Wikimedia Meta-Wiki

Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2009-03

< Wikimedia Forum‎ | Archives

English Wikipedia mascot revote

Currently the wikipedia mascot is Wikipede. However, that has been largly forgotten in place of the Wikipe-tan. Therefore I ask for a revote to see if the wikipe-tan should become the official mascot of the English Wikipedia.--Ipatrol 03:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is Meta, not English Wikipedia, so I don't think we have any business being involved with this.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
I think you're missing the "Humor" category of the page. :-) Projects do not really have "official mascots" and they don't really need them... that's what logos are for and unofficial mascots are a lot more fun. Cbrown1023 talk 01:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

wiki integration ideas, and a general question

There has been some good editing-related integration work; I know not some of it. Many texts across wikis, particularly the university, books (& dictionary, encyclopedia) are either partly redundant or could benefit from other wikis' info--for readers as well as editors--and unless one is an advanced editor such as an admin, it is hard to know how to improve that, let alone navigate the sites as a reader or editor reading for ref. Wikipedia has articles on the other Wikis instead of linking to their main page, which could be enabled for editing in Wikipedia, while each Wiki could have its own mission statement (if necessary) and TOC (or sitemap.)

I guess I posted most of the above in the main forum and then wrote on my user page; what was not a repetition of that was like:

It would be good if Wikimedia sites had a tabbed menu, or left-hand menu, and image-map interface to navigate Wikimedia sites. If you do not want to make that, I recommend Firefox plugin 'Stylish' (though it is one in my 80+ I have not tried.) Notification of new Wikimedia sites and enabling one to have a single user page for all accounts would be helpful.

Is it right to post cross-wiki integration ideas here instead of the page on that topic? It is clearer now that this is the multi-language forum allowing coordination comments, so I moved my post back here and partly from my userpage.

Wikimedia Foundation founders and Wiki admins, thank you for all projects.--Dchmelik 10:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

antoher efficient layout request

Please, unless Wikimedia workers and most readers of Wikimedia project sites are doing keyboard-only web browsing, give an option to put the editing menus at the

center

on all sites. That is what current [GUIs] do, because it saves the user time and looks less distracting--symmetric. Wikis are not old Apple OS or Windows 3.1--or any newer Windows for that matter. Take a look at [XCFE] or, better yet, [KDE] ([kde.org.) Once I saw the Wiki sites without the left-hand menu--maybe due to a [[http://www.firefox.com Firefox] bug, and for the same reason, I would like to have that option. I prefer tabs for everything (except when I am doing graphics or music, except for each separate image or composition.)

I do not even remember if 1995 websites even had a left-hand menu, though frames may be reasonable now (even some middle-class people, not to mention 3rd world access sites, are on dial-up internet though.) Wikimedia sites main wiki page appearances may be medium-level distracting (ebay is probably highest distracting.)--Dchmelik 12:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I am a sysop on the Norwegian Wiktionary project. As we are approaching 20,000 articles, I thought it would be appropriate for us to have our own logo, rather than the English one which we have so far been using. I am not sure how to go about changing the logo, so, so far, I have only uploaded it locally as an SVG-file. (Ideally, it should go onto commons with all the other Witkionary-logos, but, like I said, I don't know how to go about these things, and therefore I haven't uploaded it there yet.) What so I do, in order to change our project's logo? V85 16:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello V85, You need to upload it in a filesize that fits into the upper left corner (e.g. something like 130x150px) and as wikt:no:Image:Wiki.png, protect it and request logo-switch at bugzilla: (don't forget to put "shell" as keyword also).
See also Requests for logos
Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 16:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you Birdy, I have now done as you advised me to do. ;-) V85 17:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange edit in {{H-langs:Help}}

Please, check this strange edit made by user Rcalcazar. It seems like vandalism. I've rolled it back. --LonelyKoyote 17:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

ToC not appearing

Hello

i've just installed wikimedia onto my mac and started to play around with it and i noticed that my ToC does not appear. i did several testings with multiple headings and sub-headings (== 123 == & ===234=== etc etc) , used __FORCETOC__ & __TOC__, checked that the auto ToC option is checked in my perference, but it still doesn't work. Nothing comes out.

anyone encounter similar problems or know how to solve it?

cheers

This page is not for support of the MediaWiki software. Please try #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net or mediawiki-l mailing list which are the appropriate support venues.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Also try mw:Project:Support desk. MBisanz talk 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Does the article has any __NOTOC__?--Kwj2772 (論) 05:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Little problem with a user

Hello, i came here because i have a problem on many wikis with an user. For information I'm an administrator on FR. (fr:Utilisateur:Gdgourou)

History
  1. I request a bot flag for user:Ptbotgourou on a lot of wikis few months ago (mostly august and september) and many are without response
  2. On 21 octobre 2008, I translate from french a mail send by user Budelberger in which he complain that admin on small wikis are "ignorants, incompetent and vandal"...
this user is blocked indefinitely of FR [1] since may 2008 after a little "history"...
since he works on small wikis rather good but don't accept any authority.
« rather good »… Since then he make a systematic opposition on most of unresponded request i have. I don't check every wikis but on some he write my real name and write that I'm "a vandal", "consanguine" (in french it means prejorativly "have fuck with a consanguine"),...

Sometime i could be happy, it's a simple opposition.

Some examples of pending request

I don't check on wikis i have already the bot flag but perphaps there's more. I made a research on google http://www.google.fr/search?q=gdgourou+consanguin. I'm not very happy to have results. Have you a solution ? --Gdgourou 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I also found an attack against Kahuroa

If you d'on't have any solution, perhaps some advices ? --Gdgourou 09:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried contacting local administrators? I'm not sure what could be done, but I'm not sure this is the venue for it. I'll try and think. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Tsss… le vilain garçon ! il oublie de parler de la lettre d'insultes qu'il m'a envoyée en privé ! il tient absolument à ce que je la rende publique ?… -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ( ).
C'est ma gloire ! Le Système acculé dans ses derniers retranchements ! Sa servilité établie ! -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ( ).
Cet individu n'est jamais aussi bien décrit que par lui-même… (Cet individu est Français, et il fait honneur à une longue tradition nationale. Ils sont 178 autres comme lui – en ne comptant que les notables – sur «fr ». Dans les WikiMachins, « on » adore décerner des décorations à tout un chacun (les meilleurs larbins) : à Gdgourou, je décerne la Francisque d'or.) Quant à moi, je viens d'apprendre avec surprise que je figurais sur une « white list » ! (Et cet individu y figure à mes côtés : je suis mort de honte.) Il faut vite aviser « Huggle » de son erreur… --Budelberger 13:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) ( ).
Comment appelez-vous en français ceux qui ne se reproduisent qu'entre eux ? Oui, je sais, la française langue, ça est un pneu ardu pour un individu comme vous ; ah ! que vous en ayez la fine connaissance d'un Andrew Dalby !… --Budelberger 13:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC) ( ).
Pour celle-ci, la tchouvache (et c'est vrai que vous êtes balaise en tchouvache, hein ? comment qu'on y dit « REDIRECT », par là-bas, hein ?…), vous auriez dû, monCanard, plutôt donner ce lien-ci, doux Seigneur ; une belle marque du vandalisme que vous vous croyez autorisé à pratiquer un peu partout, en proclamant urbite et orbite votre « qualité » d'administrateur de la fr.Wikipedia, ce ramassis de 179 cooptés (sans possibilité – pas fous, les frelons – de révocation ; quoi qu'ils fassent) IGNARROGANTS (sauf, bien sûr, et je m'incline : en manga ; que des mangarastes de première, les bougres). Alors, alors… on aurait un pneu honte de ses vandalismes, monBiquet ? -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ( ).
(Le pauv' Chéri… il voudrait que partout partout partout il y ait un déluge d'ovations sur sa personne quémandant un flag ; c'est vrai que dans la Famille, on ne comprend pas le sens d'« Oppose » ; c'est bien simple, on efface les messages, et on bloque les comptes ; ailleurs comme ici, sur Meta : un seul choix, être d'accord. Les yeux rouges.)
Décidément, vous n'êtes pas doué, mon petit Délateur chéri (pas autant qu'Hégésippe, hein ?, mais Lui a l'antériorité – « pas autant chéri », entendez bien…) ; après avoir vandalisé la « cv », ou pas être foutu de rien connaître à l'histoire de la Carie, avec votre robot pour attardés, vous voilà pôs capab' – en tant que personne… – d'aligner un lien correct ; c'est icitte qu'il faut lire, monGrand ! --Budelberger 14:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ( ). (P.-S. : Comme toujours… « Serviteur » ! À votre avis, je reprends point par point votre poulet à la Kommandantur, ou vous vous en chargez ? « D'on't » you think so ?… Vous pourriez peut-être expliquer pourquoi, après avoir lu mes informations, « Lajsikonik » a changé d'avis sur vous ?…) (P.-P.-S. : Un conseil, Honorable Anonyme… Dois-je maintenant signer de ce doux nom (de section) : « a user » ? votre avis d'anonyme m'intéresse !)
Qu'est-ce qu'il en sait, avec ses disniaiseries pour tout bagage, le gourou ?… Qu'il prouve une once de compétence pour apprécier ! -- (a user) Budelberger 18:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC) ( ).
Toujours à propos de ce délicat esprit nommé « Kahuroa », propriétaire exclusif et perpétuel de la Wikipédia maorie ; peut-être avez-vous remarqué que certaines villes (Kurów, Curitibia, Uetersen, Końskowola…) et certaine église… tentent d'avoir un article dans chacun des projet, dans chacune des langues… – même dans l'Incubator. Regardez ici. Pourquoi se gênerait-il, après tout : il est inamovible et assuré de la solidarité (et protection, comme on dit dans la Famille) de ses Consanguins : cette Wikipedia est sa propriété personnelle ; un deuxième « Hugo.arg ». --Budelberger 22:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC) ( ).
@ Anonymous Dissident : Yes I try, but often the fact that he doesn't disturb a lot... is a reason to not block him
One more time, he put my real name on a wiki, this one [2], and it's only one thing, lot of insult... on others please could you do something ? --Gdgourou 23:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I consider that outing other users (by purposely putting their real name on various wikis) is intolerable and should be treated very seriously (it reminds me of an ex-english user doing that on his website, which is no different from our case).
  • Also, Budelberger seems to be harassing GdGourou on many projects. This is another offense that should be treated seriously.
  • And last, I noted in this section that he has not been contructive at all. Instead, he mainly abused it to write personnal attacks and other non-sense.

Was it only for me to decide, this account would be already locked. But, since I has a bias, I'd prefer other steward to decide what kind of sanction should be applied.

DarkoNeko 11:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Err, so. Does that silence mean you all agree on the fact I should lock him ? :) DarkoNeko 17:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
The case is not clear to me. Did Gdgourou disclose a private email? Guido den Broeder 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
If you speak about the mail that I translate, it was a mail send by Budelberger to wikipedia-l(at)lists.wikimedia.org (date : 21 october 2008 11:54, subject : Révocations d'Administrateurs). SterkeBak request a translation which was also provided by andrew.gray and thomas.dalton. I don't know if the other persons who respond to the mail have been harassed by Budelberger ? Should i forward you the mail ? --Gdgourou 09:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
For your information, Bastique respond to this mail the 23 october 2008 as Andrew Dalby. --Gdgourou 09:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Problem solved for meta... user banned --Gdgourou 19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyright policy on Albanian Wikipedia

What's the strategy for dealing with situations where one of the smaller projects does something blatantly against the rules in terms of copyright and image policy? This time it's the Albanian Wikipedia. They have an image template saying that certain media are published only for use on their own Wikipedia and must not be copied elsewhere, not even other Wikimedia projects. The template was created by one of their administrators and is currently used on some two dozen images, some of them historical photographs, others graphics that would quite obviously be replaceable with fully free media. I can see no indication of anything like a non-free media rationale, a source declaration, or an explanation of the supposed copyright status, or what the special sq-wiki-only licensing is supposed to be based on. Copyright policy on other images appears to be rather sloppy too, to put it mildly. (these are all claimed to be public domain, and hardly any of them even has a source provided.)

I don't speak Albanian. I tried speaking to one of their admins who I know does speak English, but he rather rudely refused to talk to me in anything but Albanian [3]. It's a very small project and competent English speakers appear to be rare there. I've asked him to join us over here. What else can be done? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It is GFDL violation. MUST be deleted unless it is used for fair use images.--Kwj2772 (論) 07:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
cf. wikimedia:Licensing policy.--Kwj2772 (論) 07:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I read your conversation at sq:Përdoruesi diskutim:Puntori. English is not this person't first language so it's tough to tell for sure, but I think he is confusing "free" (it didn't cost me anything) with "free" (free content). That's hard enough to explain to someone when we both speak the same language. ;) --B 15:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You mean that "speech vs. beer" is not instantaneously intuitively intelligible across cultures? :) -- Avi 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Words fail me. [4] --B 15:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, if he wants it on his village pump rather than his user talk page, I'll gladly oblige. Let's have a kuvenda. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
How about not destroying the content of projects and instead 'helping' them? Instead of saying "your images are bad, solve the problem or the Foundation will delete them all!" you could rather tell them how to create a local fair use policy. Or try creating or finding free alternatives to the images. Or try helping them to find the sources of the images.
There is not a single "obvious" or "dangerous" copyvio among the images, just some very old pics where the source is not known exactly. No reason to make this a big issue. --::Slomox:: >< 20:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That's not quite true. While the old photographs are likely to be unproblematic, the maps (like sq:Figura:P. Romake në Ballkan shk.V.PNG) are not; they are certainly more modern, and in the absence of source information must be presumed to be copyvios. Also, the particular images with this particular tag are only the tip of an iceberg, of a project crammed full of bad image uploads with all sorts of sloppy, missing or false copyright declarations. – As for helping, that presupposes that local editors are prepared to listen, to explain, and to do their homework. I can't help them create a fair use policy if they are not prepared to acknowledge that non-free content requires any consideration on their part at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:10, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Slomox, I follow this discussion here and on the sq.wiki. My opinion is that the colleagues here do not want to critisize only but are helping a bit with advices etc. The fact is though, that a tag or template "this image can be published here only and do not copy or use it elsewhere" an absolute nonsence is. Everybody who see it once can use it and that is the point: there is a copyright violation. Fair use is a obscure happening on the enwiki because of the US laws, but I do not think that somebody can help the sq.wiki to create a sq.fair-use-policy. The images must be deleted, and as somebody says on the sq.wiki, after learing the point they can be renewed. -jkb- 21:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Every project can create an Exemption Doctrine Policy if local law allows rights similar to "fair use". Whether this is the case can only be said after reading the Albanian copyright law. If you haven't read it, don't say, that they cannot create one.
This thread was about a specific template. 14 old images, 7 maps and one console screenshot. The maps and the screenshot can easily be recreated as free images. I cannot judge how prevalent problematic content is among the other uploads on sq. If it's a general problem, the original post shouldn't have asked about the specific template.
The fact is though, that a tag or template "this image can be published here only and do not copy or use it elsewhere" an absolute nonsence is. It's not a license tag but a warning tag. --::Slomox:: >< 22:03, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It is evidently meant to be a licensing tag. There is nothing else at all on the image description pages. That's indicative of the overall level of copyright practice there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:09, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Slomox, I did not read the Albanian law and I will not as I do not speak the language. But I would be very surprised if there is the possibility for fair use (see also the appropriate pages in commons, there are such tags not mentioned). But this does not matter. Important: there are no warning tags in the wikipedia projects. There is only a notice on the bottom of every page saying "Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License". Therefore all texts and all images which do not fullfill GFDL cannot be published here. I know the discussions about this from many projects, sometimes I am sorry about it, but this is the fact. -jkb- 22:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC) - - - P.S. Fair use according to the US law is sometning else and an exception of the en.wiki. -jkb- 22:31, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
FYI, sq:User:Dan has blanked the discussion on their village pump. --B 02:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Not only blanked it, but also welcomed both you and me with nationalist insults ("barbarians" and others) [5], [6], [7]. It is clear now that this project as a whole is not willing to comply either with standards of content nor with standards of behaviour. I'm hardly surprised. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:35, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Finally I decided to lose time to write to you. It seems that you like a forum discussions. I wonder what are you doing here. Go and do forum talks.
Anyways, just as I said in my talk page: "This template is permanent". Is that hard to be understood? Let it be like it is until the right answer is found.
I told you that I can give license to the content (next 5 min). Then what?
I understand English Language very well and I can understand what means free in this topic, BUT THIS TEMPLATE IS TEMPORARILY.
So MR. B if I make the content FREE as you say than it means that that content is licensed which is not true, because the content is not licensed (it's not found the right license).
In sq.wikipedia almost all active users understand and write good English, but they do not lose time talking not important things with "forumist".
Some one have written that "he is not convinced" that we are "investigating" the the true license: Is that matter if you are or not convinced? Man, man, man. One time visit to sq.wikipedia and immediately want to be King. I told once if you do not understand the language and the situation in one wiki DO NOT BOTHER, go away.
So, what you are talking about? I can't understand. Puntori 13:54, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Some people here are worst than me in understanding English. I said: "Those images are not licensed, and the template is temporary eadded". They say: The text in the template meant to be license text. This is not funny. I think that those users either want to bother us, or are playing stupid with the words I write.Puntori 14:08, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think the expression of the template should be changed. "This file is only for sq.wikipedia.org" can cause misunderstanding like this case.--Kwj2772 (論) 14:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
The text is :"Don't copy to other Wikimedia projects or in other web sites." Puntori 15:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Puntori. I hope it is OK when I mention some ideas. The text on your template is not only a bit not common for the wikimedia projects. It is also quite irritating. Sure, you say the image should not be copied etc., but on the same page (see e.g. w:sq:Figura:Asdreni.jpg) everybody can read on the bottom the sentence "Përmbajtja është në disponim nëpërmjet licencës GNU Free Documentation License". This is not compatible. Therefore, as some other colleagues suggested here already, it yould be better for all to delete the images as long as the licence and copyright are not clear. Later you can renew the images. I think this is the only and also the right way to avoid a copyright violation and to avoid a problems with the Wikimedia Foundation. Cheers and good luck, -jkb- 15:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to say, but it is hard to discuss with you. I say "let it be like it is until we clear this situation. You are dieing to delete this content. You can see in my delete log how many pictures I have deleted, and I do not like this kind of content. We are a few who actively work to protect sq.wikipedia and there are many who post stupidities and upload images by adding "fake" license.
So this situation with those pictures is clear, I mean, we know that those pictures are free to be used and we want to find the right license. At the other hand we do not have time do delete then turn back then delete then what whoever comes to sq.wiki ad judges things without knowing the situation.
I say: Give us a time. You say that you want to delete. So, delete, and I hope you'll be happy with that. Puntori 16:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Please understand that these comments and advices are intended to help, and written with the best intentions. Apologies if this seem like interfering with an independent project, but the fact remains that there are certain rules that every wikimediaproject must follow. I understand that the template in question is meant to be only temporarily, used until the proper sources/licenses are found. The problem is that we (=wikimedia projects) should not nost&use files without sources/free licenses even temporarily. Files of unknown origin should be deleted, and only restored when/if the source is found,
Some projects (like en:wiki) host files that could not be used at other projects, and thus tag them "Do not move to Wikimedia Commons" or such. That is however files that fulfill a certain fair-use rationale as adapted by that particular project, not files where the source or copyrightstatus is unknown. Regards, Finn Rindahl 17:15, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a behaviour dimension to this too. This project has a hostile, nationalist "us-versus-them" mentality towards other language communities. A fellow wikipedian from a foreign-language project comes to your place, to help. He is met with a flow of crass nationalist insults, from a local admin. The new user removes the insults from his own user talk page. You, Puntori, instead of rebuking your abusive fellow admin, have a friendly chat with him and then go and reinstate the abuse [8]. Is this how you usually deal with guests in your place? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:34, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Puntori, you can believe me, not only on sq.wiki there are trolls. I am editing since May 2004 and I have been admin om three projects. There are thousands of trolls everywhere uploading nonsence and false informations. C'est la vie, such is the life, such is wiki. But here we want to point out what is the right way to handle images. You upload images and then you try to find a licence for it. Normally the way is the other one: you must know the licence and you must be sure the licence is right, then - and not earlier - you can upload it on commons or other wikimedia projects. This is the point of this discussion. So, when there are people who are like to help you here, let them help you. Nobody here is like to delete the sq.wiki I hope. Cheers -jkb- 18:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I will comment to all with this last text.
I do my best in Albanian Language wikipedia (you can see my log aobut this).
I make discussions to make dessidions (with users and admins in sq.wiki). Not all the time thinks are going good, so I look for the best solution even for temporary solution.
We are just few editors and not 100 or 1000 so there will not be problem if I just stay deleting.
We need a motivation there, so some times I decide to move arund regulation and mean time find the right solution.
And for the wikipedian which discussion I recoverd I say: You do not have right to delete the discussion, no metter is that good or bad.
This is my lest comment about this topic. If you whant you can delete the images. I will not, because I am searching information about the true license.
Kind Regards, Puntori 22:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is getting more and more bizarre. Now I'm getting blocking threats from the most abusive of the admins there [9], [10]. This is the same guy who insists on calling non-Albanians "Barbarians" in every single posting of his, and who is actually edit-warring with his fellow admins to reinstate his insults against me [11]. And this because I dared to document that this same guy is a serial copyright offender [12].

So, what can be done? The state of affairs on that wiki is such that the cross-wiki community and the Foundation can't simply ignore it and let them be. From what I've seen, I'm very pessimistic about that wiki community finding the strength of cleaning itself from the abuse. It needs some pushing from outside. But I don't see how I can do much there, since I'm being threatened with blocks simply for the very act of posting there. The project is in effect using the language barrier to shut itself off from criticism and control.

Is there a way of starting a process here on meta to reach some binding, enforceable sanctions on such a wiki? I'm getting more and more convinced that at least one desysoping is absolutely necessary, and I don't see how that can be achieved through any process internal to the project. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Please note that 'barbar' simply means 'foreigner'. Guido den Broeder 23:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi Future and other ones. It really seems to be a problem or at least a lack of knowledge about copyright atd. there. But, after all, I have the feeling that we can cooperate with some users or admins from the sq.wiki, or at least to discuss with them, althoug some other ones are like to block etc. So, I would suggest, let us slow down and see if there is a possibility to gin somebody to mediate this problem. I just hope to solve a similar problem on the multisource. Let us slow down, the users on sq.wiki should recognize that we do not press them. -jkb- 22:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Under the [13] (8 and 11) [it is in english], the images such as w:sq:Figura:Asdreni.jpg are freely usable for educational purposes, even if they are copyrighted.
It can also be a logo, a copyrighted software screenshot, a patent, or everything else that is IP, can be used for non-profit (direct or indirect) educational purposes.
To remember it to you, this means it is GFDL compatible. It's like Creative Commons BY. --  eagleal  06:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
That's a misunderstanding, I'm afraid. Please read up on foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy and its application on en:WP:NFC. Copyrighted media are only "free" enough for Wikimedia projects if they are free even for commercial re-use. "Free for educational use" is not free enough for us. What you describe is what we treat as "fair use" media on en-wiki. Those are okay, but only under very narrow conditions. And, as I told Cradel, if you want to invoke such rules, you need to spell out the exact conditions under which you wish to do so, in what the Foundation calls an "exemption doctrine". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I understand you, but since the Albanian country IP laws, allow educational use, so it does transform in a sort of CC-BY-NC (not fair-use) worldwide. You can use, redistribute, make derivative works, but you can't use it commercially.
Wikimedia host the image on US, under a CC-NC-BY. As I knew, a creative commons license, is a free license. --  eagleal  14:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm afraid that's incorrect. CC-BY-NC or equivalents of that are not accepted as free licenses on Wikimedia projects. A noncommercial-only or educational-only restriction is not compatible with the definition of a "free cultural work" as refered to in the Licensing policy. Also, I'm not at all sure whether you are interpreting the Albanian law correctly. I don't think the law is saying that you can take just any work produced in Albania and copy it on your website just because your website calls itself educational. Those articles 8 and 11, if they are meant to be in any way comparable to corresponding rules in other European copyright laws, describe something much more restrictive than that. Unfortunately, I can't say exactly what they are meant to say, because the English translation is unreadable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I guess Fut.Perf. is right. Things like non commercial, only education etc. are not free in the sence of the foundation (any restriction differing from gfdl is a restriction). Additionally, you must distinguish two things: the Albanian copyright law on the one side and the rules of the foundation on the other one. Secondly, as far as the very unsuficient summary of the Albanian Copyright law ([14]) can be undestood, the rule is 70 years after the death of the author (chapter IV § 19) which will concern the most images and texts. The other paragraphs like 8 and 11 (8 telling about teaching not educational purposes as a whole) or the paragraphs with 50 years after having been published etc. (phonograms, performances etc.) are exeptions not matching our problem in the most cases (and also not matching the arised problem on the oldwikisource). May be it would not be a bad idea if you start a workshop about licensing and copyright (with the support of some colleagues from meta, commons etc.??), might be as a starting project for the Albanian Wikiversity. -jkb- 12:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
N.B.: The full English translation of the Albanian copyright law of 2005 can be found here, -jkb- 09:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

translation from al.source

Hello, and sorry I can not make a disscusion in english. I holpe thate somebody can understande this pise of text in albanian witch I'm writing dow here.

Nuk është problemi i figurave. Nuk është problemi i stampes. Është problemi i paraqitjes së administratorit të en.Wiki në një kohë të shkurtër pas paraqitjes së përdoruesit të mëparshëm në artikullin Kosova. Në fleten time të përdoruesit nuk ekziston asnjë shenjë ku shkruan se unë jamë njohës i ndonjë gjuhe tjetër. Është e vërtet që bisedat e lehta i kuptojë në disa gjuhë. Por kjo as se si nuk do të thotë se jamë në gjendje të diskutoj e aq më pakë për një temë që edhe për ne ka qenë e nxehtë. Dhe po ta njihja unë gjuhen angleze në atë shkallë sa të diskutoja, nuk bënë që të harrohet që gjuhë e projektit në fjalë është gjuha shqipe dhe secili antarë i saj ka të drejtë të kuptojë se për çka po flitet. Së paku të përshëndetet dhe të informohet se për cilën gjuhë bëhet fjala.

Ky administrator i interesuar për mirëmbajtje në një projekt, komunitetin e të cilit nuk e njehë, gjuhen e projektit nuk e njehë, ky administratorë që nuk u mundua të paraqesë synimet e tija si wikipedianë, nuk mori pakë kohë që së paku të mësojë çelsin e mirësjelljes në atë projekt TUNG, çelës i cili gjendet po thuaj se në çdo faqe diskutimi të përdoruesve. Ky administratorë që vije në projektin tonë, ashtu si të kishte zgjidhur gjitha problemet në projektin ku është zgjedhur administrator.

Zotëri, deri më tani, sq.Wikipedia nuk ka marr asnjë ankesë nga poseduesit e të drejtave të figurave. Vetëmbrojtja apo disa figura të licencuara gabimisht me pavetëdije nuk do të thotë tragjedi.

Ne jemi vullnetar. Vullnetar në përhapjen e njohurime ndër njerzimin. Poseduesëve të figurave mund të u garatojmë që brenda projektit tonë (sq) nuk do të ketë keqpërdorime. Por atyre nuk mund të ju garantojmë për keqpërdorime në projekte të fondacionint dhe jashë tij. Fondacioni ësht i madhë, ne jemi të vegjël.

Ky admiministrator nuk është për t'u admiruar por përkundrazi. --Hipi Zhdripi 09:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Somebody else may be able to translate more, but from what I gather, Hipi Zhdripi is now arguing that because they are such a small project and because they don't get complaints from copyright holders, it doesn't really matter if they are a bit more careless about copyrights. Well, Hipi, that's not how it works. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
It's saying that he can't understand english well, only a few words of the language, and that in his user page also he doesn't say that speak any other language, except the Albanian.
Also from the text: "it's only that he make an intervention directly after a discussion of the article about Kosova".
The discussion than degraded and a user started insulting, and criticize the content of the article, even if he doesn't knew a word of Albanian.
Then Hipi says that he toughts the intervention of english admin (Fut.Perf.) was to support the user in the discussion of the article about Kosovo.
Fut.Perf he says came to sqwiki and didn't expose us his purposes, but instead he started pushing us.
We can guarantee the IP holders for the usage of the media in our wiki, but none in the others.
Note that this is not a litterally traduction of the text above. --  eagleal  15:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

CPU load at 100% while loading a page. normal?

Hello

when i am loading a page on my owm mediawiki my cpu load is gonig up to 100% during the page is loading. it is the same problem under windows and under linux suse. on my live system this effects the other sites because apache is need als cpu for loading my mediawiki. is this normal? i am the only one whith this problem?

You'll want to contact mediawiki-l or #mediawiki or Project:Support desk.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
And no, you are not the only one with this problem... -- sj | help translate |+ 04:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity????

When I read an article like this:

http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=91114

It convinces me that those who say that Wikepedia is also a biased source of information are exactly right. You may include me in the list of those who will no longer accept Wikipedia as being any more authoritative than the garbage of the New York Times.

Lifsabsurd

Wikipedia is indeed not a reliable source. But WP itself acknowledges this. Guido den Broeder 11:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Wow, you are convinced by an article that references itself several times as proof its correct. Here's a better article. Noticed how it references other sources besides itself. --MarsRover 01:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Changing MediaWiki header and sidebar

Hi all, I am working on a project and am using MediaWiki.

My website currently has a sidebar and header of itself, and I would like to replace the original WikiMedia sidebar and header with my own by using PHP include or something of the sort.

However, I cannot find the file to edit to replace the sidebar and header. I would like all my changes to be made on the MonoBook skin

Does anyone know in which directory the sidebar and header can be changed?

Thank you very much for your help!

You can change MediaWiki:Sidebar and relevant system messages. Good luck!--Kwj2772 (論) 14:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
You should also be asking this on the site about MediaWiki. They'd be more helpful than us. Cbrown1023 talk 20:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Tidying developers' user rights

I'm very glad to see that the developers now have their own global group; "system administrators". It seems that this group has been correctly set up to give the developers the ability to temporarily give themselves any permissions they require, but to be minimally-intrusive otherwise. In this context, it no longer makes sense for developers to also be members of the "steward" global group, into which they have been 'grandfathered' for many years. It is also no longer necessary for the developers to retain local groups that relate only to user rights; particularly 'bureaucrat'. Brion is a bureaucrat on eight wikis; still a member of the defunct local "developer" group on three, and an admin on a whopping thirty eight. Tim Starling is a 'crat on three wikis but, bizzarrely, not a local "developer" on any of them.

I'm not trying to make any suggestion to the effect that the devs should not be 'allowed' the technical permissions associated with these groups; indeed it would be the height of folly to suggest that of someone with root access to the servers :D. I'm concerned rather with the distinction between the technical access the groups give, and the expectations of the roles themselves. Just because Tim is a sysop on eight wikis, doesn't mean that he is 'qualified' to close XfDs or protect pages on those wikis. Brion having the 'crat flag in as many places doesn't mean it would be appropriate for him to close RfAs. Just because they have the steward flag, doesn't mean that they should be poked over trivial SUL renames. It is both 'tidier' from a technical perspective, and more transparent from a community perspective, for the developers to be "system administrators", rather than "stewards", "bureaucrats", or local "developers". I propose, therefore, that we politely ask the four developers (Brion, Tim, RobH and Kate) who have large numbers of user rights floating around, to spend a few minutes seeing which user rights they genuinely need, and which are just hangovers from situations that are no longer relevant; and ask the stewards to remove those rights that they do not have a use for.

Thoughts? Happy‑melon 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Why discuss it here? Just go ahead and ask them. If they say no, we can talk about whether it is worth pressuring them to do it, but if they are happy to do so, there is no need for discussion. --Tango 12:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have, in as much as I e-mailed Brion a couple of days ago, but have had no response. I suppose he's a busy guy... Perhaps someone should grab him on IRC? Happy‑melon 16:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, they've repeatedly said that they do not care if you remove their admin/crat/dev permissions. If they require them again for whatever purpose (as has indeed happened) they will simply grant it to themselves for tasks on an as-needed basis. Which is the whole point of having staff and sysadmin global groups. Just Do It.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Go on then :D. As and when the board confirms your nomination, of course. Congrats, by the way! Happy‑melon 00:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It is good custom for developers to remove their own group rights when they do not need them. Guido den Broeder 00:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Where do I file such a request? Brion has made 11 edits on Wikispecies and last edited in July 2006 but an admin & crat?! I think that qualifies for inactive user. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:42, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Each project wanting the inactive rights removed would want to develop its own discussion on the matter. When you come to a local consensus on the matter and can point at a policy page allowing for removal of inactive rights, point the stewards at both and they'll perform the removals. Kylu 06:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
So we need to develop seven hundred and fifty separate policies to govern the rights of four users? What ludicrous bureaucracy. As Mike notes, the devs have carte blanche to do whatever they think they need to on any wiki, regardless of local policy. And remember that we're not actually removing any permissions whatsoever; being members of the global sysadmin group, any permission they need is just two clicks away. Easy come, easy go, even easier 'come again' if necessary. This is a totally different issue to removal of inactive rights in general. Happy‑melon 09:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
It is probably a good idea to create a central policy of some sort for this. I suppose if local projects want the rights removed, they can form consensus to. If they don't really care then there's not much point in it really. Majorly talk 13:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
No, if local projects "don't care", then they don't care; ambivalence is not the same as support for the status quo. If anything, the fact that the xx.wiki community "doesn't care" if one of its bureaucrats is removed, is evidence in support of the assertion that these rights really are useless, both to the projects and to the developers who hold them. However, I certainly think that such local communities should be given the opportunity to comment here (as should the devs themselves). I'll draw up a list of which wikis are affected, and we can make an effort to contact them about this discussion.
I'm not sure we need anything as elaborate as a full formal policy; a few words added to System administrators would probably be sufficient - that page needs overhauling anyway to focus more on how the devs' interact with Wikimedia. Happy‑melon 13:34, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with having this setup as it seems to actually make sense rather then any of the older approaches. Still retaining the ability to move into different groups when needed/appropriate seems to be all that we need. If it makes administration easier and more consistent then I'm for it. If it ends up getting in the way then we can revisit but for now it seems fine. --Tfinc 21:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll just say this: my adminship on the English Wikipedia was granted by due process, long before I became a developer, due to my work on Wikipedia articles. I'm proud to have it, and hope to keep it as long as local policy will allow, whether or not I remain a developer. I'm not concerned about the rest, and don't wish to be involved in any discussions about those rights. -- Tim Starling 02:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Tim, and you raise a good point, which is that not all of these flags were set in the course of the devs' work, just most of them. Upon compiling the table of flags that may be affected (there are 88 of them in total amongst seven devs!) I've also come to note that rights on fishbowl wikis and at www.mediawiki.org should be excluded. Barring those, there are flags on 74 wikis that may be affected. Happy‑melon 08:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tim thanks for commenting. What would you say about your bureaucrat right on English Wikipedia? Do you still want/need it? Majorly talk 23:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
I believe Tim's enwiki crat right was granted in the ordinary course of business (as opposed to Brion's enwiki crat right), which would indicate to me that the general rules (crat for life) apply. MBisanz talk 03:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Also, if someone could look into it, is enwiki en:user:Jasonr a developer? He was given adminship for technical purposes, I think relating to the April 5, 2003 server crash, but otherwise has made 4 edits ever. Admins no longer can test things (that is why we have testwiki), and if he is a dev, shouldn't his adminship be converted to some sort of SVN/testwiki access? MBisanz talk 01:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
He already has an SVN account under "jasonr", it's probably fine for his adminship to be removed on the English Wikipedia — he's not active anymore, so he probably won't miss it. Cbrown1023 talk 01:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I've had a request to finish this off. I think there's support to do this, so I'm looking for any further objections at this point. I'll be contacting the users shortly, in case they've got something to add. The list Happy-Melon has provided appears to be accurate. Access which should have been turned off and which is no longer required will be removed. Access which is still likely to be needed, or where the user in question was elected through the normal methods will of course be left in place. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no objection, other than making sure that users retain all the rights for which they were elected. Conspicuously missing from this discussion has been their steward rights. AFAIK, they should be removed (in fact, should have been removed at the time that staff and/or sysadmin status was granted - those global groups were explicitly intended to replace their steward bits).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
For clarity, I'm planning to only remove permissions which obviously were intended to be temporary and which are no longer needed. In particular, that means I am not going to remove meta or enwiki permissions unless the community asks for that to be done (or the user, I guess).  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(From User talk:Mike.lifeguard) As best I can determine, the rights break down as follows:

I'm not even sure if some of the fishbowl wikis at the bottom are accessible through the CentralAuth network, but they might as well be left anyway. Happy‑melon 12:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC) Looks to me like some of these need to be double-checked:

  • All the enwiki ones
  • All the meta ones

Which I'll do now...  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As well, some of these are old... All developer rights have already been removed. I imagine this is simply due to replag.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 18:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably; the s3 cluster was only synced this morning, so many of these data will be from before 5 January when the s3 replication was halted. Shall I recheck the data?
With regards the meta and enwiki rights: I believe the local "steward" group is deprecated even for stewards, although there seems to be some lack of clarity here: I note that your promotion has involved you being given both the global and local "steward" flags; I'm not sure what's going on there. Checking the relevant processes on en.wiki, Kate is the only other dev to have passed a 'normal' RfA (w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kate); none of the devs have passed an RfB or AFAIK been confirmed as CU/OS by the en.wiki Arbitration Committee. On meta, Tim and Brion's flags have both been removed; see Meta:Administrators/confirm/Archives/2009-01 and Meta:Administrators/confirm/bureaucrat chat/January 2009#Brion VIBBER, leaving them only the local steward group. Happy‑melon 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
That's because they are inactive in terms of admin work on Meta-wiki. Tim and Brion gained sysop rights through other means prior to their involvement as developers. Their removal should only come about if enwiki creates a desysopping policy, and they fail to meet it. Majorly talk 22:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Tim and Kate, yes, I can't find any evidence that Brion ever gained +sysop in the 'normal' way. Happy‑melon 23:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
Where's your evidence against? Majorly talk 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(End from User talk:Mike.lifeguard)

There are no signatures of his on any RfA page where he could conceivably have been elected; there is no w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Brion Vibber. There is no rights-log entry for him gaining adminship; so either it was directly hacked into the database tables or it was granted prior to the creation of bureaucrats in 2004. This post to wikipedia-l shows that Brion was given dev access from sometime before September 2002, and this puts a lower limit in April 2002. I have reviewed the entire archives of wikipedia-l around this period, and can find no discussion of Brion's +sysop. Either he got it when Jimbo sysopped a "bunch" of people on 26 March 2002, or it was added unilaterally at some point thereafter. Either way, there was no community discussion. Happy‑melon 11:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
He had no RFA, and was granted the rights very early on. The fact he had no discussion is totally irrelevant. Many admins had no/limited discussion for adminship, so why should Brion be exempt. What would be the point in removing him, considering he is active there? Majorly talk 18:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The fact that him having the explicit sysop flat implies that he is 'only' an administrator, if anything. As noted above, it's not a question of "removing him"; that's not something we can even consider enforcing on our CTO. But it's not something I can bring myself to get particularly worked up about; it's not like this is some crusade against the devs. If anything, as I say, removing their 'normal' rights on local projects solidifies their position as having essentially carte blanche to do whatever is necessary to improve Wikimedia. Happy‑melon 22:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In my view, Brion's en.wiki and eo.wiki admin rights should not be removed. If nothing else, consider the Clifford Adams precedent — that is, a user being granted +sysop on the basis of contributions to the Project. Brion has worked tirelessly for the past eight years on MediaWiki and on en.wiki and eo.wiki. The other rights, especially on wikis where he has few edits, I doubt he cares about (and in fact he has said on a number of occasions that he does). --MZMcBride 22:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that Brion was active on eo.wiki, but if it is as you say, then I certainly don't have a problem with him retaining it. Overall the principle should, IMO, be that dev rights should be removed unless the devs wish otherwise, for whatever reason; be that because they still need them for their work, or because like Tim above they have a genuine attachment to them. In neither case should we be making any attempt to 'force' the issue; that really would be playing with fire :D Happy‑melon 11:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

  Done  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

https / ssl interface?

Is there any possibility of giving Wikimedia sites support for the https protocol? My school uses a content filter, and it's very annoying when I receive false positives on Wikipedia articles that are clearly safe. Has anyone considered it?

https://secure.wikimedia.org Happy‑melon 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
That's very useful! Thank you. 64.119.43.50 18:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Notifications on current page

I'm having trouble finding information on the implementation of the notification service that generates a orange-spanned message on my current page when a new message on my talk page is saved. Any pointers would be appreciated.

I'm actually thinking about this in relation to a possible utility to generate small message flags that would appear on main pages on the border of sections that have corresponding talk_page comments (configured by the commenter to match an anchor placed on the main page section.) ----FGrose 04:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Try MediaWiki.org. Cbrown1023 talk 21:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Opt-in global sysops

Hello. Comments are welcome on the draft policy for opt-in global sysops. Please don't comment about implementation, which is entirely up to the local wikis who choose to enable them. Rather, is the policy wording adequate? Are there situations it doesn't cover, or sentences that are too vague? Do you have suggestions?

Global sysops will be live (only on wikis that decide to enable them) once the first wiki enables them. —Pathoschild 22:24:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

WikiAtlas

Hi. I did mention it at the Meta Wiki before but any discussion seems to get overidden with other discussions underneath and in the end it ends up being only two or three people commenting on it! I think that a WikiAtlas sister project would be a great idea and whereas with WikiMapia it is just a map with names, our own Atlas project could have the articles on wikipedia wiki linked on the atlas or at least a summary comes up when you hover over a place name etc so we take the maps a step further by actually providing information about these places by linking to wikipedia. Like WikiMini Atlas but obviously more professional looking maps and details, showing highways, towns and villages, evne landmarks like notable govenrment buildings and churches, airports etc with labels like wikimapia when you zoom in on them. It would also fit in with standard encyclopedias which always have a proper atlas for reference usually in the center. I just thinking that the information provided on maps should be part of our overall project goal to provide knowledge and the goal which WikiMapia is trying to achieve, "with the aim of describing the whole world" is pretty much our own philosophy within reason. I think the wiki project is large enough in scope to make it successful eventually. I know a great deal of people look for maps on the web of places for a reference but where we could differ from google and wikimapia in this respect we would have info summarised about these places too rather than just location. If given time to develop it might even help generate more traffic towards the site and project in the long term if more and more people use it for a reference when looking for maps too. I would very much like to help make something happen in this area, could you mention it to anybody on the board or suggest how we might start a fuller discussion on it? Thanks. Dr. Blofeld White cat 11:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you are genuinely interested could you please mention it or suggest a way we can work towards making it happen? Dr. Blofeld White cat 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well it sounds interesting, but I don't have a clue how to go about making it happen I'm afraid. Majorly talk 14:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange Look since upgrade to Debian lenny

Hi there,

i'm running a wiki for diving spots on http://wiki.seemannsreise.de/ , but since the upgrade to debian lenny the whole page is displayed in a very strange way. I've tried to use a different mediawiki installation, but it seams to be an issue with the database. Can you might give me a hint?

Thanks a lot !!
Richard 88.70.191.142 16:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Large problems with vandalism patrolling at Dutch Wikipedia

Hello, I (homewiki: nl.wikipedia.org) don't know where to post this, so I post it here:

Since a few days it is not possible to view more than 500 edits in the Special:Recentchanges page (for resource limits?). At the Dutch wikipedia (nl.wikipedia.org) we have a vandalism system with 'patrolled versions', and have a backlog with +/- 2,000 pages. Our vandalism patrollers are now not able to patroll the oldest vandalism, from 16 march (already a week more than normal!).

It is not possible to use any other tools, only the Special:Recentchanges page were used to do this work, and external tools (such as VPopSpeed) does also not work. If there isn't soon (about 2 weeks from now) a solution to this problem, some of the vandalism will stay at our wikipedia without revert, so this problem should be taken seriously.

I have heard some wiki's also doubt with this problem, but at our system of vandalism patrolling it is now impossible to do the patrolling work as normal, we just can't do the vandalism patrolling properly and when there isn't a sollution soon, it will get really, really problematic! - Lolsimon 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ps: Why isn't it possible to see the oldest edits on a way like Special:RecentChanges&days=30&hideminor=0&hidepatrolled=1&hideliu=1&hidebots=1&limit=5000&from=20090316153000&to=...? Can't the setting be reverted until this is possible, that would solve our problem and finally the resource limits problem (I have also posted it at bugzilla now, probably that is the right place and this isnt) - Lolsimon 01:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the request on bugzilla is the appropriate venue. There is nothing we can do for you, though I hope the technical team is able to find a solution to this issue ASAP.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Something's wrong with Wikipedia

I try editing the pages over there, but I can't. I get this message:
"This wiki has a problem.
Sorry! This site is experiencing technical difficulties. Try waiting a few minutes and reloading. (Cannot contact the database server: Unknown error (10.0.0.235))".

Is anyone else experiencing that? --Whip it! Now whip it good! 23:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep. The devs are working on it. See http://techblog.wikimedia.org/2009/03/english-wikipedia-database-temporarily-down/ J.delanoygabsadds 23:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
...and it's been resolved.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. --Whip it! Now whip it good! 23:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot

==Characters==

For my movie Wiki, so that all users will just have to fill in the blanks.

Is it possibile?


Thx

Yes Kropotkine 113 11:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Simply put, you can use the <inputbox></inputbox, setting the preload=the_template_page, e.g.

Hillgentleman 15:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Problem in printing the PDF created by the Wiki Creat Book feature

Hi, I created a PDF file from 7 pages of Wiki. But while taking printouts it showed a problem. The spaces between words is showing as a box in the printouts. Please let me know if there is any solution for this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Raje sam (talk • contribs) 11 March 2009. 06:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

translation

hi, I don't know if this is the right place, I made a translation of the main page into my native language (venetian - veneto). I put it here: Pazina prinzipal. Can someone please link this page from the english main page? thank yu very much bye bye —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.24.53.53 (talk • contribs) 14 March 2009. 15:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Using wiki methods outside wiki

Hello everybody,

I try to create an external page (just a search field, like the wikipeda splash screen with the search field) before the main page of wiki is entered and don't get it to work properly. I want to use some skin methods (like text(), msg(), and other methods from the wiki library but I just got half of them working. I am not shure if I instantiate them at the right time or if I miss something.

For example if i do

$skin = $wgUser->getSkin();

$skin->tooltipAndAccesskey( 'search-go' ); // --- print the 'search' label for button

works all ok.

But a

$tpl = new UcbTemplate(); // --- init skin 'ucb'

$tpl->text('searchaction'); // --- empty string

returns nothing but an empty string.

My main problem is I am not sure if I initialized everything the right why. I just want to have that splash screen dynamic and try to get all the strings from the wiki definitons just to be dynamic, so the user is able to switch languages of the splash screen and I do not have to define all these strings in that splash screen (to prevent double work). So basically I try to find a way to use the skin methods (also the inherited ones like msg, text, etc

So the initialization part of my splash screen is just the ones that is used in the index php, calling

require_once( "$preIP/includes/WebStart.php" );

require_once( "$preIP/includes/Wiki.php" );

$mediaWiki = new MediaWiki();

If I print out the $skin object to see what in there nothing is initialized, I see not the skin name 'ucb' and all that. So I think my initialization process is wrong or I am missing something. I also googled for an hour but nothing similar turns out. And first of I thought building a seperated / additional start page for wiki would be simple just putting out some strings (defined in wiki) and making that search box, maybe to integrate and outout of the newest additions in wiki. This would be alo interesting if there is a class or method where I could put out newest wiki additions.

Can anybody give me a start point where to look or how to initialze wiki or in what order I have to do the initialization part to use wiki methods? I am new to wiki and try to find out how it works but that can't be done in one day also my time is a little limited at this time.

So any help or hints are greatly appreciated. Maybe there is somebody out there that did the same thing and can drop me some science on that.

Thanks in advance for your help.

Andreas W Wylach —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derdre (talk • contribs) 20 March 2009. 15:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it on topics...

Why is it on topics where there is a potential for harm to the general public is there not a section that allows for common sense warning statements

I have noticed that there have been several topic pages that have had what seemed to be common sense warning statements posted that would have been good information for the general public to have in order to better protect themselves from potential harm either to themselves or those important to them.

Two examples are a common sense warning involving the potential dangers to a persons computer where P2P file sharing of any type is concerned on the "Lime Wire" page, and on an even more important level a common sense statement warning people to simply research deeper into the dangers involving the possible adverse health effects of the most common artificial sweeteners on multiple pages involving those products.

Both of these statements (which were removed in a very short time frame) were listed in the areas of the articles involving criticisms or known problems of these specific items.

It would almost seem that any article involving a potential hazard where a profit is being made by someone is being very tightly "policed" by those with a vested interest in keeping knowledge of the potential harm to the public under wraps.

I would hope that a project that puts itself out there as something intended to bring all possible knowledge into the public light for the betterment of the common man (as described by your founder in a TV spot on the "USA" Network) would zealously protect the right of the public to know all sides and would not allow information that could prevent harm to be suppressed.

If I may make a suggestion - simply put a link to a subpage or a discussion board where such public safety minded warnings/statements could be posted without the threat of being removed by someone with an agenda involving keeping information out of the public view (for example a chemical company not wanting the public to know where to look for data challenging it's own PR statements about a highly profitable product) - with a disclaimer that the statements posted are not a part of the official article but are posted responses to the article involved and that the person viewing the sub page/discussion board should use the information contained therein as a potential starting point for further research of their own.

As a matter of fact I challenge you to take this bold step in the spirit of what Wikipedia has claimed itself to be.

Thanks --- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.62.153.254 (talk • contribs) 27 March 2009. 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Very simply we do not advise people to use or not use, say aspartame. There are two [many] reasons for this (possibly three), first were we to do that we would be taking a responsibility for someone's health - suppose someone dies from hyperglycemia, and they have been reading our warnings on aspartame, we would be open to court action, even if someone died of aspartame poisoning, it could be claimed that our warnings were not strong enough. Secondly we are NPOV - we do not have an "opinion". Thirdly the information is there: with links to references

The artificial sweetener aspartame has been the subject of controversy since its initial approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1974. Concerns have been raised about the quality of the research supporting its safety and the long-term effects that increased consumption could have on the public.[22][23][24] Some scientific studies, combined with allegations of conflicts of interest in the sweetener's FDA approval process, have been the focus of vocal activism, conspiracy theories and hoaxes regarding postulated risks of aspartame.[25][26]

We even have an article en:Aspartame controversy with 97 references. Similarly LimeWire is nearly half "Criticism" with a prominent link to the "Risks" section of "File sharing".

Fourthly we could end up with warnings on every page - knife, hammer, stroboscope, shoe (tight shoes permanently deform children's feet), dog, Bulbophyllum abbreviatum (allergies), Superman (remember you cannot fly)....

Fifthly: we already have a disclaimer linked to from every page, it includes the following:

Not professional advice

If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial, or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

Sixthly, seventhly and eighthly it would obscure content and frighten the horses, and maybe be a case of en:WP:BEANS.

Ninthly it would be (another) maintenance nightmare.

Rich Farmbrough 23:45 1 September 2009 (GMT).


Thanks for info...

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2009-03&oldid=19957965"