Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2011-08

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Use of user-scripts/bot policy

Hello, on the French project we are currently discussing the issue of contributors using scripts (AWB) to create/modify hundreds of articles at high speeds (approx. a change every 2 seconds), examples include [1] and [2]. The scripts are run on the user account, not using a bot flag, is that a "bot policy" violation? On the other hand, I am also using a javascript to close some procedures (page deletion votes) in one click, those scripts make 4 edits per click, is it a violation of the "bot policy"? Can someone please clarify [3] ? Argos42 17:26, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Your script isn't a violation as you oversee what is happening. The other person, on the other hand, seems at the very least to be breaking Bot policy#Edit throttle and peak hours. They are making too many edits too quickly. The other things might be up to fr.wp as a community about how to handle it. Killiondude 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikimania OTRS workshop recommendations

See them on wm2011:Submissions/Volunteer_Response_Team_Workshop#Recommendations, they're very interesting! --Nemo 07:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Attacked by administrators

I was doing a simple question about that the norweigan terrorists demands to get an offline wikipedia to his cell and was attacked by a admin who said I sympathized with him. I asked what he meant and was attacked by other admins and they blocked me and called me a troll, dogmatist, provoker and a puppet. Nothing of this is true, since I was attacked. Please look into swedish wikipedia where this happened and get me unblocked, because I have had a lot of bad will from administrators there. Am I just supposed to shut up and let them call me all kinds off things? I've logged in from other IP's to explain, but they delete that and block me further. 80.217.49.79 04:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Meta is not a court of appeal from other projects. Nobody here can help you, you must follow the process of the Swedish Wikipedia QU TalkQu 21:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I can't. I'm beeing blocked under every IP I explain under. Another user got blocked for life because they thought I was him and then I was blocked for three years because they thought I was the one who was blocked for life. They attack me with association by guilt arguments because I'm uninlogged I have to be bad and then another admin belives what the first said and they call me a troll because I try to get them to stop treating me bad. Where is the right place to take this up, since they ban every word from me and deletes what I say and attack me with more insults? 80.217.48.57 22:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
What is your account there? I couldn't find anything about the case, except you evading the block. Striker talk 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I didn't have an account, just IP 80.217.49.79. They say I'm a user called Computerror who got banned for life because they thought I was him and then I got banned for three years by another admin because they thought I was the user who got banned for life. I have tried to mail them butt they don't answer and when I write in the discussion they delete it and ban that IP also with the charhe that I should be a troll. I'm no troll, I just don't like to be attacked on false grounds. Even if I was the user Computerror it isn't a reason to ban me, because he got banned because of this and wasn't banned before. Maybe he was a troll as the name seems suspicious, but I'm innocent of all charges. I got attacked on false grounds and then other admins came after me because of the lies. One admin even implied that I had no place in a discussion just because I don't have an account. Sure. I can ignore this and start to do my edits again from a new IP, but there's a lot of accusations on swedish wikipedia I've seen and the admins are banning people just because they take place in discussions. Sure that my edits are smole, but I do contribute. Also they are calling my edits in the article about Elvis Presley provoction even though it is true. I wrote he's a hebephile and it is also to be read in the article about Priscilla that Elvis met her when she only was 14 years old and I have submitted a source for this. The admins I'm talking about is
  • Grillo (He started it all with false accusations)
  • Yger (He said I provoced Grillo when I just asked why he said that about me)
  • Obelix (He said I had no right to take part since I'm not logged in and that this was trolling).
  • MagnusA (He banned me and the user Computerror for life with the accusations I was a puppet and a troll)
  • GameOn (Deletes all my attempts to explain all of this misstakes, but only bans me for a day, but with the accusation I'm trolling)
  • Dcastor banned me for 3 years the day after, because I alledged was the now lifetime banned user Computerror)

It's not only them, but many more users that are calling me things just to get in good standing with the admins. Some people agreed with me, but then thought everything was right because I seemed to be someone else, but this person wasn't banned and even if I were him it's my right to edit not logged in. Since I havent provoked anyone I can't be called a pupped just because I'm not logged in. Sure, I took part in metadiscussions not logged in, because I wanted to be in the community, but that is not against any rules. The IP that got banned for 3 years is a dynamic IP from swedens biggest ISP. They have no right to accuse me of things just because I'm not logged in and they are pushing themselfes for the article about good intensions, but they don't seem to have read it themselfes. Just because I'm not logged in doesn't mean I do not have feelings and feel strongly about when people accuse me of symphatizing with a terrorist and mass-murderer, just because I ask about something where he was involved. Maybe I just should shut up and take this, but it's a bad trend to treat users. 80.217.48.57 00:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

A hebephile! Priceless.

Image Policy

I saw the article on the referendum for image filtering. Filtering makes sense for images that convey offensive information. But there's also the problem of offensive images that are uploaded not for any information content but simply to obey the Wikipedia Policy that every article must have an image. For example, the article on Feces.

I move that in addition to the already suggested demand-side filter, there should also be a supply-side option, that as Jimbo demands an image in every article, a writer can "placate" him with a symbolic placeholder, such as for example a Mizaru statue, provided that some sort of decision process of whether the lack of image detracts from the neutrality or completeness of the article is answered in the negative.

Collin237 198.228.200.151 05:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New account at en.wikipedia claiming to represent foundation...

Need comment from a foundation rep; I am about to block the account. See [4]. Thanks. --Jayron32 04:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the account can be blocked. Nothing to do with the foundation. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

New tool for SUL data

Hello everybody.

While I was doing my GS work, I just developed a new tool on the Toolserver which displays data about a unified SUL account and a list of local unattached accounts using the same name.

Everybody always used VVV's SULutil, but it does not display global data anymore. Some people have switched to Special:CentralAuth, but this one do not display status and unattached accounts. This is a bit nagging for people doing global work.

So feel free to use it. Any comment or bug report will be welcomed by mail or on my talk page.

Here is a direct link : http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/sulinfo.php

Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

ACK! The old tool incorrectly reports "SUL account doesn't exist." Thanks for the replacement utility. ~ Ningauble 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing the SUL home wiki

Hi guys. I have a relatively straightforward question: is it possible to change my SUL home wiki? And if so, how? Thanks for the help! :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends on what you call "SUL Home Wiki". Where have you seen that ? Special:CentralAuth ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yup, that's the one. :) --Sky Harbor (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I think it's the account you used when you have visited the Special:MergeAccount page to unify your accounts. Is it true ? If yes, you can ask for deleting your global unification here and re-unify using the special page from an other wiki. But are you sure this change is really needed ? nobody cares of this "home wiki"... -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Just a side note. Stewards will not delete global accounts for such a thing. That's completly useless and unneeded work. See our handbook. -- Dferg 14:46, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it's possible to change your homewiki. It doesn't mean anything really... it's just the wiki where you had the highest user right or the most edits when you combined your accounts. Cbrown1023 talk 01:16, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, in this case the home wiki is tl.wiktionary. Re-merging the account will change it to en.wiki. Ruslik 14:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It is just a technical term. I'm not sure the technical importance of having a 'SUL home wiki'. If it really bothers you, maybe request for a global account deletion and see if it is approved? --Bencmq 14:48, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
It will not. We're not going to spoil the hard work of the developers for such a triviality. -- Dferg 15:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of word "projects" by Wikimedia

Why does Wikimedia insist on using the word "projects" to refer to each of its endeavours? It's not an appropriate word. A project needs to have a distinct and finite end goal; when this goal is achieved, the project should close. Open-ended tasks are properly classed as "business as usual" - never as projects. Wikipedia etc. may have the goal of enabling access to knowledge, but are open-ended because there will always be new information to add. They therefore are not projects in the correct sense of the word. Can the use of this word be changed to something appropriate, or is it (as I suspect) too late? 46.208.26.3 06:50, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The normal definition of project does not include the word "finite", just goal. By this definition they are projects - they run and in some cases have ended by being closed. En Wikipedia will close when it either is complete or is deemed to no longer have value and be shut down. Just because the goal may not seem achievable does not stop the set of activities being a project QU TalkQu 20:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
You have obviously never studied project management. The Project Management Institute states, "A project is temporary in that it has a defined beginning and end in time".[5]
See also: "True projects... have a clear and agreed upon objective, have a defined life span",[6] "A project is generally defined as a programme of work to bring about a beneficial change and which has a start and an end [and] constraints of cost, time and quality"[7] and "A project is a temporary effort to create a unique product or service".[8]
Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia "projects" may one day cease to operate, but this will not be because their goal has been achieved, but due to other factors, e.g. lack of funds or World War III. I'm sorry but because they're open-ended tasks, they're just not projects in the true sense of the word. Of course I'm not expecting Wikimedia to change its terminology on the basis of my post, but I felt compelled to raise the issue because, pedant that I am, every time I see the word misused here I bristle with irritation. As champions of global knowledge, Wikimedia really ought to be using accurate terminology. Bazonka 07:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are obviously wrong regarding my "studies". I'm a professional project manager with 20 years experience in the field as well as numerous qualifications, including a masters degree specifically in the field. I also train project managers. Common usage is not the way you define it here - I know. QU TalkQu 18:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
"Wikimedia really ought to be using accurate terminology." — which is... ? Seb az86556 15:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
...which is not "project". Perhaps "task", "endeavour", "enterprise", "venture"? Bazonka 16:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
It is a mistake to think that a word which is narrowly defined for use in a specific field, and necessarily so, cannot also be a word having broader meaning in other contexts. Use of the term "project" for an open-ended activity is fairly widespread, and it is commonly applied to collaborative undertakings. Consider the GNU Project and Project Gutenberg. (The Rosetta Project, on the other hand, would meet the narrower definition because has a definite 10,000 year goal.) It is not at all uncommon, in the course of human endeavors, to project forward with a definite aim that does not entail a definite end. Business consultants are, of course, well advised to avoid such matters. ~ Ningauble 23:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. In fact languages are ever-changing due to the use of new words being created or meanings being altered for old words. English is not like French where they have the Académie française to legally define what is French. English, like other languages makes new words all the time and butchers tonnes of words. Projects is fine in the WMF content because the projects do have a clear goal; offering for free the sum total of all human knowledge. People need to think of Wikipedia in terms of decades rarther than weeks/months/years. fr33kman 02:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
yes indeed, wikitruth is to truth, as wikiprojects are to projects. bringing outside expertise is a burden that is very liberating to cast away. Slowking4 18:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Stewards/elections 2011-2

For what reason a election will be held? --HWChat - zhwp 14:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

We need more people willing to help. -Barras 14:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Donation of three months' access to Feminist Economics

Routledge has kindly offered three months' free online access to Feminist Economics, a peer-reviewed academic journal, for up to 15 Wikimedians. The sign-up sheet is here, and will open at 22:00 UTC, Monday, August 29.

Please pass the word along to anyone you know who might be interested. Cheers, SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 18:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Wiki language ISO 639-1 → 639-3 proposal

Hi, I'd like to have more opinions on this. It is a new idea that is far from perfect. -- とある白い猫 chi? 22:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to shutdown/merge content

I don't seriously expect this to gain traction, but I hope that I can gain you attention for a moment of serious consideration of this proposal.

I think that this wiki ought to be shut down, with the existing and future content largely merged onto the English Wikipedia, for now. This wiki seems like a decent enough idea, but I think that it may be a bit ahead of it's time. My main motivation for this proposal lies in the fact that the English Wikipedia quite obviously has achieved something akin to "critical mass"; there are enough people there with interest in the issues addressed by this wiki that they will receive the attention required there.

I am quite aware of the fact that this wiki is supposed to be multi-lingual, and a bit more inclusive (and, obviously, "meta"). I'm under no illusion that this probable criticism can be completely addressed, but I think that the benefits of enacting this proposal outweigh the costs. It is quite clear to me that the English Wikipedia, through the sheer number of active (and hell, inactive) users, as well as it's super-high profile, is the central Wikimedia wiki (all due deference to the German, French, Wiktionary, etc... communities, the reality is that the English Wikipedia still pretty much stands alone).

The Wikimedia wiki serves a distinct, inseparable purpose, along with the MediaWiki wiki. The character of such projects is distinctly different. The main problem that I see with this is a fracturing of the community, as well as a schism between the Foundation and the community though uncertainty caused by fracturing the community.

Technically, I think that we could enable this to move forward with ease though the creation of a meta namespace on the English Wikipedia, and the movement of pages from here to appropriate places as determined on a case-by-case basis. I don't see this as a "failure" of this project either, but simply as an acknowledgement that reality may not quite meet expectations. I'm not out to seek a permanent shut down of this wiki either, as I imagine that at some future point there will be a real need for this project to re-emerge.

Anyway, I sincerely hope that those of you reading this consider it in good faith. Regards, Ohms law 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware of Meta-Wiki's history? I don't think many people realize how old it is. It started at meta.wikipedia.org, if that gives you an idea.
I don't see a compelling reason, particularly with unified login, to move to the English Wikipedia. It seems like a regression that will only have to be reversed at some point in the future.
Beyond the English Wikipedia's massive size and scale, what do you see as the benefits of moving Meta-Wiki to a Meta namespace on the English Wikipedia? How do those benefits weigh against the detriments? --MZMcBride 19:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Vaguely... meaning, I'm aware of it somewhat, but that I've largely ignore it... which is part of the reason for this proposal.
I do agree that this would be something like regression, but it would be regression for a good reason. I mean, that it would be need to be reversed at some point in the future would be a good thing really, but in the meantime... exposing the processes here to a (much) wider audience would seem to be a good thing. Sorta (there are advantages and disadvantages, of course).
Addressing the specific advantages and disadvantages, the scale of participation is obviously the primary advantage. Of course, that's also somewhat of a disadvantage as well, but (and feel free to correct me if I'm flat out wrong here) I think that we're (participants on meta, of which I barely consider myself, admittedly) all aware of the balance involved in that calculus. Possibly more important though, consider the idea behind the phrase "principal of least surprise". I'll avoid any specifics here, but imagine a hypothetical proposal made here, with broad support, which has a tangential (or not so tangential?) effect on some aspect of the English Wikipedia. My sense is that the participants here are not (yet?) numerous enough to come close to representing "the community" as a whole, so proposals here are wide open to criticism of... well, cronyism, I guess.
Maybe the "real" solution is some sort of advertisement, but that's actually part of the problem. It seems to me that the cross-wiki aspects of this project are a real problem at present.Ohms law 19:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Anyone who is sufficiently involved with Wikimedia projects will have heard of Meta. It's just that kind of website that exposes itself before you once you drink the last gallon of Kool-Aid. harej 20:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Right but... I mean, is that what we want? Is being (at least somewhat) hidden away truly desirable? I understand the desire behind that thinking, but... is it really what's best for everyone?Ohms law 20:31, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
It does seem that Meta is almost entirely focused on en:Wikipedia. Look, for example, at List of articles every Wikipedia should have. This is an attempt to do otherwise, yet the main criterium for inclusion appears to be the size of the en:Wikipedia article. Guido den Broeder 09:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it seems that way. You have to realize the development history of Meta-Wiki and take into account that Wikipedia has a disproportionate... everything. Meta-Wiki also has a lot of shit in it. Some of it is useful and valuable; a lot of it isn't. --MZMcBride 04:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
That's actually a whole other reason to go forward with something like this. I mean, how much use can a wiki that ends up being a backwater and turning into something like a garbage bin really be? I don't know that Meta is really as en-wiki centric as Guido makes it out to be, but... it doesn't "feel" like a really successful project.
An alternative solution would be to, well, advertise. I still think that creating a "meta" namespace on en-wiki would be more effective, but simply advertising the existence, purpose, and usefulness of meta on other wikis would probably help quite a bit. Ohms law 06:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I oppose this; there's already too much colonialism coming from English wikipedia; secondly, this proposal suggests that admins on en. should now have the right to block users of any other project from communicating with stewards. Not gonna fly. Seb az86556 08:41, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

woah, "colonialism"? Really? ...and, I don't really get the comment about stewards. first, as is often pointed out, there's always email. Second, part of the process here would be to figure out exactly where to move everything. Some items should go to en.wikipedia, others to de- or fr- wikipedia, while still others should go to places like wikimediafoundation.org. The whole idea behind this though is to increase participation in the goings on here (or, at least, the possibility of participation, though increased visibility... read: transparency). As I said above, an alternative would be advertisement of meta. Ohms law 15:08, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
How about moving it to de.wikipedia? would that be more palatable?Ohms law 15:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
So they can invade Poland? — but seriously: the point is that "meta" (as the word applies) is supposed to be "meta". Putting it into any of the wikipedias is unacceptable. This place is for global requests to block/unblock, hand out global permissions, and give sysop-access to projects w/o bureaucrats. None of that should be done on any specific wikipedia. wikimediafoundation.org is bad as well since it's not part of the unified login. Different question: I haven't yet understood what exactly your problem with meta is — specific examples? Seb az86556 15:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I know what the purpose is. In a perfect world I'd agree with you (and really, I do agree with you, that's the way it should be), but... There's a problem here because this wiki just isn't seen. The participation level here is not what it should be. That's what I've outlined in my post(s) above (I thought, at least). Additionally... there are some things here that should be on the WMF wiki, and some that probably should be on the MediaWiki wiki, and others that should be on one of the Wikipedias, etc... Anyway, like I said at the outset, I don't expect this to be taken seriously. I just wish that somehting could be done to improve... well, everything about Meta, really. Ohms law 03:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
That's vague; I was really interested in specific examples. Frankly, I am surprised this complaint comes from someone who's primarily active on en. — you guys are pretty much immune since you have the voting power to override pretty much any decision made here by opting out. I would have understood it much more if the complaints had come from a "smaller" wikipedia. They all too often have to "suck it up" and deal with what "the community" has decided and are then told "Sorry, the English, German, and French-speakers think this is a good idea. True, they've opted out, it won't affect them, and you're too small to have your voices heard." Host any of those discussions on en., de., or wherever, and the small guys are completely outgunned. ("Global sysops? Hey great idea, I vote and argue for that! Won't effect me 'cause on en. we'll opt out." - "Closing a project? Sure! I never contributed, I don't speak a word of the damn language, but lemme just give my 'yeah, nuke it!' in drive-by-style."...) So, therefore, I am actually pretty glad that meta does not have that much publicity. Seb az86556 08:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
@Seb: the main page says this about the purpose of Meta: Welcome to Meta-Wiki, the global community site for the Wikimedia Foundation's projects and related projects, from coordination and documentation to planning and analysis. I've often noticed that nobody reads main pages... So little planning etc. takes place that nobody thinks of Meta that way anymore. Guido den Broeder 09:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm aware of that. I still don't see how making it an English only project would address that. Seb az86556 10:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
First, I never said anything about English only. That's one aspect of the problem though, actually. Even here, where things are supposed to be multi-lingual, they largely aren't (or is it all just that well hidden? I see that "instructions" have been somewhat well translated, but beyond that...). Second, you said that you wanted specifics, but... I don't really know what to point to, other than not pointing. I mean, if you want a specific problem to discuss, here it is: where is all of the discussion about meta issues? And I'm talking about discussion organic to Meta, not things that have been imported from another project. Finally, it's a bit of a "dirty little secret" that en.wikipedia is significantly more multi-cultural than any other Wikipedia (I don't have hard data to back that up, but... is that really in dispute?). If we install the language select extension on en.wikipedia (which could have some nice side effects anyway), create a "Meta" namespace, then that seems to take care of most of the criticism. I think that concerned editors, such as yourself, can easily address the "cultural colonialism" aspect of such a move as well (And really, English, being as loosely controlled as it is, can hardly be characterized as a controlling language... it seems to me that non-Native speakers have more control over English than native speakers such as myself do, and I can point to studies that bear that out to varying degrees if you'd like. That's basically where my surprise at the mention of "colonialism" was coming from). Ohms law 15:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The "colonialism" comment is not about the language; it's about approaches. It's about "lemme tell you how things are supposed to be run". It's about "English wikipedia doesn't do it that way, so no-one else should".
Apart from that, what meta-problems ("organic to Meta") would you like to see discussed? I really don't get it. What are these meta-issues? Are there any? Or lemme ask it this way: why should you or I be discussing what's doing on with Arabic wikipedia? Or Russian? I'm assuming you speak neither (I don't) and have never been part of it. Seb az86556 17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
...ok then, using that rational we should probably just close meta down, full stop. If there's really no purpose for it, and it's unused, why keep it around at all?Ohms law 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
You missed it; there is a purpose, and I listed some of that above: steward-actions, and keeping an archive on those actions — global permissions, blocks/locks, proposals for new projects, proposals for closing projects. Seb az86556 04:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I suggest some reading. mailarchive:foundation-l/2008-June/thread.html#43769 could be interesting for you. Nemo 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC) P.s.: I found very funny that you'd "save" wmf:, everyone hates it.

Good reading there, thanks Nemo. I don't usually read through the list discussions, since they're so... I don't know. Inaccessible, sorta. It's like we're stuck in the 90's, in terms of technology, here on Foundation sites, but that's a whole other discussion <sigh>. I've read about half of that thread so far, and I'd say that it somewhat supports what I'm trying to say here (in a round about manner). There is long-standing confusion about what Meta is, what it should be, and how it relates to the various other Foundation wikis (see also: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_movement). This isn't intended to be an attack on the site or those (few) of you who regularly participate here. It's intended to help us organize in a way that is more inclusive and transparent than we currently do. In my view one of the largest issues that we have is that things are so spread out that we've become a fractured community that can't seem to communicate internally very well. There are too many completely separate sites with overlapping reasons for being right now, and things are getting lost in the mix (unnoticed proposals and discussions, restated proposals, proposals gaining support and "surprising" stakeholders who were never informed, etc...). Ohms law 19:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Now that's a different point, and a different idea. That would call for a reform of meta. I cannot see how these problems depend on location. Seb az86556 20:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
My intent here was to say what I said above all along. Maybe I started this discussion off on a poor footing, or with some non-trivial assumed knowledge on the part of the audience (those of you reading this), and for that I take full responsibility. I am talking about reforming meta in some manner, and one of the (to me, primary) ways that I feel would help meta significantly is by putting it in front of a larger audience. If we decide to "go to where the people are", that sort of naturally points to the English Wikipedia, obviously. In my view, the English Wikipedia userbase is fairly cosmopolitan anyway (many, if not a majority, are multilingual. Many of the most active editors participate on multiple foundation wikis. Many editors and viewers are from various locations worldwide), so using some project space there for the purpose that Meta serves wouldn't be particularly out of place. I'm also a fan of fewer wikis, personally, simply for the fact that it's easier to deal with a single site than it is to have to navigate between a multitude of sites (with the caveat that some division is good. MediaWiki having it's own wiki is good, in my view, as an example). So, to summarise, there are really two proposals here: reform Meta to be more generally useful and have a larger audience; reduce the "wiki-sprawl" of Foundation wikis by some factor. Ohms law 03:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
The idea to reform and advertise meta is good, and reducing wiki sprawl is necessary. Let's do something aout it. I would like to see it merged with other clearly-meta and necessarily-multilingual wikis: strategy and the wmf-wiki for a start (each of which would continue to have their own main pages here). The majority of the work that happens herei is actually translation-related; while there is a preponderance of english-language material now, a bit of reform and outreach to meta-efforts in different languages could easily change this to a more balanced equilibrium. SJ talk | translate   04:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Regarding the Strategy wiki example, I think it seemed like a good idea at the time to fork a large one-time undertaking, but now it continues as a sort of isolated backwater. I have long thought the activity there would be better integrated into Meta. Bringing all of the open wikis that concern themselves with Foundation-wide matters together under one roof would foster cross-fertilization of ideas and provide a broader base for consensus. E.g., I think it is great that the Research Committee has found a home here. It would be a shame if it wandered away to another wiki, and it is unfortunate that some research activity is segregated over at the Strategy wiki. ~ Ningauble 15:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
  • It would never happen for the sole reason that the obscurity of meta gives a few individuals a lot of power that they are unable to have on their home Wiki. That is also probably the best reason for merging it into another project. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
  • I can see a great reason for moving meta material to, say, Wikipedia space on en.wikipedia. It would spare the world from contributions by Ottava and myself, and us from wasting our time instead of doing our own work, of personal benefit, for we are both banned there.
  • However, that's precisely why this cannot and should not be part of en.wiki. Ottava once was a sysop at Wikiversity, and I'm one now, and sysops need access to meta resources. This is a coordinating wiki, and that's how it works, unless users turn it into a soapbox, in which case they won't last too long, normally (but meta can be very tolerant). I've found the users and administrators here to be very responsive to civil, polite requests, and, big surprise, not so responsive to complaints about how wrong they are. I've been able to help users who were banned on various projects, when they came here to complain. They usually imagine that meta is a place to appeal their bans, which it is not. They may, however, gain insight into how they came to be banned, and some idea of how to proceed in a positive way, if someone notices them, take a sympathetic interest, and explains the situation. Sure, that requires that they are willing to listen and learn, and engaging people in listening and learning is the responsibility of those who would teach. Poor teachers blame the student!
  • Sometimes I invite these users, so puzzled about how unfair it all seems to them, to the Island of Banned Users, and we all benefit. I'm so busy there, creating positive content, and helping maintain the place, that I haven't bothered, or even had time or any inclination, to sock on en.wiki, for months. And I've seen that effect with others from a welcome on Wikiversity. Engaging people with their skills, encouraging helpful application of them in a welcoming community, can work wonders.
  • Ottava, why don't you try it? You wrote some great content on Wikiversity, and nobody bothered you about it. How about noticing the obvious? I.e., what you are good at, and focusing on that, and dropping what you are not good at? I'll suggest that "helping" people by trying to convince them How Terribly Wrong they are is in the latter category. By the way, it didn't work for me, either. --Abd 20:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

writing a blog but remaining anonymous

Hi friends, I love to share my stories,but at the same time remain anonymous. There are times when people want to share their inner thoughts with people who can guide them, when they want to share their happiness or their sad feelings.Somebody can console them.Lets create a forum where we can get maximum readers for such people.Because reading real life incidents is also very interesting. I love when people admire me.I feel bad when somebody says anything bad to me or people backbite.We have only one life to live, lets live it to the fullest.Lets talk to people all over the globe.

A blog about what? --Nemo 07:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Just spam, ignore it... Sv1xv 05:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
i do support this ..well putting it in other way, the blog can help in bringing like minded people gt togethr and do smthn gr8 ..such a blog wich brngs the talentd closer can b very helpful.... pachu 07:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

bringing "the talent " closer

according to my view..media is a the best way to bring the like talented ppl tgthr to generate a brilliant successs story ..there are people who lack opportunities or a good team to project themselves and come out ..a site or blog or even a discussion can bring out such people and link them with their kind of ppl ..to share the views ..learn things and develop themselves..it may b ppl working towards achieving a common goal..mutual aid can be given and accepted to benefit each other ..it can even be ppl having a common aim get together ..say fr example many want to totally erase the corruption out of their surroundings ..a single person may not be able to oppose bt ..imagine all such single person united ??!! that brings a difference ryt ??? soo get together and lead urselves thru to achieve"smthn big" ...

pachu 07:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Help! How to stop increased linespace from references

Hello, I couldn't find any help on this question. I installed a wiki V 1.16 and all references lead to an increased linewidth compromising the readablility. The actual Wikipedia Wiki V 1.17 does not have this increased linewidths. How can I achieve this too? --Gogtl 17:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikimedia-Deutschland-Chat

Ich habe entdeckt (hier: http://blog.wikimedia.de/2011/04/04/wikimedia-chat-die-zweite/), dass wieder ein Chat stattgefunden hat.

Aber die Seite Wikimedia Deutschland/Chat ist als veraltet markiert und erwähnt den letzten Chat mit keinem Wort. Auch die Frage unter dem o.g. Blogeintrag blieb unbeantwortet.

Deshalb hier die Frage:

Wo kann man die Logs der 2011er Chats lesen?

Und vor allem: Wann findet der nächste Chat statt?

--217.186.27.254 17:28, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Special:CentralAuth

Where do I update the translations in: Special:CentralAuth? -- Lavallen 07:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You should go at http://translatewiki.org/ where are translated all MediaWiki messages. Cordially, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 07:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, as Quentin said above, but this is the direct link. Just select your language, and hit fetch! — Tanvir | Talk ] 07:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Then it is translatewiki:MediaWiki:Centralauth-admin-list-editcount/sv I am conserned about. "Redigeringsräkning" is not a good translation. (At least not in this context.) I start a thread on :sv:WP:WF to find a better. -- Lavallen 10:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)