-- 12:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Superprotect letter updateEdit
Along with more hundreds of others, you recently signed Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer, which I wrote.
Today, we have 562 signatures here on Meta, and another 61 on change.org, for a total of 623 signatures. Volunteers have fully translated it into 16 languages, and begun other translations. This far exceeds my most optimistic hopes about how many might sign the letter -- I would have been pleased to gain 200 siguatures -- but new signatures continue to come.
I believe this is a significant moment for Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Very rarely have I seen large numbers of people from multiple language and project communities speak with a unified voice. As I understand it, we are unified in a desire for the Wikimedia Foundation to respect -- in actions, in addition to words -- the will of the community who has built the Wikimedia projects for the benefit of all humanity. I strongly believe it is possible to innovate and improve our software tools, together with the Wikimedia Foundation. But substantial changes are necessary in order for us to work together smoothly and productively. I believe this letter identifies important actions that will strongly support those changes.
Have you been discussing these issues in your local community? If so, I think we would all appreciate an update (on the letter's talk page) about how those discussions have gone, and what people are saying. If not, please be bold and start a discussoin on your Village Pump, or in any other venue your project uses -- and then leave a summary of what kind of response you get on the letter's talk page.
Finally, what do you think is the right time, and the right way, to deliver this letter? We could set a date, or establish a threshold of signatures. I have some ideas, but am open to suggestions.
Survey on Inspire Campaign for addressing harassmentEdit
Thanks for your participation during the Inspire Campaign focused on addressing harassment from June 2016. I'm interested in hearing your experience during the campaign, so if you're able, I invite you to complete this brief survey to describe how you contributed to the campaign and how you felt about participating.
There has been a request to inform all who voted in the RfC about interlinking accounts involved with paid editing about the following adjustment in the "statement of issue" on Sept 18th, 2017.
It was clarified that this effort will help deal not only with impersonation of specific Wikipedians but also claims of being in good standing made by those who are not. Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
AVOIDED IST NICHT AUFZUHALTEN UND MACHT WEITER!! NACH DEM GLOBAL BAN IST ALLES VIEL SCHLIMMER GEWORDEN!!Edit
AVOIDED IST NICHT AUFZUHALTEN UND MACHT WEITER!! NACH DEM GLOBAL BAN IST ALLES VIEL SCHLIMMER GEWORDEN!!
[Wikipedia & Education User Group] Updates: November 2018Edit
Integrating Wikimedia with education is a powerful strategy for the outreach of Wikimedia projects. Realising this concept, a group of leaders promoted this and formed the Wikipedia Education Collaborative. After some time, this evolved to become a user group, officially recognised by the Affiliations Committee in June 2018. The user group had its first board elections earlier in September. In the process to formalise activities and give a shape the user group for long-term sustainability, we are now revamping our processes. Thanks for supporting us during incubation stages, we are now inviting you to formally join the user group by following the instructions on the members' page. Being a member will allow you to be a part of this wonderful collaboration and also do interesting stuff.
It deeply hurts when I have to read: "productivity (especially at a low-quality level)". I have the impression you never looked at my work (but only on the arguments of my opponents). It is simply not true. Just three examples: , , . Please compare them with other versions in other languages.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 01:38, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- Good morning, i'm sorry to have hurt your feelings and i have edited my statement to be more precise. When i wrote that i had the extensive use of geni.com in mind, which is imho not an acceptable source at all and i also recall many discussions where wikipedians adressed exactly that to you without acheiving any change in your use of that website. In retrospective, these discussions were futile, and you did not compromise. Compromise is an essential ability in a collaborative project. --Ghilt (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- This is another myth, not based on facts. Yes, we (Donna Gedenk and myself) were both convinced that the reliability of geni.com in our field was much higher then the reliability of Yad Vashem. We have checked every single entry very carefully. Yes, we were upset about this attempt to block victims biographies (it was an initiative of the same user who is now asking for the global ban), and we did not accept the small quorum of about five or ten votes (most of them Stolperstein opponents). We wanted a broader discussion and a fair evaluation of geni.com within the Portal:Nationalsozialismus. We did not get what we wanted (the broader discussion), therefore we gave up using geni.com as a source. This is a very good example where the brutal force of the opponents prevailed. They don't write biographies, but they dictate what sources we are allowed to use. There was no compromise, we were forced to do what they dictated. We did so, but still people like you think, we were the bad guys.
- Personally, I think it is very stupid to exclude any source. Every quote and every fact has to be checked. I already found horrible mistakes in ORF, New York Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung and even in the Brockhaus. We are constantly checking and double checking. The whole fuss in the Stolperstein project was purely political and personal. They wanted to stop the project by any means and they succeeded. They did not find any mistakes in the biographies, so they attacked the sources. I could easily accept to exclude geni.com completely - if anyone can show me two mistakes in the biographies we wrote where geni was wrong. They did not find even one mistake.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
- I strongly disagree. Geni.com is a wiki-similar website and without necessity of references. You should have known and should know that these properties make it completely unacceptaple, without a broader discussion. And i am disconcerted on the lack of insight on this matter. --Ghilt (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
User script to access other watchlistsEdit
If you remember, you participated in the 2019 Community Wishlist Survey, including the discussion for reviving "Crosswatch" to allow for cross-wiki watchlists (Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Watchlists/Revive Crosswatch tool).
I sent you this MassMessage because I wanted to let you know that I have made a user script to make accessing your watchlists on different wikis easier, since for now that wishlist item has not been actioned.
The way it works is that, on any wiki, when you look at your watchlist, there is a button labeled "CA" that takes you to the CentralAuth page for you. There, when looking at your own information, each link to a wiki ("meta.wikimedia.org", "www.wikidata.org", "de.wikipedia.org", etc.) is changed so that it links to your watchlist on that wiki.
If you are interested in using it, just add
Thanks, --05:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)