Wikimedia Forum

←Discussion pages

Wikimedia Forums

Archives→

<translate> The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the [[<tvar|wmf>Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation</>|Wikimedia Foundation]] and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see [[<tvar|meta-babel>Special:MyLanguage/Meta:Babel</>|Meta:Babel]].)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the [[<tvar|mediawiki>Special:MyLanguage/MediaWiki</>|MediaWiki software]]; please ask such questions at the [[<tvar|mw-support-desk>mw:Project:Support desk</>|MediaWiki support desk]]; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on [[<tvar|tech>Special:MyLanguage/Tech</>|Tech]] page.</translate>

<translate> You can reply to a topic by clicking the "<tvar|editsection>[edit]</>" link beside that section, or you can [<tvar|newsection>//meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum&action=edit&section=new</> start a new discussion].</translate>

You can reply to a topic by clicking the '[edit]' link beside that section, or start a new discussion

Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

• About Meta
• Discussion pages
• Request pages
• Policies and guidelines
• Information and statistics
• Categories
• Help pages

Participate:

• How to edit a page
• Meta-Wiki discussion page

This page experimentally allows language localisation.

Food for thought, knowledge for change

Here's a possible new fundraising source that may be both practical and able to generate significant funds, submitted for consideration.

Aside from the annual fundraising drive which appeals to many Wikipedians, its possible to have a separate benefactor microdonation system linked to every article page. It would permit readers of Wikipedia articles to make payments to both the contributors of an article, and to Wikimedia itself.

I'd recommend involving an electronic payment company such as PayPal, Visa, Mastercard, Amex... (companies which I have no employment relationship with) to administer the actual processing of payments. We can believe that such companies can provide the electronic payment processing for Wikimedia on a pro bono or at cost basis, since it wouldn't likely involve a great deal of effort on their part because of the use of their existing infrastructure.

The Wikipedia encyclopedias have several stakeholders -let's reward the two principals. This would benefit both Wikimedia and the quality of its encyclopedic articles at the same time. The two most important stakeholders are, naturally, Wikimedia, which runs and enables the entire organization, and the editor/contributors who both create and upgrade its encyclopedic articles. A new system can benefit both stakeholders, and at the same time provide greater motivation for expansion of its articles, depth and quality, all without conflict to Wikipedia's traditional fundraising.

New microdonation system:

1) DONATION SYSTEM PROCESSOR: a donation processing agreement is coordinated with a company such as PayPal. The processor would receive the payments from readers, aggregate them and then bill them monthly to the readers that volunteer to make such payments. As per the procedure schedule and formula, the payments would be made to both the registered-contributors/editors and to Wikimedia itself.

2) ENROLMENT OF MICRODONATORS: the Wikipedia encyclopedia would offer readers, via a hyperlink, the opportunity to register themselves for microdonations, and then make such donations while reading its articles. Registration of benefactors would be handled by the processing organization, which would obtain valid credit card or bank account information from those wishing to donate. Doubtlessly, many readers have been impressed by the broad scope of articles available, and by the depth and quality of its many individual articles. Let's allow such readers the opportunity to provide a modest award to the article's contributors and to Wikimedia at the same time. The range of donations can be set with minimum/maximum limits: expressed in U.S. currency, perhaps 5 cents at the minimum, and perhaps $1 at the maximum, per article, that the reader wishes to award. For simplicity, such donations would be tax exempt: no formal donation paperwork would be issued regarding donations for income tax purposes.

If a reader found an article compelling and educationally satisfying to him/herself, the reader clicks on a micropayment button to make one-time donation payment, either for a default amount or for another amount within the min/max range. After confirmation, that payment data would be registered by the donation system processor. At the end of the month, the payment processor would aggregate the donation data and bill the benefactors' registered credit cards or other accounts. Ex: if a casual reader read 20 quality articles in a month, and then donated 10 cents for each one, that person would be billed exactly $2.00 on his or her credit card or other account, paid to both the article's registered editors who wish to receive such payments, and to Wikimedia, as applicable.

3) ENROLMENT OF ARTICLE WRITERS AND EDITORS: contributor/editors would be permitted to register themselves if they wish to receive such payments.

• Payments could be make to valid PayPal, direct deposit bank accounts and possibly to credit card accounts.
• To reduce the operational costs, payments would only be made electronically, and would not be made unless the registered contributor/editors had such accounts, i.e.: no time-consuming or expensive payment methods would be utilized, such as mailed cheques.
• Registration of the editors/contributors would be entirely voluntary; they would receive such payments only if they personally take the time to register themselves.
• Any such payments would be classified as a contract service: no withholding taxes or other fees would be applied, and it would be up to the contributor/editors to register their own earnings if income taxes were applicable.
• If a minimal payment transaction fee were required by the payment organization or the bank or credit card company to handle the cost of the payment service, it would be deducted from the payment. If a registered contributor/editor were to receive a payment of $25 and a 15 cent service fee was required to cover the transaction, then he/she would receive a net payment of $24.85. Wikimedia would obviously have the ability to veto the use of any payment service that proposed exorbitant rates for such payment transactions.

4) PAYMENT CALCULATIONS AND ASSIGNMENTS: Do not award contributors by the number of edits they make to an article that receives donations! Some contributor/editors (of the 'starving artist' category) might change their edit style to inflate the number of edits performed to create or upgrade articles.

a) Award the payments on the basis of the percentage of article's length that the editor has written which has not been reverted. If the hypothetical article 'The History of Pie' was written and upgraded by a total of three award-registered editors, and a combined total of seven unregistered/IP editors, and if editors A, B and C hypothetically wrote 20%, 15% and 10% respectively of that article, then at the end of the payment period Editor A would be awarded 20% of the aggregated payments collected, Editor B would receive 15%, Editor C would receive 10%, and the remaining 55% of the amounts collected would be awarded to Wikimedia itself.

b) The percentage each individual registered contributor/editor would receive would be calculated by the amount of editorial material he or she contributed, minus any materials reverted by others. If the case of 'The History of Pie', if Editor A had contributed 40% of the article, but 20% of his/her contributions had been reverted due to inaccuracies, then that person's net contribution to that article would be calculated at 40% - 20% = 20%, resulting in an award of 20% of the aggregated collections for that article.

5) NET BENEFITS:

• Readers who wish to reward article writers for the efforts would now have a vehicle to do so with;
• Article writers who have a need for some extra funding would be able to receive such payments;
• Article writers would also be encouraged to create more articles and expand existing ones: exchanging 'knowledge for change';
• Article writers would be encouraged to improve the quality of their articles, since the greater the quality, the greater the reward. Its exactly like busking: the more you impress and move your target audience, the more change they'll drop in your hat;
• Many writers will not wish to register themselves to receive such payments; those portions, as well as the portions performed by IP editors will default to Wikimedia. If the hypothetical The History of Pie article receives an aggregate total of $100 in donations in a one month period, and only $45 is awarded to the registered editors, Wikimedia would benefit by receiving the remaining $55 for that article;
• Finally, a certain percentage of unregistered IP editors may be encouraged to sign up for Wikipedia accounts! Hooray! More registered Wikipedians creates more Wikipedia involvement (hopefully of the positive type)—another plus!

For your consideration; feel free to contact me if I can be of help in refining the suggestion. Best regards: HarryZilber

ITI Khamariya upgraded by world bank

Last year ITI khamariya Seepat Bilaspur Chhatisgarh upgraded by world bank project and Chhatisgarh Govt. for training in COPA trade.

For FA Quality Comparison across pan-Wikipedia

I had removed the question I posted previously because it is not well-suited for this forum. If you are interested in the title of this message, please visit my user talk page, Question) How to choose featured article(s) from different languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooldenny (talk • contribs) 23:53, 17 March 2011

College student researching participatory culture

I'm not sure if this is an appropriate place to post this, but I figured it would be worth a shot. By all means, delete this if it doesn't belong here.

I'm currently working on a project about participatory culture and media that is driven by user-generated content...like Wikimedia's several services and resources.

I'm looking for people who actively contribute to participatory culture to answer a 5-minute survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/XSXG5B8

All help is greatly appreciated.

help me plzz

I am doing a project involving CMS mediawiki. but I have a problem in my wiki, the table of default does not appear, and the edit bar is very poor, please is to improve? Template:Info/Software

How can I disable the "Redirected from..." message?

I have a question. At the Dutch wikipedia we try to find a solution for the "wrong link problem" which turns out when using the 'primary topic' disambiguation system. The 'What links here' tool can not be used in such cases since there are hundreds of links.

A known 'solution' is to work with a detour. Instead of linking directly to the page one can link to a redirect page. E.g.: a link to [[Amsterdam]] would be a link to [[Amsterdam (primary)|Amsterdam]]. In this way the 'What links here' tool can be used after all (because, ideally, no pages should link to 'Amsterdam' itself, they all link to 'Amsterdam (primary)').

However, by doing so, a rather ugly redirect notice is shown .

We find some of a solution for that problem. Namely this script:

addOnloadHook ( fix_hoofdbetekenis ) ;

//fix _(hoofdbetekenis) links
function fix_hoofdbetekenis()
{
  if (typeof(disable_fix_hoofdbetekenis)!="undefined")
    return;
  var els = document.getElementsByTagName('a');
  for(var i in els)
  {
    if (els[i].className == "mw-redirect")
    {
      var oldhref = els[i].href;
      els[i].href = els[i].href.replace('_%28hoofdbetekenis%29', ''); // remove '_(hoofdbetekenis)' from URL
      els[i].href = els[i].href.replace('_(hoofdbetekenis)', ''); // remove '_(hoofdbetekenis)' from URL
      if (oldhref != els[i].href)
      {
        els[i].title = els[i].title.replace(' (hoofdbetekenis)', '');   // remove ' (hoofdbetekenis)' from tooltip
        els[i].title = els[i].title.replace('_(hoofdbetekenis)', '');   // remove ' (hoofdbetekenis)' from tooltip
        els[i].className = '';                                         // unset redirect class
      }
    }
  }
}

This script made it possible that this code: [[Amsterdam (hoofdbetekenis)|Amsterdam]] is internally transformed into a simple link to Amsterdam without that pages are included in the 'Whatlinkshere list'.

The only problem is that the script seems to be a bit to slow. When the link is already visited it took a second or so when the link turns out purple (this is because the redirect page is not really visited).

So my question is: do you know another way to make this work, eg a way to disable the "Redirected from..." message in some cases (by a code or so).

Greetings, Zuydkamp from the Dutch wikipedia.

generelle Orthographie von Woertern

Bitte sehr geehrte damen und Herren AUTOREN, wenn sie etwas in wikipedia schreiben , benutzen sie die richtige Orthographie, z.b. "Theils" ist falsch , richtig "Teils"! <ref>Nationalismus</ref>

gruesse reni von bifamo

innovativ consult/representant

diplingdesign, econom, projektmanager ing /scientist, international citizien und autor, poete ....

Hello,

I found myself unable to register. And that may be my own failure to understand the proper procedure in a past effort. Despite this, I'd still like to suggest a topic, and will first introduce myself as the person who authored an article that was used to footnote the Wikipedia biographies on George Lincoln Rockwell, William Pierce, and Matt Koehl. This was titled 'Pierce, Koehl, and the NSWPP Split of 1970.'

May I now suggest that someone take a look at my article 'The Origins of Pseudo-National Socialism,' as I estimate that it would be especially useful for clarifying where these three "neo-nazis" went wrong ideologcally. It's posted on the Advance Scout portion of Stormfront.org, where I moderate. And I'd also point out that Stormfront has made a sincere effort to move away from the trappings of national socialism itself due to this perspective.

Thank you,

H. Michael Barrett

help changing Revision History page design

Hi all

Can you advise me if it is possible to change the design/layout of the revision history page?

thanks

Hey guys I would like to know too!

Global blocks and bans

I wrote up a set of suggestions about how to address global blocks and bans, and how to deal with chronically problematic editors who also do great work:

Global blocks and bans

1) [Technical] Implement cross-project messaging, status flags, and contribution-history review.

2) [Technical] Implement tools for blocking, and for granting flags, across multiple projects.

3) [Policy] Define a Dispute Resolution Committee to evaluate global ban requests and guide related Meta policy

Dealing with chronically problematic editors

4) [Technical] Create permanent options other than banning.

5) [Technical] Create activity reports that can be shared across projects

6) [Tech and Policy] Offer more nuanced ways to profile new users.

7) [Tech and Policy] Define ways to share checks on problematic users, including private data, across projects.

8) [Policy] Define the negative impact of toxic contribution.

9) [Policy] Define when 'clean starts' are appropriate, and how they should be carried out.

Details at Talk:Global blocks and locks#Global blocks and bans; comments and suggestions welcome. –SJ talk | translate  

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".[1]

See also: "True projects... have a clear and agreed upon objective, have a defined life span",[2] "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"[3] and "A project is a temporary effort to create a unique product or service".[4]

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)

"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)

help... help... help

Help Me I ask to release the SockPuppet I was there named id:User: Erik Evermtus at Indonesian Wikipedia because this account will be used as a substitute if the main account stolen by others such as id:User:Kenrick95Sock.

--Erik Evrest 07:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment I no idea what you are asking of us; block, ban, removal their flags? fr33kman 07:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

RTL navbox

I saw navbox that I want to translate to hebrew. The problem is that I can't align it to the right.

This is the navbox:

{{Navbox
|style=wide
|name=Products
|title=Products
|group1 = Resources
|list1  =[[Chemicals]]{{·}} [[Coal]]{{·}} [[Cotton]]{{·}} [[Grain]]{{·}} [[Iron]]{{·}} [[Oil]]{{·}} [[Wood]]
|group2=Consumer Goods
|list2=[[Ammunition]]{{·}} [[Armour]]{{·}} [[Beer]]{{·}} [[Book]]{{·}} [[Food]]{{·}} [[Fuel]]{{·}} [[House]]{{·}} [[Medicine]]{{·}} [[Transport]]{{·}} [[Vehicle]]{{·}} [[Weapon]]
|group3=Intermediate Goods
|list3=[[Paper]]{{·}} [[Power]]{{·}} [[Steel]]
}}

Please tell what to add to the navbox in order to align it to the right. Thanks!

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)

import from zh:

Hi guys, a quick question. Can Meta import from the Chinese Wikipedia zh:? Hillgentleman 00:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. InitialiseSettings.php gives:

    'metawiki' => array( 'commons','foundation', 'w', 'cs', 'fr', 'strategy' ),

Cbrown1023 talk 14:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Trouble at en.Wiktionary

Strange things are happening at en.wiktionary. Initial capitalization has gone wrong, main page unaccesible, links all wrong etc. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 12:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Bombing and shooting in Norway

After the bombing and shooting here in Norway, there has been a lot of international coverage in the media about it. I would just like to warn the Wikipedia community about something written in Anders Behring Breivik/ Andrew Berwicks book:

Battlefield Wikipedia - an important tool to market resistance

fighters/resistance movements and our world view

Members of the European Resistance Movements on all 8 political fronts must prioritise contributions in Wikipedia as a primary method for presenting our world view, our political doctrines and our definition of history.

As for members, sympathizers or anonymous contributors of the European armed resistance:

You may create a Wikipedia description prior to operation and make it “indirectly” available to sympathisers. If no Wikipedia profile has been created for the resistance fighter, any sympathiser should contribute to create one. Furthermore, we must create an article that has the potential to indirectly appeal to anyone reviewing it. If you choose to create one yourself prior to an operation you obviously can’t include ANY incriminating information. Details concerning the operation, goals, motivations and interviews and/or other info must be added by sympathisers after an operation. It is essential to describe our 70 year goal and specific goals for phase 1, 2 and 3 of the European civil war. 1-2 photos from the photo shoot should be included in the Wikipedia entry. Keep in mind that our enemies (cultural Marxists, humanists) may try to use Wikipedia to ridicule or discredit these resistance fighters. They may also attempt to sabotage existing Wikipedia entries. All sympathisers should therefore keep an eye out for these wiki attacks.

Wikipedia should not be underestimated as a primary source for contributing to create “established truths”. We must strive to present our views in the most favorable way while

at the same time discredit our enemies. It is an arena we should focus on.

— 2084 A European Declaration of Independence, page 1067

The openess and anonymity of Wikipedia makes it the perfect way to spread this kind of information... Laaknor 12:54, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

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 [5] and [6]. 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 [7] ? 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)

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)

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)

Tellicherry [ Thalasserry ] Heritage Quadrangle

'Tellicherry [ Thalasserry ] Heritage Quadrangle The Anglican Church [St. John’s] on the western side of the Tellicherry Fort standing on a small Cliff above the beach always fascinated me. When I was a child it was a “mysterious” place with over hanging creepers over the many tombs of the Britishers who lived and loved Tellicherry .and the Church desolate and standing forlorn with its gates locked up always.

Hon. Minister for Tourism, Government of Kerala Shri .Kodeyeri Balakrishnan took lot of interest and revived and revitalized the whole area. The Church and the surrounding place has acquired refreshing freshness and takes one back to the pristine days of the glorious period. Please see some snaps attached.Thanks and congratulations to Shri Kodeyeri.You can also meet Mr.Ajay kumar very enthusiastic Tour guide in the church premises,

I am yet to know of any ship wreck impacting the shores of the place it happened with such a powerful positive effects. Master Attendant Edward Brenan Esq. reached ashore the small town of Tellicherry .From that day onwards he loved this beautiful place with cliffs reaching up to the coast , populated by a friendly people. He then joined the East India Company and stayed on till he died here in this place. He funded and established a “FREE SCHOOL” to give children of all caste, creeds and colour a sound English Education”. This institution later on became the Brenan High School and in 1890 was made the Government Brenan College. During the last century countless boys and girls passed out of this pioneering institution and occupied all walks of life, some great, and some normal. On the northern side of the fort he built a house for himself .After his death on the 17th Of August 1859, this was taken over by the East India Company for its Resident and when the British rule came , it became the “Sub - collectors Bungalow. Locally it was known as “ Thukkidi’s Bungalow”. Quote Mr.Ramachandran.C.K.”The word thukkidi is supposed to have come from the Urdu word 'tukdi' which is the name for a section of the army. It harks back to Tipu's conquest of Malabar when he had established tukdis at various places like Cherplassery and Tellicherry. The administrative system was adopted by the British who continued with the practice of having a Malabar Collector stationed at Calicut and two tukdis (sub collectors) at Cherpalcherry and Tellicherry.”

Edward Brenan before his death had donated funds for building a church close by to his Bungalow. To this fund, many had contributed and on 1869 Lord Napier established this St. John’s Anglican Church and Edward Brenan Esq.’s body was laid to rest here in the grave yard. Many people who has earned a place in the history of Tellicherry are also laid to rest here in this grave yard..Some are – Mr. MurdockBrown who established the well known extensive cardom estate in Ancharkandy. He is also credited to have introduced the cake in Malabar through Sri. Mambally Bappu who had established his ‘Mambally’s Royal Biscut Factory “in 1880 in Tellicherry. Some of Murdock’s family members are also buried here. Thomas Henry Baber Esq. who shot and killed Pazhassi Raja , after his term of duty as the Sub. Collector was over returned to England. After some time he came back to Tellicherry the place he cherished and died here.

We cannot ignore the start of all the causes of history which brought the English traders here to Tellicherry. The proximity to the land –Kottyam Territory comprising of present Muzhappilangad, Edakkad, Iruveri, Mavilayei, Chembilode, Ancharakandy, and the Periya area in Wayanad on which the first rated Pepper and Cardom grew in plenty. The French had established a trading post in Tellicherry and when it became a losing venture they abandoned it. The trouble created by the Britishers hastened there departure. In 1682 the French abandoned the post fully. Two British officers Mr. Chaise and Mr. Mitch Lou in the British trading post in Dharmadom approached Kolathri Prince and obtained permission to take over the abandoned French trading post. The first and most important trading post [1863 ] of The British was in Tellicherry. To safe guard the trade and the personnel the East India Company obtained permission from the local ruler, Vadakkan KoorThamburan to built a fort in Tellicherry. The cliff designated for the fort was known as Thiru Vel Appan Kunnu- [ Murugan son of Lord Shiva –always makes his abode in elevated place - the hillock ] and comprised of Punnol Poduval’s house ,Chaliyar [ Weavers] Street on the side of the hillock. Vadakkan KoorThamburan laid the foundations of the fort, which was completed in 20th August 1708..In the subsequent wars with Hyder Ali [Mysore wars] Tellicherry was the base of operation for the ascent of Wayanad Ghats.. Arthur [later Sir] Wellesley formulated his battle plans in this fort. The St.Joseph’s Boys high School and the Catholic Holy Rosary Church are adjacent. Kindly note that this write up is not the result of any extensive research but the result of casual reading. There is bound to be some corrections, All corrections are welcome

Premnath.T.M

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)

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)

Voting to prohibit non-Latin-script user names on English Wikipedia

Since this may be a Foundation issue, I'm letting you know: [8]. FuFoFuEd 00:53, 19 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 [9]. Thanks. --Jayron32 04:08, 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)