probably, four minutes were not enough to understand the whole discussion you condemned so quickly. --Nemo 21:14, 19 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My reading comprehension is excellent, thank you very much. I see comments that the logo representing the community is better than the Foundations (clearly), that different logos will reduce confusion (also quite true). I note some hesitation about the previous draft's color, a few objections on the specific choice of logos, and a couple of "meh"s. What is conspicuously absent is any mention of "trademarks", "rights", or permissions. Perhaps you should point me at where there was a decision made to use a visual identity with no legal protection, since that's what I am talking about? MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 01:17, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sorry, we're evidently not talking of the same discussion: I see the words «"trademarks", "rights", or permissions» repeated several times. --Nemo 07:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've also checked the talk page and yes, there is one mention of "trademark" – from someone noting that it was needed to protect the visual idenity. After the discussion closed.

Perhaps you haven't linked to the discussion you thought you did? — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 12:58, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I linked exactly what I intended to. Background for those who don't know it (including me at the time), of course, requires a bit more reading and following links, as always. --Nemo 15:49, 20 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Controversial IWM edit[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure I agree with with this edit, because it may break links. toollabs:pirsquared/iw.php looks different with a slash at the end, for example. Are you sure it is okay? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also it seems to turn links into e.g. [2] where it may have been (? not sure) /?status. Why is the question mark getting percent encoded? PiRSquared17 (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interwikis are sometimes a little odd. The problem without the trailing slash is that the common case of "link to a tool" is broken by default, which is clearly the most important case to get right. The correct thing to do would be to not add the slash unconditionally, but that's beyond the interwiki system. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(/?status is also rather the odd duck as it is a parametric request, something you'd normally not want to use interwikis for in the first place). I don't think there's a "catch all" solution, IMO the best you can do is make sure that [[toollabs:sometool]] reaches the sometool tool cleanly, and leave pointing at specific scripts or gets with parameters to normal external links. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 16:03, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, I think links like this used to work correctly. Wasn't there an URL rewrite for that? PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but this edit was not okay, you should check such things and do not assume anything. You broke more than 100.000 links from de.wikipedia articles. Just because of the current tool labs bug? And I disagree with your finding, a "link to a tool" is the common case. Of course this is for some wikipedians, but for the readers it is more common to get a link to a tool with parameters (and even most wikipedians have short-links to tools with some parameters). And where in RFC 1738 did you find something about every url ending with a slash? Your edit summery is just not true. So please just fix the issue with tool labs and then undo your changes to the interwiki map. Or better: the other way round. --APPER (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Has this edit followed the process for update proposals (discussion on talk page)? If not I suggest immediate revert and a discussion for MPelletier's flag's removal. --Nemo 09:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Nemo bis: For the record, it seems this was done using staff rights thus there is no flag the community has the right to remove. John F. Lewis (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reverted the change. I'm still annoyed that the interwiki system doesn't have enough flexibility to create valid URIs in both scenarios, but since we're stuck living with broken links in at least one scenario it's clearly better for it to be the one that is circumventable with a redirect. MPelletier (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page pile tool hasn't been working for a while[edit]

I'm reffering to this one. I've tried to use it from two different computers but always get this "Not Found" page. Is it just me or is this an ongoing issues that hasn't been resolved for a while? (I'm contacting you about this because the error message mentions contacting the project administrators and mentions you). ויקיג'אנקי (talk) 11:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]