User talk:Ningauble

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
I visit here infrequently. Talk to me on Wikiquote at

q:en:User:Ningauble (talk)

Have you donated yet?This user donated to the Wikimedia Foundation that operates Meta.
en-N This user has a native understanding of English.

global sysop comment[edit]

Hi, the list of projects which will be under global sysops is Global sysops/wiki set. You don't appear to be a sysop on any of those projects, so the governance of your project will not be altered by this proposal. Also, your only edit to one of those projects is creating a userpage on itwikiquote. John Vandenberg 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your stated position about disenfranchising the votes of those who are not "affected" in the sense you define; but it is a global question with global ramifications, and I have stated why I believe my home wiki in particular is actually affected even though it does not meet your definition.
At root: I trust the stewards to appoint highly responsible people who will act within the limited authority of the proposed role; but you evidently do not trust them to refrain from overstepping into "governance" that lies outside their authority. ~ Ningauble 15:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hi - about the wikipolitics[edit]

It was an idea to make an opponent to wikileaks. Please edit again and replace original content it was my idea afterall, or live with the fact some countries would not care to ban wiki software while there is no reason for it. WE KNOW already wikipedia has nothing to do with wikileaks, but the prefix wiki does suggest it. We have to think about something, some essay that would synchronise wikileaks to prevent further damage. How would you change the wikipolitics. Friendly greets Wimthuiswerker

The essay Wikipolitics is intended to describe the internal governance of Wikimedia projects, and of Wikipedia in particular. Taking positions about other organizations such as Wikileaks, or discussing external political and legal issues, is really a different subject area. I am not sure where to recommend discussing such matters, but I don't think this essay is the right place. ~ Ningauble 19:19, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hey Ningauble, Thanks for tagging those pages for speedy. I just wanted to say keep up the good work. Theo10011 16:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a significant uptick in off-topic page creations when the central notice inviting board candidates was displayed to unregistered users. "Oh look, a new place to post random things!" It seems to have settled down since then. ~ Ningauble 14:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, central notice usually brings in a new spate of off-topic pages and vandalism. I've been dealing with that on strategy wiki for a while. But things usually calm down once the campaign ends. Anyway, thanks. Theo10011 15:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing projects policy[edit]

Hi SJ. I am afraid I have been making a pest of myself over at Talk:Closing projects policy, where you previously commented a couple times. If you think my concerns about the Board's role in this are much ado about nothing, just let me know and I will desist. Thanks. ~ Ningauble 20:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for staying on top of that process. Your recent updates look like improvements. SJ talk | translate   20:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, sorry. Thanks very much for your suggestions for improvement, portals are often overlooked. --Nemo 23:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Protocol relative urls at Wikiquote/Table[edit]

No, I didn't notice that. I checked that beginning and end of the external file containing wikisyntax looked similar to the syntax I was going to overwrite and pasted it as directed. So, as I see, the file at needs to be updated. But I personally have no access to it. --Abanima (talk) 16:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found and notified the author of the tool. Hope they see the notification soon. --Abanima (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, we can hope. ~ Ningauble (talk) 13:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Closing projects[edit]

Hello Ningauble, the Board has not formally approved the LangCom charter, but is in regular contact with them, happy with the current charter, and responds to requests presented by them re: both opening and closing projects. (However, as noted on the committee's talk page, this is not an exclusive privilege of the committee.) When this came up last year some changes were made to the charter; it seems to have incorporated all of the suggestions so far. The Board is just finishing approving the new Affiliations Committee charter; this one can be next up. Do you have a specific concern with how projects are closed today? SJ talk  07:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon the lateness of my reply. I have not visited Meta in quite a while.

I assume you are writing about this situation. I was not objecting to how committee members have been handling the task, and I have not looked in on the activity recently.

Rather, I am just a little perplexed by the apparent arrogation of labeling what appears to have been informal, tacit acceptance as "approved by the Board". Conversely, if the board expressly decided this, as appears to be suggested in the citation provided, then the minutes for that meeting are incomplete. Were I on the board (not something that would ever happen), I would object in either event. It's your bailiwick. ~ Ningauble (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. – The only recent proposal for closure on which I might have commented, had I been around, was Closure of Strategy Wiki. I am satisfied with the way it was handled. In connection with the next five year plan exercise, and/or as an ongoing wikiproject, I think it would be a good idea to set up a portal at Meta for big picture deliberation, somewhat like the Research portal (but not necessarily as a namespace, which I find a little clunky). ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open[edit]

Hi there,

You are receiving this message because you voiced your opinion at the Request for Comment on the Wikimedia Travel Guide.

The proposed naming poll opened a few days ago and you can vote for as many of the proposed names as you wish, if you are eligible. Please see Travel Guide/Naming Process for full details on voting eligibility and how the final name will be selected. Voting will last for 14 days, and will terminate on 16 October at 06:59:59 UTC.

Thanks, Thehelpfulone 22:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Ningauble. Do you have any idea how to fix Template:Test3, same problem as here? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is not mentioned in the template documentation, but boxed message templates like this are designed to be signed inside the box, rather than after the template, by using the sig= parameter, like this:
The parameter value is simply inserted at the end of the message before closing the box, so it can also be used to append additional text to the message along with a signature. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
{{test3|sig=This is not for you. Just a test. Funny though. ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)}}[reply]
But any text following the template, if a space is used, will appear to be floating, right? ~ DanielTom (talk) 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, boxed template messages are not intended to be used inline. What follows begins on a new line. ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit doesn't make any difference. ~ DanielTom (talk) 17:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. The space you inserted after the "table" ({| ... |}) used to implement the box appears on a new line – it is not an inline table. Without that space (i.e. after I reverted it) any text without a leading space that is entered immediately after the template, on the same line, will appear normally on the next line beneath the table. With that space (i.e. before I reverted it) that text would appear on that new line after a leading space (the one you inserted), which forces "plain text"' formatting instead of wikimarkup formatting. ~ Ningauble (talk) 20:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I missed that. (Sorry.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:54, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Superprotect status[edit]

Dear Ningauble, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.

Peteforsyth 09:35, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pete, I am already well aware of these developments. I am also aware from long experience, as are other administrators of that wiki, that input from smaller wikis is generally disregarded. It would probably be futile to offer my opinion on best practices in these global affairs, and foolhardy to involve myself in what has degenerated into a contest of wills.

Having retired form a successful career in software development and systems management, I could teach people a thing or two about assessing user needs and serving multiple user roles, but there are none so ignorant as those who refuse to learn. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS call for help[edit]

Dear Ningauble. The volunteer response team (aka OTRS) is currently lacking colleagues to take care of questions regarding the sister projects wikibooks, wikinews, wikiquote and wiktionary. As you appear to be active on at least one of them, I'd like to invite you to volunteer at OTRS/Volunteering. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you in advance for considering. --Krd 08:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]