User talk:MarcoAurelio/Archives/2009-02

Add topic
Active discussions


Hola, me pasaba por aquí y dije: ¿por qué no aprovecho y saludo a Dferg? Y nada, pues eso, que aunque entro poco a Meta, saco buen partido de ello :). Saludos, --Góngora 11:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Me alegro de verte por aquí, gracias por la nota. Un abrazo. —Dferg (meta-w:es:) 18:41, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


XDDD. Saludos. -- 18:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) :Please, don't waste my time and see this. That's obvious that there is no activity on this project. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 18:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, have a look at the link you provide. Or even better, let us have a look at the rest of December 2008, the month whose only six last days you mention (see below, but you can check it here). According to that, in that month four new relevant pages were created, and three interwiki links by a bot were added (none of them to the new pages, which means there are more than four relevant pages there). I must admit December had not much but saying there is no activity is too much (and inacurate) in a place like Sorry if you think all this is a loss of time. If you still think it is, then surely I have just lost some time speaking to you, too. Saludos.

20 December 2008
* (diff) (hist) . . N cãsãbã‎; 18:13 . . (+180) . . (Talk) (New page: Template:-roa-rup- ===Ethimologhia=== : ===Pronuntsare=== :// Template:-noun- cãsãbã (pl.  ) :[1] . *(English): town [1] *(Spanish): ciudad [1], población [1])
18 December 2008
* (diff) (hist) . . m lingua‎; 00:19 . . (+14) . . SpaceBirdyBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot interwiki: Adăugat: th:lingua)
16 December 2008
* (diff) (hist) . . m User:WikimediaNotifier/notifications‎; 08:54 . . (-93) . . WikimediaNotifier (Talk | contribs) (update)
10 December 2008
* (diff) (hist) . . m hoy‎; 20:44 . . (+230) . . SpaceBirdyBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot interwiki: Adăugat: ca, de, el, en, et, fi, fr, fy, gl, hu, io, ku, nl, no, oc, pl, ru, te, tr, vi, zh)
2 December 2008
* (diff) (hist) . . N aqua‎; 15:00 . . (+111) . . (Talk) (New page: Template:-la- [1] agua Template:-noun- aqua f :[1] Apã)
* (diff) (hist) . . N water‎; 14:58 . . (+76) . . (Talk) (New page: Template:-en- ===Ethimologhia=== : Template:-noun- water :[1] Apã.)
* (diff) (hist) . . N cansarse‎; 14:56 . . (+125) . . (Talk) (New page: Template:-es- ===Ethimologhia=== : ===Pronuntsare=== : [ kanˈsaɾ.se ] Template:-verb- cansarse :[1] Câpâi.)
* (diff) (hist) . . m apă‎; 00:54 . . (+204) . . SpaceBirdyBot (Talk | contribs) (Robot interwiki: Adăugat: el, en, es, fi, fr, hu, it, ja, ko, lt, nl, no, oc, pl, pt, ru, tr)

-- 21:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think it's a waste of time when you come here with a XDDDD. IMHO is not enough content for me but, if you would like to continue improving that project I have no objections to remove/change my but. ATM no. Que tenga un buen día. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 21:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are right about my XDDD. It was a gut reaction to what I have perceived for a long time like a widespread, inconsistent argument shared by many all over Wikimedia but I know it is wrong and regret it. Please accept my apologies. About the contents, I guess you are aware that every project has its specific pace of progressing and you cannot apply the same speed standards to say en.wikipedia and a wikiproject in Aromanian. I would like to continue improving that project but are you telling me the frequency with which I should work there? I hope you are not. I don't like being indirectly bullied by votations like that. I like even worse projects being bullied by votations like that. Of course roa-rup.wiktionary is not in good shape (you should have seen the shape of a few now "safe" projects for long periods of time, though) but closing it and sending it to the Mummyficator (i.e. making it even more concealed, obscure and a bit annoyingly more difficult to edit [have you tried editing there? Maybe you should have a go at it]... maybe you think the Aromanian community or the people interested in the language have a good bunch of users a notch more advanced in wikiknowledge out there?) won't help a bit, it will just hinder [or spell definite doom to] the whole thing. So this is not enough content for you. Well obviously a wiki for you is something more bureaucratic and/or compulsorily productive than it is for me I am sorry to say, but it does not surprise me; that is a trend that is buzzing in the last years. I can partially understand what feeds it, that is why I am against it. Well, at the end one gets what one sows. Que usted también tenga un buen día y perdone mis inconveniencias. -- 22:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Veo que tiene interés en seguir haciendo crecer el proyecto y yo no quiero ser el artífice de que el trabajo de los demás se vaya a la alcantarilla. Por supuesto, tampoco soy quién para exigir a nadie que sea activo o no (tampoco quiero). Cambio mi voto, expresándole mis más sinceras disculpas en caso de haberle ofendido. No estoy pasando por un buen momento. Gracias por sus observaciones, las cuales son siempre bien recibidas. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 22:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for answer in Spanish, atm I can't speak other language. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 23:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Dferg. You never offended me at all, I just got worried about "one more vote for closing a Wiktionary that would do much better by continuing being where it currently is". You know, there are already a bunch of wiktionaries in that impossed-by-a-few-and-tacitly-sanctioned-by-the-community limbo and the prospective of yet another one into that lot really hurts me because I regard it as a betrayal to what Wikimedia is for: spreading culture for its own sake and by their own devices (versus making it the pseudo-Darwinian mirror image of a company where only production sets the basic standard; where the so-called non-productive bits are just ditched or hidden with some reassuring-for-many make-up on; where only the ones that manage to start up the conveyor belt with valuable material to consume will be welcome to the projecthood). As I say, you never offended me. On the other hand I cannot be sure that I actually did not offend you with my cheap sarcasm. I certainly did not use that guffaw smiley to offend you, I just did it to catch your eye and maybe try to startle you a bit which, incidentally, does not excuse my behaviour. If we regarded such actions as this one of mine not only as inappropriate but also as useless (even when sometimes they may not be useless we would be a healthier bunch if we could see them as useless anyway) we could avoid much unnecessary trouble to our species. That mirth actually worries me a lot. Not only because it is wrong but because that is not me. I have never been a sarcastic person but sometimes I seem to be one (in a gratuitious way) when something about Wikimedia fires me up. Probably it is just the boldness that being a virtual nick or IP provides; mere cowardice in disguise, actually. Finally, I understood your message in Spanish and I could have answered in the same language but I did not just to avoid shifting too much. I have to go now, my internet connection is being difficult today, I am cold and badly need a rest. Muchas gracias por todo. Saludos. -- 01:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

(restart paragraph) Thanks for your kind message, I really apreciate it. I have to apologize for my first reaction wich wasn't correct. Good luck and, of course, if you need help to fight against vandalism, just poke me. Kind regards. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Striking out voters

Hi Dferg, you striked out a couple of voters who are allowed to vote according to Stewards/elections_2009/Guidelines#Voters (either userpage at meta or sul account, the votes i checked all had sul accounts). Could you please correct this? Multichill 12:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

They had linked now his/her userpage

I can't verify the SUL of this accounts cause ~VVV and ~luxo are not working for me, although they don't have a userpage linked to his/her home wiki. If you find that they are eligible to vote, please, correct that, ATM I can't access this tools. Regards —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 15:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Here written: "or have a linked SUL account" — I've it. Other thing — "You can check your eligibility automatically". If it's not enough for voter's eligibility check — it's a reason to correct guidelines. Or to use more tools for check. But not to strike out votes. --Vd437 12:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
--Vd437 13:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I dindn't know the "autoselect wiki" feature. I'm correcting this right now. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 15:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  DoneDferg (meta-w:es.) 16:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


What's wrong? Look here please. Why my votes was disappeared? --Vd437 12:27, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Description is on the upper section. —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 12:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
  Done, I think I've corrected all. Thanks for reporting —Dferg (meta-w:es.) 12:37, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 Thanks!. --Vd437 12:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


i forgot to log in. UNDO all my edits-- 20:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ;-)Dferg (meta-w:es.) 20:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)


This is an apparently-reformed vandal; they do have the edit counts etc we require among their accounts. I would consider restoring the vote in consultation with others involved in auditing the elections.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Mike: I don't understand your request. The account does not meet the requiriments to vote on this elections (and if he has more than one account, that's sockpuppetry). If you think the vote must be restored feel free to do. By the way I'm leaving the maintenance of the stewards elections. If I've made a mistake, please, correct it. Best regards.
Dferg (meta-w:es.) 19:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "MarcoAurelio/Archives/2009-02".