Jump to content

User talk:Xania

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 4 months ago by Xania in topic Unblock Request

Re: No consensus

I have replied on my talk page. Cheers, —§ stay (sic)! 01:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Global sysops Vote

Hi Xania - I just wanted to say I appreciate your contributions regarding the Global Sysops vote. Despite my previous involvment being solely 'big Wiki' (and non-admin) I'm increasingly concerned by the way it's being conducted as well as the proposal itself. I'd welcome any thoughts you have on the matter. --(RT) 00:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Have you seen the apparent decision on Global Sysops Vote page? I've been trying to play by the rules - but this doesn't look like a 'non-partisan review' to me. No suggestion of putting the "compromise" to a new vote. You may have had the measure of things all along. --(RT) 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Global sysops vote

I am very sad of how it is this vote going. Seems that they are ignoring the rules and they are passing over our rights. This is how wikipedia does not have to go. Seems that this tyranny is destroying the few honest publishers who visit the Wikipedia. The worst part is that they continue to ignore us and their tyranny questions each negative vote as if it were an insult voting against. Regards, --すけ 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please retract your without basis statement with your vote

Gday Xania. I support your ability to have a vote for or against me. I do not support the maligning that goes with your vote when you present no evidentiary basis for such a comment.

  • Your commentary is insulting, bordering on slanderous, and I would like for you to remove that component
  • Can you justify how I am making a career of this; the evidence that you have used to make that statement, and one place where I have ever required or needed a medal. Personally I think that the evidence you will find will be quite to the contrary.
  • Need a fresh face? Please explain a fresh face in the context of what you require. Are you wanting someone without edits, without experience, of someone who hasn't put themselves up for an election in this forum.

Present that evidence, and I believe that the statements can stay, without that evidence, I believe that you should withdraw those components of the statement.


  • Cannot quibble about languages, I wish I had had that opportunity. Kids at my school spoke about 20 languages from across the world, and many were looking to be more proficient in English. I learnt to swear in six, however, that's not very useful at WMF.<shrug>

Regards billinghurst sDrewth 07:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

this is why open balloting is a bad idea. Riffic 07:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is open balloting, and I am totally okay with that and that is not the issue. If someone wishes to have an opinion on anyone, they should have the evidence for such. Xania's commentary on the usefulness on the number of languages I may or may not agree upon, and he has his basis, and the evidence is correct if that is his priority. While I may believe that I have expertise and skills that is language independent; or I may work in an area where it is a lesser priority (as the stewards themselves have stated) that is by-the-by. I am against someone taking a swipe at me in an open forum where I believe that it is untruthful, and there has been no evidence provided to support the accusation. That is not about open-balloting, that is simple courtesy, respect and AGF. billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
see, this is a flawed process. Where are the election guidelines for voters? Is this supposed to be an election, or a consensus-gathering exercise? Riffic 08:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I got a chuckle from that first attempt. We can all throw brickbats, whereas it takes a little courage and effort to be part of the solution. In life, I am still looking for perfection, and have no expectation that it will be achieved, sometimes one has to put in some effort to achieve a community's preferred outcome. The process is reasonable and practicable, and like many things on the wiki, improves with time and maturity.
To your addendum. This is where you may miss the point, it is election by consensus. There are no fixed number of candidates, there is no first past the post, there is no 50%+1. Here endeth further comments on this page, happy to continue the philosophical discussion on your talk page. [Xania apologies for getting a little OT here.] billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
A rock-paper-scissors match would be more fun (Hi Xania!) riffic 09:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is no evidence for me to present. If I said that somebody doesn't understand how wikiland works then I'd have no evidence to prove this either. Likewise when I said that you seem to be a career wikipedian I don't have evidence for this either. It's called an opinion and I'm entitled to it. When you discount someone as being inexperienced where is your evidence considering most people start off as anonymous IP editors for a long time before joining? I don't know if you're just hunting for another trophy or not but I do know that you are already enbedded in wikiland because you're a sysop in several places and in my opinion this is bad. Now go away, become less experienced and maybe I'll consider you next time. No offence was intended but I wouldn't worry too much as most of what I say gets misinterpreted which suggests that it's me and not you who's at fault.--Xania 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)--Xania 21:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply


I see you have not changed much over a couple of years :) I hope that all is well with you. Seems possible you may remember me! --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Commons essentially and uploading images (mine). Dropped all rights last summer. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Travel Guide: Naming poll open

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 22:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)Reply

Answer to your comment

I might understand some of the other languages in the region such as: Serbian, Bosnian, and Montenegran due to my knowledge of Croatian, and to a lesser extent Slovenian, Macedonian, and Slovakian however when writing my responses back to such language groups I would write in Croatian or English, because I do not know how to write according to their official grammars i might not deliver the point I would like to make. This is why I have stuck with the two languages I am most competent in. To the list of languages that I have beginner level are: Latin, German, Dutch and Norwegian however my knowledge is not sufficient to really operate in. Vodomar (talk) 04:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please fill out our Inspire campaign survey

Thank you for participating in the Wikimedia Inspire campaign during March 2015!

Please take our short survey and share your experience during the campaign.

Many thanks,

Jmorgan (WMF) (talk), on behalf of the IdeaLab team.

23:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This message was delivered automatically to Inspire campaign participants. To unsubscribe from any future IdeaLab reminders, remove your name from this list

This is a reminder to acknowledge and sign the new Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As you know, your volunteer role in Wikimedia projects gives you access to secure and sensitive information.

The new version includes one major change.

  • There is a change regarding the way personal data may be released. Accordingly, functionaries must notify the Wikimedia Foundation at check-disclosure(_AT_)wikimedia.org before releasing data, in order to obtain a written approval for doing so. The Foundation will respond within 10 days. However, for emergencies, such as cases involving threats of violence, functionaries may release the personal data without such explicit permission, but they should notify the Foundation immediately following the disclosure. If they choose not to disclose the data, the request for disclosure should be forwarded to the Foundation's emergency email address (emergency(_AT_)wikimedia.org).

There are also some wording changes that were made to more closely align the language with evolving industry norms, best practices and laws. The most notable of these has been the change of the term "nonpublic information" to "nonpublic personal data". None of these changes are intended to make fundamental changes to the scope or practice of the policy but we know they could appear as such, hence wanted to flag them.

The aforementioned changes require users that have already signed the previous version of the policy to sign the new version as well.

We therefore ask that you to sign the updated version. Signing the agreement is tracked on Phabricator's Legalpad. An online guide is available to help you with signing the agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign. If you wish you can sign it directly at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/L37. The exact policy is located here: Access to nonpublic personal data policy. The text of the confidentiality agreement is located here: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information

If you have already received this message and signed the updated agreement, you need not sign it again. Once is sufficient. In this case, we ask that you respond to Samuel (WMF) letting him know when (date) and how (method/process of signing) you have signed it so that we can update our own records.

Note: please bear in mind that if you still haven’t signed the updated version of the Confidentiality Agreement by February 13, 2019 your rights will be removed.

Thank you for your understanding,

Samuel Guebo (User:Samuel (WMF)), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery - 15:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Libera verification

This edit was made by Xania Xania (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Unblock Request

Unblock request granted

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, and one or more administrators has reviewed and granted this request.

Request reason: Can't edit on Meta because of an IP block. I need to edit via a VPN because of the country I am editing from and I already have similar block exemptions on Wikipedia. I tried to request a block exemption on [[Steward requests/Global permissions]] but obviously I can't even edit that page. Please can someone help me. The IP that has been blocked seems to be but obviously my IP changes depending on which VPN server I am using. I am an Admin on EN Wikibooks so maybe best to contact me there. Xania (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Unblock reason: Local IPBE granted for a year. --Min☠︎rax«¦talk¦» 08:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This template should be archived normally.

English | español | français | italiano | 日本語 | 한국어 | Plattdüütsch | Nederlands | 中文 | edit

Thanks --Xania (talk) 09:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)Reply