User talk:MarcoAurelio/Archives/2009-06
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Dferg in topic Pashto Wikibooks
 | Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in June 2009, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
The following discussion is closed.
Gracias
Hola. Gracias por cancelación! --Ivocamp96 13:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Un placer ayudarte. Un saludo, —Dferg (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gracias, compa, por el aviso, --Lucien leGrey (m · es) 08:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Zhoroscop
Hey Dferg, I've responded to your message on en-wiki, and will list the page at en:WP:MfD in a moment; if you have links to other wikis that this user has spammed, it would be helpful. Also, just FYI, he left links at your en-wiki talkpage and at en:WP:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents#Blacklist asking for his meta account to be unblocked--I don't know why he didn't just post {{unblock}} on his talkpage here, but whatever. I doubt there's any reason to unblock him since he's a spammer and a useless editor (at least on meta), just thought I should let you know. Rjanag (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
PFCP
A message for you. Regards. --81.38.38.140 08:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Done, I've moved the annoucement on ta.wikinews (see discussion) and su.wikibooks (which is the only one project I have proposed to be closed). Regards, —Dferg (talk) 09:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Dferg. Regarding this comment, don't you think it is high time then to create some kind of header to add on top of the proposal every time one is open, stating clearly all that kind of things? In my experience, a huge quantity of all these proposals have been managed rather sloppily so far, usually with total disregard of the projects themselves and their linguistic communities. It was one thing enclosed only in Meta most of the time (often voted by tiny minorities which mirrored the "lack of activity" or the "no community" they usually brandish as a valid argument... as somebody said: "English Wikipedia also need to close in 100 BC". There is a powerful truth there that few can really see... most just tend to see a weird joke), people outside Meta had to be updated about it via telepathy. But nothing relevant seems to have been done by most proponents or usual Meta users. Almost no amendments once the goal was reached. Honestly, PFCP seems just oriented to get rid of "burdens" (and by "burden" I mean the kind of dust that keeps busy a person obssessed not with cleaning but with desinfection, the kind of people so good at developing allergies for themselves and especially for their children). Why are they perceived as "burdens"? I still do not know. If somebody is so interested in starting a proposal here, they should at least keep a minimum of deference, commitment and information along with their proposal. Many people outside Meta are not well acquainted with the ways here. People who are so keen to open proposals here should see to create that generally informative banner, unless the tacit slogan of "goals of a Meta few first" is still alive and healthy. --81.38.38.140 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is indispensable to inform the project that its existance it's being discussed and every proposal that lacks of notification will be automatically rejected. The problem is that there is not a standard voting page format so you can find various types of pages that follows different styles. If you see Proposals for closing projects at the top of the table there is a warning stating that all the proposals must be notifyied to the communities but yes, I agree that a message box stating all the rules in any new PFCP will simplify the process and would make things much more clear and easier. I'm not active on PFCP so it would be a good idea if you use the main talk page to propose this changes. Regarding:If somebody is so interested in starting a proposal here, they should at least keep a minimum of deference, commitment and information along with their proposal. I have to say that in the only one PFCP that I've opened I tryied to notify appropiatelly the community with the tools I had at this moment, because of respect and deference to that community because I strongly believe that local communities must be always respected and of course, I have no special interest in closing projects. Best regards, —Dferg (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Dferg. I'll try to propose that banner next time. About If somebody is so interested in starting... I was not being personal. I just was giving my opinion about the widespread trend of "goals before/without responsibility" so common in PFCP. Regards. --81.38.38.140 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have not expressed me in a correct manner (my English is not very good, sorry :'( ). I've never took this discussion as personal. Have a nice day, sir. —Dferg (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good. I am happy, then. By the way, regarding "If you see Proposals for closing projects at the top of the table there is a warning stating that all the proposals must be notifyied to the communities", I added this just a couple of hours ago, following this. Regards. --81.38.38.140 13:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps I have not expressed me in a correct manner (my English is not very good, sorry :'( ). I've never took this discussion as personal. Have a nice day, sir. —Dferg (talk) 13:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Dferg. I'll try to propose that banner next time. About If somebody is so interested in starting... I was not being personal. I just was giving my opinion about the widespread trend of "goals before/without responsibility" so common in PFCP. Regards. --81.38.38.140 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- It is indispensable to inform the project that its existance it's being discussed and every proposal that lacks of notification will be automatically rejected. The problem is that there is not a standard voting page format so you can find various types of pages that follows different styles. If you see Proposals for closing projects at the top of the table there is a warning stating that all the proposals must be notifyied to the communities but yes, I agree that a message box stating all the rules in any new PFCP will simplify the process and would make things much more clear and easier. I'm not active on PFCP so it would be a good idea if you use the main talk page to propose this changes. Regarding:If somebody is so interested in starting a proposal here, they should at least keep a minimum of deference, commitment and information along with their proposal. I have to say that in the only one PFCP that I've opened I tryied to notify appropiatelly the community with the tools I had at this moment, because of respect and deference to that community because I strongly believe that local communities must be always respected and of course, I have no special interest in closing projects. Best regards, —Dferg (talk) 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Dferg. Regarding this comment, don't you think it is high time then to create some kind of header to add on top of the proposal every time one is open, stating clearly all that kind of things? In my experience, a huge quantity of all these proposals have been managed rather sloppily so far, usually with total disregard of the projects themselves and their linguistic communities. It was one thing enclosed only in Meta most of the time (often voted by tiny minorities which mirrored the "lack of activity" or the "no community" they usually brandish as a valid argument... as somebody said: "English Wikipedia also need to close in 100 BC". There is a powerful truth there that few can really see... most just tend to see a weird joke), people outside Meta had to be updated about it via telepathy. But nothing relevant seems to have been done by most proponents or usual Meta users. Almost no amendments once the goal was reached. Honestly, PFCP seems just oriented to get rid of "burdens" (and by "burden" I mean the kind of dust that keeps busy a person obssessed not with cleaning but with desinfection, the kind of people so good at developing allergies for themselves and especially for their children). Why are they perceived as "burdens"? I still do not know. If somebody is so interested in starting a proposal here, they should at least keep a minimum of deference, commitment and information along with their proposal. Many people outside Meta are not well acquainted with the ways here. People who are so keen to open proposals here should see to create that generally informative banner, unless the tacit slogan of "goals of a Meta few first" is still alive and healthy. --81.38.38.140 12:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Pashto Wikibooks
I see that you reverted and protected this, supposedly because the proposal had already been closed and a bug requested. Note that that proposal was running from 17 October 2007 to 13 April 2009. But any proposal being active after 20 November 2008 (longer than half a year now) should have been aware of the need of or encouraged to adding local warnings in the projects discussed. The logical thing to do would be to reactivate the discussion, properly inform the project and either cancel the bug or set it on hold. Regards. --83.37.231.113 23:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi again. Sorry, I got the situation wrong. I have just seen in the bug that the project was closed about one month ago. Knowing as I do about how all this kind stuff tends to work in Wikimedia I guess right now the option of trying to re-open the project belongs to the category "Miracles" but, on the other hand, the site doesn't seem to be very informative about its situation. When one tries to edit a page, the only notice has a mere link to Stewards instead to the proposal or to the Incubator where, seemingly, it has not been transferred yet. Does that transfer need a new bug or is it already listed somewhere for future processing? Otherwise, it seems as if the project will stay in limbo for a potentially long while. Regards. --81.34.52.70 08:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
- Hi, I do not know if the transfer will be done automatically or a new bug is needed. I think that before locking the database of the project, the useful content is moved to the incubator (in the case there is something to export). The message is the standard message for all the locked projects, I can't change it. Regards, —Dferg (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)