Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2010-05

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in May 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

About incitement to ethnic hatred[edit]

According to my observation, some administrators (for instance, Gutsul and Leonst) and other users (for instance, Raider (= Рейдер з нiкчемного лiсу)) use at least one server of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc in order to incite ethnic hatred.

Галактион Терёшин 03:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

When making accusations like that, it's usually a good idea to bring evidence, rather that just stating your opinion as if it is fact. Gopher65talk 00:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Documentation needed: What makes a wiktionary entry "good"?[edit]

The tables in the List of Wiktionaries are headed

№, Language, Language (local), Wiki, Good, Total, ...

"Good" and "Total" are evidently entry counts, but what makes an entry "good"? There's no explanation there. It probably just needs one line, but it sure isn't self-evident.

I was going to put this question on the Talk page, but the last question, asked on 14 March, still hasn't been answered.

Thnidu 16:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"good" is content pages. "total" is all pages including redirects, stubs (very short, not containing links), talk pages, etc. The terminology comes from Special:Statistics in "raw" form, e.g. [1]. Robert Ullmann 14:42, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikinews/Wikipedia merge proposal[edit]

Where the appropriate page is to make a proposal affecting multiple wikimedia projects? Immunize 20:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, wouldn't that be either here or Babel? Tisane 22:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal withdrawn as there is clearly to much opposition to this proposal for success, which has included accusations that I am making this proposal because of a non-news article (on mumps, specifically) that was deleted. Immunize 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a strict policy against original research. Wikinews has an extensive infrastructure to support original research. The two projects are fundamentally and irreconciliably different, and I think that will come out very strongly in any such proposal. The problem you mention can be solved absolutely trivially with liberal use of interwiki links; rather than with a complicated, hugely-disruptive and otherwise-fruitless merge of two projects and communities with are each developing perfectly happily on their own. Happymelon 21:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
(disclaimer: I'm a 'crat at en.wikinews) Agree with Happymelon, I'm sure a merge of the two projects would be strongly opposed by both projects and there would be lots of logistical difficulties (i.e., how would Wikinews admins would get adminship on Wikipedia, given the latter's very high standards for it?). If, in Wikinews articles, there is a confusing term, then we just do interwiki links to Wikipedia, which is very easy to do. The two communities have very separate identities, any merging of that sort would be very unwise, imo. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

← That wouldn't be the wisest decision. Wikinews is a news site where news is written; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I'm among the sames likes as Happy-melon and Tempodivalse. (for the sake of disclosure, I'm an admin on en.wn) --Mikemoral 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Strongest possible oppose Happy-Melon, Tempodivalse and Mikemoral sum up my feelings. The point made about Wikinews not having sufficient information to put news stories into context is a complete and utter misnomer: anyone who has read a Wikinews article will notice that there are extensive links back to Wikipedia to put information into context, in the same way that a Wikipedia article links to other articles. Writing for an encyclopaedia and a news site require completely different writing styles and editor skills. WP is a work in progress, WN has to get the news out ASAP. The two have fundamentally different objectives. I'm active on both (WP ArbCom clerk and WN Admin) and I wear very different hats according to the site I'm on. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) 18:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose @Immunize I don't know the reason that brang you there. However, I remember you writing encyclopedical articles on Wikinews, specifically about Mumps, I warned you that Wikinews is not the place for that, Wikinews is for news, and not for encyclopedical articles. That's the reason we link to Wikipedia (ex. [[w:Rick Astley|Rick Astley]] bought a cassete earlier today.) I think this is most likely a revenge against Wikinews from your part, that didn't accepted your medical articles. --Diego Grez let's talk 18:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Further. Wikimedia has a lot of projects, is idiotic that Wiktionary and Wikisource should be merged into Wikipedia... --Diego Grez let's talk 18:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Waouh ! I'm really surprised, if it's a joke, it's a good one. Wikinews and Wikipedia are complementary, you can't merge one to the other. The tone isn't the same. Otourly 19:00, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Je suis absolument et plus que violemment opposé à une telle fusion. WN et WP sont deux projets distincts et avec des finalités diamétralement opposés. Le premier traite de l'actualité, le second de l'encyclopédie. Certains assimilent tout fait divers à un article encyclopédique. Si tel était le cas, ceci mettrait en cause ma participation aux projets de la WMF. À ce titre, je rejoins entièrement Diego Grez. Cette proposition est une monstruosité sans nom.--Bertrand GRONDIN – Talk 19:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Totalement d'accord. Il est grand temps de reconnaître la distinction entre les deux projets. Une fusion serait du véritable n'importe quoi. Vyk 19:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose (Disclaimer: WN Admin) Going to have to agree with most of the above. WP focuses on being an accurate encyclopedia reference, created by documented references. WN focus on report what is currently happening in the world, as being understood at the current time, in a Neutral Point of View, and promoting original research/reporting. These differences, I believe, are too much to warrant combining these different projects. Terinjokes 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose WP is encyclopedia : for stable information, WN is for news: for alive information. In fact, all the News embeded into Wikipedia 'ld be exported to Wikinews. Divol 19:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose (disclaimer: admin on enwikinews) Wikinews writes news articles, Wikipedia writes encyclopedia articles. Well sometimes they cover similar things (which is ok), the style and scope of a news article is irreconcilabley different from encyclopedia articles. Bawolff 19:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose per above. Griffinofwales 20:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose (admin on both projects, fond of both) Wikinews is for what is happening now. Wikipedia is for what happened next. Hence, there will be and should be overlap, but they will remain fundamentally different. Also, there's the whole OR thing, which I can't imagine working on WP (though I'm open to be convinced on that one ;). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:11, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

By the way, this is not the place to propose that, Proposals for closing projects exists, and the Wikimedia forum is not for that. I have left Immunize a message on his/her talk page. --Diego Grez let's talk 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Projects are complete opposites. OR/No OR first. Secondarily WN maintains the articles as that point in time, where WP updates constantly. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 20:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Support Support strongly. As an old-time (en.) Wikinews bureaucrat, I strongly support this idea. After 5 years, Wikinews has certainly managed to create and maintain an active, involved community of citizen journalists. However, just as clearly, it has failed to grow in terms of volume or importance -- within the consciousness of consumers, citizen journalists, or Wikipedians. I think that the best course of action would be to create a "News" namespace within Wikipedia -- actions within that namespace will be subject to the guidelines worked out on Wikinews, and will be clearly demarcated that way to readers. This approach would allow the policies and culture of Wikinews to be retained, for a clear separation between the no-research and yes-research areas of Wikipedia to continue to exist, and for Wikinews to benefit from the significant reader, writer, and editor userbase of the Wikipedia project. -- IlyaHaykinson 21:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree about the creation of the news namespace, however, given the mass opposition to this proposal, I have withdrawn it. Immunize 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose Proposal is completely backwards. Funnel Wikipedia contributors wishing to do journalism into Wikinews! --Stlemur 23:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Oppose — As mentioned above, the whole point of Wikinews is Original Research. On the other hand OR is anathematized on Wikipedia. That right there is enough to kill this idea. The two projects are simply incompatible on a fundamental level. Now could Wikipedia and Wiktionary be merged? Maybe; they're not incompatible, but I doubt you'd get any support for that idea:P. Gopher65talk 00:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Each project needs work to make the distinction between encyclopedic content and news articles clearer, but no need to actually merge the projects. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Oppose and counter propose: move all "ITN" (In the News) to WikiNews and ban the mention of any topic newer than two months from being added to Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Too much counter-ish, I think. A week or two is okay. --Diego Grez return fire 18:22, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Not so much counter-ish I think, since it is already doing on a certain language wiki, no, in a more radical way : Italian Wikipedia has no special page alike "current event", because they took it redundant maintaining aside Wikinews, so abolished. See the "other languages" box on w:Portal:Current_events :) --Aphaia 04:35, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Petition to Jimbo[edit]

FYI. (And there is also the revitalized Requests for comment/Remove Founder flag.) --Nemo 10:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

With so many polls and petitions going around, it's hard to figure out which to take seriously, in other words, which ones will have an effect. The Jimbo detractors are all amassing here, while, way out in non-English Wikipedia land, thousands of users aren't all that bothered with what he's done and can't be bothered to randomly guess that they'll have to come here (or on Commons, the English Wikipedia, etc.) to vote for/support something that can potentially have big ramifications.
If any of these polls/petitions are to carry any serious weight with the Foundation, I would really like to see a call to the wider community about it. Anrie 15:42, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi Anrie. See here. Regards -jkb- 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Apoyo para Proyecto WIKIGRAMAS[edit]

Me gustaría conocer que otras personas desean sumarse al grupo de apoyo del Proyecto de WIKIGRAMAS [2].

Es para nosotros de vital importancia que este proyecto resulte en buen término, para que así millones estudiantes en el mundo estructuren y creen herramientas de conocimiento que cualifiquen su aprendizaje y ofrezcan contenido académicos con rigidez y excelencia.

Death threat, immediate action required[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

From my talk page on the English Wiktionary: en:wikt:User talk:Robert Ullmann

Herr Ullmann, trolling as usual. If I see you blocking "trolls" such as Kilibarda, you are so dead. --Ivan Štambuk 07:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. A death threat is just what this convo needed. Thanks Ivan. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 07:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
That's a common phrase used as a form of a grave warning, and should not be taken literally. --Ivan Štambuk 07:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
LOL.  — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Required action is immediate de-sysop and permanent block/ban of Mr. Ivan Štambuk. Robert Ullmann 11:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  1. I don't think this is a death threat. Ivan Štambuk as much as said it wasn't.
  2. You should address this at English Wiktionary.
  3. Unless you've published your address, it's unlikely Mr. Štambuk is headed your way.
  4. If you really do feel that you've received a genuine death threat, I suggest you report it to the police.
I hope you, Ivan Štambuk and the English Wiktionary community resolve this to your satisfaction. --A. B. (talk) 12:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
(you really accept the "oh I was just joking" defence? really?) Do you have authority to speak for the Foundation? This issue has gone way beyond the en.wikt; Mr Štambuk has a multi-year history of relentless abuse and threats in a number of projects against hundreds of contributors. It is not a "local community" issue, and the WMF now has criminal liability as it has failed (so far) to take appropriate action, while being the copyright holder and publisher of the material.
May we have a reply from a steward and/or board member or officer? I would suggest you consult with Mike Godwin first, unless you are simply taking the obvious appropriate action. Robert Ullmann 18:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Robert, of course I'm not speaking for the Foundation -- what did you expect of a project volunteer? If you want to speak to the Foundation, contact them directly. If you are saying the Foundation is criminally liable, then get a lawyer or contact the authorities in San Francisco. If you want me to contact Mr. Godwin, then contact him yourself; see foundation:Contact us
If you think Mr. Štambuk poses a real, physical threat to you call the Nairobi police.
The Wikimedia Forum on Meta-Wiki is not the venue in which to obtain the redress you seek, either against Mr. Štambuk or the Wikimedia Foundation. There is no action project volunteers here can take to address your legal issues or safeguard your physical safety. --A. B. (talk) 19:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
I have left a note for Mr. Štambuk at wikt:en:User talk:Ivan Štambuk#Your last note on User talk:Robert Ullman notifying him of this discussion here. --A. B. (talk)

Robert, chill out, I have no intention of going to Kenya, sending a hitman, or launching ICBM from my back yard. I think you should see a doctor though. --Ivan Štambuk 19:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification about your intentions. "I think you should see a doctor though" is not helpful, however. --A. B. (talk) 19:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
This is just silly. Ullmann is always looking for reasons to act on his vendetta against Ivan. Opiaterein 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
It appears that dispute has been aired here before: Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2009-12#removing abusive user from English Wiktionary. That discussion was closed with by another Meta admin with the comment,
  • "This is not a matter relevant here. Discussion can take place on the local wiki(s) involved. There is nothing the community at Meta can or will do to resolve the issues at this point."
--A. B. (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Follow-up on contacting Mike Godwin: see w:en:User:MGodwin. --A. B. (talk) 20:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

As I tried to explain to Ivan, I did not think that this was the most appropriate way to handle the situation, and I've tried to advise him on how best to proceed in this matter. To tell you the truth, I think that both users could do with a time out from the English Wiktionary so that cooler heads can prevail, however, that won't happen. Anyways, I agree that this is not the right venue to address this issue. If there is an issue on the English Wiktionary, it should be handled on the English Wiktionary. Razorflame 21:05, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Closed as this is the wrong place for such discussion. Please use the space of involved wiki or make a RfC. --WizardOfOz talk 22:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How can we ask a lawer of wikimedia-foundation?[edit]

In ru-wiki we have very hot discussion about links. Several arguments are about law on copyright in USA (where servers are situated). How can we obtain an answer from a foundation lawer on the next questions: “Is it permissible under California and USA law to have a link from wikipedia to some material that do not violate copyright law but site in which this material located does. What answer will be if:

  • There is a direct link from a page with material to a page with a material that do violate copyright law and that is the only link on that page.
  • There is a direct link from a page with material to a page with a material that do violate copyright law and that is the only link on that page but that is only one of the many links on this page.
  • There are no direct links from a page with material to a page with a material that do violate copyright law, but user can navigate through many links to find some copyright-violating materials.

And one additional question: If there is no easy way to determine do material on a page violate copyright law will the link to this page considered illegal?--Dima io 17:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dima. For legal advice, you may contact easily the foundation lawyer en:user:MGodwin by email. Cheers, --Aphaia 14:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot) Cheers)--Dima io 23:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

bullet numbers in toc[edit]

I´m sorry to ask this question here, but the appropriate support desk is closed.

The subject-matter is a modification of table of contents. It´s intended for one or more WP-sites with many numerals in toc, not for an article. The goal is to hide the bullet numbers. There´s already a CSS-code, which could be integrated in Common.css:

.page-Wikipedia_Diskussion_Hauptseite_Artikel_des_Tages .tocnumber { display: none; }

But better would be a template, because if there is a second WP-site with many numerals in toc, there would an extra-entry in Commons.css needed. Thankful for your travails, Hæggis 19:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Meta:Requests for deletion[edit]

Will someone pay attention at this? Two weeks passed, no opinion about deletion of Shuklinism/ru-- 13:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Problems with translation template t+ in Walloon wiktionary[edit]

I tried to apply the advanced template " {{t+|fr|xxx}}" in the translation section of Walloon Wiktionary : Look for example at : Wikt:rogneus

It seems to work, but the "fr" link appears in a bad manner fr(fr) and not in exposant fr as I would like.

The template works for numerous languages (de, nl, es, pt...) (look at Wikt:c' est todi l' coibjhî k' est l' pus må tchåssî BUT NOT WITH ENGLISH.

Why ?

How to have a language link like in other wiki's ?

Template {{t-}} does not work. What does it mean ?

--Lucyin 14:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


Hello,I've a question.Is there an official policy for election of Mediation Committee for first time?I don't know how must be elected(or selected) committee for a local wiki.ThanksAmir 15:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No home wiki[edit]

According to Special:CentralAuth and the SUL utility, I have no home wiki. After a discussion on enwiki, I realized that it may be because of bugzilla:22638. Is there any way a developer could fix this bug, as it's been around for a few months, and give me a new home wiki? Thanks. MC10 (TCLEM) 20:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Bugzilla needs to stop requiring or, at the very least, stop making public, email addresses[edit]

Bugzilla needs to stop requiring email addresses. Or at the least, it needs to stop making those email addresses public. Requiring email addresses and making them public are both contrary to the practice of the majority of WikiMedia projects.

What disturbs me most is seeing how this issues has been repeatedly marked "resolved" when it is not, despite multiple users bringing it up:

  • Bugzilla:148 RESOLVED FIXED — No, it's not fixed. The email addresses are still visible to anyone or any bot logged in.
  • Bugzilla:9872 RESOLVED DUPLICATE — Marking this as a resolved duplicate doesn't make sense when the problem in the supposed "duplicate" wasn't ever fixed in the first place.
  • Bugzilla:14487 RESOLVED WONTFIX — Won't fix? Why not? No explanation is given.

Despite the issue being brought up numerous times by multiple users, it keeps getting ignored and improperly or unreasonably marked as resolved.

Lowellian (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

14487 WONTFIX is obvious and Brion gave a clue; Bugzilla is no wiki and therefore foreign to Wikimedia wikis' unified login system. --Aphaia 02:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia Font[edit]


I wanted to ask that how would I change the font of a Wikipedia so that the text shows bigger than what it is currently? So how would you change the font size of Wikipedia (for pa wiki)? and what stuff would i need to change?

Thank You Gman124 01:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to edit your CSS stylesheet. If you use the Vector skin, the stylesheet is at Special:MyPage/vector.css, and for Monobook it's Special:MyPage/monobook.css. For example, adding #content{font-size:120%;} to your css will increase font size by 20%. Is this what you were looking for? Jafeluv 14:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I was kind of thinking about for entire wikipedia, so that everybody can see it bigger. Gman124 16:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, the current font size seems large enough, although maybe it's just my low resolution. As described above, CSS should work - if you want to make the text bigger for everyone, add the above line to w:pa:MediaWiki:Common.css (you need to be a sysop to do this). Alternatively, you could simply make the browser magnify the entire page (not just text) by doing "Ctrl" and plus key. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thats good. thank you. Gman124 13:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


is not working anymore. What is the cause? -- Bojan  Talk  17:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I too noticed this. Can this be fixed and restored to function? -- Cirt (talk) 17:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the details (as I haven't read the comments on the bug yet), but I believe bugzilla:23682 explains it. Maximillion Pegasus 11:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure about the details either, but it seems to be back now. See 01:17 today's entry of wikitech:Server_admin_log. --Aphaia 11:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia down for some?[edit]

Since sometime on May 27th, en.wikipedia has been blank on the main page or if linking to specific pages, such as through Google search or other links, this message comes up:

Not Found

The requested URL /wiki/Wikipedia was not found on this server.

VoxCAST Server at Port 80

The hub page for Wikipedia is still accessible and other languages work. I've checked Spanish, French, German, Japanese, Polish Wikipedias and they all show up fine.

I've been looking on Wikinews, Google News, around Wikimedia blog and haven't seen anything discussing any kind of technical problems like there were in March. Is there some kind of technical issue? However, I've noticed some forums have posts dated to today linking to en.wikipedia articles and no one seems to be mentioning any technical trouble. I've read about some previous Firefox crashing problems with Wikipedia, so accessed it with 2 other browsers- all produce the same outcomes. Does Wikimedia or whoever oversees en.wikipedia know about this problem? -- 04:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like a problem on your end. It sounds like someone is redirecting your connection to another website (since wikimedia does not use

VoxCAST servers afaik.). You should check your hosts file to see if it contains in it anywhere (And if it does delete that line). Also check for viruses/other malicious software. You can probably still access wikipedia via . Bawolff 17:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The secure Wikipedia works. I've been browsing around and it seems that Voxcast server at Port 80 (Port 80 evidently being one of the most commonly used internet ports) has come up occasionally (i.e. in Google search, people have posted that error message). Looking up hosts file (the computer I'm on is a Mac BTW), I've read that it's one of the more important folders of info and password-protected so I'm a little afraid to go tampering around with that. Is there any other way to troubleshoot the problem? I looked in browser history on 5/27 and found no websites out of the ordinary (i.e. just visiting all the websites I usually visit)/the only new websites visited were some news websites I usually didn't visit before. I'm trying to ask the question on a Mac forum too to get more information. -- 18:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)