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

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

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


MARI STULLEdit

Quiero hacer algunos cambios en la biografía de la señora Stull debido a que lo que aparece en Wikipedia ha sido desmentido por ella y con pruebas fehacientes. Cómo se hace cuándo quién creó el artículo denuncia que al hacer estos cambios se está siendo violento? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pamela DiMatteo (talk)

Discuss it on the talk page of the article. If there are further problems, then you need to discuss it in their village pump/community discussion pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Second iteration of draft recommendations publishedEdit

Hey there. The second (September) iteration of draft recommendations (m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2018-20/Recommendations) are published at Meta-wiki. What we reviewed and discussed in the past month was the first (August) iteration. Now is your time to review the current (second) iteration of the recommendations. --George Ho (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Goodness; I read a few of them and these look like anew recommendations with little connect to the earlier versions .... Winged Blades of Godric (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

File upload for fair useEdit

I have a question about permission to upload files for fair use. As far as I know, most Wikipedia projects have been removed the tools for uploading. But I'm thinking of making that right available on the Wikipedia Bahasa Melayu one day. So, can anyone guide or direct me to relevant pages that related to it? Thank you. CyberTroopers (talk) 17:01, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@CyberTroopers: see Fair use  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:39, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Call for applications: 2020 Ombuds CommissionEdit

Hi everyone! It's coming close to time for annual appointments of community members to serve on the Ombudsman commission (OC). This commission works on all Wikimedia projects to investigate complaints about violations of the privacy policy, especially in use of CheckUser and Oversight tools, and to mediate between the complaining party and the individual whose work is being investigated. They may also assist the General Counsel, the Executive Director or the Board of Trustees in investigations of these issues. For more on their duties and roles, see Ombudsman commission.

This is a call for community members interested in volunteering for appointment to this commission. Volunteers serving in this role should be experienced Wikimedians, active on any project, who have previously used the CheckUser/Oversight tools OR who have the technical ability to understand these tools and the willingness to learn them. They are expected to be able to engage neutrally in investigating these concerns and to know when to recuse when other roles and relationships may cause conflict.

Commissioners are required to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation and must be willing to comply with the appropriate Wikimedia Foundation board policies (such as the access to non-public data policy and the privacy policy). This is a position that requires a high degree of discretion and trust.

If you are interested in serving on this commission, please write me an email at kbrown(at)wikimedia.org to detail your experience on the projects, your thoughts on the commission and what you hope to bring to the role. The commission typically consists of ten members; all applications are appreciated and will be carefully considered. The deadline for applications is end of day on 31 December, 2019.

Please feel free to pass this invitation along to any users who you think may be qualified and interested. Thank you! Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The consultation on partial and temporary Foundation bans just startedEdit

-- Kbrown (WMF) 17:13, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kbrown (WMF): Link to discussion? The page does not contain the discussion and the talk page isn't completely relevant to the discussion itself, of which this consultation may be moved into an RFC if no convenient direct link to the discussion. --Znotch190711 (talk) 13:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC) (sorry for my "probably bad english")
@Znotch190711: This is the main consultation page. The discussion of the various questions the consultation covers is happening on the consultation's talk page. I'm not sure what you mean by the "consultation may be moved into an RFC". Kbrown (WMF) (talk) 13:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Happy birthdayEdit

For all Chinese Wikimedians, Happy 70th Birthday for the People's Republic of China! --Znotch190711 (talk) 13:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

help?Edit

Simple english wikinews is a proposed project i have. any help in starting it? Baozon90 (talk) 18:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is unlikely to be started. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
@Baozon90: Proposals for new projects are worked on at incubator: but 1.) there are biases against simple English projects and 2.) Wikinews is the least-active sister project that we have, so it's very unlikely that simple.wn would ever exist. —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
@Baozon90: See Language proposal policy. Znotch190711 (talk) 04:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tagger isn't workingEdit

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback wanted on Desktop Improvements projectEdit

06:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)