Meta:Babel/Archives/2016-03

Phabricator task-T120738 List Of Contributors

Hello,

I am interested to work on the project List Of Contributors with phab task https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T120738 . I see that the project was endorsed in the community wishlist survey. It would be great help if someone could share how you wish this tool should be implemented. As I am writing my proposal for the project for GSoC 2016 , I am working to make an outline to the project and a timeline for tasks to be completed. Your valuable suggestions are most welcome.

Thanks!Devikrishnan (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Enable WikiLove here?

I tried to create a barnstar here recently, but found that the WikiLove feature is not enabled. I looked to see if there has been a discussion that determined it should not be enabled on Meta Wiki, but I couldn't find one. Any reason it shouldn't be enabled?

As a brief argument for its inclusion...in my view, a tool that supports efforts by Wikimedians to build and strengthen connections is worthwhile. Barnstars and the like are an important tool for showing appreciation in our communities, and a tool that makes them easier to create (especially for less technical users) would remove an unnecessary obstacle to their creation -Pete F (talk) 01:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

On a past discussion the community rejected its implementation. Personally, I prefer personal thank notes, if any, rather than automated messages. Thank you, —MarcoAurelio 09:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

+1. --Steinsplitter (talk) 10:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, MarcoAurelio. I'm not sure that personal preferences are the best basis for a decision, and describing WikiLove as producing "automated messages" does not seem accurate. However, I'm not proposing that we reopen the decision at this time -- knowing where the previous discussion was held satisfies my request. I started a page here, which should help in case anybody has a similar question in the future: WikiLove -Pete F (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been blocked for no reason

As the title says, can anyone help me out? Best, jona^(talk) 17:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you mean your block on newwiki? Here on meta obviously no block against you is set. --Vogone (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I've been blocked from editing on the English Wikipedia. jona^(talk) 17:30, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

You are not blocked there currently. Your last block is from 2011.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:05, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I am currently blocked from editing on the English Wikipedia as stated whenever I try to edit there. jona^(talk) 18:23, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe you've tripped over an IP based block. You need to appeal it on your user talk page there, at any rate.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:26, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
How, if I am blocked? I tried that and sent a message to the user who has blocked me and he has yet to reply. jona^(talk) 19:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@AJona1992: Which message you receive when you try to edit? On it it should be sufficient information to identify the block: blocking admin, IP or IP range (or username) blocked, start of the block, end of the block and the reasons. If you can edit your talk page] please place {{unblock|reasons= <reasons for unblock, etc.>}} on your talk page. You can also email the blocking user. If you can't edit your talk page or email the blocking user, then please submit a block review through w:WP:UTRS. I hope that you find this information useful. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 10:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tried everything from trying to edit my talk page to sending a request for unblock, both of which I cannot do. I am stuck here, I don't see why the admin who keeps blocking me is allowed to roam free. jona^(talk) 14:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

What kind of warning does pop up when you try to reach the edit button? And are you sure you are logged in with your correct account?Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You are only blocked in newWP, according to your SUL-account. You are rollbacker without a block on enWP. Grüße vom Sänger ♫^(Reden) 16:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Blocks and bans are a perennial problem with Wikipedia, and the policies need serious revision.

Having been blocked there myself for a year I know that there are tons of drama queens on enwiki that turned it into a place that no one wanted to be in 2007 (just before I started editing). As an aside, prior to 2007 Wikipedia was just a joke that only a dreamer would waste their time on. Fortunately the number of editors doubled each year and enough good content was added to start making references to Wikipedia more useful instead of just a joke (a link to something you as a 4th grader had just added so you could prove that you were right about an argument you were having in school). That bad blood continued for six and a half years but has shown signs of waning starting in 2015. When you block someone you stop them from doing anything, which is why blocks need to be short. When you ban them you are just sticking your own head in the sand and pretending they do not exist, even though they do and probably have a lot of good things to contribute to the project. Something is seriously wrong with how we are treating each other, and that needs to change so that instead of 3,492 active editors on enwiki we have 50,000. We peaked at 5,000 but you can see that the rate of increase stopped in 2006. 2014 was a transition year with no increase in new editors but an increase in old editors tentatively trying a few edits to test the waters. By 2015 they shed some hesitancy and turned into regular editors. But there was also an ominous sharp decline in new editors. We have 6% more active editors now than a year ago, and hopefully that will continue. We had been losing 6% each year at the same time the project was growing 6% a year, a clear recipe for disaster. It would be sort of curious to find out what one thing happened in January or so of 2007 that made everyone suddenly rush for the exits. Which one new editor or policy caused it to fall apart? Was it MOS? Probably. Apteva (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The block message says that I have to notify the administrator who blocked me but he isn't responding. It says I am blocked from editing because of a proxy. As of March 18 (today), I remain blocked from editing on the English Wikipedia. jona^(talk) 00:17, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The English language Wikipedia maintains an Unblock Ticket Request System. I suppose they could help you better than us. --Vogone (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I have tried that and it did not allow me to continue. However, I did found out the real problem was that I was still using Hola, a VPN extension, that I use in order to watch Big Brother Canada from the United States. After finding out that I still had the extension on I turned it off and now I am back to editing. But, I will still bring the issue up over at AN/I because the two administrators who originated the block failed to communicate with me during my attempts to understand what was going on. Thank you to everyone who replied, jona^(talk) 01:03, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hiding Special:Log/renameuser from RecentChanges

When an account is renamed a log entry is generated both on the global rename log and the local user rename log. I propose that on RecentChanges only the global rename log is showed, avoiding seeing the same information twice when a rename is performed (and all renames are performed here...). If a user wished to had a look at the local log, it of course will continue to be avalaible on Special:Log, as it happens with the patrol or the thanks log. Looking forward your opinions. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio 17:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm agree, is not needed to have this information duplicated.--Syum90 (talk) 07:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. —MarcoAurelio 13:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Two users and socking policy

I'm not sure because I don't edit here, but I suspect that AYST201 and Arifys are the same person, not only based on their userpages having the same name, but their conduct on Outreach. I know one of them was renamed and the rename was reverted due to an attempt to conceal abuse here, so can anyone look into this further, as something feels off here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Licensing issues

Hello,

I wanted to ask it brings over of three questions that I have with the license of Wikipedia:

First issue: Some time ago I saw these changes in Wikipedia in English, both invoked the legal team of the WMF: for MediaWiki:Wikimedia-copyright [1] and for Copyrights [2]. I wanted to ask whether they are mandatory in all the Wikipedias, because I have not seen any page of the Wikimedia Foundation that explains these these changes.

Second issue: I also wanted to ask about the Creative Commons 4.0 license. I understand that it is not possible to insert text CC BY SA 4.0 into any Wikipedia (with license CC BY SA 3.0), but due to the fact that Licensing update/Outreach does not report anything about the Creative Commons 4.0 license, I am not sure if I can import text with a CC BY 4.0 (without SA) licence into Wikipedia (with license CC BY SA 3.0).

Third issue: Threfore I don't have clear if it is possible to export text from Wikipedia (with license CC BY SA 3.0) to an external site both with CC BY 4.0 or CC BY SA 4.0 license.

Thank you for your answers in advance. --Trasamundo (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)