Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2008-09

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in September 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.


The following discussion is closed.
This is to inform you that User:SterkeBak, a former developer of ours, hacked our account today and destroyed all files. Since he may be or may become a developer at Wikipedia, I feel obligated to alert you that this user cannot be trusted. Evidence is available on request. Guido den Broeder 17:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
You haven't got a confirmed email account set on Meta. Please do so unless you'd prefer to expound here.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. My email address has now been confirmed at meta. Guido den Broeder 19:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Ow now i am the new victem? I spend hours hard work on your wiki. Why would i break it? I have stopt working for you two weeks ago. You took away al my stuff (premission for ftp, database.) i stopt being a sysop myself. And now? I get this in return? Give me some evedence. I didn't do a thing. Sterkebaktalk 22:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Den Broeder, thank you very much for your concern. However, as Sterkebak is not a developer on Wikipedia and it is unlikely that he ever will be, even in the distant future, at least not as far as I know, the relevance of your information remains unclear to me. May I suggest that you do not export local quarrels from your own personal wiki, which has no relationship at all with the Wikimedia Foundation? Thank you very much in advance. Sincerely, Wutsje 22:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

User Sterkebak is now threatening to sue me, which I believe is a Wikipedia concern since we are both Wikipedia users. He claims that it must have been someone else on the same IP after a session that wasn't closed.
My evidence is, of course, available, but won't be posted publicly. I have witnesses as well, if required. Guido den Broeder 23:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
This does not concern Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia-Foundation, just like it would not concern the local tennis club even if You both were members there. Please keep Your local quarrels outside, just as Wutsje asked You kindly for. This is closed, don't open it. Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. This is a security issue, and I was urged from several sides to report it here. I am taking my responsibility serious, and can only hope that others do the same. Guido den Broeder 00:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
@Wutsje: You have it backwards. User imported his Wikipedia fight to our site. It is we who asked him to keep his quarrel local. Guido den Broeder 07:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Moderator abuse on zea:Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed.

Yesterday, I registered at zea:Wikipedia. Before I made even a single contribution, my account was blocked indefinitely by a User:Troefkaart. This happens to be the same user who is permanently blocked at our own site for continuous sabotaging attempts. Protests by other users are ignored.

I'd like to know what is going on there. With this user being the only active admin and as I've heard already subject to a desysop procedure for similar misconduct, I think some kind of oversight from meta is in order. Guido den Broeder 21:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Added note: I just saw the related discussion on User_talk:Oscar. Guido den Broeder 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi, by coincidence I stumbled over this discussion in the metapub. Guido, I made already a complaint about this matter. At this moment it is hard to enjoy the ZEA-wiki because of the moderator-disabuse of Troefkaart. However, we should have some patientce, because Oscar and others are working on it.

I think the actual problem on ZEA-wiki is that there is only 1 active moderator for the last couple of weeks. The other active one (and administrator was bullied away by Troefkaart. At least, I haven't seen him for a while.Bistromatic 22:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a new bureaucrat can be appointed by meta. From what I've seen, you should qualify for the job. Regards, Guido den Broeder 22:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank for the trust in me, I would like to do that, but there are 2 considerations. 1 I still hope the very good and experienced Steinbach will return. 2 I am in a conflict with Troefkaart (also on the NL-wiki). So my neutrality can be disputed by other users. Furthermore, all users which had problems with the policy of Troefkaart got "lifelong" blocks (like you e.g.), so there are not a lot of people to support me left anymore. That's exactly the problem, Troefkaart can do what he want and he just abolishes his opponents whenhe doesn't like them. The only reason why he didn't give me only temporarely blocks is because I am one of the most important contributors to the ZEA-project.Bistromatic 22:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe some other users who contributed a lot will be volunteer in being a sysop in the future. The are users like Niels-jan Dek who wrote a lot of articles and Zeelandia who might be trusted byb the community. Also user Robotje might be oke, altough he is in the "troefkaart-side"and does not speak the langage. However he does a lot of good thinks for the ZEA-wiki the last couple of weeks.Bistromatic 22:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
This is why meta should step in. With the opposition to the rogue admin all blocked, zea:Wikipedia cannot correct the situation by itself. Once Troefkaart has lost his rights, any existing conflicts with him no longer matter. Guido den Broeder 23:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Two points. First, neither Meta nor anyone else outside zeawiki can appoint bureaucrats there or will do that. Second, why aren't things like this discussed here and not on RFC? --Thogo (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably because nobody checks RFC anymore. Meta certainly can do this, and should. Guido den Broeder 00:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I never heard of RFC? Whick wiki-page is that?Bistromatic 07:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
See Thogo's link above.
Meanwhile, with Oscar showing the same behaviour on nl: as Troefkaart on zea:, the two even working in tandem with each other on nl:, [1][2], it may not have been a good idea to ask Oscar to intervene. Guido den Broeder 08:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
please, metapub is not the place for this kind of issue. Stop it--Nick1915 - all you want 09:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Metapub is a central place for questions and discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. Thanks, Guido den Broeder 10:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

not for personal issue. Thanks, --Nick1915 - all you want 10:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
For any issue. You are a steward here, you should know better. Zea:Wikipedia suffers from an admin running amok. You, Nick1915, can solve this in one minute by giving Bistromatic bureaucrat rights. Guido den Broeder 12:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I can't. Stewards can't decide and can't give the flag "random", and, another time, you should request the flag in the appropriate page, this isn't.--Nick1915 - all you want 12:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As described, this is not the appropriate venue for such disagreements. Please stop bringing such things to Metapub.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 12:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Request filed. If this is not the appropriate place for such discussions: fine. Create an appropriate page, move the discussion there, and don't forget to monitor that page. Now, please reconsider your priorities. Don't let a project die just because you think it far more important to have all disussions in 'appropriate places' (while forgetting to provide, point to and/or monitor these places). Guido den Broeder 14:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Special talk: namespace?

I think that it'd be useful if we had a Special talk: namespace. It seems fitting, because discussion about the special: pages and proposed improvements/changes therein may be warranted. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

On EnWP these discussions generally take place in the Wikipedia talk: namespace (talk page of a page describing the special page) which works well enough. —Giggy 09:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I know they do. But it is namespatially (lol) incorrect, akin to the whole Portal:Main page vs. Main page problem. There is no reason for there not to be a Special talk:. --Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Do we need a bug to get that namespace turned on? Is it even doable? Do you have an example of a wiki that has one? Special isn't like other namespaces... ++Lar: t/c 10:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
No, I agree, it isn't. All I am saying is that discussion of special: pages may sometime be needed. Anything is doable, and I'd guess that this would be a relatively simple task from a developer's point of view. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there's not a super-convenient way to just enable a 'Special talk' namespace (Special NS is a pseudo-namespace with a magical negative ID number, and all our subject/talk pairing is dependent on even-odd pairs >= 0), but a fake talk tab can be added that points to, say, 'Project talk:Recentchanges' or 'Project talk:Special:Recentchanges'. You could mock this up with site JavaScript and if people are happy with it we could make it an extension or part of MediaWiki core. --brion 20:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
What I thought... it's special!! :) As for a fake #2 tab that goes to pages in the project namespace, that seems a nifty idea. Someone want to try making a gadget to do this? The thing is, once you follow the tab there, THAT page's first tab theoretically ought to go back to the special (rather than to Project:Recentchanges, or to Project:Special:Recentchanges) , so some mockup-ery there too maybe??? That argues for using 'Project talk:Special:Recentchanges' I would think, so the script could key off the middle :Special: easily. (I suppose giving "Special talk:" namespace -2 is right out? :) )++Lar: t/c 00:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea which could be very useful - especially for newer users that might not know where to go to discuss something related to a Special page. Cirt 01:04, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, brion. I think you've got a great idea. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Brion, I would also like to thank you for the suggestion. I think that woudl be a great thing to help new users. Anonymous101 08:16, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Closed wikis

It has came to my attention that closed wikis can be the source of problems particularly for IW links.

When a wiki is locked down (generally for inactivity) edits to the site are completely blocked.

This is a problem because IW links can no longer be fixed meaning there is a permanent invalid IW linkage which may mislead bots and humans (visitors reading articles) alike.

In addition it creates a backlog as the wikis in question will be unlocked eventually. Admittedly the locked wikis are small so backlog isn't exactly too big of a deal.

In addition locked wikis also need to be edited for SUL unifications, username renames (can relate to SUL), leftover spam deletions and etc.

I really think certain usergroups and/or global usergroups should be allowed to edit such wikis.

-- Cat chi? 01:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be good to give the Stewards (at least) the ability to edit a closed wiki. —Giggy 09:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I never understood why wikis are "closed" in the first place. I am willing to bet it is to save time on maintenance of wikis that only get spam or vandalism edits. Blocking edits from regular users and anons would do just that. -- Cat chi? 09:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
The wikis are not closed, they are moved to Incubator. Everybody can edit them over there. The only exceptions are Siberian (non-existing language) and Moldovan (political reasons) project, both closed more than a year ago.--Yaroslav Blanter 16:21, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
That may be, but I do have a database in place which is permanently locked from edits. That is the problem. -- Cat chi? 17:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I see that VasilievVV added a new MediaWiki extension CloseWikis (see rev:40246) which gives an interface for stewards to close and reopen wikis. SPQRobin (inc!) 11:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion that extension would give stewards too much power. If an account was compromised they could cause a ton of trouble. Anonymous101 08:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Stewards are supposed to have full access to everything. Werdna 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


I noticed various project put various weight in referencing. Smaller Wikipedias (like CS) almost do not source anything. Featured articles in German Wikipedia have very very few refs in comparison to EN featured articles. EN Wikibooks do not source almost at all, German Wikibooks do really source well.--Kozuch 23:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The dutch wikipedia also has only a few references, while it is not a small project. Probably a bit comparable to the German one.Cumulus 22:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I am asking - is Wikimedia (or someone else) going to do something about it???--Kozuch 08:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New project proposal: "Wikigames"


Thought I'd highlight a new (and currently very brief) wiki proposal, Wikigames. Apart from anything else, it needs some attention. :-)

James F. (talk) 10:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

It does nothing to explain why games require a separate wiki when Wikipedia already encompasses such informations. Perhaps you could shed light on this? Additionally, this seems more Wikia-centred, because WMF projects tend to be more (and I say this politely) seriously and broadly scoped. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Articles on tv episodes, computer games, and other fictional topic that "noone knows about" are constantly been redirectified on English wikipedia. If that problematic behaviour stops, there will not be a need for the said proposal. Just like wikispecies I do not believe this would work well. -- Cat chi? 11:45, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Uhh, what? How exactly has Wikispecies not worked well? With close to 150,000 pages, it is a much broader taxonomic reference than Wikipedia could ever be, and it is a very useful directory in those respects. Oh well, I guess that's getting side-tracked. I guess I concur with the above, excluding the 'Species bit. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Has not worked well in the sense that, that information shouldn't have been chipped off of wikipedia in the first place (IMHO) -- Cat chi? 15:46, 31 August 2008 (UTC) is your opinion a gauge that a project has been unsuccessful? EVula // talk // // 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
AD, not entirely clear why you think I'd have any idea how the proposer's concept would work. I don't, FWIW. :-)
James F. (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as a "Wikigames" project goes, this would be best documented on Wikipedia itself, or perhaps as a Wikia project. A full Wikimedia Foundation project is overkill. EVula // talk // // 15:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I for one like this idea. I would suggest the project to do more than just being an encyclopedia though. Adding gaming experiences, and reviews (not promotional reviews for new games, but expert analysis of existing ones), for instance, might make it more attractive. Guido den Broeder 14:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

As long as it does not describe computer games this might be a good idea.Cumulus 11:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with EVula (talk · contribs) that this is overkill and not necessary as its own WMF project. Cirt (talk) 12:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Metawiki logo poll

Please participate in the Metawiki logo poll. Thanks. -- Cat chi? 15:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

community is requesting langcom to change current language proposal policy

hi, metapub members.

Many people strongly disagree with current language proposal policy and request langcom for a change.

Community has made a draft, that you can check here. this is our suggestion for a change. Community guess langcom have made a mistake.

Crazymadlover 01:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist and GFDL

If a Wikipedia project copies an article from another GFDL site, providing a link as required, and then puts that site on their blacklist, and manually breaks the link, is that considered a violation of the license? Regards, Guido den Broeder 20:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

IANAL but I think it depends on what type of attirubtion is required. for example, if atribution to the author and not the website is required, that should not be a problem. If attribution to the website is required it may not be a problem if the url is displayed, as offline copies of GFDL things (obviously) dont have a clickable link. Anonymous101 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem that is being brought to attention is a mix of several issues. Guido is blocked on the Dutch wikipedia and created another encyclopedia site. The problem is that his site is not conforming to the GFDL (copying wikipedia's articles, while not mention its source and contributors properly). Many other articles have other, but dubious sources, and, hence, the articles on that site can not be used on wikipedia. This was one of the reasons for temporarily, or permanently, blacklisting wikisage. As a results, some links had to be unlinked, while retaining the link to the original page in text. Hence, there is no violation on wikipedia, because everything is visible in the history and also on the page itself. In addition, no pages from his site are copied, and if so, other more neutral references are or have been sought. Annabel 20:07, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Annabel, for yet another attempt at defamation. Annabel is the user that had me blocked in 2007 by falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry. He has done the same to other good-faith users as well.
We are following the GFDL, thanks, we are not nl:Wikipedia. It has been confirmed by GNU experts that our interpretation is correct and yours isn't. You are basing your pov on the nl:Wikipedia article about the license, but that article, which deviates from e.g. the en:Wikipedia article, is wrong.
I would not know what you mean by 'other, but dubious sources'. I suggest you leave that to our users to decide. Personally, I often find nl:Wikipedia a dubious source.
Your blacklisting of Wikisage is pure malice, from the same user Oscar who has incessantly been defaming me for almost a year now and whose contributions these days consist mainly of blocking other good-faith users on fake grounds and thrashing user pages. Please, continue in this manner, your are at a point that whatever brings closing nl:Wikipedia down nearer is a good thing. Links to us not being found on nl:Wikipedia can only boost our reputation.
Finally,note that you are at Wikimedia, which is the wrong place for filing complaints: Wikisage is not part of the foundation.
@Anonymous101: you are probably correct. Paper copies not being clickable is a good point. Guido den Broeder 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the above back-and-forth comments for a moment, regarding the issue itself I agree with Anonymous101 (talk · contribs). There should be no difference as far as licensing, if the information is indeed taken from a GFDL site and attribution is given, if the link provided for informational purposes is a live link or a text link, IMO. Cirt (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The articles on doesn't has a link to the wikipedia article. Or source info how is it possible that you think it's oké so Guido? Sterkebaktalk 08:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, can we leave Wikisage's issues to Wikisage and the Dutch Wikipedia's issues to the Dutch Wikipedia? Thanks. --Erwin(85) 08:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. If articles at Wikisage don't have a permalink to Wikipedia in the edit summary, then that probably is because they were not copied from Wikipedia. We are not a mirror site, thanks. Guido den Broeder 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The blacklist has to do with the prevention of adding external links that can be clicked on in an article or other pages. These links are inserted by putting the complete URL including the "http://" at the start and adding brackets. The GFDL is designed for papers so a clickable link cannot be mandatory. As long as the information about the source is available it should be OK. Therefor this whole item is a non-issue. - Robotje 09:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Robotje (talk · contribs) and Erwin (talk · contribs). I think this particular matter is done with, hopefully. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Another project idea... I know

I saw the WikiGames proposal above, and thought of a project that had a HUGE potential. One time, I was looking through WikiBooks, and saw the "Cookbook" section. I thought "this would make a great separate Wikimedia project", and started to brainstorm. It would be a database of recipes and ingredients (called WikiChef or something of the sort, just a possible name), with potential to grow into 100,00+ pages, multiple languages, and develop a strong community due to the target size (cooking interests, old recipes people want to share, etc.). So I propose we create something like this. I'd kind of be buliding upon the cookbook idea. And ANYONE could contribute a recipe. That's just what the whole project is about, right? I know this is a pretty big thing to be talking about, but, if examined, I believe it would show a huge potential. RedThunder 00:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You can write cookbooks on Wikibooks; why would you want a separate project for it? John Vandenberg 03:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On disbanding Wikiquote

I think it is time that we (Wikimedia) disband the Wikiquote project. It is currently (in various languages) a hotbed of copyright violations and other non-free content. Pages like q:Pick-up lines or q:The West Wing or q:The Simpsons are in direct contradiction to basic fair use policies and Wikimedia's mission of providing free content.

Any public domain material can and should be moved to Wikisource. All other material can be incorporated into Wikipedia (if appropriate under fair use) or simply removed from our sites altogether.

Disbanding a Wikimedia project is a bit of an odd task and so I'm posting here to hear reactions and to see what the next steps would be. --MZMcBride 00:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Is there some trouble with the servers/databases at the moment? Most of the toolserver tools appear to have stopped working or their edit counts have stopped. Also found this. Can someone explain please? Thanks - tholly --Talk-- 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, yarrow, the server which hosts s1 and s3 is down currently due to a hardware malfunction. Details are available on toolserver-l.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh right, thanks. - tholly --Talk-- 20:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

This is somewhat odd. Upon trying to log in to Wikipedia just a moment ago, I got this message:

Redirect Loop

Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete.

The browser has stopped trying to retrieve the requested item. The site is redirecting the request in a way that will never complete.

* Have you disabled or blocked cookies required by this site? * NOTE: If accepting the site's cookies does not resolve the problem, it is likely a server configuration issue and not your computer.

Logging in here works fine, however. Odd. Lithoderm 14:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Interproject collaboration: article changes

I came a couple of days ago across the following problem. I was editing the article ru:Акадия (национальный парк) over en:Acadia National Park and suddenly realized that it is now by far the best of the all wp articles on the same subject (including the English one). However, I am not going to nominate it for good or featured articles, which means the editors of other Wikipedias will probably never learn about this. On the other hand, it would be good to know for the editors that the ru.wp article is of a good quality, on the formal level that the size grew from 2K to 22K in a day in several edits and has not been reverted (I assume this description of edits with 95% chance excludes spam and vandal edits). I guess everybody agrees that ru.wp is not the most obvious place to go and search for the information. Of course most of the editors of other Wikipedias can not translate from Russian, but they may want to do smth about this, like asking other editors, or asking me, or whatever. A different example of the same type. Imagine later this year presidential elections are held in Honduras. (I have no idea whether they will actually be held this year, but this is irrelevant). I am sure the info that Honduras has a new president will be in English and Spanish wikipedias same day he/she is elected. However, even in major wikipedias this info can only get after days or even months. Could we design any "information system", that once an important event (that concerns dozens of Wikipedias but can still pass unnoticed) occurs a note is posted on this system, so that everybody can update the things? Once a good-quality article is written, a note is posted, so that the parties can take the action? I am pretty sure I am not the first person to think about this, and at this stage I just want to ask more experienced editors whether similar ideas have ever been discussed and whether any conclusions have been made. I am not sure I have a good solution, but before starting to think about the solution, I would just like to understand the background better.--Yaroslav Blanter 13:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A lot of the projects have templates to mark the proper interwiki links as Featured Articles, but outside of that, there's very little communication between projects on the matter (to the best of my knowledge). One of the problems is, of course, language; lots of good editors only speak a single language, and are totally lost when it comes to discerning another article's quality.
Another problem is the wide range of quality requirements between projects; what may be a Good Article for one project may be sub-standard by a larger project's standards. As for the delay between events and when it gets added... it all depends on sources. We can't add things that don't have verifiable sources, and if it hasn't been picked up by many sources, it isn't particularly notable (most of the time).
All that said, I'd be a fan of any attempt to get fast-moving articles in one language better covered by other projects. EVula // talk // // 14:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Tool down?

Is this tool down? rootology (T) 17:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The toolserver seems to be having troubles currently. Ask in #wikimedia-toolserver for more info I guess.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Now, it's OK. Alex Pereira falaê 19:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi. I'm a bureaucrat and I'm having a rename problem I can't solve.

For SUL purposes I've renamed pt:user:Juntas to pt:user:Juntas (movido) and then renamed pt:user:PARG to pt:user:Juntas. But, strangely, although pt:user:PARG does not exist in the users list (and the user can't login as PARG) it actually has the account contributions.

The renaming register says that I've done two renames from PARG to Juntas. Any ideas?

Thank you, Epinheiro 10:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC).

hmm this is common in enwiki and other bigger wiki where the user has over 10,000 will probably all be moved to PARG in the next few hours and no, you didn't name it twice, it was moved in quotas, so probably the first 12,000 edits first then the next 12,000 edits..its not really a good idea to rename users with over 10000 edits :) ..--Cometstyles 10:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
and yes when you rename users, make sure the you delete all the userpage and talk page of the user you will be renaming too since it can cause double redirect which can also cause problems..--Cometstyles 11:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The double redirects we usually handle manually, but the contributions problem was new. I've warned the editor that he has to stop edit :) Thank you. Epinheiro 11:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Thoughts? The proposal is still very new, and the whole concept isn't quite solidified yet. I would appreciate some feedback at this point; before I go on, I'd like to see whether people like the basic prototype or not. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:03, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like something for Wikia. Werdna 08:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Page deleted. There didn't seem to be much traction, so there really isn't much point in it just rotting. I was the only contributor, so this shouldn't cause any hassles. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Identifying people with access to private information

I'd like some clarification on how people are identified to the foundation, who hold Checkuser/oversight/steward rights. I'd like to know the following:

  • What purpose identifying serves
  • How people identify, and if it's good enough (is a poor quality scan good enough?)
  • What legal issues there may be
  • What would be done in the case there was a "rouge" checkuser, other than having the right removed

When I identified, I sent a rather poor quality photo of my passport to Cary via email. With the amount of image manipulating applications around today, I could have easily forged a passport, and no one would have been any wiser. What if I had then got on a "checking" spree? What would have happened? Obviously, the right would have been removed, but what's the point in identifying if it's so easy to fake it? These are very important issues I feel and would like some insight. Thanks. Majorly talk 14:37, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

As a major aside, ... Majorly, are you are Checkuser/oversight/steward? OTRS? I am just wondering because it is possible that your identity hasnt been confirmed to the same level that WMF would go to for someone with access to more sensitive data. Also, were you known in real life to people that the foundation trusted (i.e. part of a web of trust), or had you been to a Wikimania prior to having your identification accepted ? John Vandenberg 14:52, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I ran for steward in 2007, and am on OTRS (but for that, they only asked my name and age, and no proof). I had met several people at meetups (though never a Wikimania). Majorly talk 14:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Another question: How do they confirm that the ID belongs to the person in question? If I were under 18 but needed to prove otherwise, I could just go down to the dresser in the kitchen and get a passport of an older member of my family (of course, I've never kept my real name secret, so that wouldn't actually work, but many people have). --Tango 14:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging Meta with

How do these two differ in their missions?--Kozuch 10:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Meta is about the Wikimedia community, is about the Wikimedia Foundation as an organization. There's some overlap but they are not the same. sebmol ? 10:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC) is also aimed at the public and the end-users, while Meta is for the community as a public workspace. Cbrown1023 talk 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Which is why the foundation site is only open to trusted editors. Majorly talk 23:39, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. A wiki solely geared for public relations and content describing the Wikimedia Foundation in larger scope than the Projects is certainly warranted, because the Foundation exists as an entity separate from its own Projects. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for explanation.--Kozuch 17:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

CPU good practices

Hi! I'm looking for help, documentation, faqs and related but intelligible information to better performance of servers and parsers when editing at Wikimedia projects. For example, I think that modifying highly used templates, makes the Job queue to rise, which could be considered as "bad" because it consumes resources. An obvious example: better to make 10 "previews" than 10 "minor edits" which rises the page weight in a superfluous way. Avoid very cyclomatic templates (lots of "if"s and "switchs")? Is it "bad" to link different namespaces, like Category:Help? Are there any special page which should not be used too much because has to use a lot of CPU? And so on. I've searched meta and MediaWiki but don't find a unified page and I think it would be a good help page for everybody. Thanks. -Aleator (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If you're talking about Wikimedia projects, we generally don't worry about performance. Things which the user can do to cause technical difficulties are generally restricted. For example, the maximum number of {{#ifexists in a page is limited by sysadmins for performance reasons. Linking to non-mainspace pages is definitely not ever a problem.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikimedia term

I would like to know whether the term Wikimedia is actually a copyright of Wikimedia Foundation. There have been cases where other publications uses the term Wikimedia to describe the Web 2.0 era.

This might create confusion between the foundation itself and other publications. For example, the term adsense is a copyright of Google. Diagramma Della Verita 07:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

"Wikimedia" is a trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you have any questions about this, or would like to report misuse, please conact Cbrown1023 talk 13:21, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Content wrapping


just got an idea - there are some cases (like this), where there is one master version on lets say meta, but the text appears on other wikis. Lets introduce something like "page wrapping" to easily pull the master content from other project.--Kozuch 10:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an idea that pops up every once and a while. It would basically be a "global template"; similar to how media works on Commons (if it's on Commons, it's everywhere), it would greatly simplify the help page system on smaller wikis by simply including a master template from Meta.
It would also come in very handy for babel templates, and would allow editors that have userpages across multiple projects (such as myself) to create a single "generic" userpage on Meta that automatically updates across all other projects. EVula // talk // // 15:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd love to see this happen. Is there a bug for it? If so and someone knows the bugzilla number, that would be swell. If not, perhaps one should be created. However I seem to recall that there was some objection raised in the past relating to facilitating crosswiki vandalism. Details are sketchy but that would presumably need to be dealt with. (whatever it was). It's not only useful for user stuff but also for common things like lang boxes, etc. ++Lar: t/c 17:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Two bugs that express similar ideas are: #14759 Make pages in User: namespace transparent to meta:User: and #4547 Enable template inclusion from Commons (transclusion => interwiki templates, etc.). Cbrown1023 talk 18:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • We can use the magicword SITENAME (rendered as Meta) to ease the cut-and-paste process. Hillgentleman 15:41, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sisterlinks bot

Does someone know if a bot for adding sisterlinks accross various projects exists?--Kozuch 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's one that does automatically. No idea what the name is though. Majorly talk 21:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

í now there is a bot (i work with it) that checks of a category is also on commons en if it is he place a link on the local wiki to the commonscategory. You mean something like that? Sterkebaktalk 18:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That's, you can find some statistics here. Multichill 21:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the Wikipedia Weekly migrates to Meta?

There's been a suggestion to move Not the Wikipedia Weekly to Meta (under a new name). For the past half year NTWW has been recording discussions about wiki-matters and often welcomes Wikimedians from sister projects. So a lateral move to Meta would be a bit like moving things from the big sister's room over to the family room where everyone is on an equal footing. Regular participants have been discussing the idea of moving and so far it's looking positive. So it's not too early to ask whether the Metapedians would like to have us over here. I'll be glad to answer questions, although the host page itself and selections from our recordings are probably the best introduction. We also host unrecorded chats via Skype in text and voice, and increasingly those off-hours sessions have been devoted to cross-project work between Commons, English Wikipedia, and Wikisource. Best regards, Durova 02:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. Broadening the scope of such a flourishing forum can only be positive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds sensible move. Go for it and best wishes. --Aphaia 10:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
A great idea! Majorly talk 11:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree with all above, good idea. ++Lar: t/c 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, all. :) Durova 03:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Eas and Eml users

Does anyone know anything about // and Eml?—msh210 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes see the Wikiversity:Custodian noticeboard and also the Colloquium on Wikiversity apparently they're taking part in some project scheme, though I'm cautious about those usernames being created as it maybe the same person who is creating them since they resemble closely to each other. Dark Mage 19:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks.—msh210 21:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a university in Florida's physics classes. I've been in contact with the professor and he is working with Wikiversity to perform class-related editing experiments there. MBisanz talk 12:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

PMS propaganda?

I wonder how comes that this page is in wikipedia. (NB is a official page of and is blocked: I can't change it and I suppose content was written by local admins)

Una de las principales finalidades de esta obra es de difundir la capacidad de leer y escribir, y de acostumbrar la población piamontesa al multilinguismo, al vislumbrarse la próxima revolución lingüística, que ya esta imponiendo el ingles como idioma técnico y fundamental califica de trabajo.

Traslate (rough): this essay want to fight general use of english in all world nations.

La única medida posible es preparar la población a utilizar mas de un idioma, confiriendo a todos y cada uno de ellos paridad de dignidad y respeto. [...]]La única manera de lograrlo bien y rápidamente es utilizar los idiomas locales, que están listos a ser utilizados, y para nada desaparecidos.

Traslate (rough): 'we want to teach respect to all the language an we want that people start to use local languages.

Personally I agree with that thesis, but I also think that is POV and it must be deleted from the page (and maybe published elsewhere)

DracoRoboter 09:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Too bad the content was deleted before you came here, actually a 10 minutes and 23 secs after you requested it on the discussion page :)))))))))) Interesting, isn't it? -- 11:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not "bad" berto: when you use a language that I can understand I understand (what a surprise..). DracoRoboter 11:45, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

What about the statistics

It's good to see that Special:Statisticsis back online in the different Wikimedia projects, but it seems the stats ignore all activity which took place during these 3-4 days when they were offline. Article counts and edit counts are incorrect. How and when will this be solved? Leptictidium 11:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I suppose your best answer will come by asking on wikitech-l.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone can give me permission to have an image with the logo of wikipedia on my blog?,it is .Thanks --David0811 21:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Try Cbrown1023 talk 21:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New feature request

When the next software update goes online, would it be possible to have a feature which allows moving sections or subsections up and down a page without having to edit the whole article? I am thinking of something in the style of php forums, where you can move subforums up and down with a simple click on the "Up/Down" button. I guess it might be a little risky at first because it could cause easy vandalism, with vandals being able to move sections with one click, but this could be solved by restricting the feature to users with a certain number of editions/who have been around for X days. Is this feature possible? Leptictidium 18:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't really say that I've had many times that I've thought "man, that'd be an awesome feature". PHP forums are a totally different beast in comparison to MediaWiki, so you can't just compare certain features... EVula // talk // // 20:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have found that the pronunciaton code is too complex for me to truely learn, especially due to the non-english words. It would be nice if some genius could write a piece of JAVA code that will actually convert the pronunciation symbols into their respective phonemes, and say the word when clicked on.

ks4au 14 Nov 2008

Cloud computing and the Foundation

Have you ever thought about Cloud computing? We have more than 400 machines which are not all the time working under full load. Why not open our machines for the public? I don´t know which price modell would be the best, maybe a time-dependent modell? Earning some money with our machines might not bad. By the way, is it cheaper to buy new machines or to rent a place to run MediaWiki at peak-time, maybe from Amazon Web Services. -- 17:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Another possibility is to start an non-profit cloud. --Goldzahn 00:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If the servers had spare load, we'd be using it to refresh query caches, or make a database dump, or allow code that uses up more server time, or something else foundation-related. Werdna 08:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This could perhaps be developed more at Wikiversity. Emesee 19:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The d: prefix should go to our dictionary.

Talk:Interwiki map#Wiktionary

Bugzilla logo change

I don't know whether this is the right place but I think the Bugzilla logo need to be changed. I propose this logo:

Meta-Wiki-like Buzilla logo

In higher resolution, the upper edge looks imperfect, it's due to improper drawing technique, I didn't edit it to make it looks like it was eaten by bugs. Anyhow, this is just a suggestion. Kurniasan 21:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Bugzilla isn't a democracy. ;-) Try bringing this up on wikitech-l. Cbrown1023 talk 23:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's okay, I'll pass. :) Kurniasan 23:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I rather like it, though I think the antennae need to be thicker so they show up more if the image size is reduced. Seems worth suggesting to the developers. WJBscribe (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't mind it, I'm just concerned that this kind of design involving the red, blue and green might begin to become confusing, what with Incubator, the WMF logo and Meta-Wiki. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, probably it'll be confusing if this design is used. But I think they should to come up with a new logo. The current logo looks more to a mascot. Plus their current favicon is a real bug. Kurniasan 13:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Is there anyway to adapt the MediaWiki logo, the flower, to include some bug theme or software patch theme? MBisanz talk 13:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Bugzilla is not just Mediawiki issues though. I do like the idea of having a bug incorporated into the logo as it happens. Majorly talk
Bugzilla works only for Wikimedia or all Wikis using MediaWiki software? Kurniasan 23:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
MediaWiki is developed for Wikimedia projects. Bugs submitted to bugzilla to get fixes will be fixed in MediaWiki, which presumably other sites will update. Majorly talk 23:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
This logo could be used, but it'd be better if we had a different colour schematic. This shouldn't be a violation of any kind; after all, many of our logos diverge quite decisively from the green, blue and red. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It needs longer antennas. OhanaUnitedTalk page 12:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Adorable. Durova 09:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs legs, otherwise it just looks like a weird WMF logo. I was thinking of a cockroach or similar bug in square brackets in the same way as the current MediaWiki logo (possible starting image). MER-C 09:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
That's too discusting. Kurniasan 13:51, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Longer and thicker antennas, few legs and whole in yellow-brown color and it is there.--Kozuch 21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's another design... Kurniasan 14:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

BugzillaLogo2.png I like it :) --Aphaia 16:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Enable mw:Extension:Nuke on WMF wikis by default

I have moved the discussion to Metapub/Nuke extension on Wikimedia. Please continue the discussion or op-out there.--Hillgentleman 03:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Table sorting broken?

Spaces None Comma Period
1 46 934 46934 46,934 46.934
2 35 613 35613 35,613 35.613
3 3 013 3013 3,013 3.013
4 713 713 713 713
5 11 000 11000 11,000 11.000

The numbers with spaces for thousand separator was being sorted numerically and now is sorted alphabetically. Did something change in the javascript? Allowing for "spaces" instead of "commas" for the thousand separator should be supported, right? --MarsRover 02:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

You can use an utility template to properly sort the numeric columns. See for example the template w:fr:Modèle:0 on French Wikipedia, in action on this page where it is also used to "hide" sort keys for text. You can see other examples by looking at the list of pages that use it (there's not a lot of them, but it is used on some statistics pages, or in this High Quality French Wikipedia article w:fr:Pois for the top 10 producings countries.
Another technic is used to sort texts correctly ignoring accents that are present in country names on this page, by hiding the sort key enabled in the templates for the country names when you set t=1 (t is abbreviation for "tri" in French , meaning "sort") in those templates: w:fr:ISO 3166-1.
Note: the template "hides" zeroes and digit grouping spaces that are also used to properly align the numbers, even if the column data is centered (with it, you no longer need to align the numbers on right, and you can also hide zeoes after the decimal separators, if they must not presented, in order to align the decimal separators.
This template is typically used for sorting columns numerically, even when they contain something else than digits (for example when there's a currency unit or another unit like inhabitants, inhabitants per km², ...) verdy_p 21:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
A more convincing example here: w:fr:Calvados (département)#Communes ayant plus de 10% de résidences secondaires
Unroll the block (click the "dérouler" link on the right) to see the fully sortable data table, and see how the numeric columns (with hidden zeroes, but still properly aligned figures) are sorted correctly with this template used on almost all pages about French departments for presenting demographic data. verdy_p 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your example using Template:0 (already implemented here on Meta, but just extended to support more than just a single hidden zero (here it can accept separators like spaces, comma or period), the current default). note that centering works as well and still maintains the correct alignment of figures, including when there is a unit after the number :

Spaces None Comma Period
1 46 934 46934 46,934 46.934%
2 35 613 35613 35,613 35.613%
3 03 013 03013 03,013 03.013%
4 00 713 00713 00,713 00.713%
5 11 000 11000 11,000 11.000%

verdy_p 21:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

See how the datatable is also properly aligned in the Wiki code itself, allowing simpler edits of values.
Caveat: you can insert negative numbers, lexicographical sorting will correctly render all the negative numbers before the positive ones, but they negative numbers will be sorted in a reversed direction.
Interest: you can still copy-paste the content of the rendered data table in a spreadsheet or notepad: it will import the hidden zeroes and separators, and the speadsheet should still work with them; in a notepad, you will see the zeroes (they are not really replaced by spaces), but the data will also be aligned in your text file. verdy_p 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

German Main page on META corrupted

Hi, I hope this is the page to ask for help in this matter. I think some mediawiki-update caused Hauptseite to look funny. Is there somebody familiar with advanced formatting etc. who could make the box "Wikimedia META-WIKI" appear at the right side of the box "Neuigkeiten" as it used to do. That would be a great help since I failed changing it. :-( Thank you in advance and best regards. --Marbot 11:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I found the affecting change. Kylu 13:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not quite understand what you meant with your comment. However the problem fixed itself as miraculously as it came. Thank you anyway. Best regards --Marbot 20:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Add the "Rollbackers" group to the Simple English wikipedia and others

Hi, I noticed that there are no "Rollbackers" group on the simple english Wikipedia. I request that the group should be added. Also, if there are no "Rollbackers" groups on the other simple english wikis, I also request for them to be implemented as soon as possible. All of the other wikimedia project use them to prevent vandalism, and without the "Rollbackers" group, the only way to rollback is to have the global rollback permission (which is harder to get). Could someone repond to this. Thanks. Techman224 02:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

There is already a request for this; it simply awaits implementation.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I also mean the other simple english wikis too. Techman224 00:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Erm...there's only one Simple English wiki. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
I think he means Simple English Wikiquote, Simple English Wiktionary, and Simple English Wikibooks, in addition to Simple English Wikipedia. MBisanz talk 13:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
That's right. Techman224 01:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
So, gain consensus on each wiki, and submit a request for configuration to Bugzilla.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)


What about OpenID implementation accross WikiMedia?--Kozuch 16:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been brought up before, try asking on wikitech-l. Cbrown1023 talk 20:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
And what is the status or what was the result of the discussion?--Kozuch 14:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, it was decided that we would like to accept OpenID for authentication, but we are not planning on being an OpenID provider.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:49, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The charge: catalans flooded a minor wikipedia

Fabexplosive (it:Utente:Fabexplosive), an administrator of the italian wikipedia, in an online newspaper (of 22-sept-2008), accuses catalans to have flooded the lombard wikipedia. Here he said, pag. 11 : "Lombard Wikipedia? All written by catalans".

The administrator and member of italian Wikimedia Association also accuses: "the old administrators were not lombards but catalans" (pag. 11).

Fabexplosive is also a controversial administrator of the lombard wikipedia : Requests_for_comments/Lombard_wikipedia,_urgent_desysoping_and_unblock_requests

Paesaggix 20:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Without even looking at this beyond the surface, what would you have us do? This seems to me to be a non-issue.  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Since it is insinuated that I am a sockpuppet of Lombard, let me answer this one. What you should do? Look at this beyond the surface, of course. You refused to do so with zea.Wikipedia an now that project is dead (no content edits in a month). How many projects need to fall before you are willing to do something? Guido den Broeder 08:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, was that directed at me?  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:50, 23 November 2008 (UTC)