User talk:Andrew Dalby
Letter petitioning WMF to reverse recent decitionsEdit
The Wikimedia Foundation recently created a new feature, "superprotect" status. The purpose is to prevent pages from being edited by elected administrators -- but permitting WMF staff to edit them. It has been put to use in only one case: to protect the deployment of the Media Viewer software on German Wikipedia, in defiance of a clear decision of that community to disable the feature by default, unless users decide to enable it.
If you oppose these actions, please add your name to this letter. If you know non-Wikimedians who support our vision for the free sharing of knowledge, and would like to add their names to the list, please ask them to sign an identical version of the letter on change.org.
Dear Andrew Dalby, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.
- Request for comment: Requests for comment/Superprotect rights
- An open letter about its implementation: Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer
Peteforsyth 09:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Global CSS/JS migrationEdit
Hello Andrew Dalby. You have a global.js page which contains your global scripts for all wikis. Since August 19th, your global.js and global.css pages are now automatically loaded on all wikis (see announcement). Since you were already loading them before this feature, you may experience script errors or issues like tools being added twice. I can fix that for you by merging your local scripts and styles into your global pages, and deleting the local pages with synchbot. Do you want me to do that? —Pathoschild 17:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
new user group about classical cultureEdit
Hi, I knew your name and what you do and I was going to contact you in the future but before I could do it, User:ilario told me last week that you might be interested in this user group we are drafting User:Epìdosis/Sandbox with User:Epìdosis. We can change the name to a more generic one but we are also willing to help on the language side. User:Mizardellorsa has joined us last week also for la.wikisource.org.
I don't expect miracles but we can do something as a group. I was goign to open the first discussion about proposed activites, for example a writing week. Not specifically on some platforms but just because I was just checking the engine before going full potential.
I am a member of the Italian Classical Culture Association but I mostly focus on generic helping. I know Latin, not a lot of Greek (I studied it privately in any case, as a hobby).--Alexmar983 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hi, Alex. I'm sorry I didn't reply before, I don't visit meta every day.
- Ilario is right. I've been thinking about a user group myself, but I haven't even got as far as drafting a proposal! My initial idea was different from yours: not so much the classical world (although that interests me) more the uses of Latin in the modern world. This could involve Wikispecies, Wikisource, and all wikis in which Latin terminology is used in article titles: in astronomy, biology, medicine, anatomy ...
- I am not quite sure right now how much my idea would overlap with yours. Certainly, some of the specific issues are shared by your topic and mine: "supporting the correct use of Latin and Greek in multilingual namespaces ... increasing cooperation between wikimedia platforms ... looking for reliable and up-to-date sources ... improving analytical tools related to these topics on WikiProjects". Yes, yes, all of that! So, do we have one subject for a user group, or two? What do you think? Andrew Dalby (talk) 20:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- No problem, I am super busy really, I delay so many answer myself.
- First of all, tomorrow I should probably meet User:Epìdosis and submit the application, this was the plan we agreed in these last days. I think we are quite open to your needs. In my opinion, purely thematic groups are relativity rare, this should be the third or fourth one after "medicine" and "militaria" maybe "LGTB" (I cannot find you the link right now but I think they are the only one we have of this kind). On the other hand what you need is also very close to other transantional user groups such as those concerning wikisource, libraries, gender gap... which are focused more on a goal, a philosophy than a field. What you need is maybe more such type of group, what we have arranged is more close to the first type. But this is just my personal classification, the ecosystems of non-geographic UG is under constant evolution, as far I can see.
- Now, in an ideal world maybe they could be separated and overlap when needed but I don't think we have enough human ressources at the moment to do this. I sampled many communities and I am sure that you can find the "three names" you need to start but reaching a constant baseline activity would be hard. I am not 100% optimistic myself with the current UG proposal, I really think we should see how it goes.
- I believe that these two souls (classical languages and classical culture) can coexist in a single group as a starting point. In real life, I see them cooperating also in other associations: for example the Associazione italian di Cultura Classica organizes seminars to teach Latins to pupils but also about archeology and Greek mythology.
- On wikimedia platforms contact is possible: this May for example I supervised the local certamen but also took pictures for the wikipedia article on lawiki. Wikidata also allow to maximize automatic maintenance for "minor" platforms. There is so many things to do we can push what we both need together for a while.
- So I'd say we start, you are totally free and than we see how it goes and you can spin off if it helps the work.
- I can assure I do so many things that there is no way this group will be dominated by a specific vision because of me.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexmar983: @Andrew Dalby: thank you for this topic. Andrew correctly reflects my opinion. A big thematic group means a lot in terms of interests while the idea is to support completely Latin language and not as part of classical studies. The goal is only the support and the work around latin language and it means more a phylological goal. --Ilario (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)