User talk:Sj/5

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

2004 | 2005 |2006 | 2007-2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 -

Moksha Wiki[edit]

Dear Samuel, Welcome to Moksha Wiki! --Khazar_II

Thank you :) Sj+ help translate 07:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

boston meetup[edit]

Hi SJ. Thanks again for organizing the wikipedia meetup yesterday. I had a great time! 22:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any time :-) Come again next month if you can... we'll have another speaker then. Sj+ help translate 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I don't think renaming an undefblocked sockpuppet is a good idea. The community knows him by his name Медиа and there is no need to erase his tracks. Whom we want to make the life easier? The community or them, who permanently breaks the rules? The renaming on ruwiki was refused and I'm sure You won't act against the interests of the community of ruwiki. --Obersachse 09:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Obersachse, thanks for the reply. No tracks will be erased - if an SUL account is created, Медиа will not be renamed. The user accounts under that name on all wikis would be merged into an SUL account (also named Медиа), which would associate all edits by that user to the unified account. Sj+ help translate 10:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sj[edit]

I still have a memo from you popping up everytime I log into IRC (I don't know how to remove it!) - I wonder if it's pertinent now though - I'd quite like to have a quick chat with you about the wikiversity stuff, if you think that might be useful? I'm on Skype and East Coast US evenings are the best time for me. Let me know if that might work at all. Cheers, Privatemusings 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps. fwiw - your wikiversity page still has headers relating to the board election process - dunno if that matters or not... best, Privatemusings 01:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
you have to say "/memoserv read 1" to read the memo; I think it was just a reply to a previous ping of yours. You can find my on skype now as 'metasj'. SJ+ 03:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for your time, and the chat earlier - it was very useful and interesting from my perspective. Please do feel free to drop me a note any time here, or wherever. best, Privatemusings 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] issues[edit]

Hello Sj. I have come here with a similar request to above. I filled out a report about abusive behavior of an administrator in here but so far no action has been taken whatsoever. The administrator in question in rush is trying to pass a new rule supposed equivalent of No personal attacks. That is not exact or even close translation of the one in It is modified in a way to allow administrators to take any action on their will. I am requesting from you as a trustee of the Wikimedia Foundation to end this bureaucracy in There online version of dictatorship is being established and if no action is taken, the results will be catastrophic for I have presented many evidences here and will to elaborate on it to any extend. Thank you very much for your time and looking forward to seeing restoration of the restricted user rights in Gulmammad 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gulmammad, have you discussed this with Sortilegus? This is something to discuss with the local bureaucrat before coming to Meta I see the problem, after reading your RFC and previuos discussions here on Meta. Each project is welcome to develop their own policies to handle personal attacks. If you are the only editor from az:wp having this problem it seems like an individual policy / personality dispute. More discussion around policies across different projects and languages would be useful -- a reason we need something like a Community Council. That is not the task of either global sysops or stewards or or trustees, as long as there are active local admins and 'crats doing their jobs. SJ+ 14:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I have spent so much energy and time to point out so many serious problems in, which most probably common for all small to medium size wikis, but the respond I am getting here is quite disappointing. If no-one cares about those problems, then my least request is to lift the ban on my edits in since it was a result of brutal bureaucracies. In support of such request I have presented enough evidences here. Thank you. Gulmammad 16:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't spread errors[edit]

I know this is definitely fraying on everyone's nerves, potentially yours included. I do apologize if if my comment is unwanted. Jimbo still can do anything he wants. He made a lovely little show of things, but it hasn't changed anything. He can come back, RIGHT NOW,and delete every image he wants, and we STILL have no way to stop him. --Alecmconroy 13:42, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alec, as Jimbo clarified later that day, this was not the intent and was corrected in a later update of his flags. SJ+
Futhermore, it looks to me like he was being intentionally deceptive AGAIN with that statment. I mean, look at the way he worded it. He claimed no longer had "virtually all" of his powers. In practice, he has all of them still. He said the ones he kept were 'mostly for viewing'-- which sounds perfectly reasonable right? Except it's BS. He kept the "have whatever rights you want" power. He's trying to deceive us with this crap, and you're helping him. --Alecmconroy 13:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sj, I wouldn't exactly fault Wales on saying "virtually all" for "virtual" means "not real". But what you said, "he renounced most of them" , is just false. Hillgentleman 13:52, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both for pointing that out, but please assume good faith. I don't believe that was his intent, as his actions a few hours later showed. SJ+ 14:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps relay this fact to foundation-l and other venues? there has been MASSIVE confusion over this issue, surprise surprise, and nobody will believe me, I'm nobody --Alecmconroy 14:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was passed on, and people heard you when you first posted - you are not nobody. The great thing about the wiki is that all of these details - people's comments and flags and changes - are transparently public. (unfortunately, intent can still be hard to figure out.) SJ · talk | translate 23:53, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Sj. Wata Pecker (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a user you blocked yesterday for vandalism, has returned under a (ducky) sock: Long Tom's Shorts (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Mind if I raise your block to indefinite or do you want it to stay for 2 weeks? Regards, --Dferg 18:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reblocked for infinity. Thanks for your reply. --Dferg 12:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username change[edit]


I have found you n the list of bureaucrats for English wikipedia. According to the policy, only a bureaucrat can perform username change/deletion (if I have understood it correctly). I would like to change my name due to privacy concerns, and would like to know what i have to do on my end. Thank you! 04:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Sj, was an admin here years ago; just wondering what's changed with Meta since 2006... seems a bit different. Any suggested reading aside from the usual from years ago?

If you're swamped, you don't have to answer. Just stopping by to say hi. RN 22:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is quite a bit for Meta. The meta changes are kind of confusing but make sense - I did notice the old essays being more properly archived (I remember trying to stop the mass deletions from back then ;p). Strategy-wiki is kind of strange... I was alerted to it by the resignation of Sjc on en who wrote a long essay about retaining editors, who I thought was you for a day or two (the c is kind of small :)). I'll definately have to get used to the new blogs and Planet thing. Being an old-school wiki editor from C2/Meatball and such Meta was my favorite wikimedia wiki at the time, I'll just have to readjust to new way things are done here I think.
As for en: there are a ton more administrators then there was years ago, I remember patrolling the candidates for speedy deletion category and seeing something like 500+ pages often.... after I got my admin bit back there after a bit of drama due to the years of inactivity, I went to patrol it again and basically there is like maybe 20 pages there on an average day; the vandalism problems seem less of an issue. As I mentioned there was some drama when I asked for my adminship back even though according to en policies it's supposed to be automatic, it seems in general there's a LOT more admin-related drama even for seemingly simple issues (perhaps due to the sheer number of admins) - I'm personally just avoiding it completely now; the speedy deletion policies are finally strict enough to where I can delete obvious advertising outright, I just hope the other 1000+ admins are as judicious as I am.
On the flip side for en: there does indeed seem to be a serious lack of content editors over there compared to years ago (I'm still trying to make sense of it); a fair amount of the same people who were great editors from years ago are still there - one I knew well got promoted to be a maintainer of featured articles (previously everything was handled by Raul), but the rate of new content editors seem even smaller then years ago and quite a few have left/inactive. I'll edit even a relatively hot article's talk page and usually get no response. Years ago I would a ton of comments and suggestions; I guess the positive side is that there are less edit wars - I admit I like the freedom to edit articles without much controversy; that was very common years ago. However, the requirements for featured articles are so much higher now, to the point where the first featured article I wrote is justifiably considered "crap" now, so input from other editors is basically required unless you are a professional writer of some kind. The higher standards are all necessary in the spirit of becoming an encyclopedia (I even fought for higher standards at the time, but I had no clue would turn into this). Basically, I've come to the conclusion that "article ownership" (used loosely, not the policy version), something previously heavily discouraged, is almost mandatory for getting an article to featured status.
To sum en up - it's all nice to see, but I'd like article discussion to at least come to some sort of medium to what it was years ago. It seems almost too admin-heavy in general.
Those are just my opinions though. Sorry that was long, and thanks a ton for the response and pointers! RN 00:15, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I'm doing fine - thanks! Perhaps much more relaxed and mature then I was years ago. Which also means less "overnight editing". It was a nice break. RN 00:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's great to hear about the essays, and thanks again. RN 02:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message at en.w[edit]

I left you a message at en.wikipedia. Saw that you have been more active on here recently so I thought I would make sure you got it. Sadads 17:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sadads. I've replied there - glad to hear about the SI work and to help out as possible. SJ · talk | translate 00:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Khazar II name change request[edit]

SJ, I did as you advised. Only my signature changed in mdf wiki, nothing changed in kvwiki, myvwiki, szlwiki. In mdf logs my edits are under old nick. And I still must use old nick for logging ( Pls advise--JT 20:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been changed. Good editing! SJ · talk | translate


Hi all,

I'd like to have a meeting on IRC this week to discuss the 2010-2011 annual appeal/fundraiser. This will be an "anyone is welcome" type meeting, open to the broad community. During this, Zack Exley and I will take you through our inital thoughts about the fundraiser and its organization, and ask you to join us in a discussion about the (massive) role of volunteers and chapters in this year's fundraiser.

Because of the vagaries of time zones, scheduling live meetings is hard. So, we'll have a couple of potential times, and we'll log and post the meeting for anyone who wasn't able to make it.

The meetings will be held Thursday, 12 August at 23:00 UTC (16:00 PDT) and Friday, 13 August at 16:30 UTC (09:30 PDT) in the #wikimedia-fundraising channel on the freenode network on IRC (irc:// You can access this using freenode's webclient, which is available at or by using your favorite IRC client.

Hope to see you there! Philippe (WMF) 19:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename user[edit]


Please change my username (Ageor7) to Ageor, which is the same I use in the EN and RU versions.

Thanks ageor

open meetings[edit]

ohai. I'd be happy to see a regular time for open meetings rather than scheduling them one-off; is monthly too often? Anyway people need a good amount of notice. I'd be happy with monthly with two alternating times. and we should talk to others about what would be useful, too. -- phoebe 04:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please give a look at Talk:Wikimedia_board_manual#Votes_vs._resolutions.2C_quorum_and_required_majority. Perhaps it helps to address the previous message you wrote there. --Nemo 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Hi there! Thanks for volunteering to sit on the Fundraising committee. The work of the committee will be really valuable to making this year's annual giving campaign really effective. I've posted an overview to Fundraising 2010, and would love your thoughts on the talk page. I'm also going to try to set up an IRC meeting soon, and hope you'll join for that. Keep an eye Fundraising 2010/Committee for a couple of proposed times! Thanks again... Philippe (WMF) 18:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SJ, Thanks for showing interest in the fundraising committee. You can see that we've started to develop the Committee structure and I'd like to encourage your thoughts and participation in the formulation of the important role Wikimedians will play in our drive this year. Please leave me a message if you have a specific request from me, otherwise head to the talk pages and lets get started brainstorming! Keegan (WMF), [[Fundrasing 2010]] 19:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uso mpya on sw wikipedia[edit]

Salaam SJ nisipokosei unazoea habari za Meta. Nimejaribu kupata watu kule lakini hadi sasa bila jibu. Ok the problem is the new surface that popped up one day. Must be a change somewhere at Meta or Wikimedia. Do you know anybody who can switch it off? It gives us a problem with our help pages and the explanatiosn on them: icons, explanations about which window to use for what . Then the new users start automatically in the new mode. It is relevant now as we are getting new people doing the medical translations via the new google project.

Besides that I do not like it personnally - in German wiki I can at least return to the old surface as it was but not here (only partly). New users cannot do it as they do not know and we cannot start with them explaining 2 different surface versions. Why are people on other wikipedias being asked if they want it and we not???? 18:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello MuddyB, as I mentioned elsewhere: I know what you mean about the new text and help pages. Translatewiki can help with translation of the new messages in the Vector skin. All new wikis are treated the same way -- I think that because you had an existing account on the German Wikipedia (for instance), you were offered the chance to switch back to Monobook (or whatever skin you had been using before). If all of sw:wp decides to switch the default back to Monobook, you could ask for that to be the default -- but essentially all Projects are now moving to use the Vector skin, so I would recommend switching if at all possible. SJ · talk | translate

Commons user Max Rebo Band's RTV[edit]

(copied from your Commons talk page)

Hi Sj. I'd like to hear your opinion about MRB's request to "vanish his account" and remove his user name from the logs of all the images he has uploaded.

You may recall your praise of his contributions that you gave on his now deleted user talk page. "MRB, thanks for all of your work on Commons. I regret that you're being harrassed a bit this week, but I for one found your gallery of uploads to be an excellent example of a variety of photos curated for their illustrative or artistic value. It has been helpful to me in organizing my own thoughts about the current sexual content discussion. –SJ+ 05:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)"   TIA 22:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 38, I believe in the importance of the Right to Vanish from shared public space, though I don't have a strong opinion on how that's implemented in terms of account renaming. The meatballwiki page discusses many of the reasons this is a useful right; some of them apply here to working on controversial subjects. I replied to the Commons-specific request on my talk page there. SJ · talk | translate


[1] if that was so, Wikipedia needs to remove its ban on CoI editors in certain areas, re-evaluate how it treats the climate change issue, re-evaluate its stance on paid editing, and also remove its ban on pedophile advocacy. Personal beliefs are brought up whenever you push an opinion and are a fundamental part of many of our core policies. To claim they cannot be brought up goes against at least 5 years of tradition that I can account for and probably far more. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are lashing out at everyone this week... is everything ok?   People do need to be able to exchange personal beliefs with others in order to share opinions -- and without being attacked. I believe that is the point others are making. Personal attacks and ad hominem arguments are distractions; they do not contribute to the meaningful exchange of ideas.
(Conflicts of interest are generally about conflicting obligations. Paid editing is not banned when it does not carry COI; see for instance the en:wp reward board. Pedophilia is a particular taboo and an exception to many rules; not everything needs to be tied to it.) SJ · talk | translate 16:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How can you honestly consider my post as "lashing out"? It seems that you are reading into things material that does not exist, and I feel that such is problematic. Note, "personal attacks" are prohibited, "ad hominem" are not. A person's background and qualification does matter, especially when the idea of authority is concerned. Unless you can find attacks such as "stupid" or "ugly", then it did not cross the line. Behavior is part of term "ad hominem" and focusing on behavior is a major and fundamental aspect of discussion. But you say "attacks on beliefs", which is a very strange phrase. So, if someone is putting up a belief that all vandals should be not blocked, no one can criticize that belief? Criticism, by definition, is an "attack", and it would be in Wikipedia's best interest to continue such attacks. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ottava, your comment above was fairly moderate -- my question referenced your posts/replies elsewhere on-wiki. I understand why you might disagree with things other people are writing or saying (the joke about 'someone being wrong on the Internet' is funny because its true). But I am worried that the only posts you've made recently are to disagree with someone or rebut a statement. It would be great to read your constructive ideas and positive writing, as well -- something that would help us all remember that we are here because we share a vision for how to improve the world, even if we disagree at times on some of the details.
To your question: criticism of a position or statement is not ad hominem (and part of healthy discourse). Criticism of a person because of their country of origin, is ad hominem (and rarely helpful). SJ · talk | translate 20:57, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of us are here o "share a vision" or to be good. Hundreds of names are locked every day because of pure nastiness and atrocious behavior, and that is just in the name selection. This alone verifies that there is still a necessary obligation for people to stand up against the most dangerous of users to ensure that we do not become a ground for them to harm or destroy our most vulnerable of people. And criticism of a country is wrong? No, not when that country promoted a libertine view of pedophiles that is part of the reason why there are almost constant Muslim protests and riots. Their own country is deeply divided because of a vocal minority took over and pushed an extreme anarchist view, and they want to do the same to the Wiki. Such things are completely unacceptable, and, as Sue Gardner says, a ban on pedophiles is just "common sense". Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assistance is required[edit]

Hi, I read your comment at the main page, and I would like to ask you for the assistance relating to my post at the forum page - WM:FORUM#Request_for_the_deletion_of_.22Anais.22_article_in_the_Azerbaijani_language_Wikipedia, and I would like to write a request for the deletion of the article (Anais) from Azerbaijani Wikipedia. I will be thankful, if you reply, who I may apply with this request. The Azerbaijani administrators ignore my requests, and the user, who wrote this abuse is sure that none will delete an article in the Azeri language. I am of the opinion that a prison doctor and psychiatrist may not be used as an authority in a Wikipedia article, relating to a 2000-year-old deity of fertility and maternity, and it is not correct to name Anahit - an Armenian goddess of prostitution. There is no nation in the world that ever had a supreme deity that was a goddess of prostitution. You may imagine what it means to say it to the Muslims that their bitterest enemies ever worshiped a goddess of prostitution and sent their women to the temples to serve as prostitutes. It is done intentionally, and even the user consider that I insulted his nation, because I wrote that all the nations passed the period when they worshiped the deities of fertility and the rituals of these cults were similar (See the petroglyphs in Altay mountains - the origin of the Oghuz Turks). Thank you in advance, -- Zara-arush (talk) 14:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, it was a good experience. I would like to continue this activity and check and correct similar content related cases. I would like to know who I may contact, first of all to learn about the rules, and what content of abusive or falsified content shall be of the prime attention. I know several European langauges, so I may be useful, as an editor or a checker or a translator. Thank you for your assistance. Best wishes, Zara-arush (talk) 20:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anais is again in AzerWiki[edit]

Please be informed that Anais article was recovered with its abusive content [2] What may be done then? Is it a standard practice for Wikipedia? I am not going to enter in contradictions with the Azeri users, but it looks like WP rules are not for all the projects and there are really national Wikipedias. If there are no rules and no arguments, the structure will colapse. Thanks, -- Zara-arush (talk) 11:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC) PS: I added the request at Steward requests/Speedy deletions, but I am not sure it was palced properly. Best wishes, Zara-arush (talk) 12:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC) I deleted the request for speedy deletion as it was the place for other type of requests, -- Zara-arush (talk) 23:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quicky :-)[edit]

G'day sj - I noticed your edit to JB's talk page, and wondered what you meant by 'for messages' - The page is currently protected from editing (and fwiw, the user page still says 'you are invited to post these on my Talk page', which is currently impossible) - I thought maybe your intent was to allow people to leave messages for JB, so I thought I'd just let you know that this isn't currently possible. Cheers, Privatemusings 23:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I would like to identify with the Foundation. Please get in contact with me about it. I meant to do it a while ago but it was while Cary Bass was busy then going. So, it was all up in the air. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:13, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ottava, see Steward handbook/email templates/identification. Cbrown1023 talk 01:08, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cbrown, I know that. See the clause: "If you would like to discuss some other options for satisfactorily identifying yourself to the foundation, please contact any member of the board of trustees as listed at". :) Sj has the same personal information about me that Cary Bass had. And I want to identify myself on record far more than just my name and age, etc. There are other parts of my background that I would like to be in the Foundation's files for various reasons. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Well, if it helps, Philippe is the person now in charge of identification on the Foundation-side (basically, what Cary used to be for the ID noticeboard). If you still just want to chat with Sj about it, then ignore me. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 02:01, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sj is a Facebook friend and has a lot of information on my academic background, which is something I would like further verification on in regards to a few things (such as a posted transcript of my academic record). Sj is also the only Foundation person that I have a relationship with and trust of now that Cary is no longer around. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I'm leaving. Bye. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you change your mind, Philippe would be the right person to talk to (including for discussing other options for identification). SJ · talk | translate 21:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia CAT[edit]

Hello Samuel,

in order to unblock the situation of Wikimedia CAT chapter, we have clarified and simplified the proposal at Wikimedia CAT.

We would highly appreciate that you could take a look at it and kindly give us your opinion at Survey. If you consider so, you can also express your support.

Thanks in advance. --Gomà 10:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I hope you had a nice fly back home.

Please could you help us in contacting Jan-Bart de Vreede he's discussion page is blocked.

Thanks. --Gomà 10:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except for Jimmy, after two weeks of simplifying our proposal and asking Board members for comments we got the silent answer as usual. As we told you in Barcelona it seems that it is very difficult to get an open dialogue in Wikimedia. If you have any idea to unlock this we are looking forward to hear about it but we think that the only way is ask the voice of the community.--Gomà
I absolutelly agree, we feel dissapointed because silence is the only answer, always --Barcelona 08:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC) and SMP (talk page) 18:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello to you both, and thank you again for your help at the Drumbeat Festival. I will have more time to respond later this week. I understand your frustration with silence; this is largely a side-effect of having too many private channels. I will keep all of my thoughts about this and other community matters public. SJ · talk | translate 21:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier to comment if you point out the changes, the previous concerns, and your latest interactions with ChapCom.

  • The survey doesn't link to what changed; is it just this bylaws update?
  • Have you asked the Committee for feedback? What do they think? I don't see a public discussion.
  • What was the last discussion that led to your chapter proposal being rejected? Were the bylaws rejected, or a proposal involving them? Is this an ongoing discussion? Again, I don't see anything public about it. Something like this, updated and in more than one language, would help.

The Board has delegated responsibility for chapter development to the Committee. I suggest engaging them, assuming good faith, and start an open dialogue about the process. The entire saga would make a good example for the movement roles talks. I suspect most of the 'locked' aspect of the discussion is tied to lack of information, differences in expectations, and assumptions of bad faith. SJ · talk | translate 21:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SJ. Thanks for your answer. We will wait until later this week.
We have added:
  • A detailed explanation of the last changes.
  • A list in English sumarizing the communications we had with the ChapCom and the Board.
  • The documents with the content of those communications linked from the list.
I don’t see bad faith in ChapCom behaviour but an opaque and bureaucratic procedure addressed to check a list of requirements and say “yes” or “not” instead of a transparent dialogue addressed to help in defining and shaping the proposal to be accepted. Our expectation isn’t being called ”Chapter”. Our expectation is being able to promote and support the projects in our home having access to the tools we need to do it. The tools a chapter has. We detailed what we mean here.--Gomà 07:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until you have told me that you're this person ...[edit]

namely: User:Sjª, that user is blocked. notafish }<';> 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Definitely not me... SJ · talk | translate 21:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Msaada kuhusu haki za picha katika sw[edit]

Hi I hope you can give me some advice. I obtained the permit to use some images from a blog by Chemi Che Mponda (an obviously well known TZ- blogger now living in US). She requested, however, some form of attribution to her as author. So I decided on Laiseni Huria ya Umma "Attribution 3.0 Unported" (Cretaive Commons). Now I am not sure if it is enough if anybody opening the image files sees that attribution or if I have to include it also in the caption of the image e.g. here The image file is Appreciate your advice. (pls respond on my sw-page) Kipala 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]