Winternacht

Welcome to Meta!

Hello, Winternacht. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!

-- Meta-Wiki Welcome (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Archives

I've reverted your changes to the archiving set up. You mangled the page name in your recent changes; I'm not sure where the "02d" came from, but it doesn't belong at the end of the file name (which is already linked in the manul archive box and should not be changed unless the page gets moved).

On the length of the timer: I saw the suggestion of a five-day timer. When the source page is four days old and already too big for some users to navigate, a five-day archive timer doesn't meet the goal of making the page smaller today. It might make the page smaller in two more days, but my goal actually is to make this page accessible to people tonight, not after two more days of potentially lost comments. Archiving length is one of the reasons I wanted to split the discussion to another page: if we move 30% of the comments elsewhere (the 30% that need time and thought), then we can run a longer timer on everything. If necessary, I can archive sections by hand until we're under the 100K (which is my approximate target: if 100K is the same person's suggested max limit for the archive, then the main page should try to stick to that, too), but I think it would be easier to get the bot to do it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You just have to follow the link in the diff, there you can find the information about the "02d". It’s because of the -"08" for the month, not "8". And if there are no variables, then September will archived as the month 08 which isn’t correct. It seems, you haven’t even read my edit comment and followed the link in it. Because then, you wouldn’t have the idea that the "Archives/2014-08-02d" should be the goal. No, it shouldn’t. But really, I’m not wondering anymore at WMF, if there isn’t the ability to follow a link anymore, no. I don’t expect anything else anymore. It’s a pity, but that’s how it is now. And it makes me sad.

Timer: Perhaps there should be a possibility to just archive resolved sections, but I didn’t find any. Don’t know, if there exists such a possibility. If you archive also unresolved sections after the week-end, then unresolved problems will get into the archive. This can’t be the purpose of archiving. Just resolved sections should be archived. And this page isn’t as long, as you say. There are many more longer pages, where nobody says a word about archiving, although they really are bad to edit. But this page hasn’t such a problem now, so unresolved sections should never been archived there. And I don’t understand, why 100 kB should be the border for pages. This is quite strange. At dewiki, I had problems to tell people that’s it is really a problem with a talk page which has more than 1 MB(!) (and is still getting longer), and there are people who think that’s no problem. And now you want to tell me, that 100 kB should be the border for it? I’m quite astonished, really. You prefer to archive unresolved sections?

On the other hand, there would be such an easy possibility to get the whole page smaller: Just set the opt-in for the wikis which wanted it (or roll them just back to beta), and you can archive some sections which take some space now. Then you have a much smaller page. But I learned, that that’s not the WMF’s goal. So, if you don’t want to resolve the biggest problem, then it’s quite clear, that this is also shown on the page for the problems. It doesn’t make any sense just to have some small problems there, if you not solve the biggest of them. I don’t understand that at all and I won’t do so in the future, that’s for sure. I just don’t get, that you (the WMF) like to make people angry, sad, unwilling for editing anymore and so on, whatever you can think of – quite a few have let themselves be blocked already or don’t want to do things anymore. I’ve seen lots of them around. And I just don’t get it that this easy possibility constantly is thrown away for nothing but trouble. And you (the WMF) now is looking for work-arounds nearly everywhere just because of this strange MV. I don’t have the impression that any of the WMF does really understand, what is going on. And just do, as if anything can go on such as it has ever been. But no, it can’t. --Winternacht (talk) 02:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the archive target page manually in a day or two. It shouldn't be archiving anything that was commented on during September, so there's not that much possibility of confusion before the page size is maxed out anyway.

Some bots can do "resolved" sections, but I don't think that this one can. On the other hand, I'm not sure that there are any "unresolved" sections that aren't being actively discussed, unless you define "resolved" as "received an official response in that exact section about the idea's ultimate place (or not) on the list"—in which case, most of them will probably never be "resolved", because I doubt that every section is going to get an official or final answer.

From what I overhear (it's not normally my product to track, so I can't claim to be up on all the details), if Media Viewer is determined to be seriously insufficient via this consultation, it's likely to be removed (temporarily) from all the wikis, not just the three that had public discussions over it. I would personally put the odds of this happening at less than 20%, but it is definitely being talked about as a real possibility. However, even if that happens, it's likely to be re-enabled everywhere within several months. Long-term opt-in status is not something that I've heard more than two staffers support as a possible outcome. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Global account and renaming

Hi there. A global account was created for you since your dewiki account "wins" the username. To attach this account to that one is make sure the passwords are the same and then simply log in. You'll be all set and can ignore the rename warning you're likely to receive. Thanks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Winternacht. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Winternacht~metawiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

04:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)