Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2012-08

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to 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.

Banned user asks for mercy, after 21-month wikibreak

Hello, I am the user formerly known as Sarsaparilla. I was banned by the English Wikipedia community in 2008. I took a 14-month wikibreak and returned in 2010, but was identified as Sarsaparilla and indef-blocked pursuant to ArbCom instructions. Then I took a 21-month wikibreak and returned under this username, and was again identified as Sarsaparilla and indef-blocked pursuant to ArbCom instructions, although I had asked that the community be allowed to reconsider my ban in light of my lengthy hiatus and expressed willingness to reform.

This time, I am not going to open any new accounts until I get permission to return. But I would ask that someone open a thread, either at Village pump or WP:ANI, and try to get the ArbCom decision overturned. I think that the ArbCom may have violated procedure by preventing the community from reconsidering a community-imposed ban. Maybe the community will reaffirm its decision, but I think it is for the community to decide unless the ArbCom wants to open a formal ArbCom case against me.

I really would like to be a good contributor at Wikipedia, and I believe that my lengthy wikibreak gave me sufficient time to rethink my ways and mentally prepare myself to behave differently this time. Please help me get that opportunity. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 02:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Meta does not provide any kind of court of appeal from Wikipedia. Your best course of action is to email the ArbCom mailing list and ask them what options they will allow you (if any) to move towards your ban being revoked. QU TalkQu 10:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
For a user whose Wikipedia talk page has been blocked, meta is one of the only means of communicating with the Wikimedia community without creating a new Wikipedia account (which would be yet another rules violation justifying extending the ban). A consensus on meta cannot overturn a Wikipedia community decision, but some meta users are also Wikipedians who can take action there based on what they learn here. Leucosticte (talk) 01:16, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I have to aggree with QU. You should email Arbcom (see w:en:WP:ARBCOM#Contacting the Committee) and ask them to allow you to edit your user talk page there so that you can make your case. Allen4names (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I can't email the ArbCom. MuZemike blocked my email. He was deleting the articles I created in order to deter me from ban evasion, and I emailed to tell him that by that logic, the one article that remained, open-mindedness, should also be deleted. He deleted it and then blocked me from emailing. If anyone wants to accuse me of abusing email, I consent to Wikipedia providing copies of all the emails I sent (which are not very many, probably about a dozen total), in order to prove otherwise. Leucosticte (talk) 22:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
This is common behaviour on en:Wikipedia. They close all possibilities of communication as a matter of course. I wouldn't know how to reach them either, except through meta. Guido den Broeder (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I guess that's one of the reasons people have gotten burnt out. The fact that the community allows its sysops and arbitrators to behave in the way they do, does not give one much confidence in the system. A lot of good editors have gotten treated pretty badly, and unfortunately their fellow good editors were usually too busy doing something productive to notice their plight and help them. I certainly don't spend much time at Wikipedia Review, or WP:ANI, or other forums, looking for abuses to object to; most of my edits are to mainspace (that graph doesn't reflect the >90% mainspace contributions, because almost 60% of my edits were deleted by MuZemike). And of course, there's no way for the community to exercise oversight over ArbCom, and hold them accountable, because ArbCom makes a lot of decisions in executive session, claiming that the matters are too sensitive to be discussed openly. Leucosticte (talk) 01:48, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
They did indeed block his email but as said on WP:ARBCOM to email arbcom-l [at] --Bsadowski1 (talk) 06:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
In case that's not clear, we mean "send a regular old email message to, just like you would send one to a friend or family member, using Google Mail or iCloud or Yahoo! mail or whatever your regular email provider is". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:52, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom is neither friend nor family. Mails to that address typically go unanswered. Besides, it is not Arbcom they want to contact (that is pointless), but the community. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Arbcom at en.wp handles ban appeals for all banned and blocked editors, even when the ban was originally imposed by the community rather than by Arbcom.
I wouldn't be surprised if they were ignoring e-mails from certain users, though. If someone's been told "no" a dozen times, and is still asking, then providing any sort of response might seem like a complete waste of their time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
That might me understandable up to a point, but it is not restricted to such cases. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_and_discussions says "Bans imposed by the community may be appealed to the community or to the Arbitration Committee". I was banned by the community, so I want to appeal to the community. en:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Ban_appeals says "The Committee hears appeals from editors who (i) have been banned or are subject to lengthy or indefinite blocks and (ii) have exhausted all other avenues of appeal." I haven't yet exhausted my other avenues of appeal, because I was never given a chance to appeal to the community. It's not really an ArbCom ban; it's just that somehow it ended up getting labelled as such. You'll search enwiki in vain for any record of ArbCom proceedings against me, but for some reason the blocking sysops said it was an ArbCom ban, while at the same time saying that the reason for the indef block is that I'm the banned user Sarsaparilla. The ban on the Sarsaparilla account was imposed by the community at ANI.
So much time had passed that I figured no one would care all that much if I came back, but I guess not. At any rate, I can (and will, if I'm required to) avoid socking for a year and then ask the ArbCom again, although the penalty of a year's block seems a bit harsh since there was no disruptive activity under the Leucosticte account. And I'm not sure that even a year from now they would grant an appeal. Has anyone heard of the ArbCom ever granting such a request? Even getting a ban appeal before the ArbCom requires getting through their listserv moderator first, which is not assured. Leucosticte (talk) 20:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Have you done as suggested and emailed arbcom requesting access to your talk page? As you say, you can appeal to the community rather than arbcom, but you'll need to contact arbcom in order to do that. --Tango (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I have done so, and am waiting on a response. Today is the one-week mark specified in en:Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Ban_appeals. But I'd rather not deal with the arbcom because there's no transparency of their decision-making, unless they open a case, which they don't seem to want to do. en:Wikipedia:BAN#Appeals_and_discussions says "Editors unable to edit any page (even their talk page) should appeal or make any statement by email or other off-wiki means, to an administrator, an arbitration clerk, or a member of the committee and ask for that to be filed on their behalf." So it doesn't have to go to the ArbCom; another route is to do exactly what I'm doing now. Leucosticte (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
No, you aren't following the directions. Those directions give you three options:
  1. Contact an admin.
  2. Contact an ArbCom clerk.
  3. Contact a member of ArbCom.
You are doing none of those. You are talking to random users at a completely separate project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
My mistake; I misread "committee" as "community." Guess what though, I just found out about this page, which might be helpful. Leucosticte (talk) 06:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

SilkTork informs me, "the Committee are highly unlikely to ever let you back into editing Wikipedia", "The Committee does not want to communicate with you", "You are someone that the Committee does not want to engage with, and does not want engaging with other users; and whose behaviour is considered to be inappropriate for an educational charity, and incompatible with the overall aims of the project", among other things. In light of this, can I at least get copies of my deleted articles for my own records? Please see User:Leucosticte/Deleted articles for a list. Thanks. Leucosticte (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Leucosticte was banned from en.wikipedia by ArbCom because he is actually Sarasparilla, a previously banned user. No appeal to the community will override an ArbCom ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The ArbCom is a creature of the community, and accountable to the community. The community could, if it wished, reach consensus at, say, en:Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Ratification_and_amendment to amend ArbCom jurisdiction in a way that would allow the community to override this ArbCom ban. In any event, that's a separate issue; none of that answers my request to get copies of my deleted articles. Leucosticte (talk) 17:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
The community could pressure ArbCom, but that's highly unlikely under the circumstances. You will have to contact ArbCom at if you want a copy of the articles. That's not an issue for Meta. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Since SilkTork explicitly said "The Committee does not want to communicate with you" and "You are someone that the Committee does not want to engage with," I fail to see how I am going to accomplish anything by asking ArbCom to help me get a copy of the articles. Leucosticte (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Files not in the public domain in the United States

Thanks to commons:User:Philosopher for pointing me to this forum.

According to Commons:Licensing, “Wikimedia Commons accepts only media [...] that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work.” This excludes very many media which are in the public domain elsewhere, but not in the US. For example, works published in the European Union after 1922 by authors who died before 1942 are in the public domain in the European Union, but not in the United States.

The reason given for this policy is “Commons is an international project, but its servers are located in the U.S.”. But this is only half the truth: Wikimedia has servers in the United States and the Netherlands (which are a member of the European Union). Why not host files which are in the public domain in the Netherlands, but not in the US, on those Dutch servers?

If legally necessary, these files should not be served to people in the US. Or (some of) the servers in the Netherlands should not be run by the US Wikimedia foundation, but by a legally independent European entity. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

We now have legal entities in several European countries, so this has now become practical to do. But some of the benefits are longer term than we are used to thinking in. We've had enough arguments as to images that can be used in some places and not others during the recent image filter debates, and I can't see any WMF project using such files until they are legal in the US. So the main benefits are that some commons deletions could be made less bitey as they would be transwiki to EuroPD or whatever you call this project, and as the files become PD in the US they can be migrated to Commons. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Thousands of files have been uploaded (and are used) locally on the German language Wikipedia. And many of these are in the public domain in the German speaking countries, but not in the United States. So there is a WMF project using such files until they are legal in the US. Probably many other Wikipedias are in a similar situation. So EuroPD, as you call it, should not just be a place where files patiently wait for getting public domain in the US - without being used until then. -- Robert Weemeyer (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The use of such files on German Wikipedia is basically just a German version of en:WP:NFC. Projects are allowed to use files which are unfree in the United States in limited situations, at least as long as the use complies with the definition of "fair use" in the copyright law of the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:17, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Agreed w/ Stefan. The German Wikipedia is able to do that under fair use; if they tried to become the proposed "euro-Commons" they would run into the exact same problems as the actual Commons does, since they are also a part of the US-based WMF. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What exactly are the Dutch servers used for? Are all WMF projects, in fact, required to follow Dutch law in addition to US law? This could have some interesting results:

  • Dutch law doesn't seem to allow fair use in the sense used by many Wikimedia projects, so if Dutch law has to be followed, it would be necessary to delete the vast majority of all fair use images.
  • Courts in some countries have concluded that the rule of the shorter term can't be applied on US works because of ancient bilateral treaties with the United States. According to en:Bilateral copyright agreements of the United States, there exist bilateral treaties between the United States and the Netherlands, so maybe this means that US works remain copyrighted in the Netherlands until 70 years after the death of the author, even if the works entered the public domain in the United States immediately upon publication because of no copyright notice? This would have some interesting consequences, presumably requiring the deletion of thousands of images. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

TV adverts?

Will Wikimedia ever start advertising on mainstream TV? 00:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This may help the WMF to gain contributors and readers, especially in lesser advanced countries. But this is very expensive ; and IMHO donators probably don't want their money get "wasted" in such expenses. --Jagwar 交談 homewiki 21:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
All we would really need is a narrator to say our mission statement and iMovie to slap the Wikimedia logo over a CC-licensed video. Total budget: Enough to pay for the narrator and a Mac. 01:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Uh, no. In the US, you have to pay the TV network to put your ad up on their channel. And that's very expensive. Not sure how it works in other countries, but it's cost prohibitive over here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Hey, couldn't we just sponsor PBS' shows? 14:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
And besides, a lot of quants edit Wikipedia; we could ask them to donate. Even YouTube AdWords is a start. 14:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
We already have close to 500 million unique visitors a month and rising fast. Of the other 6,500 million quite a large proportion are too young for computers, not online or in countries that block us. So why would we need to advertise, and who would you advertise to? There'd certainly be little point advertising on YouTube Adwords as practically everyone who sees those will be online. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I think that advertising might improve our image, and I'm pretty sure PBS' fee is much lower than the others' because the ones that do advertise on PBS are the ones donating money to their shows. So we would donate money to public TV, in return for more people donating to us. 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The german Wikipedia IS CENSORED

I want to begin a talk about the censorship that happens in the German wiki lately: Articles that were edited are set back to a previous version within minutes, Articles are deleted because they are not "relevant" enough in the eyes of the German Administrators there.

There is a big article where it is said that Wikipedia is not censored. That is simply not true, at least not in the german wiki. I don't want to lower the work of the admins there, and that there are enough times where articles must be deleted because they are not true or are against the law, but instead to talk about if a article is relevant enough to be in the wikipedia or not, most articles there are simply quick deleted.

Wikipedia has already a lot of problems because they cannot get writers, and most of the german writers only write for the english wikipedia, simply because they don't want their changes be deleted or their articles get deleted.

Wikipedia was originally a information-page from user for user but now (at least the german wiki) is from user for the admins.

So please no more quick-deletion of articles because they are not relevant enough! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 08:59, 31 July 2012

I honestly don't know what should be done about this. If it's really serious, then you should probably being it up with Jimmy Wales. He runs the place so he (or the rest of the WMF board) might be able to deal with it. 13:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Jimmy doesn't run the place, though he is a member of the Wikimedia board, but this doesn't sound like an issue for them. There is a difference between censorship and editing. The German Wikipedia like the English one has policies as to what does and does not merit a Wikipedia article, if you've had an article deleted because it doesn't meet their standards then I'd suggest you read their standards and if you think a mistake has been made talk to an admin there. WereSpielChequers (talk) 19:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored to suit the morals of any given group. That does not mean articles are immune from editing or deletion. If the community feels the article is not relevant, that's their decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Probably the deletion was because of lack of notability (although dewiki might have a different policy on that). It's not censorship.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Redirect problem on the gd.wiktionary "Main page" ?

What's that... I let you compare yourself :

That's the new way from Wikimedia to beg donation ? Please someone is able to solve it quickly cause for now that's more similar to a pishing trap than an official Wiktionary project main page. Thank you. V!v£ l@ Rosière /Murmurer…/ 22:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

They both look the same to me. There's some adware out there making Wikimedia pages show ads, etc. that aren't really there. Perhaps your computer's been infected? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Fixed I removed a piece of old javascript that caused this error. Ruslik (talk) 12:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Belgium

There are plans to set up a chapter in Belgium (and Luxemburg). If you are interested in, please make your interest known at wmbe:Founding/Interested people. Romaine (talk) 11:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Visual ID guidelines

I think wmf:Visual identity guidelines may be compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-No Derivatives license. 16:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Problems with perception of Wikipedia even among educated intellectuals

This thread from The Straight Dope Message Boards may provide some insight into the problem of editor acquisition and retention, even among people who would otherwise be prime candidates to contribute. The denizens of the SDMB tend to be highly educated, well informed on a variety of topics, and extremely rational (to a fault); they also enjoy sharing knowledge with others. But an awful lot of them have been completely turned off from participating in editing Wikipedia by arcane rules, the perception that trolls and idiots are difficult or impossible to stop, and the tendency for the most persistent viewpoint to win the day over the most correct one.

It seems this sort of thing could be a useful touchpoint for those looking to improve acquisition and retention of editors; is there a better forum in which to post this link to get their attention? LtPowers (talk) 15:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


I create Kolega2357-Bot bot, bot not working. Does anyone know what to do in Python that could we do? Greeting! --Kolega2357 (talk) 22:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Imagine a world where every single problem from the shortage of water in a small Indian village to the cancer operation cost of a small Somali girl and the need of a public library in a small town in America, all these problems are listed, updated, discussed, published , and saved till be solved, by this, wikiepedia will be a place to gain the real knowledge which is: the knoweldge which is: the knowledge of the problems of the world.this what Iam working on it, and I need your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎Mohammedhashim (talk)

Sounds good, but better call it WikiSolutions or something like that. :-) --Pilettes (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't sound very helpful to me. Most problems are not unsolved because they require more discussion. Most problems remain unsolved because of a lack of action. Talking has never dug a well, paid for surgery, or built a library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Many problems remain unsolved because action is taken to prevent a solution. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

We can discuss the name of the project , wiki solutions is a good name and more positive , I agree that we need actions , but to do so we need to be fully aware about the problems , and if we can't solve it we can record it for the upcoming generations . you could think about it as a new type of media , where every problem is important

Help from JAWP!

Korean vandalist is active in ja:日韓戦 (サッカー), but there is no active sysops in JAWP. Help!--Ohtani tanya (talk) 09:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

He/She has been blocked. Thank you!--Ohtani tanya (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Signature policy

Hi all, I've got a suggestion to amend the Wikimedia signature policy.


On Uncyclopedia, we have condoned both the use of templates and images as part of signatures, with some restrictions. See our signature policy for more information.

From Wikipedia's signature policy: "Images of any kind must not be used in signatures..."

  • "They are an unnecessary drain on server resources, and could cause server slowdown." Browsers with caching enabled will not download the same image twice. If a user signs multiple times on a talk page, the image in a signature will only be downloaded once. As a result, the effect on server bandwidth is trivial.
  • "Images do not scale with the text, making the lines with images higher than those without them." On Uncyclopedia, it is common to see signatures that contain images such as icon flags: [Icons-flag-us.png]. The only restriction is a hard limit of 15px high and 200px wide.

About template use:

  • "Signature templates are a small but unnecessary drain on the servers." Note the word small. Excessive transclusion doesn't seem to be much of a problem on Wikia servers (and the PHP engine will probably create an execution plan and reuse it with each transclusion[citation needed]). Wikimedia servers are most likely going to be even more robust[citation needed].
  • "Signature templates are vandalism targets." Administrators on Uncyclopedia often protect their own signatures to prevent abuse. In addition, a user could request that their signature template be protected.
  • "[Bots] used to automatically archive particularly active talk pages ... read the source of the talk page, but don't transclude templates, and so don't recognize the template as a signature." On Uncyclopedia, it is recommended and even standard to use a signature template located at User:Example/sig or some variation thereof. The bot(s) could therefore be modified to process templates as signatures if they match the case-insensitive regex ^User:(.+)/sig.*, which matches "User:Example/sig", "User:Example/SIG", and "User:Example/Signature".


  1. Allow templates to be transcluded provided that such templates are located at User:YOURNAME/sig. This functionality would be added via an extension that adds a checkbox "Use a signature template" to Special:Preferences. In addition, if any part of the signature is transcluded from a template or parser function, then a signature template must be used.
  2. Allow use of images with maximum dimensions of 200x15 px, provided that they are non-offensive. Alternatively, only allow images approved for signature use.

Thanks for your consideration. Cheers! 23:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no global signature policy on Wikimedia projects, the individual projects set up their own rules. I presume that you most likely would want to direct your proposal to the English Wikipedia? --MF-W 00:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Thinking out loud, it'd probably be good to set a basic global signature policy forbidding images, large HTML and the like in signatures. There are sometimes signatures that are so big or complex in code that breaks the lines. A signature is something to identify the poster of the message and while I agree it's open to customization, WM is not a playground nor a fashion contest of signatures. I think that devs should block templates in the signatures without being "subst:"ed. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Is that necessary? I don't know about other Wikimedia projects, but at least a few Wikia wikis allow templated signatures without any problems. Given that, I don't know that the problem is severe enough to make it a global ban. (Personally, I support the en.wikipedia signature policy. But I don't think we need to mandate it elsewhere.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 02:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Global sysop policy modification request

Hello. I have started Talk:Global_sysops#Changing_the_policy:_removal_of_global_sysops_per_community_vote to gauge community views on the issue. Regards. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

protect against false editors GroundZero and Sarah allowing access

It has come to many writers attention that there are editors that claim they know anything about writing nor biographies of famous or known people and their work. it is imperative that we protect our rights against these people .. in fact we found that most of them are not even old enough to know better, there are assigned PR for those individuals and it is only rights that we are protected against them for this it must be that they are only aloud to introduce themselves and ask to help not involve for this is only cause consumers issues of free speech or such. they also make rude comments to include threats to others that are assigned to these pages and also already accepted by the main wikimedia

please stop hiring those who you think know anything about writing. these people help us to band them...go back to school. and stop harassing those you want to try and meet. again we must be that these are people who are like teenagers...not even allowed to ..if editing or contributing you can submit a request or info about their page and it must be allowed or if you know of something GREAT! BUT IF YOU DON'T OF A that references are only if wanted and most are directing to the career. not everything haves to be be that it was before the internet.. you can't write and you are socially disabled take it from a professor. no offense but kids today geez... The preceding unsigned comment was added by Askshoop (talk • contribs) 21:12, 15 August 2012‎ (UTC)

  • If you got into trouble with some editors at Wikipedia, please discuss there at the corresponding talk pages.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases

The quest to get editors free access to the sources they need is gaining momentum.

  • Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
  • Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

You might also be interested in the idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. Add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal. Apologies for the English message (translate here). Go sign up :) --Ocaasi (talk) 02:19, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Urwiki images

Hi, I have found urwiki has an article Tomb Raider (1996) which uses some screenshots from that game. For example English and Vietnamese language versions have them too but urwiki has them without any licences. I don't think those pictures are free to use on one language version while other ones need to use FairUse licence. Other pictures from Lara Croft games can also be found on urwiki, for instance posters in Lara Croft and the Guardian of Light. Isn't this a copyright violation?

I am not sure this is the right place to report this so if not so please send me to the right one. Thanks --10:34, 18 August 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)

It has to be dealt with at, not here at WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
First, this is metawiki, no enwiki. Second, according to Copyright problems, Where there is no specific page for copyright problems these can be raised on the general Community discussion pages linked from the "Community" menu on the page left hand side. --09:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)
I apologize for the confusion; I had's Village Pumps open in other tabs and lost track of where I was. I see a copy of {{article-cv}} at ur wiki, but I couldn't find anything labeled "policy".
Have you considered copying over the FURs for images that are being used similarly in the en and ur articles? The rationales are presumably the same, if the images are being used the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Please read Non-free content. There is no Fair Use Policy at urwiki. The content is a copyright violation. Copyright templates were copypasted from enwiki without citing it/attribution; which also convert those in copyvios. -- MarcoAurelio (talk) 18:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
@ WhatamIdoing: You can't just add fairuse licences to images you find on some distant wiki. For example, I am from Czech wiki and (AFAIK) Czech law, doesn't support fairuse licence. Images load-able to enwiki under fairuse would be copyright violation for cswiki. That's why cswiki is now using only images from Commons (/AFAIK). I hope you have never added licences to files the way you suggest here.
@ MarcoAurelio: Thanks. I thought either there is some special policy on urwiki (and those images only lack the evidence of it) or it is a copyright violation (which I would rather believe). No policy means the second option. What to do next? --09:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC), Utar (talk)
Easy solution: mark all such files (those without any template and then those with templates not supported by policy) for speedy deletion and ask a global sysop or steward to intervene if local sysops don't delete them in reasonable time. Hard solution: waste time drafting and approving a local EDP, fixing templates, adding a rationale to each file, check their usage on the articles etc. etc. --Nemo 09:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
As I understand it, and have no actual legal obligation to follow the copyright laws of India, Pakistan, or Czechoslovakia. Wikipedia is not an Indian, Pakistani, or Czech website. All Wikipedias, regardless of language, have a legal obligation to follow American laws (see the Terms of use), but only Indians, Pakistanis, and Czechs have to follow Indian, Pakistani, or Czech laws. If Utar is none of these, then he can safely ignore the laws of countries that have nothing to do with him.
American laws permit fair use on all websites based in the USA, not just on websites based in the USA that happen to use English as their primary language. The editorial community at each of Wikipedia may freely volunteer to limit themselves even further than the law requires, but there is no actual requirement that they do so. In the absence of a positive statement from that community that they do not wish to do this, then I think it reasonable to assume that freedom.
Note, too, that a written fair-use rationale is not actually required under US law. That's a requirement imposed (for practical reasons) by the editorial communities. Under law, it must be possible to explain your rationale if challenged; you don't actually have to do it in advance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Ehm, is this another replied posted assuming to be on another page? We're not discussing the content of EDPs, I understood that has no EDP. General discussions about EDP should probably happen on Talk:Non-free content. --Nemo 15:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


Does meta have any particular policies on spam, or does it just get zapped on an adhoc basis? I'm thinking of this... bobrayner (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

{{delete}} is your friend, works on all wikis (except some silly ones not using the standard name of course). --Nemo 17:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. bobrayner (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Advisors group

We would like to invite you to join the new “Advocacy Advisors Group”. The purpose of this mailing list is to provide an open venue where anyone can participate in lively discussions about political and legislative developments around the world that may affect the Wikimedia mission. If the need arises, the Wikimedia Foundation will also seek discussion and input from the members of this list regarding potential policy or political affiliations with third parties, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation Policy and Political Association Guideline.

If you are interested in political and policy issues, join the Advocacy Advisors Group at advocacy_advisors. If you would like to become a moderator of this mailing list and help us handle spam, please email --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Permission plz?

Hi. I'd like permission to use an animated Wikipedia logo (Image:New-Bouncywikilogo.gif) on this webpage. Thanks, 22:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Sí a la publicidad

Si Wikipedia es el 5º site más visitado del mundo estáis perdiendo dinero. Definir la independencia como ausencia de publicidad es un sueño romántico ya anticuado. Si Google tiene un millón de servidores es porque ha crecido gracias a la publicidad, y gracias a la publicidad da trabajo a todas las personas que mantienen ese millón de servidores. La mejor acción social es dar trabajo y crear riqueza. Eso de ir llorando que si yo tengo no sé cuántos servidores y Google un millón, dame una limosnita por favor, es la versión tecnológica de la mendicidad. Dejad de pasar el cepillo y cread una empresa. A eso se le llama crecer.

For those who don't read Spanish as easily, the unregistered user wants Wikipedia to display advertisements, says that the most socially valuable task is creating wealth, and compares requests for voluntary donations to begging. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

How to create a private wikisource site?

Hi wikimedia! I want to make a mediawiki installation that has the tools of It will be used to transcribe old texts that still have copyright, but privately (group of less than 10 people will use it for research). (1) Is the source of wikisource (!!) available somewhere? Google Fu fails me. (2) Is it different from mediawiki source? (3) Is there any legal / other issues I need to know of? --Objarni (talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, everything is free software and even configurations are open. You can see the extensions you need on s:Special:Version, the configuration is all here (look for Wikimedia's "puppet" if you're missing some trickier server configs) and templates of course can be imported\. --Nemo 11:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)