Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2009-08

Translatewiki has attacked by Vandal! - vandal-trasher attack the and create over 9000 redirects! 13:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That wiki is not a Wikimedia Foundation wiki -- you should contact a sysop.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 14:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another project worth reconsidering for strategic planning. It certainly has built up an active community. -- sj | translate | + 02:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do they want to be included? I'm not sure if they've begun to deal with and enjoy independence. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 03:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Simple English Wikitravel, Simple English Wikinews?

I would like to see these wiki's be made. --TheGoldenGoose 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikitravel is not a Wikimedia project, we have no control here. Also, "Simple English" isn't a language (and isn't accepted under the Meta:Language proposal policy), so no new wikis in "Simple English" will be created. Cbrown1023 talk 01:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What audience do you have in mind for them? I can imagine a wikikids project that is all simple-english, which includes things like travel guides and news entries in its scope, but I wonder if that's what you had in mind. -- sj | translate | + 02:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Revisiting the Embassy, more steward languages

We should revisit the idea of the Embassy - figure out whether it's working or not, and what the current ambasadors think / what sorts of interest they have gotten.

And we need more multilingual stewards. Oe above asked specifically for people to talk to in Finnish -- we have limited support for scandinavian languages, Arabic, and many language groups in Africa, south-east Asia and Oceania. Perhaps we can reach out through the Embassy. I wouldn't mind seeing community standards for Stewardship take language proficiency and need among the body of stewards more strongly into consideration, and developing tools to direct request alerts to those with the language skills to leave explanatory messages in the local language (or at least language group).

Mike said above that we will never cover all languages: perhaps not, since we will not know people we can trust who speak some of the rarer languages. But we can aspire to cover a few levels down the global language tree, including the dominant regional languages in every significant region where there are Wikimedians. -- sj | translate | + 23:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Trusted Method to Document Consensus?

The opinions of 'experts' is obviously important. Knowing how much consensus there is amongst experts is also obviously highly valuable. That is what a Scientific Consensus is after all.

There are several examples of various methods attempting to document such in wikipedia such as this List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.

Another example is the article on Qualia where there are, at the time of this writing, 6 critics and 11 proponents of the idea listed. The many problems with such methods should be quite obvious and there is a growing group of volunteers working on a much more open, trusted, unbiased and quantitative system for rigorously measuring such things in an open wiki survey kind of way at

Arguably, many experts in the field of theories of consciousness believe representations like that currently on the Qualia article grossly misrepresent the true amount of scientific consensus there really is on this issue amongst experts. There is a new topic that is being developed at to concisely state and develop the most well accepted theories of consciousness, and also to rigorously measure how much consensus there is for each. The early results are already tentatively showing just how much consensus there is on such issues amongst experts. Experts that are arguably at least as reputable as the arbitrary ones currently listed have joined various pro qualia 'camps' representing theories of consciousness such as Steven Lehar, John Smythies, Jonathan Edwards, and more. What more trusted source could there be documenting what such experts currently believe, than a real time open survey petition like system where all sides can be equally represented?

Some wikipedia contributors believe such a petition system where experts can explicitly 'sign' camp or position statements in an open survey way to be a much more reliable, open, real time, and unbiased way of documenting consensus. They have attempted to start to referencing such as trusted sources of consensus data in such topics as the one on qualia. However, some wikipedia editors evidently don't fully understand the system and have been censoring such added references.

A new topic has been created at on this issue to document some of this edit war history, and to survey what everyone might think about using as a trusted source of consensus information in various controversial topics. Of course the more people that weigh in on such issues, indicating which 'camp' they are in, if there is more than one camp, the more accurate and comprehensive the measure of consensus will result.

What do all the wikipedia policy experts think? Canonizer in Wikipedia Brent.Allsop 00:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Counting the number of scientists known to share or oppose a certain view gives little insight into the extent to which a consensus exists. For instance, it often happens that a minority is very vocal, or has easy access to the public. Instead, you need to assess the arguments made and the quality of the research done, if any. Of course, if nobody has done that for you (note that reviews may be flawed), that comes down to original research, which may not show in any way in a Wikipedia article. But that is a dilemma for which Wikipedia has no solution, you'd have to go to other projects instead. Regards, Guido den Broeder 09:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the history of a page from Wikipedia to Wiktionary

About a year ago, es:Anexo:Jerga de Internet (a page from the Spanish Wikipedia) was moved to es:wikt:Apéndice:Jerga de Internet (the Spanish Wiktionary). However, the history of the page was never moved, so there's a list of all the edits from the original page in the discussion of the new page. Is it possible to move the history of a page from one project to another one? If so, I'd like to have it moved. Sabbut 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This can be done vía Special:Import on the relevant wiki but you will need to have the 'import' flag first, then export the article and the history from eswp and import it on es-wikt. See Help:Import for details. df|  14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Transwiki is activated from, a local sysop could do that.... --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm an eswiki admin and I get the following message when trying to move the page to eswikt: "Un enlace interwiki no es un destino válido para trasladar una página." (An interwiki link is not a valid destination for moving a page). I'll ask an admin from eswikt to try to export the page and then import it to eswikt. Thanks for the help. Sabbut 15:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only an admin from the project in question can import to the project in question. I have that on my to do list since You first wrote it, but I have not yet got to it... Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to say

That there's been no admin activity in the Nauruan Wikipedia for a year. Or so. --Oe 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You could propose it be closed if there's no activity there. Majorly talk 22:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I don't want to destroy Wikipedias. Or maybe sometimes. But not those small and cute ones. I merely had in mind to see what's your procedure in the cases like this. --Oe 22:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We close them normally :-) Majorly talk 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are they considered as unnecessary costs? But you dont hurry it. [1] --Oe 22:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Oe, yes, and thanks, that wiki is watched by the SWMT, and if they see vandalism they revert it or mark nonsense pages for deletion, which are deleted by stewards. [2]. There is no need to propose it for closure, there are several wikis like that and if they are closed the chance that there will ever be anyone who contributes there is logically zero, but if they are open with time someone will contribute. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thanks. And you are one of those stewards. How come there are so many of you but still no one speaks my native language? It's very difficult to me to do this English thing. --Oe 10:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We try our best to have a wide variety of languages represented among the stewards, however that will always fail since we have >200 languages in Wikimedia, but only 41 stewards. I still think we can do better, but it won't be easy. If you have suggestions for facilitating communication, I'm sure it'd be welcomed by the other stewards and the Wikimedia community at large. Thanks  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You could have more stewards. --Oe 17:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Stewards are elected on a yearly basis, though this could change. I think that 200+ stewards would be excessive, personally. What is your native language by the way? You seem to speak good English in any case - English is the lingua franca of Wikimedia projects, such as Meta and Commons. Majorly talk 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Majorly, what does 'lingua franca' mean to you here? The majority of work on Wikimedia Projects is done in languages other than English. Simultaneous multilingual coordination has been done in English because we still lack effective simultaneous translation tools; but one-to-one interactions such as those hopefully provided by Stewards are best provided in the local language. -- sj | translate | + 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that we need more stewards, but not 200 other inactive ones... Most stewards offer other languages they can talk too, so IMHO that is not the problem, the activity level is. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe if there were a hundred of stewards which of everyone handles at least two languages? Then there would certainly be more of active stewards too. My native language would be Finnish. They teach us English for six years in school with no objections accepted. Then they teach us Swedish too but that's only for three years. So far there's been no need for me to actually talk neither of them. --Oe 20:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a good idea. Also, we should have specific targeted steward drives to attract people proficient in other language groups. Spacebirdy: current stewards don't cover many major language groups - not only Scandinavian langs - and we should have a # of people available who are at least somewhat proficient in each group. -- sj | translate | + 22:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then something should be done. --Oe 12:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sj, IMHO stewards don't need to cover all languages, not even the major ones, they just need to be cooperative, working with mediators who speak one of the stewards language, I don't see much problems here, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Eikö teitä sitten häiritse se, ettette ymmärrä mitä sanon? --Oe 22:41, 6 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That should work, but I suggest that if someone is trusted enough to function as such a mediator, they could perhaps also be trusted to function as an administrator. As for having more stewards: Spacebirdy, how much time is involved in such a task? Guido den Broeder 10:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It works already, we contact users of our trust to check if reported vandalism is really vandalism etc. most things are done via IRC and emailuser. Time involved in which task? Steward-tasks? Lot or none, depends on activity and what one does, checkusers take a lot of time also swmt, removing sysop rights per request on srp is done in 1 minute... Unfortunately I myself do not have much time lately and I am seeing backlogs on all requestpages, even on srb which usually also can be done quick. I personally would appreciate that either more stewards become active (again) (always seeing the same hard core) or that there will be votings for new stewards. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with Incubator and unified login

Hi, I wanted to report a trouble going into Incubator after having logged in at any other Wikimedia project. The thing is, I have to log in again. However, once I log out at Incubator I am logged out from all other Wikimedia projects as well. Maybe I am the only one who experiences this, but I wanted to notify it's just some problem with the general wiki interface. Cheers, --Diotime (你好) 07:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with Extension:Widget

Hello! Iam setting up a Wiki for my company. Now i wanted to add some widgets, like a weather widget or so on.

but i got some seriuos problems.
i follow the instructions to add the widget extension ( to my wiki like:
i downloaded the zip (
extracted it to my extensions folder and gave "Everyone" Full Access to the folder (just for testing).

I added these lines to the LocalSettings.php:
$wgGroupPermissions['sysop']['editwidgets'] = true;

Then i went to
wrote this code into it: (
</noinclude><includeonly><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="<!--{$id|escape:'urlpathinfo'}-->"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="<!--{$id|escape:'urlpathinfo'}-->" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object></includeonly>

Then i went to
and wrote this inside the page:
But when i save it, i get this errors:

PHP Warning: strftime(): It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'Europe/Paris' for '2.0/DST' instead in C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki\extensions\Widgets\smarty\Smarty_Compiler.class.php on line 400
PHP Warning: include(C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki/extensions/Widgets/compiled_templates/\%%A9^A9B^A9BDE9A6%%wiki%3ATest.php): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki\extensions\Widgets\smarty\Smarty.class.php on line 1265
PHP Warning: include(): Failed opening 'C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki/extensions/Widgets/compiled_templates/\%%A9^A9B^A9BDE9A6%%wiki%3ATest.php' for inclusion (include_path='C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki;C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki/includes;C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki/languages;.;C:\php5\pear') in C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\mediawiki\extensions\Widgets\smarty\Smarty.class.php on line 1265

Hope that u can help me.

Thanks! Ravex

I suggest you ask over on MediaWiki or on their IRC channel. This is the site for Wikimedia project co-ordination, not the software that runs it. Majorly talk 15:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know whether it is significant, but you are mixing backward and forward slashes. Guido den Broeder 09:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unable to vote in trustees election

Hi, I received an email from the Elections Committee that I am allowed to vote, but when I try to do so, I get the message "Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorised to vote in this election." Does anybody else have the same problem? Guido den Broeder 19:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should try voting from the wikipedia where you have edited most. This seems to matter apparently. TheDJ 21:48, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately, there my account is blocked. Guido den Broeder 21:53, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You do not pass the required amount of edits and registration time anywhere else ? Like on wikibooks for instance ? TheDJ 22:00, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have far over 600 edits at two WP projects, but both accounts are blocked. I don't have 600 yet on any other Wikimedia project. Guido den Broeder 22:47, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · CA) means these blocks: enwiki & nlwiki. Board elections/2009/en#Information for voters says: “You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki … To qualify, this one account must: not be blocked … [etc.]” –Ejs-80 23:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I understand it, the edits still count, blocked or not. My total number of edits on other projects also exceeds 600 though. Since you found it necessary to give these links: don't believe everything you read. Guido den Broeder 23:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am discussing this with the committee. Please check the email account associated with your meta username. --Philippe 05:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your help, Philippe. I have voted. Regards, Guido den Broeder 00:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global sysop

Hello. Since the Global sysops/opt-out proposal for global sysop has not received much comment, I would just like to advertise it once more. Further details are available at that page. Comments, concerns, and anything you care to mention would be appreciated at the talk page. Thank you, NW (Talk) 20:06, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I've created Abuse filter page (and Category:Wikimedia projects coordination, I hope it will be populated). --Nemo 10:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for the new cat, I like it. -- sj | translate | + 01:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A serious non-free content problem on the English Wikipedia

Per wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy, non-free content is permitted on Wikimedia projects only as expressly authorized under a project's Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP), which "must be minimal..." Many editors participating in en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses take the position that the extensive non-free content present on en:User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses is acceptable in userspace, because they assert that en:Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria does not specifically address the question of the extent to which non-free text may be present in userspace, and they consider silence to be permissive. Thus, they claim, per en:WP:NFCC, editors can have as much non-free text in userspace as they want, subject only to legal limitations on fair use. While local editors on the English Wikipedia have absolute discretion in determining how local policies are construed, it is unacceptable to have a local policy which conflicts with Foundation policy. To the extent that en:WP:NFCC does permit unlimited use of non-free text in userspace, subject only to legal limitations, it is unacceptable as an EDP. Therefore, I am requesting the intervention of stewards, and the Wikimedia foundation, in imposing the following remedies:

  1. Rendering en:WP:NFCC acceptable as an EDP per wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy by explicitly treating the question of non-free text in userspace, in a manner consistent with Foundation policy.
  2. Deleting en:User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, if found unacceptable per wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy, irrespective of whether local editors vote to retain it, since they have no authority to authorize the violation of Foundation policy. Erik9 01:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I'd like to start by thanking Erik9 for bringing this up here. While Meta, as a wiki, has no power to set policy for other wikis, nor should it, and while stewards tend not to set policy on wikis by force, nor should they, that not being their role, this is an important topic, and it is likely that the cross wiki perspective that Meta users will bring to the discussion will be highly beneficial. That said, I don't think this matter is quite as cut and dried as Erik9 paints it. There clearly is a mismatch between the written policy at en:wp (and I suspect, elsewhere, although I haven't checked) and the commonly accepted practice. While Jack's quote is, by size, probably an outlier, there are a very large number of copyrighted quotes on user pages at en:wp. Further, the en:wp EDP is mute on the point, except by omission. I think those who say that because it's mute, anything goes, are incorrect. But policy at en:wp, as with just about any WMF wiki, is mostly descriptive.. with certain limited exceptions... it describes what people do, what commonly accepted practice is, what community norms are. Copyrights, and free content in general, are one of the exceptions to this, the WMF board has mandated certain things. One of them being that all projects will either have an EDP or have no nonfree content at all. But the precise form of the EDP is not dictated, only the general outline. In particular, no restriction to article space alone for fair use material is mandated to be in place for a particular project's EDP. With these points in mind, I can see three possible ways forward for en:wp:
    1. en:wp explicitly modifies their EDP to, while remaining within the strictures of the board resolution, allow certain limited nonfree content outside article space, so as to conform to commonly accepted practice at en:WP, and in particular, allow copyrighted quotes on user pages when within the bounds of fair use. This outcome would require that the community develop and come to consensus on such a change. The en:wp community is not good at this task, although it could happen.
    2. en:wp begins a campaign, as it did for non free images, to much more strictly enforce the current EDP, by finding, and removing, the large number of copyrighted quotes that can be found other than in article space. This outcome would require some considerable volunteer effort to locate and remove quotes (and handle the objections of users after removal...) that last part is what makes this outcome somewhat problematic, although it could be done.
    3. en:wp does neither of these things and allows the status quo ante to persist, retaining the mismatch between policy as written, and practice as commonly accepted, in this area. This is not a desirable outcome because it means that en:wp has policy that doesn't match practice, leading to confusion and acrimony.
    4. An outcome that will NOT happen barring some major social change is Meta mandating policy change and getting it to stick, or stewards "enforcing" policy in this area when it is properly an issue for a particular wiki.
In my considered view, outcome #3 is the most likely one. That doesn't mean it's a good outcome. Either #1 or #2 are arguably better. ++Lar: t/c 02:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it were considered that en:WP:NFCC formally prohibits non-free text in userspace, then we could analyze the examples of one-sentence non-free quotations in userspace proffered by Lar in the MFD discussion, and determine whether they tend to show any community acceptance of Jack Merridew's multi-paragraph non-free text. I would argue, of course, that the extremely short quotations are not to be considered "the camel's nose under the tent", and we can still enforce en:WP:NFCC against significant quantities of non-free text in userspace. What I find disturbing about en:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses, however, is the number of users who are claiming that, per en:WP:NFCC, "anything goes" in userspace [3] [4] [5], and the undoubted role this view will play in the closure of the discussion. "Anything goes" in userspace is very clearly in violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy, even though the foundation doesn't require that non-free content be excluded from userspace altogether. Now, I would ordinarily agree with Lar that stewards and the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't become excessively involved in the local affairs of Wikimedia projects. However, policy, as such, is meaningless without an effective means of enforcement. The absolute avoidance of "Meta mandating policy change and getting it to stick, or stewards 'enforcing' policy in this area when it is properly an issue for a particular wiki" effectively nullifies wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy, since local projects can decide to do whatever they like with non-free content, and no one will stop them. I submit that the Foundation should not permit this outcome, that it should not allow its own policies to be defied with impunity. Erik9 02:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You raise a good point. If a wiki were blatantly out of compliance with basic WMF policy or board mandate, you're correct, either something would be done about it, or the WMF would be shown to be toothless. And in the past, things HAVE been done, by stewards. I decline to go into details, but it was done by remaining within the remit and mandate of stewards.
So then is en:wp blatantly out of compliance with foundation policy? I don't see it. Until you show clearly, in a way that engenders a strong consensus that there is an issue here that requires board level intervention, I'm not seeing an enforcement action here. Extreme measures require extraordinary justification. Certainly, as a steward, were I uninvolved but otherwise of similar opinion (I am involved so I recuse from action, so that I retain freedom of argument) I'd decline to act on the basis you've put forward, and I suspect most other stewards would as well. I could be wrong, so I'll be asking my fellow stewards for their opinions shortly. I'll close by reiterating what I said above, those at en:wp who say that a technical loophole in wording means anything goes.... those folk are seriously incorrect. ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just as a note, it probably makes sense to exhaust all remedies available on en:wp before asking for action from the board or from Stewards. In this case that possibly includes deletion review, starting an RfC about changing or clarifying the EDB and the NFC policy, and involving the en:wp arbcom to ask for policy enforcement. ++Lar: t/c 03:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. While the silence of en:WP:NFCC on non-free userspace text has lead some editors to construe the policy in manner clearly contrary to wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy ("anything goes" in userspace), it's impossible to quantify the effect, and therefore quite difficult to present an MFD outcome of "no consensus" as defiance of Foundation policy. There's clearly a need for the NFCC to specifically address the question of userspace content, in a way consistent with the Foundation policy (though the precise contours of the addition to the NFCC will likely be the subject of significant debate). Once that has been achieved, the matter can be resubmitted to MFD, without the distraction of trying to determine what the relevant local policy actually is. Erik9 04:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course, if, as I strongly suspect, en:User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses is not compliant with wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy provision 3, then it cannot be hosted on any Wikimedia project, and it would be advisable to delete it immediately, rather than waiting months for the mess with en:WP:NFCC to be cleaned up. Erik9 04:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This doesn't seem a meta issue ;) although this thread may serve to draw meta-eyes to influence the outcome of the specific discussion of the Atwood quote that Erik9's so intent on. Larry previously suggested a broader w:en:RfC on the general issue and I'd support that. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Above, User sj came up with an idea that I regret hasn't been answered. As a follow-up of the Board of Trustees vote, I'd like to come up with a similar idea. Wikimedia with all its projects needs diplomats.

  1. Apart from the BoT and the developer's team, Wikimedia now has stewards - working super-projectwise -, below that are bureaucrats who have supervision over (locally working) admins. To my feeling, all of those are highly technical jobs. The stewards (35 at the moment) do a magnificent job at holding the global projects together, but they are essentially ICT-oriented.
  2. I think they need help from communication-oriented, multilingual, even commercially oriented collegues who network between those 250 wikipedias and so many other projects, to coordinate their needs, help their projects going with contacts - in their homelands as well as with charities all over the world - and who will advise local chapters in promoting their homeland purposes.
  3. The goal of the Wikimedia project is to promote knowledge and make as many people as possible part of it, globally. To that aim, I propose to reform the organisation by putting in a global team of networkers and coordinators, working both internally and externally. That's what I think diplomats are useful for.
  4. As it works, stewards and diplomats are not incompatible: they may be complementary. So a steward may be a diplomat as well, but they may also work with a diplomat as their aide or otherwise. - Art Unbound 18:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Currently the embassy is pretty useless: even on major projects, it's almost unused, although quite visited (since it's linked from the village pump), and requests are usually suitable for the help-desk. On small projects it's inactive.
Our problem is (even on small things and policies, projects often reinvent the wheel), and we have the evergreen problem of users who say "help me, this project doesn't take in account that global policy/principle" and we can't do anything.
Maybe the future embassy should be something similar to real-life embassies, sort of "international community" idea exchange and peer-pressure. The problem is, ambassadors are not really envolved; people usually need a "title" or function to take a responsibility. To become a steward is almost impossibile, so perhaps we should invent something new. Global sysops/opt-out proposal may help, or it should be only a global-rollbacker-extended-edition? --Nemo 06:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I like the idea of multilingual communication-oriented networkers who help bridge the various communities. We should start by getting the currently listed ambassadors involved in this discussion! -- sj | translate | + 01:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
„To become a steward is almost impossibile” - What? I would welcome new elections of new stewards who are actually interested in working in that position. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 22:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is, define "work". As Art Unbound said, "diplomat" work is not considered the main steward's work. --Nemo 07:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This changed long already. Stewards work is not only pressing some buttons but helping users with their problems and try to solve them, answering their questions etc. no matter if this is 'considered steward's work' or not. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 19:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Interwiki links

There has recently been a language reform for my language and now the interwiki links that link to the Wikipedia in my language is written incorrectly. How do I request the name of my language in these links to be changed? Thanks -- 10:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What language? That will help us determine what needs to be fixed. EVula // talk // // 06:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cornish (kw), "Kernewek" needs to be changed to "Kernowek". Thanks -- 17:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, You need to requst that on bugzilla:, You need to link them to a community discussion or any other source, where it is veryfied that this new name You are requesting is the correct one. It could look like bugzilla:12316, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The meatpuppeting attack on LMO wikipedia

Trying to recover the damages done by the bot. Some discussion about the case happened on the same Mediawiki. For example, here [6] there's the meatpuppeter (as definition) Fabexplosive that wrote to the steward Nick1915:

=-= =-=

Ciao Nick, senti... io di questo qui mi sto un po' stufando... credo sia ora di prendere provvedimenti. Ti linko la pagina in questione: Requests for comments/Lombard wikipedia, urgent desysoping and unblock requests. Ciao, --Fabexplosive The archive man 09:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Già... cmq non vedo l'ora di cacciarli... :-) --Fabexplosive The archive man 12:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

(non vedo l'ora di cacciarli = I want to throw them out as soon as possible).
And Nick1915 replyed ([7]), to a recruiter that was elected admin after only 3 edit, as analyzed here [8]:


Ignorali... stanno parlando tra di loro! Solo l'ennesima trollata, niente di ché! :)--Nick1915 - all you want 23:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note that the previous thread was archived by unilateral decision od a user, User:OhanaUnited. More, I'm very unhappy, but I cant discuss on the LMO wiki, because Fabexplosive blocked me 2 or 3 times (only because I analyzed his recruiting action), as reported in this RFC [9].

--Yattagat 10:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some news from LMO

As already written, I can't discuss anything on the LMO wiki, because I was blocked only because I detailed the recruiting and meatpuppeting action of some admin. Fortunately, some weeks ago, the recruiter Bramfab (alias Barbapedana) and the "temporary" (18 months!) admin Snowolf loose the adminship, as inactive admins. The recruiter Snowdog, past vice president of Italian wikimedia Association, continues to keep the admin rights. --Yattagat 19:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The role of Italian wikimedia Association members

As already written, I cannot discuss this on LMO wiki, as I was blocked only because I described the meatpuppeting attack details. Some week ago, on june, there was a meeting of Italian wikimedia Association ([10]). There were 11 participant, and 6 of them were involved in the meatpuppeting attack, either as recruiter either as recruited people: Marcok, Xaura, M/, Ilario, Fabexplosive, Remulazz. So, more than 50% of the participant were involved in the meatpuppeting attack. --Yattagat 09:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 19 september 2009, Italian wikimedia Association will have the annual meeting, in Rome, with election of the Board. -- Yattagat 18:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sister project interview

I'm looking for someone in Meta (preferably an admin or crat) to be interviewed for sister projects interview, which aims to getting people more interested in the project. The original interviewee retired so I need to find another individual for interview. If you would like to help, please sign up on that page. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only Wikimedia projects? Guido den Broeder 17:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, so far we already covered 3 projects (wikisource, wikibooks, and wikiversity). OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done and done (although I'm also the guy you interviewed for Wikibooks... not sure how much you care about that)  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 20:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't realize you already done an interview for Wikibooks. Thanks for reminding me on that. Unlike smaller projects like Wikimania or Toolserver, there should be a large pool of candidates available for interview. If you don't mind, Mike, I guess it's better for another individual to share a slightly different perspective about Meta. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skinning Issues

I've been looking to install the skin found here:

The one called "Black Background w/ banner, similar to game forums"

I followed the instructions, placing the CSS file in myskin, renaming to main.css, changing the localsettings, however it just wouldn't work. When I manually change my skin to the "myskin" one it doesn't have any formatting at all! I'm probably doing something very simple wrong but any help would be appreciated. Thanks! The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 5 April 2009.

Dark shemes problem

I not sure my solution is match to your task. All Wiki engines and included themes is not friendly with dark backgrounds, while white background is burning our eyes. But, you can upload own css file. I try to upload monobook.css or common.css (with same content). You need to register to upload own CSS. I've spent 3 weeks and tear out many hairs to get almost working CSS for dark BG. It's --

/* this magic set is from 'Глобальный сброс Эрика Мэйера' */
html, body, div, span, applet, object, iframe,
h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, p, blockquote, pre,
a, abbr, acronym, address, big, cite, code,
del, dfn, em, font, img, ins, kbd, q, s, samp,
small, strike, strong, sub, sup, tt, var,
dl, dt, dd, ol, ul, li,
fieldset, form, label, legend,
table, caption, tbody, tfoot, thead, tr, th, td

background-color: #080808 !important;
color: #eeeeee !important;
font-size: 16px !important;
# font-family: Arial;
-moz-border-radius: 6px; border-radius: 6px;
text-decoration: none; 
border: none;
/*font-style: normal;*/

input {font-size: 16px;} /*'important' here is work, but search line size bad*/

a, a * {color: #00aaff !important;}
a:visited, a:visited *  {color: #9060ff !important;} {color: #ff0000 !important;} {color: #ee0077 !important;}

a.external {color: #ff7700 !important;}
a.external:visited {color: #aa7733 !important;}
a:hover, a:hover * {text-decoration:underline !important;}

h1, h1 *, h1.firstHeading {font-size: 24px !important;}
h2, h2 * {font-size: 20px !important;}
big, big * {font-size: 18px !important;}
h3, h3 * {font-style: bold;}
strike, strike *, .strike {text-decoration: line-through;}

.editsection, .editsection * {font-size: 16px !important;}
small, small * {font-size: 14px !important;}
.prefsectiontip {font-size: 14px !important; color: #cc9977 !important;}

#content {border: none;}
#toc, #toc *, .toc, .toc * {font-size: 16px !important;}

pre {
	color: #ffddaa !important;
/*	background-color: #000000;*/
font-family: monospace;

div.thumb {border-color: #000000 !important;}
div.thumbinner { border: 1px solid #00aaff; background-color: #000000 !important;}

#preftoc li, #preftoc li.selected {
/*	background-color: #222222;
	color: none;*/
	border: none;
        margin-left: 0px;
        margin-right: 1px;
#preftoc li.selected  /* , #p-cactions li.selected  */
/*	background-color: #222222;*/
	border: 1px dashed #ffaa55;

#footer { border-top: none; border-bottom: none; font-size: 14px !important;}

The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 29 August 2009.

Starting a Foreign Language Wiktionary

Hello everyone. I'm trying to determine whether Wiktionary provides the appropriate tools to begin developing a wiki-style foreign language dictionary for the Syrian dialect of Arabic. It would be primarily Arabic->English, but it would be nice to specify English lemma to allow a search in the opposite direction. Furthermore, is it possible to have expressions that are linked to each of the lemmata in the expression? So that "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" could would show up under "bird", "hand", "bush"?

If it seems like Wiktionary would be the appropriate place to start such a project, how do I create a new Wiktionary? Is there a clear guide for developing entries as well?


You should take a look any of the Wiktionaries. English wiktionary has many many entries in languages other than English. And such entries through translation tables allow interwiki exchange of entries. The capabilities you mention are basic features of the software, as are all-important support for diverse scripts. Being an active registered user on a few Wiktionaries that have some Arab-language users (like en.wikt) would probably be a good way to get started and get help. DCDuring 20:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Incidentally, there already is an Arabic-language Wiktionary at ar:wikt:الصفحة الرئيسية. It isn't specific to Syrian Arabic, but if there are enough native speakers willing to participate, it would be possible to request a Wiktionary (not to mention a Wikipedia) in North Levantine Arabic (=Syrian and Lebanese Arabic), whose ISO 639-3 code is apc. Angr 06:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

interwiki abuse

Have a look at Huang Xianfan, it has TOO MUCH language versions! Even more than Confucious! We are sure that this is an interwiki advertising case. However, it seems that the person can have an article. But what can we do?--DS-fax 14:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what the problem is. I checked all the interwikis, and they're all valid; the guy does have articles on all those projects. It'd be different if the links were invalid (or, as sometimes happens, getting picked up from a template that doesn't have noinclude tags around its interwikis). EVula // talk // // 17:52, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The guy writed zh:壮族通史, and when this article is asked to be deleted, the editors used a lot of sock puppets, saying some nationalists are vandaling to the nation of Zhuang. The problem is that the editors of these articles are doing nationalism advertising.--DS-fax 08:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most of the versions which history I checked are fairly recent, from June or July this year. Has there been a recent interwiki translation project of this article? Sabbut 23:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not at all.--Wcam 12:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's why we say it's an interwiki abuse. --Kuailong 16:14, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with EVula. I checked a few of the obsure languages and they look like a they have been translated. Sort of wish they would have spent the effort on a more practical topic but there is nothing wrong with it. --MarsRover 17:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The French version is very bad in spelling and grammar but there are also punctuation errors, so it's not an automated translatex text. So, I guess the contributor wanted its article in all Wikipedia versions and translated itself with automated translation + dictionnaries the all? --Dereckson 20:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and there may be a group of people.--DS-fax 13:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's certainly rare that an article on a non-core topic is translated into virtually every language that has a Wikipedia, but it isn't vandalism or abuse, and it isn't unprecedented: take a look at the number of languages True Jesus Church (another Chinese topic) has been translated into. Angr 06:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Highlighting mistakes

I read Wikipedia often but edit exepionaly. I suggest new funcion - highlighting button - to everyone could poited on concreate mistake in article as easy as possible.

It may be less work to highlight the parts that are correct. :) Guido den Broeder 13:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted: Wiki-Links in new window/tab

Hello! We want to open all files in an new window or a new tab (target="_blank"). All links to another sites will be open in the same site (target="_self"). do you know a solution? Thanks SABINE - 04-08-2009, 11.00 Uhr - 08:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

you, as a visitor with your browser have one chance to open the new site with the right click on the link: "open Link in a new window" - otherwise see the options-general in Firefox, here you can choose the browsers behavior. IE8 sets this in his Internetoptions - general - hope it helps Reinhard The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) 25 October 2009.