Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2008-10

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 October 2008, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Rename to Forum

Per this. Is everyone fine with this? Please raise any objections now, because we have what seems to constitute a rough consensus on Babel. If no-one says anything over the next 72 hours, I'll make the move. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As I have said and people have okayed before people will still be confused no matter which name you choose unless you include "wikimedia" and the current proposal should then be "Wikimedia forum". Hillgentleman 18:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia forum is okay with me.--Kozuch 19:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. This was a huge move, and there are still pages to be updated. Any help with that is appreciated; I've likely missed some things. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 02:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable move to me - less room for confusion than with "metapub". WJBscribe (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Logo changing question

I have aware that to change a logo for a WikiMedia project I have to go to Bugzilla. So I've report a bug to change logo for wiktionary:ms: and assigned it to Wikibug. But the logo doesn't change, and I don't know what I did wrong. Or it need votes or did I missed a step? So I wonder if someone could help since this is my first time using bugzilla. My bug is here: bugzilla:15771. Thanks Kurniasan 10:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, just wait. When a developer has time, they'll process the bugs and change your logo. You don't have to do anything more (unless they ask you for more information) and you don't need to get votes for something like that. Cbrown1023 talk 13:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the reply and information. Kurniasan 14:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Secure Portal

I just today discover that there is a "wikimedia secure Portal" but I didn't find anywhere an explanation what is it useful for. Which security it provides? for whom? Do secure portal crash less often than non-secure wikimedia sites ? Is it based on the same database ? Is it up to date as the pages it is mirroring ? Is there only a redirection ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArnoLagrange (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing Google found for me is «What the heck is "secure wikipedia" and why can't I seem to find any information about it online?» posted 5 months ago, which "best answer" says : «it is true that there isn't really a decent page describing the secure server » Arno Lagrange  21:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that it refers to the SSL (HTTPS) encrypted method of connecting to the site(s). It has serious problems and I don't even know where to report them. You can log in here:
Warning! BEWARE, that if you log in through the aforementioned link, there is a good chance that you will be redirected to non-SSL pages and anything you post could reveal your IP address and all content you read and submit.
Frankly, I think it should be disabled until it is fixed. —Danorton (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Interlanguage feature

It's an idea I have since more than four years. I wonder it is not yet realized. I think it would be a great simplification and there were a lot of advantages. Technically I guess it's not very complicated to concretize.

Instead of (handly or robotly) adding interlanguages links in each page, it would be more simple to have a domain where pages would contain the list of existing interlanguages links. iwiki pages must have a title. Then you only had to link from your language project to the iwiki:page and the database would be automatically updated: existing links would be added on your own page, and a link to your language page would be added to all the other linked ones. Example I am working on abc:wikitoto project, I create an article titled Arcturus. At the end of the page I simply add [[iwiki:Arcturus]] which links to the page in the iwiki:wikitoto which contain was :


saving my edit adds the link [[abc:Arcturus]]; all that links automatically will be displayed in each projects (abc def ghi ...) This feature could also make red links links to an iwiki page saying «This article doesn't exist yet in your language, but you can read it in one of the following languages and consider to translate it into your language». I'm sure such a feature has already be proposed and discussed, but I have no idea how to find such a discussion. Arno Lagrange  21:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

See bug 15607 and A newer look at the interlanguage link. Cbrown1023 talk 22:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
OK Thanks. The right place is A_newer_look_at_the_interlanguage_link Arno Lagrange  09:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Was the disclaimer of the wikipedia in english designed by the community or the foundation? Can consensus of users change it, modify or remove things told in it?

And what about the disclaimers at wikipedias at other languajes? Someone has or had to do the work of translating it to that languaje. Do they have to be translated in their entire extension, or can such users decide to translate the parts they like and leave the ones they don't?

Even more, is such traducted disclaimer the real disclaimer to be considered if some legal problem even arises, or is that the one in english, with the traducted one being just of informative purposes? Belgrano 14:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was created by a lawyer for the foundation, and that modifying it may be either not permitted or cause legal problems. So I think the answer to your second question Can consensus of users change it, modify or remove things told in it? is no. Anonymous101 08:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Anonymous101 is kinda right, it was originally written by Alex756 who was originally a part of the old legal department (he did work for the Foundation pro bono, not sure if he was an "official" Foundation lawyer or not). It is not necessarily official policy now, I suggest you bring this up on the foundation-l mailing list. That way people who have been around a while and know things can weigh in (also, our current lawyer is on that mailing list -- he will be able to help). Cbrown1023 talk 20:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Cometstyles releasing classified checkuser information onto Encyclopedia Dramatica IRC

Does it violate Wikimedia Foundation policy if a checkuser releases a person's IP address, browser, operating system, .NET passport, and server information onto Encyclopedia Dramatica's IRC channel?

Cometstyles does not have checkuser access. Daniel (talk) 09:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Lol Grawp, you really ain't that smart ...--Cometstyles 10:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiGarden (proposal)

I don't know if there's already something like this idea out there yet, but over the last few weeks I've thinking about a project that describes garden and crop plants: WikiGarden and Wiki Crop. It could be like an interface, where you log in with your own account that has a description of your climate zone, soil type and other variables.

The pages describe garden plants or crop plants with their different varieties and cultivars etc, and every user can check boxes to rate the growth of this plant in their own garden. After a while, this could develop into a somewhat reliable sort of guide to see if a certain plant is fit for the circumstances that you enter into your search box. It could also have two discussion pages: one on the properties of the plant in question, and one on the editing of the page itself.

As I'm not much of a gardener or a computerist (just a contributor with an idea), I was thinking that maybe it could be interesting to start this up as a project of agricultural, horticultural and florists schools all over the world. Perhaps anyone knows teachers on schools who would like to participate with their pupils in setting this up. Anyone any ideas? --Satrughna 09:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested in b:Horticulture and v:Bloom Clock. User:SB_Johnny might have some better ideas about your proposal, but at present I would say that subject area can be adequately covered by existing projects.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 13:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Mike! You've been a great help with this comment, I'll write to Johnny then Greetings, --Satrughna 16:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)



I saw a lot requests for new projects like gardenwiki or so. I have a new idea too:

What about a wiki that gathers studies, trials, evidence and so? Is wikisource the right place for that?

Some – maybe most – of studies aren't free to share under GNU FDL. So in this case we could write an article in wikiproof (wikevidence, wikiresearch, whatever) with a description: date, authors, theme, outcome... And very important: Maybe a vague declaration of significance (in the meaning of validity, reliability)?

Greetings, -- Serpens 07:23, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Case studies would be a great addition to any of our law textbooks.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Wikiversity might also be interested in this. Cbrown1023 talk 21:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Inactive bureaucrats on smaller wikis

As a steward, I have seen inactive bureaucrats on smaller wikis impeding stewards while they cannot always be easily contacted. This is why I would like to propose Bureaucrat/Removal for inactivity on small wiki as a global policy or guideline. For smaller wikis, I consider having all the bureaucrats being inactive for 60 days too long, so I propose reminding them for 30-day inactivity, then take back the bureaucrat flag if no response.--Jusjih 17:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Taking back flag for inactivity is normal in the meantime on many projects. But when we speak about small i.e. really small projects so I can understand that there could arise different problems when there is no possibility to contact the local bureaucrat. Thus I will fully support Jusjih's proposal. But, to speak in the words of Frank'N¨Furter „But maybe the rain / Isn't really to blame / So I'll remove the cause / But not the symptom“, inactive bureaucrats (on small wikis means as well that we have created projects that had no ability to be projets. Here we should start and be very carefull. -jkb- (cs.source) 18:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about removal of 'crats from projects the last days, because of something similar; I got sysop on a project with "Hi, I'm a sysop on wikipedia and wish to do some reorganizing; can I have sysop-rights?". The project is too small to have "inexperienced" 'crats, and (in reality) my sysop-rights are now permanent (since there isn't any community to de-sysop me). Laaknor 19:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
In small wikis, there can be fewer bureaucrat actions than once in two months. There may not be a lot of wikis who want to sign up. It is easier to tweak the steward policies to allow stewards to work in such circumstances. E.g. if the action is simple then the steward can do it; otherwise and if there is no bureaucrat who is active, the steward can work with a group of trusted user, such as a long term established user or sysop. --Hillgentleman 01:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't see a need to remove the crat flag from them, just change the rule that says "stewards won't do crat work on projects with crats" to "stewards won't do crat work on projects with active crats". The crats can stay crats, but stewards can do the work if they're not around. --Tango 10:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Tango. We may determine what kind of crats are considered to be inactive (3 mths inactivity?) and place a one-week waiting for inquiry which may justify steward action to those projects. --Aphaia 11:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I would define no active crats as no crat actions performed within a week (maybe 2 weeks) of the request being made (and ready for a crat - if local policy is to have a week's discussion on an adminship request, then it's only a crat action request once that week is up). The request itself doesn't need to be dealt with within a week since there may be backlogs and it's not a stewards job to help a local project clear a backlog, but there needs to be a crat doing some crat work otherwise a steward can step in. (Possible alternative is to count a crat doing non-crat work as active on the grounds that it's the local project's problem if their crats aren't prioritising tasks correctly.) --Tango 13:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Reading this I would prefer Tango's solution that has some advantages. -jkb- (cs.source) 12:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
On a small wiki, a bureaucrat would appear inactive just because there aren't any requests. So, I agree that "inactivity" should be defined as no action from a bureaucrat when a request is two weeks old. Maybe it should also be considered to check not only the bureaucrat's use of rights but his wiki activity in general, if he hasn't edited for a long time he is more than probably an inactive user. If he is editing but not fulfilling requests then it could be another local wiki problem.--Geraki TL 19:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I support Geraki's proposal. Let us see an example on a small wiki: jawikinews. I'm a bureaucrat there and my recent crat actions were one in September, one in July and then one in April. During those days other crats were on wikibreak, so there is no other crat action. Let me know if I am an "inactive bureaucrat"? I don't think so myself - I may be a crat with little actions, but inactivity is another thing. I recommend to check rather their general actions - edits in general. --Aphaia 20:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
As long as only activity while the request is pending is considered, I don't see a problem. An active crat is one that is available to do crat actions, not necessary one actually doing them. You post the request locally and if, after a week or two, no crat has dealt with it and it isn't because they've been doing other crat actions and there's just a backlog, then a steward (when asked) can determine that there are no active crats and fulfil the request. --Tango 22:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't support your arugment which is based on an assumption every project fulfills the request within one or two weeks at most. On English Wikiquote for example, usurpation request needs a three-week reviewing. When you cannot understand fully local policies which you may not know their language, how can you safely assume one or two week waiting is enough to determine they are inactive? That is why I think their general activities, not crat actions, are to be measurement: otherwise you may breach their local policy unconsciously in the worst case. --Aphaia 16:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I specifically said you don't start counting until the request is actually ready for a crat. Please read everything before assuming that other people are making assumptions... --Tango 18:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd say this should be in the definition of 'action'. Explicitly refusing to fulfill a request is also action, in my opinion. When someone makes an usurpation request when there has been no review period yet, do you let the request just sit there for three weeks? Or do you add a short message, saying that it will not be decided before then-and-then? In the second case, this should be fine. In the first case, a bit more common decency would not be a bad thing.... - Andre Engels 13:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In our case, most of requests are followed by a short message but it is not mandatory. Saying that it will not be decided before then-and-then is already given in the request page for usurpation, so while redundancy is decent here I don't think it a problem if a given request is uncommented until its fulfillment. Since it is no obligation for all projects they speak English, they may not find this discussion or other requests unnoticed.
Another case: I eventually found a "request" on a sysop talk page (it should have gone to its proper request page though) left unfulfilled just it was written in English until someone else who can understand English became active and then the request appeared not fitting the local policy. In the case how stewards could justify to process the request which may not be fulfilled according to the local policy which the requester doesn't understand or agreed? Without strict definition of crat actions and their "activities", I think it shouldn't be codified as proposed. --Aphaia 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I have seen a steward intervene to EN WQ and processed requests which hadn't had been submitted to the local request page but someone randomly coming around from another project claimed on IRC that request should have been promptly done. Those two guys didn't leave any note on the project. And then there were three active bureaucrats on the project. Later I asked that steward not to do it anymore but he denied my request and stated stewards could use their common sense and dealt with thing outside of local processes. In this circumstance I cannot support your idea since you give no way how to know "it isn't because they've been doing other crat actions and there's just a backlog" and while I got no answer from that steward nor ombudsman if such thing like ignorance of local project policy is acceptable. --Aphaia 20:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Aphaia, Your problem appears to have come from the steward, not the policy or process. I have suggested before that stewards work with trusted users (e.g. sysops or long term established users) if they can find no active local bureaucrats. Hillgentleman 04:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand - it's easy to know if the crats are doing other crat work, you just look at the logs... --Tango 16:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
PS You may also want to check their edits in case they have been refusing requests which, as Andre says, is a crat action but wouldn't appear in the logs. --Tango 16:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
In reality those stewards didn't think it easy to know or find active crats but preferred to chime in, without logging in or consulting the local policy. I talk from our experience. The reality suggests it is not easy for you stewards to know if local crats are active. Or you stewards find much easier to verdict they are inactive and do whatever they want ignoring local policies and processes. I cannot agree with you here. --Aphaia 18:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
As Geraki pointed out, it is no good measure that if the crats are doing other crat work. Please let me tell if your intervene, for instance, would be justified on JA WN case I introduced on the above where the previous legitimate crat work was one or more months ago. Then action log is no good measurement to determine if they are active. Here you try to impose steward rules regardless what each local project rules. It is not acceptable and serious potential breach of local project sovereignty. --Aphaia 18:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I should clarify, I am not a steward. Secondly, you don't seem to understand my suggestion. In my suggestion, only activity while the request was pending (and "request" means a request ready for a crat, so after any discussion period or whatever has expired). If the request has been pending for a week and no crat has done any crat actions during that week, then it's fair to say there are no active crats and for a steward to step in. Your problems with stewards seem to be cases where the steward hasn't followed policy or established procedure - what the policy is is irrelevant in such cases, since it isn't being followed, so it's a disciplinary matter not a policy matter. --Tango 19:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't give the way how stewards determine if a request is ready to do specially none of stewards understand project's lang. I have seen stewards ignore the local policy when it was in their language (eventually their mother tongue). Your proposal cannot be acceptable unless you show how you can assure they determine rightly local policies. I rather counterpropose steward must not intervene local requests unless 1) no local bureaucrat is assigned or 2) the latest editing active (not crat action you vaguely definied) of b'crats was 3 months ago or more. Editing should be measure not depending your arbitrary usable "crat action". If you think you may have no problem in any language which may be used on local projects, and I understand your position so, since you imply such local policies may be understood correctly regardless of their language, I rather want to discuss this matter in Japanese so other editors can join the discussion now. If you think it impossible or not feasible, do not bind local projects with the new policy which the local project community may be affected but written in the language they may not be used and moreover and stewards may not understand their policies in details vice versa. --Aphaia 21:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If stewards can't interpret local policy and act accordingly for projects with crats how are they meant to do so for projects without them? A steward needs to determine that there is a consensus for the action requested, that's going to require some understanding of the language, I would have thought. Aren't stewards chosen for their language skills? --Tango 23:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
You recognize the situation wrongly. They are not chosen for their language skills. It is your wrong assumption. We have no stewards who are capable of Japanese, Korean or Vietnamese for example. On those projects steward actions are taken on demands. When the community reached a consensus someone who speaks English submits a request on meta in English. So it is assured to be within community norms and policies. But intervention without beking asked by the local community is another matter. Stewards have to keep the line between the local project community and their global workspace and not disturb the former with their arbitrary judgment and actions. --Aphaia 08:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with this action. However, the community itself should voice the problem out and this shouldn't focus only on small wikis. The three months notice is more than sufficient time for bureaucrats to respond unless he or she is having serious problems. Just do it in the right manner without abusing of power.

Maybe each removal should come with a seconded person from the community to verify.Perhaps there are inactive stewards out there too. Diagramma Della Verita 08:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome message templates to point to wiki projects in other languages

Over on en.wikipedia there are a four welcome templates in en:Category:Poor English welcome messages for when an editor appears to be writing in a language other than english, and is directed to the corresponding language project. I was wondering if it would be best to write a set for all language pairs of these where both of the languages and the WMF project could be interchanged. So each local would have a set where the originating welcome in one half, and the destination language on the other. I could only picture this being used from the same project to a different language (en.wikipedia -> es.wikipedia), and not both to a different language and project from another one (en.wikipedia -> es.wikibooks). -Optigan13 09:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of templates. If you want to do it, go for it, but this seems like an awful lot of overkill to me.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It looks complicated since there are so many languages and wikis involve. It might take time for that to become reality. What's the main purpose of that besides informing user that another wiki is available in their own language. Diagramma Della Verita 08:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election processes

A page to describe and compare the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election processes at different Wikipedias - please help to fill it out if you are proficient in one of the listed languages. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 14:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Not sure I'm am in the right place, but I'd like to suggest a press release about the double event of last week-end: both en.wiktionary and fr.wiktionary have reached 1 000 000 entries. It could be along these lines:

Le cap du million est franchi !

Wiktionary est un projet de la fondation Wikimedia destiné à définir tous les mots de toutes les langues, et cela dans toutes les langues. C'est un peu le dictionnaire de langue de Wikipédia. Il comporte déjà des projets par langue pour xxx langues. Les deux projets les plus actifs sont les branches anglophone et francophone (Wiktionnaire), qui viennent toutes les deux de franchir le cap du million d'entrées !

Le projet a besoin de nouveaux contributeurs bénévoles. Tous ceux qui s'intéressent aux mots (de n'importe quelles langues) sont les bienvenus.

Lmaltier 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this, I tipped off Jay and Cary earlier that it happened. We'll see if it takes off. However, the Wiktionary community can also write a press release itself. See Wikiquote and Commons for examples. Cbrown1023 talk 21:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Writing something is easy, but sending it to journalists is another matter. Lmaltier 16:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I know that. What I mean is you can write your own and put it on Wiktionary. Then you can send it to Jay (with it all tidy and done), and he'll probably really think about sending it out as a Foundation press release. :-) Cbrown1023 talk 21:23, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
I left a message (w:User:Jay) but I'm unlucky, he seems to be absent. Lmaltier 08:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
I think you were looking for m:User:Jaywalsh, who is a different user :) Daniel (talk) 08:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot assistance

Can someone please either answer the following question or point me to the best place to ask it? I am interested in whether a bot can (efficiently) obtain a list of all interwiki links from a given wiki. (This information could be used to index articles on a small wiki by the titles of the equivalent English articles.) Thanks. Alan012 08:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Assistance on

I am a user on and currently all users accessing this wiki cannot browse the Special:RecentChanges page because it seems as if it redirects to Special:RelatedChanges. Can you please tell us what could have happenend? —Chrisportelli 15:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I added bug report. Cbrown1023 talk 16:19, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi, a few words from Not the Wikipedia Weekly. We record podcasts about Wikipedia and sister WMF projects, plus operate collaborative chats in voice and text. For about a month now we've been working out the details of moving to Meta under a new project-neutral name, in order to give all the WMF projects an equal footing. The new name we've chosen is WikiVoices. Right now we have a little outpost page here on Meta. Just asking--is there a formal proposal process to go through on this end, or should we go ahead and set up shop? Best wishes, Durova 04:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why there'd be any formal mechanism for approval. I would suggest expanding the description though. Give'er!  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I was just adding a bit while you typed that. :) Durova 05:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we're active and ready to go. Welcoming new episode proposals. And if you're interested but timid, please ping me. I'll be glad to help people get started. Durova 22:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Behavior of {{ns:}} keyword has changed slightly

I'd better post this here too: rev:41876, which is live now, slightly changed the behavior of the {{ns:}} parser function for namespaces with spaces in their name. In general, this change makes the behavior more consistent and portable across different wikis, but as a result, some existing templates and system messages may need to be updated. For details, see en:WP:VPT#Behavior of {{ns:}} keyword has changed slightly, fix your templates!. —Ilmari Karonen 19:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

authenticating claims of copyright ownership

Is there a section of the wikimedia foundation that deals with authenticating people's claims to have copyright in particular material? I am thinking of a situation / procedure along the following lines. Does such already exist, or could it be implemented?

  • Someone adds content to a wikimedia project which is clearly copied from a particular website, and there is nothing to suggest that that website had in turn copied it from anywhere else. The website does not explicitly permit copying of its content under a compatible license.
  • Questions about copyright violation therefore result, but the user who added the content claims to be (or to represent) the website owner, and therefore to have the authority to release the material under the license.
  • An request is made to the Wikimedia foundation to authenticate the claim.
  • The Wikimedia foundation then sends an email from an official Foundation address to the official contact address found on the website in question, asking for confirmation. (Maybe for extra security the email can include a unique ID in the email body or subject line, that should be retained in any genuine reply.)
  • A reply may or may not be received by the foundation.
  • The foundation, using a global username which is recognized for this purpose, then post to the relevant discussion page, to summarize what reply (if any) was received.
  • The foundation also keep a copy of the reply for future reference.

Many thanks.

Alan012 11:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OTRS is used. The burden is on the person submitting the apparently-copyrighted material to provide sufficient verification that they own the copyright to it and can therefore release it. Often what will happen is that, if the material is on, we expect an email from (ie. an address listed on the website itself). The Foundation will very rarely email-out and initiate an exchange; however, OTRS volunteers frequently follow-up emails sent to us to ensure they meet the required standards of proof. Daniel (talk) 12:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)



I have kind of problem. I am making sure i have a global account so i am visiting all projects. I already merge 311 wiki's and i visited all wiki's but if i look at my preference it still says i have 311 merged accounts... Is something went wrong? Sterkebaktalk 17:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, mine is that:
Global account status: All in order!
Your account is active on 138 project sites.
(Manage your global account)
And I think it goes well. Is yours different from this? If not, it would work well too ... --Aphaia 20:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
yes it is the same but... I worked on new projects and editted there.. My counter still say i am active on 311 project site's. If i am correct the counter must grow now instead of staying the same. Sterkebaktalk 21:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
The last accounts added to your global account are Commons in September and several wikis in July. Do you remember which new wikis you edited? —Pathoschild 22:48:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello Your account is active on 331 projects and there is one unattached on, what is the exact problem? Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 23:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

He is now saying i am active on 316 wiki's and the home wiki changed finally. Maybe it update very slow, or i want it to go to fast. Sterkebaktalk 01:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to visit all wiki's. A local account will be created when you visit it for the first time, so why bother getting a local account everywhere? It's there when you need it. You only need to merge the unattached ones. The rest is yours. --Erwin(85) 21:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this option available?

I want to download the whole english site from wikipedia. Is there anyway to do this? If the world is going to end soon, I'd like to be one of the people who carries the digital library in hopes to help others. Hopefully someone can help out here... it's obviously a BIG task.

See . SPQRobin (inc!) 11:26, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Inputbox error

default and label has been broken

I detected error on inputbox function. buttonlabel and "default" has been broken to me. Could anyone help me?--Kwj2772 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Was fixed.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:53, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Gothic script problems

I am not sure this has been raised before, but the Gothic Wikipedia could use a transliteration function similar to the Serbian and Chinese Wikipedias. Gothic uses three scripts and currently utilises completely manual and un-synched subpages for implementing them. I've contacted the three admins on the Wikipedia to come here and explain further and co-operate on the function's implementation if it lies within their domain. +Hexagon1 (t) 09:48, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, gothic only uses 2 scripts : the gothic alphabet, created by w:Wulfila, and the latin alphabet used as a transliteration for study use. The third one is the runic script, which might have been once used to write gothic, but we don't have any proof for it. So I don't think it is of any use to implement it on our Wikipedia. The great problem is that gothic script needs special Unicode fonts to be correctly seen, and most people (even I !!) aren't able to make it work. So we use a lot the latin script. But actually, we write subpages (e. g. 𐌷𐌰𐌿𐌱𐌹𐌳𐌰𐍃𐌴𐌹𐌳𐍉/Haubidaseido for the main page) in latin alphabet, and hope that if somebody changes the main page, he'll change also the subpage, and vice versa. It's mostly not the case. So we would like a lot a transliteration function similar to the Chinese wiki, and I can help in the creation of such a function. -- got:User:Yadönapya, gothic wiki administrator 11:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Babel templates need to be centralised?

I am somewhat tired of setting up my userpage on a new wiki and having to copy-and-paste Babel templates which do not exist there yet from other wikis. As such Babel templates are written in the language which they are referring to, rather than in the language of the wiki which they are used in, could we not organise some sort of central repositry of Babel templates here on Meta (by moving en:'s repositry over here, for instance) and then implement a software change whereby a {{Babel}} template on any wiki, whether it currently exists or will be created in the future, will use Meta's Babel template library? It Is Me Here 13:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WikiVoices goes live

Good news: WikiVoices had its first recording today in its new home at Meta (formerly Not the Wikipedia Weekly). Participants created the article Grandmother of Barack Obama dies at 86, which became the Wikinews top story for the evening and the site's highest traffic article. A mix of Wikimedians joined ranging from a Wikinews administrator to editors joining Wikinews for the first time. The edited recording should be available within a day or so. Other projects that are interested in having an episode are welcome to visit WikiVoices or contact me for assistance. Best regards, Durova 02:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Fundraiser 2008

Does anyone know why we seem to start with around 1.6 million US$? A motivation thing? Or did we already get major donations?


By the way: As it is still the same problem (in my eyes) as last time (hoped it wouldn't), see JavaScript disprofit --Melancholie 18:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it was announced on the foundation mail list that this year major donors would be included in the running tally and would start off with donations already given this year. WAS 4.250 11:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all donations from this fiscal year are included in that total. Cbrown1023 talk 00:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


Dears community members:

the Language proposal policy community draft, is looking for a approval procedure. Please provide ideas to fix the approval mechanism of this community draft.


GFDL 1.3 and CC-BY-SA

If you haven't heard or have been under a rock all weekend dressed like The Joker, GFDL 1.3 is out, and its retroactively applied to most Wikimedia sites (excluding Wikinews of course) because we went with the "or any later versions" thing.

But, since I have not found a page specifically talking about the GFDL's changes for 1.3 (except for you guys lobbying for change, we got a new twist, which I summed up like this on Wikipedia, because we can now legally transition to CC-BY-SA 3.0, however, to use this new clause to our advantage:

  1. The work must be the product of a "Massive Multiauthor Collaboration Site" (MMC), such as a wiki for example.
  2. The work must have been licenced under Version 1.3 of the GNU FDL, or an earlier version but with the "or any later version" declaration.
  3. The cover texts or invariant sections options must not be used.
  4. Any content from external sources licenced under the GFDL that are not MMC's must have been added to the wiki or similar system before November 1st, 2008. Any external GFDL content added after November 1st cannot be used under the new licence.

But then again, that last one scares me a bit...transwiking = copyvio now it seems, if we end up switching. ViperSnake151 20:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

See w:Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#GFDL 1.3 WAS 4.250 11:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Can't I cite some articles?

Korean wikipedia prohibit to cite something. Becuase original article's copyright lisence is not GFDL.

I can't cite non-GFDL articles?

I saw many non-GFDL citations in english wikipedia.

What is wikimedia foundation's official policy? -- WonRyong (talk) 08:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

w:Fair use is allowed. Perhaps there is no fair use type provision in Korean law, so that the Korean Wiki project community has voted to not allow it? Ask them. WAS 4.250 11:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


CommonsDelinker removes deleted image links and universally replace duplicate image. But he can't edit some article which has been protected by sysop. So image should be kept until all images are replaced. I think CommonsDelinker should have editprotected right.--Kwj2772 11:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Barring that, could CommonsDelinker dump a report saying "I tried to this, but couldn't" and then have a local sysop (or maybe steward) make the edit? I for one welcome our robot overlords, but I can see some people spazzing out about it simply because it's a bot... EVula // talk // // 22:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Could an adminstrator update the Esperanto fundraising core messages?

Could an administrator please update Fundraising 2008/core messages/eo. A gramatical error is driving people crazy at the Esperanto Wikipedia. Thanks! :-) -- Yekrats

Updated. :) --Az1568 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)