Open main menu
← Discussion pages Wikimedia Forums Archives →
QA icon clr.svg

The Wikimedia Forum is a central place for questions, announcements and other discussions about the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. (For discussion about the Meta wiki, see Meta:Babel.)
This is not the place to make technical queries regarding the MediaWiki software; please ask such questions at the MediaWiki support desk; technical questions about Wikimedia wikis, however, can be placed on Tech page.

You can reply to a topic by clicking the "[edit]" link beside that section, or you can start a new discussion.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.


Tagger isn't workingEdit

Hi, the script Tagger by Hoo man may have a bug. When trying to tag a page it displays the following: "Error: The token parameter must be set". Is it just me or anyone else is affected? Esteban16 (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@Esteban16: please follow up at User_talk:Hoo_man#About_your_tool_"tagger.js". — xaosflux Talk 00:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Unable to resolve issue on WikiCommons and Wikidata - related to each other and WikipediaEdit

I can't find the right place to lodge this complaint so I'll start here and go on from there. The issue concerns serious biased promotion of a local professional wrestler called Tony Ricca. This promotion was banished from Wikipedia as not notable via an AfD and the person wanting it to stay was blocked from Wikipedia for sock puppetry. Someone else tried to recreate the article but it was speedily deleted. However the same user that was blocked on Wikipedia has uploaded content onto WikiCommons (it came to my attention when one of the WikiCommons images was used in the version of the WP article that was speedily deleted. I therefore felt it was important to get that image deleted in part to prevent another attempt at an article on Wikipedia. In the process I found other images uploaded of a similar ilk. I nominated each of them for deletion. The user concerned decided Ricca was notable despite Wikipedia's ruling on the matter. I am of the view that this user has a conflict of interest - this was mentioned on Wikipedia - and subsequently someone else on WikiCommons claimed that the user was in fact Ricca himself. Now I don't agree with that although I understand the view given the COI. Of interest as well, a user on WikiCommons identified another image as a copyvio. The uploader denied it - but how can he? If he isn't subject to a COI, he has to be in violation of copyvio no matter what license is uploaded. This also expands to Wikidata as I noted that one image on WikiCommons was used there. I tried to get that deleted as well, but I'm being told no and one user who has also been involved on WikiCommons is accusing me of not knowing the rules of either. He is very stubborn.

What I want is this - the images deleted from WikiCommons over ruling the one ruling that one image is within the scope of the project. The scope clearly prohibits non educational material (it has not been proven how it's educational) and self promotion which by default includes COI. With the deletion at WikiCommons, there is no valid link for Wikidata which is a valid reason for deletion there. People need to start doing their jobs on both. Ricca isn't notable. He was never a contracted wrestler with any significant wrestling promotion. He's a local nobody being promoted on Wikimedia against all the rules of the three projects I mentioned. I need help as one image has now been protected from deletion as has the deletion page. The admin on WikiCommons has acted totally incorrectly, and nothing is happening at all on Wikidata. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 00:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Update - the article has been deleted from Wikidata so thankfully someone finally saw sense there. WikiCommons remains the issue now. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:D9C7:5941:7D59:CD4 05:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata have different inclusion policies from (English) Wikipedia. You should stop comparing them and read each project's policy, then use that policy to argue deletion or anything else in that regard. Do not say because of X then Y must happen. – Ammarpad (talk) 09:34, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
^^^ Exactly what was said here. Each has its own scope, and posts should be within the scope of the wiki. You should raise issues on the wikis in question.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
But that's why I came here. I am talking about the rules of both Commons and Data and neither of them were being upheld (Data has since upheld theirs). On the Commons the images are clearly self promotional and not educational, and the user uploading them is giving the Commons the same grief he gave Wikipedia (which is why that conduct is relevant). The only thing he hasn't done yet is sock. There's no point talking to Commons admins. They have fallen for this user's lies and BS. They are not upholding their rules (their scope as they call it) and I need someone from here to go over there and review it properly and remind them that self promotion through a conflict of interest is not in their scope. He's being blatantly promoted - and no one there is listening. Again; that's why I came here to seek help to pull the admins into line over Commons rules. They are not upholding them and allowing self promotion. The other stuff is needed background against the user's conduct on the Wiki platform to show self promotion/COI exists and is happening. For example I can't renominate one image because a dumb admin protected it, insisting it was within the scope when clearly it's not as I explained.2001:8003:5999:6D00:B8BA:BA1F:3B9F:F069 22:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Let's make sure you don't neglect important, although little, details. Such as the fact that it isn't about you "re-nominating" the file, it is about you "re-re-nominating" the file. Because you already nominated it twice. Also, you like to talk about one user being blocked on Wikipedia while not mentioning that the block happened 4 years after the file was uploaded on Wikicommons, nor do you mention how it is that you have been blocked from Wikidata. Those things, among other non-mentioned issues, are not relevant here. Yet, using your logic - they are.
Also, I will clue you in on something. The same as you have brought your "everyone else is wrong" discussion to separate places outside of the deletion discussions. There have been other people having discussions outside of the deletion discussions. Give it a rest. The good people here on Wikimedia have told you to take a hike, but in a more polite manner. Don't end up being blocked here as well. Quakewoody (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
See now THIS is what I'm talking about! This fool here is part of the problem! He doesn't know the rules and the only reason I got blocked on Wikidata was because I lost my temper with my last comment. I deserved it. But the Wikidata article was still deleted and I just checked the log and it was for the same reason as Wikipedia! Notability! AKA Not a valid link! You're the one who needs to give it a rest because I'm not calling everyone wrong. I'm calling you and the admin on the Commons wrong! And that self promoting uploader on the Commons! Everything is relevant and the sooner you admit that the better and like I said elsewhere; Nick off!! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:B8BA:BA1F:3B9F:F069 05:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
And yet, the first thing you do is use harsh language towards me and use vulgarities to close your statement?
As mentioned here, and Commons, and Data... the fact that two Data admins are currently discussing why the item was deleted without explanation on the discussion page, just 'poof', gone, or how its deletion is causing cross-wiki templates to be broken... it is not relevant to the discussion here. Nothing that happens anywhere except on Wikimedia is relevant to the discussion here on Wikimedia. Quakewoody (talk) 13:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
I came here because this is the core site of Wikimedia that looks after all projects. Admins on WikiCommons have acted incorrectly and Wikimedia deserves to know and I am within my rights to request assistance. And you are interfering with rubbish so you asked for the harsh language as you are part of the problem and have nothing to contribute to the solution - and that's the deletion of all those images on WikiCommons. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:4937:65BF:56A5:5D27 07:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Oh and I just checked - there is no discussion about the deletion of the Wikidata entry. Just one question on the deleters talk page and no reply. Way to prove you don't deal in the truth. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:4937:65BF:56A5:5D27 07:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
You came here to say that you couldn't find the right place to complain, and you were told that the right place is at the wiki where you ahve the issue. Of course you can complain about your interactions at one of the sister wikis; you have done that. We said that we have no ability to intervene in your interactions at that wiki. This is a coordinating site, it is not the core site. Your issues can only be resolved at the wikis where you have your issues, or directly with the parties involved. So you have expressed your opinion, and that basically closes out the matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
No it doesn't because one question remains unanswered. If this isn't the place to lodge a complaint about the administration of a project then what is? Don't tell me the wiki itself because that's part of the problem and the solution has to come from off project and telling those admins to do their job properly. So point me in the correct direction (that is NOT to WikiCommons in this instance) please. This requires an off project intervention as there is no other way. 2001:8003:5999:6D00:4937:65BF:56A5:5D27 11:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many times you repeat "everyone but me is wrong", it doesn't make it true. Quakewoody (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
In this case, YOU are certainly wrong and haven't got the courage to admit it! Again you're part of the problem I'm talking about so nick off!! I already proved you are a liar just above! 2001:8003:5999:6D00:4937:65BF:56A5:5D27 20:43, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Mate. I added information to the talk page of the IP address from which you were editing. Might be worth having an account, so we can respond more effectively. This issue is resolved with respect we cannot do anything to assist you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Have a look at w:WP:1AM. Also be mindful how you speak: You're expected to behave well and failure to do so will just result in blocks. — regards, Revi 01:58, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I have to respond here as my IP has changed again (and come off the IPv6 in the process). Let me defend myself thus; Any incivility has been provoked by others who have refused to uphold the rules and moreover won't explain where I am wrong. They just simply say "I'm wrong". That doesn't help anyone let alone me. When admins do it, that's even worse - as was the case on WikiCommons. It's why there's no point arguing it there, especially when non admin troublemakers like Quakewoody behave in a manner that frankly is provocational to say the least. Now I will say this. For the first time in that talk page message, you made the point that there is no central governance point. Now as that is the present fact, I can't say or do anything about that. But I can say this. The lack of a central governance point is very inefficient and allows for projects to get out of control - as has happened on WikiCommons. I see no benefit of having an account. That's it. I'll just bold this. I ask that you reconsider the lack of central governance and consider introducing it in order to be better placed to control admins who control projects in an unacceptable manner including not upholding the rules of the project concerned. That is all. I'm done here. You can archive this now. 120.148.43.150 03:39, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It might be so, but this wiki is not the place to make your point (#13). You've selected wrong forum. — regards, Revi 04:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements projectEdit

06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

blocked on wikivoyageEdit

74.124.128.104

could someone unblock me? unfair block by User:AndreCarrotflower

Baozon90

Baozon90 (talk) 15:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Don Landry II

@Baozon90: You should request your unblock on Wikivoyage, not here. If there is nothing out of ordinary on your block, then stewards won't interfere. Esteban16 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Still blocked. Baozon90 (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Nothing that can be done about it here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Even their edit right to their own talk page revoked? --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Someone says it is unfair, which is an opinion to which they are entitled, but it doesn't make it right or wrong, or the prevailing story. The person needs to work it out at enVoy, or with the blocking administrator. Nothing that we can do about it here in this forum.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Site-wide administrator abuse and WP:PILLARS violations on the Croatian WikipediaEdit

See above. This would be a proposal to desysop all admins and set up some sort of ArbCom. --Rschen7754 00:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Corpus UNLEdit

I have two suggestion:

  • make Wikipedia in UNL (Universal Networking Language) as database about facts
  • special project WikiCorpus will between Wikipedia and Wiktionary. In many human languages: words, phrases, sentences and articles would be (exact!) translated language<->UNL. This will be good corpus for statistical machine translator. Intermediate language is needed: if will 100 languages, it will be 200 directions with intermediate language and up to 10'000 pairs without intermediate! Borneq (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)