Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2016-02

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.

Deletion of an article on another project.

I can't find the administrator's page on Vietnamese, but Desyra was deleted as a hoax on Simple English Wikipedia. Could a Vietnamese administrator please delete the page, since it is a hoax. Thank you. Nepaxt (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nepaxt: I tagged it {{delete|C3 - hoax}}.   — Jeff G. ツ 08:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
The deletion tag was removed. I put it back on. Nepaxt (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Deleted and blocked sysop, many thanks. Tuanminh01 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposed WMF board resolution on the unreliability of Wikipedia

I've asked the WMF board of trustees to pass a resolution acknowledging Wikimedia content is generally unreliable, and encouraging the WMF to support efforts aimed at improving reliability.

Please have your say here. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:10, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

libertad de expresiòn en publicaciones en wikimwdia

¿Por què se intenta oprimir la libertad de expresiòn a travès de la censura de la opiniòn de cualquier individuo? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jafe anmo (talk) 19:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi,
Your libertad de expresiòn is a constitutional right allowing you to say what you want, without having BEFORE to get approval for government.
What that means?
It allows you to say what you want, without being mollested, arrested by the state.
Only laws, in Spain, as in other countries of Council of Europe, when these laws are strictly necessary in a democratic society and proportional to the pursued goal, could restrict a posteriori your freedom of speech, asking you to assume responsibility before courts (e.g. difamación cases).
But even in this worst hypothesis, you were able to state what you had to say, without any prior interference by the state. This is different from censorship, which blocks the expression.
Freedom of speech and Wikimedia projects
The Wikimedia projects are worldwide community projects to "collect and collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally".
They are not the government, they don't block your freedom of speech: you're still free to write what you want in any space you own.
But Wikimedia projects are not your private personal space, it's a community space, where the content is the fruit of the community.
Each time you want to publish something and have full control about it, please publish it in any space you own, your own website for example.
In a nutshell.
When your writings are removed from the Wikimedia projects, or when an user is blocked, freedom of speech constitutional right is not impeded. --Dereckson (talk) 15:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Model categories

Is there an "ideal" category tree for a small Wikipedia? I'd rather adapt a solid model to our situation than re-invent the wheel. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not aware of any but can not you use enwiki? Ruslik (talk) 19:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Sisterprojects

Hi,

In the Netherlands Wikipedia is the project that most people know. Wikipedia is also the project that gets the most attention. This year we want to start an initiative to promote the sisterprojects. Facilitated by the chapter we want to make a plan and a vision that will be discussed with the community. I posted this message because maybe other languages/ countries can share some of their experiences with promoting the sisterprojects. I would like to get in contact to hear some best practices. ~

Regards,

Tim Ruijters, Timboliu (talk) 11:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps we can create a Wikimedia: Not Only Wikipedia.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  08:21, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what sort of experience you are looking for, but Wikimedia Italia and other chapters promote sisterprojects since 2008 or earlier: you can find a trace in chapter reports. Nemo 08:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Whom you're commenting, Nemo? BTW, I suppose Tim means Wikipedia in the Dutch language since it includes part of Belgium and some areas inn the Americas, not only the kingdom.  Klaas `Z4␟` V:  10:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello Nemo, I find the chapter reports of Italia (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Italia). And when I read them I see lots of initiatives. I don't think we have such chapter reports in the Netherlands (maybe I'm mistaken). And according to me, the Dutch community is very focused on Wikipedia. Some Wikipedians see the sisterprojects even as a waste of time. Do you have suggestions how we can change this situation? We are now in the process of creating a team that wants to start up a discussion about sisterprojects. I find it difficult to think about next steps. Timboliu (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Open question: Is the global bot policy still useful?

Talk:Bot_policy#Is this useful nowadays?. Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 14:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Off Topic?

According to the purpose of Meta, this is off topic here, but I don't know where it would be on topic, except for fy: where it would be ineffective:

  • Fy: is conforming to a spelling reform.
  • Extension:MassEditRegex would appear to be the best tool to use for this.
  • How to determine whether this is installed? (This would most likely only be the case if this were so globally.)
  • Is there a way to get it installed if it isn't?
  • Will a user with the rights of what en: would call a "burocrat" then be able to give individual users access to this.
  • What alternatives are open to Fy: if Extension:MassEditRegex cannot be installed?
  • If all this is off topic, how should it be handled instead?

Aliter (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

@Aliter: You can see the list of installed extensions here: w:fy:Wiki:Ferzje. It is not installed, as far as I can see. To talk about whether it can be installed or not, the best way is to open an item in Phabricator. I hope this helps. --Lsanabria (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Indeed. it doesn't seem to be, which will probably mean more work would be involved than fy; could afford. Aliter (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Your question is fine at meta, it exists for interwiki communications.// What are you trying to achieve, that cannot be achieved by existing functionally, directly or via the use of a bot? // The edition of any extension will require a community consensus to undertake the action. // It needs to be security checked, and the difficulties that it may introduce need to be ironed-out.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Well, the problem in itself is not interwiki; the only wiki involved is fy:. // Probably nothing; fy: is trying to change words that have changed spelling, in manageable chunks in a preview-able way to leave exceptions as they are; this is the method found; I don't know how other methods are documented so can't say whether those have been considered less useful or haven't been found. // There appears to be consensus in the group of those who involved themselves with the problem of the spelling reform. ["addition"?] // The assumption appears to be that this would already have been done, possible because it's apparently worth listing. Anyway; the extension is not the goal. Anything that can be made to perform that functionality would probably be OK. Aliter (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Template:Tnavbar/en

Editing this page also results in a warning about Template:Tnavbar/en. Aliter (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The default page is English, so it would be edited at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Tnavbar&action=edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, but I don't know what the problem is. Aliter (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Azwikipedia

This discussion should be continued on the Stewards'_noticeboard. Green Giant (talk) 11:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

(I wrote about it. But there was no reaction ?! The reason I am writing again. Please avoid vandalism.)

User:sefer azeri' is engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out.), 2 (Without any major wiped out the picture., , ) , 3 (Fraud. Map changed. 100 years have reduced the state's history.), 4 (Insult.)... Requires block it for at least a year. But it was never punished for their work. Sortilegus always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Reliable sources wiped out), 2 (The name of the state, has been removed.), 3 (Reliable sources wiped out)... Wertuose always supported him. He is also engaged in vandalism: 1 (Picture of the article - az:Bakı xan sarayı), is deleted.. 2 (insult; Əxlaqsız ifadələrə görə...) and 3. The 3 users blocked me, without any reason! We do not have arbitration and appellate courts. Therefore, administrators dictator. No one can give me an answer?! To whom should I complain? Perhaps now would be the reaction?. -Idin Mammadof talk 08:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Aydinsalis, this is the wrong place to ask. The only people who could intervene are the stewards but the might be unable to do so if the wiki has other active admins/bureaucrats or dispute resolution channels. If you have been left no other option (and I really mean "no other option"), then you could try asking at the Stewards' noticeboard, but make sure you read the notice at the top. Green Giant (talk) 17:40, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Per Green Giant, you can left that RfC on Stewards Noticeboard.--AldNonymousBicara? 19:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
Thank you very much. -Idin Mammadof talk 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Aldnonymous and Green Giant, I wrote. There is no reaction. But then what do I do? -Idin Mammadof talk 10:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues..., User:sefer azeri writes: "atan haqqında yazdığın məqaləni də sildim bu da sənə paz olsun ... çox göt-baş atsan onun qəzeti haqqında məqaləni də sənin qəzetin haqqında məqaləni də siləcəm ... nə istəyirsən elə" (To displease you, I will do everything.). -Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism continues... and vandalism continues...!!! Ladies and Gentlemen !!! How long the vandals, remain unpunished ?! How long the vandals, the administrator will be ?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 21:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

In these edit the person says "deleted due to copyright infringement"[1][2]. Were these images copied and pasted from another source? Or were they taken by you personally? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

It belongs to me. They are stored in my personal library. There is no copyright infringement. They have been removed without any reason. They removed without discussion. Also, this page also deleted. Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Did you make the image yourself? Please note that simply owning a copy of an image is not the same as owning the copyright of an image. Green Giant (talk) 21:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
There is no problem. I am the author. Documents belongs to me. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Can you email the image in question as I am unable to see it? Also you said that you took the picture with your own camera? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I photographed their own picture. Web pages belonging to me, these photos are available: 1, 2 Thanks. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 10:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So this was published in 1933 [3] You do not own the content in question but it should be in the public domain as it is so old. This document is from 1993 [4] Unless that is your signature on the bottom you do not own it. The person who wrote the document or the government owns it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

As I said and you acknowledge, there is no copyright infringement: 1. That is the official document (Letter of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan.)), according to our laws, in the public domain. I am the author of photos. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 8:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Agree the first one appears okay. But were does it say government documents are public domain? I do not see it here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You see through autotranslator. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I found: Article 7. Objects not covered by copyright protection, (page 15). --Idin Mammadof (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes that indeed says state documents are not covered by copyright. Have requested the deleting admin comment here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. For it have requested the deleting admin comment here. No results. Is there another way to solve the problem? Vandals will not be punished? --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
We need to give them some time to respond. Also they are not a "vandal". They are deleting stuff as they see it as a copyright infringement. I am waiting to hear their side of the story. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This is not the first time? I can show 100 cases. They will not let me in the Azerbaijani Wikipedia, as well as other users. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
So far, there was no discussion. Now I began. Articles must be restored first. But I still have not recovered, only 1 article has been restored. In this article, the photo has not been restored yet: [16].--Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Okay yes I see that. Will give the admin more time to response. Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. "Can you provide a link to the discussion that resulted in your ban?" - I did not understand, you want to know the reason for this? I have not breached any rules. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I am wondering if their was a discussion that resulted in your ban. And if so can you post it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I created this article. Protested. But they could not delete the article. They blocked me. They are a group. Receive a salary from the state. They do not allow us to. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Content that meets at least one of the criteria for speedy deletion (Müzakirə edilmədən silinən məqalələr):
    • Advertising or other spam without any relevant or encyclopedic content (Reklam və spam xarakterli məqalələr);
    • Blank pages (Information pages are not). (Boş məqalələr (çox qısa və heç bir informasiya daşımayan məqalələr (məsələn, Filankəs - rejissor)) (Ən sadə məzmun qaydası: Məqalə başlıqdan və bu başlığı çox sadə şəkildə də olsa ifadə edən ən azı bir cümlədən ibarət olmalıdır.));
    • Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages that exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish (Vandalizm nəticəsində yaradılmış məqalələr);
    • Misspell the name of the article. For example ( az:Fizuli instead of, az:Fizuli) (Məqalə başlığı səhv yazılmış yönləndirilən məqalələr (məsələn, Fizuli));
    • Written on the same subject, if another article (Eyni və ya çox yaxın məzmuna malik başqa məqalənin mövcud olması);
    • Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (Məzmunu mötəbər mənbələrlə əsaslandırılması mümkün olmayan məqalələr, o cümlədən istifadəçilərin mənbələrə əsaslanmayan özfəaliyyəti);
    • Articles in other languages (Digər dillərdə yazılmış məqalələr).

Under these rules, the articles can not be deleted: [17], [18], [19].

In addition, I would like to mention:

Deleted articles have already been restored:az:Söhrab Arabov, az:Rövzət Dəmirçizadə, az:Məhyəddin Abbasov, az:Nəsib Muxtarov (arxeoloq). But now the deletion is discussed. No reason given. These pages will not edit anonymous az:Vikipediya:Kənd meydanı, az:Vikipediya:İdarəçilərə müraciət, az:Vikipediya:Silinməyə namizəd səhifələr, az:Nuxa qalası, az:Nuxa qəzası, az:Şəki dövləti. They want to be I could not edit anonymous, and I could not have to complain. So I can not complain that they want to lock me global. For this nachili private discussions. The same individuals: User:Wertuose, User:Sortilegus, User:sefer azeri. But not yet found any reason not bud. If they though an appeal to the Steward, let them come here. If they are right, what are afraid?! --Idin Mammadof (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
The vandalism continues. Again, the pictures are deleted without discussion ([25], [26] They belong to the opposition. For this reason deleted.). Some, after being restored. But some still have not been recovered ( [27] ). Worst of all is that such things happen regularly. We are angry, we are wasting our time, but it is happening again. All intellectuals went out. How long this situation will last? Please help. --Idin Mammadof (talk) 13:16, 3 September 2015‎ (UTC)
Sefer azeri yesterday pleaded with me unjustly block. Sefer azeri recently had 6 articles indisputably clear. Because he had created Aydinsalis substances. Hasan that when the complainant had brought back again the other administrators Article 2 of them. Then Aydinsalis 4 article "deletion candidate pages" pulled pane debate. That there is a debate as it is written in the pages it may take up to 15 days. 4 article that has opened the debate over the 15 days after the idea had reported only four people in the discussion. 20 days after the start of the debate. Sefer azeri and Keete 37 makes it nearly always the same review to any discussion of an argument, are deleted without reason and the principles he commented. Sefer azeri immediately "deleted unanimously decided to say" that archive discussion.[28] I took back the debate from the archive "this election is not the place," I said. "We're doing this in the election here, you" was decided unanimously "to say the debate concludes," I said. "Secondly not finish first in this debate, because I said you are neutral in this debate." You're the delete Articles "I said." The decision you should not give any manager, "I said.[29] Sefer azeri blocks show the grounds that I did vandalism pleaded with.--Samral (talk) 06:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I blocked 10 times. 9 Sefer azeri did. Is it coincidence that so? I appeal to all administrators [30]. None of them did not answer. It's not just me. Many users refer pleaded with him to receive the status administration [31], [32], . But almost none received no reply.--Samral (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Dear META. They violated general principles of Wikipedia, and it is constantly going on. Vandalism is legal, and you do nothing? I still have to wait? Is it true that you never look at my complaint? I want to believe that you will defend the principles of Wikipedia, albeit belatedly. --Idin Mammadof 9:39, 23 September 2015 2015 (UTC)
  • I have written here, I wanted to help. I have not received any response. The discussion is not over yet. Please pay attention to the issue. --Idin Mammadof 21:36, 13 November 2015‎ ‎(UTC)
The users also blocked indefinitely. Without any reason: [34], [35], [36] --Idin Mammadof 17:03, 30 December 2015‎ ‎(UTC)
The second account you mention was blocked for two weeks in 2014, with a reason given: Vikipediyadanın normal işinin pozulması; https://az.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%C4%B0stifad%C9%99%C3%A7i_m%C3%BCzakir%C9%99si%3A94.20.244.157&diff=2975193&oldid=2975188 - the link goes to a discussion where the impending block was made perfectly clear - they now edit quite a lot, apparently without a problem. Rich Farmbrough 17:46 10 January 2016 (GMT).
Time has passed 14 days, another year has passed. He's still on the block. The reason for the above is completely false. He did not break any rules. --Idin Mammadof 18:34 11 January 2016‎ ‎(UTC)
  • I have written here, I wanted to help. I have not received any response. The discussion is not over yet. Please pay attention to the issue. --Idin Mammadof 19:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Dear colleagues. Wikipedia in the Azerbaijani language, in poor condition. Many complaints had not been dealt with. Meta also does not address our complaints ([37], [38] ). Disgrace, how long will it last? I propose to hold an election to change the status of all sysops. --Idin Mammadof 14:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Open an RFC--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Idin Mammadof 14:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I have written here. What else to do? What else is missing? Could you help me? Now what should I write? Thank you in advance. --Idin Mammadof 18:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry, I gave you a wrong link: it should have been Request for comments instead. Look at this one, modify your file to include appropriate statement, and then include it here. --Ymblanter (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. --Idin Mammadof 18:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Most of this work has already been completed. So thank you, MarcoAurelio. But there, I have a complaint. The decision was not accepted. Now what should I write? MarcoAurelio, we can not work, Meta does not want to solve this problem? Please, help. Wikipedia has 5 pieces of common principles. These principles should be respected everywhere. Thank you in advance. --Idin Mammadof 22:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The New Wikimedia, February 2016

In January this year we started an initiative to get more attention for the sisterprojects in the Dutch community. Some discussions later we are wondering if it is possible to start a movement to change more things. Here are some things we would like to change:

  • A nicer athmosphere when discussing subjects. In the current situation you often see very aggresive discussions in the Dutch Wikipedia pub.
  • An online discussion about the activities supported by Wikimedia Nederland. In the current situation Wikimedia Nederland only supports Wikipedia related projects. It's very hard to start a new experiment.
  • Less focus on Wikipedia. More attention for sister projects.
  • More collaboration with companies and initiatives like Seats2Meet (http://www.seats2meet.com) and Part-up (http://www.part-up.com).

We also have plans to start an international movement, but first we want to focus on the Dutch community.

Regards,

Tim, Timboliu (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

gu.wikiquote logo problem?

Hello. Does anyone else see the logo too low on gu.wikiquote? Thanks. —MarcoAurelio 12:56, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

It shows up as the same as en.wikiquote for me. --Glaisher (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks normal to me. I think that there is something included in the local MediaWiki:Common.js that is also in your global.js and thus the same js is loaded twice. I have a problem with WikidataInfo.js that is on my global.js and also enabled on the gu.wikiquote's Common.js. --Stryn (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I can see it.--Juandev (talk) 07:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest to change policy on Flow (global or WMF)

Because I can't enable the Flow beta function in English Wikipedia, so I would like to suggest to change policy on Flow (global or WMF). My suggestion is the WMF should allow all language versions' Wikipedia users to enable Flow feature which skipped the community's consensus. The Chinese version is already allow users to enable it and I think English version can allow users to enable it, but it has been strongly rejected by the English Wikipedia community. I also think the current policy on Flow is irrational. Please start the new topic, thank you!--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 06:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Enabling Flow on your user talk is not a decision you can make on your own. By doing so, you force other people to use a software they may not want to use, or they might not be able to use with their software, as well as remove data from the data dumps. Hence it makes sense for a wiki to be able to decide that no Flow usage at all be allowed on that wiki.
If you want to use different discussion software or contact methods, you can always kindly ask people to use those methods (e.g. by linking a Flow page you follow elsewhere). You are just not allowed to force them. Nemo 11:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
I just to come here to suggest to change the policy on Flow. In additional, I think the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Japanese and Korean (major languages) Wikipedia should enable the Flow function with the new policy.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest it the other way around: Disable this weak forum impersonation, that in no way replaces the many different use cases on discussion pages, on all wikis, until more functionality is implemented. If possible, it could be used besides real discussion pages, for the kind of facebookish, meaningless, chitchat it's capable now. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
If I am still dissatisfied, I will go to the "We the people" section of the White House Website and create my petition about this.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 00:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Don't forget the HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL COMPLAINT PROCEDURE! Nemo 00:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
One more thing (last thing): I found some issues on Flow, including:
  1. Flow doesn't support Twinkle;
  2. It doesn't work the Substitution correctly;
  3. In Chinese Wikipedia, it doesn't support the Simplified Chinese-Traditional Chinese conversion (繁简转换 in Chinese).

Do you agree?If you agree, I would like to call the WMF to fix these issues, thank you.--Shwangtianyuan (talk) 03:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of access for someone who resigned at the WMF

I noticed someone removed the rights from LuisV since they resigned at the WMF. I was just wondering if someone should also remove the rights for Siko (WMF) since she also resigned from the WMF around the same time? Reguyla (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It depends, which rights?--Juandev (talk) 07:51, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Good call. Done with confirmation and consent of WMF staff. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:58, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, according to her email, Siko's last day is not until February 25. Heather Walls (WMF) (talk) 10:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok. I doubt she'll miss that bag of useless permissions. :) --Nemo 10:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
No worries, I just thought I would mention it when I saw the action on Luis's account. In this case, if they need them after being an employee maybe they should be setup on their regular account. I don't see anything there that shouldn't be carried over. Reguyla (talk) 14:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from January 2016

Here are the highlights from the Wikimedia blog in January 2016.
Wikimedia Foundation RGB logo with text.svg
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe, 20:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Excuse my sarcasm, but the second one should be more like "Who edits Wikipedia and isn't run off by the toxic editing environment" Reguyla (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia

Dear colleagues. I ask you to make a decision on this issue. Thanks in advance. --Idin Mammadof 08:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

How is "this" different from Requests for comment/Sysop abuse on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia? What exact "decisions" do you expect, and from who (which positions) exactly? --Malyacko (talk) 15:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Malyacko, our Azerbaijani Wikipedia user ignore all sysops and vote again. But I personally think we will discuss some of them. --Aabdullayev851 (talk) 18:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Mən ümumiyyətlə tələb edirəm ki, idarəçilər müvəqqəti, məsələn 1-2 illiyə seçilsin. Qeyri-aktiv idarəçilər idarəçi statusundan avtomatik məhrum edilsin. Neçə dəfə də bu məsələni İdarəçilərə müraciət səhifəsində qaldırmışam.[39][40][41] Tək mən yox başqa istifadəçilər də Sefer azeri-nin idarəçiliyindən şikayətlənib və onun idarəçilik statusunun etimad səsverməsinə çıxarılmasını tələb edib:[42][43][44][45] Bir neçə idarəçi də məsələn məhz Sefer azeri-nin idarəçiliyi haqqında etimad səsverməsi keçirilməsi üçün məsələ qaldırıb və buna dəstək olub.[46][47][48] Ama səsvermə təşkil edilmir. Bütün idarəçilərin statusu səsverməyə çıxarılasın vikipediyaçılar (istifadəçilər) qərar versin ki, kim qalsın, kim getsin. İdarəçilərə yalvarmaqdan bezdik tay.--Samral (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What do we want? We do not want vandal-sysops. We would like in the case of vandalism, vandals would be punished. That's all. --Idin Mammadof 19:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

My suggestion is to have a referendum of approval for all the administrators in AzWiki. A referendum in which we would vote separately on whether we still want to see each of them as admins. People are especially concerned about recent actions of two of the admins, namely Sefer and Vusal. But I think that we should challenge all of them, given that many admins have been basically inactive and some of them have had questionable activities in the past as well. --Мурад 97 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Мурад 97 bəy ingiliscə bilirsizsə zəhmət olmasa mənim yazdığımı da tərcümə edərdiz. Öncədən təşəkkürlər.--Samral (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Translation of Samral's comment:
Generally speaking, I demand administrators to be elected on temporary basis for 1-2 years. Non-active administrators should lose their status automatically. I've raised this problem a number of times on the appeal page.[49][50][51] Not only me, but other users as well complained about Sefer azeri's administrating activity and demanded a confidence vote regarding his administrator's status. [52][53][54][55] Some administrators also raised this theme and were supportive of a confidence vote regarding Sefer azeri's administrating.[56][57][58] However, a vote is not being organised. Statuses of all administrators should be challenged by elections, Wikipedians (users) should decide who stays and who goes. We are fed up with begging administrators.
Translated by --Мурад 97 (talk) 09:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition page for "free content"

This came up on this talk page, we do not seem to have a definition for "free content" or "non-free content" despite its importance; Free content is simply a soft edirect to en:Free content which is an encyclopedia article that encompasses a lot more than just our definition, Non-free content is a list of projects with a EDP and with minimal if any explanation, Exemption doctrine policy is a redirect to Non-free content and the only thing I can find is wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy which refers to an freedomdefined:Definition. Methinks we could use to expand Free content so that it provides an explanation, working upon the Freedomdefined definitions. What do folks here think?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it means that you can write something about "free content". Ruslik (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Why would we create our own definition? The point of that term is that we use a definition shared with many allies. Nemo 19:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily to write our own definition. Just changing free content so that it refers to the Freedomdefined one rather than the enWikipedia one which is a far broader topic.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh sure, I agree that's a good idea. Yes check.svg Done[59] --Nemo 20:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Voting about arbcom?

FYI: There is a sort of not anounced voting or rfc or something like that on Talk:Harassment consultation 2015/Ideas/Blocked indefinitely#Meta arbitration. -jkb- 18:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The New Wikimedia

Some people are experiencing problems working for the Dutch Wikimedia projects. Starting a discussion with the Dutch community is not easy so we want to ask the global community for help. Is meta-wiki a good place share information? See https://part-up.com/partups/wikimedia-zusterprojecten-szSaH6CFsRBvWyxCG for more info. Regards, Tim, Timboliu (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Malfunctioning milestone

I just note that current total number of wikipedia's edits exceeded 231 − 1, see page's bottom. And my bot which updates this page had broken on it since it had used a 32-bit signed integer variable to count this statistics. Well, funny but significant milestone for Wikipedia. Congratulations! --Emaus (talk) 20:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)