User talk:TeleComNasSprVen

edit
Archives
2011 2013

To-do: New editor feedback documentation page for en:WP:New editor feedback and the associated project en:WP:Feedback Dashboard.
Wikibase documentation page for mw:Extension:Wikibase and its relationship to Wikidata.
Proofread Page documentation page for mw:Extension:Proofread Page and its relationship to Wikisource.
Extension:CreditsSource Extension:Flow Extension:CirrusSearch Wikipedia:GettingStarted

Broken/outreach:Cherokee

I think this is the source of the problem, which I confirm exists. Perhaps you should ask a dev or file a bug. I can't really help with that. PiRSquared17 (talk) 03:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the response PiRSquared17! I've already filed the report under bugzilla:60163 which fellow developer Legoktm has kindly lent his help in querying the database with. So the devs should be aware of this. In the meantime, we should figure out what to do with this page, whether to rewrite it into an actual documentation page on Meta-Wiki or transwiki it to OutreachWiki, which I can assist in as I have import rights there. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I am fine with either option. I guess just keeping it here is fine, but feel free to import it from here on outreach:. PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Re: Translation requests/Wikimedia office signs/vi

That would be AVIM.js, which was written by Đặng Trần Hiếu, a former Vietnamese Wikipedian. I wrote a Firefox extension based on it and eventually backported some key fixes (like VisualEditor compatibility), but Hiếu is the only one who understands the core functions. The Vietnamese Wikivoyage currently has no sysops, but you can import it into any Wikimedia wiki for your own use with the following code:

// [[w:vi:Wikipedia:Gõ tiếng Việt]]
mw.loader.load('//vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-AVIM.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');
mw.loader.load('//vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-AVIM_portlet.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

Eventually I need to finish porting the code to jquery.ime so it can be used wherever ULS is installed.

 – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:29, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I posted a request for comment about getting a steward to install it for us. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 09:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the revert. For more information, you can read this page. Kind regards, LlamaAl (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Category for Global bans discussions

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_bans&diff=7315133&oldid=7287929 – Can you please share your thoughts? I'm not sure what you intended to name the category. The third global ban discussion recently concluded, so I believed that this would be a good time to create that category. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Offensive comment

[1]. Suggesting to users that they should not comment on a closed RfC talk page, and if they want to comment on a closed RfC, they should reopen the RfC, is offensive, and you even named the users who, you believed, should not comment, while, of course, you were commenting, yourself, as if you have a privileged position. That kind of thing can be done neutrally, but you are not and were not and did not express yourself neutrally, as the voice of consensus. Attached talk pages are the place for any continued comment, not the RfC page. --Abd (talk) 19:11, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm amazed you still responded to my comment despite my instruction telling you not to do so, and then you make the further conclusion that it is somehow offensive. I commented merely specifically to close down the thread and mark it resolved, not because I have some special privileged position. In fact, the closure of RFCs themselves are more disruptive, as they assume that the closers are in a privileged position, holding no administrative nor steward tools, to be able to judge and assume the voice of the community consensus fairly and neutrally, as established through their explanations at the top of each RFC page. The fact is, the discussion was not very relevant to the RFC at hand, and was more importantly a huge timesink to the productivity of all editors involved; when John F. Lewis had already been reprimanded for his action, to proceed to engage with him further is contributing to this huge mess and waste of time that you've been doing. Do you still somehow feel the need to comment on that particular talkpage thread when we had already rejected his requests twice, and advised him on the WMF legal team's possible response? Do you still think it productive somehow to berate him and cast a further shadow on his reputation, while yourself contributing nothing positive?

RFCs on Meta are different from enwiki RFCs which should generally be closed, the problem is you are applying that principle to RFCs here. They are a free-form talkpage in and of itself, despite being located in the mainspace, like for example Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and w:Wikipedia:Village pump (technical), contrasted with their respective talkpages are still open discussion-spaces or forums for comment. For this purpose, these pages are, in fact, also a place for continued comment. You've stipulated harm rseulting from reopening closed RFCs:

"Reopening a properly closed RfC is a very Bad Idea, merely because one wants to make some additional comment. It is a long-standing tradition to allow comments to continue on the attached Talk page, this covers many RfC or related processes all over the WMF. In fact, on Wikipedia, if someone comments on a closed AfD, the comment is often moved to the attached Talk page, and I've seen the same with RfCs there."

You've yet to prove any sort of harm can result in reopening closed RFCs. It's perfectly legitimate to, and I think prematurely closed RFCs cause more harm, when a community wants to revisit a topic and find the RFC archived, which causes them disservice because it a) confuses them about how policy and practice on Meta-Wiki conducted RFCs work, and b) would cause interested third parties to point them to the previous closed RFC and lead them to the same useless conclusion even as new information came to light. Where is this "tradition" that you speak of, that is across the WMF? You're again appealing to Wikipedia principles for guidance on how to close Meta RFCs, a big mistake. Especially in regards to smaller wikis who might take months to muster up any sort of response from their six or seven editorbase to even notice the RFC page exists let alone comment on it, premature closure is disruptive and does not give them a chance to have their say. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not required to prove anything, TCNSV. If you think it is okay to reopen an RfC just to make the kind of comments that were being added on that Talk page, well, find an appropriate place to do it, and reopen an RfC and see what happens. Might be fine. People even comment on RfCs after closure. Sometimes without consequence. However, you attempted to forbid a list of users from commenting on a Talk page of an RfC, over matters related to issues raised by the RfC and its close. You may certainly ask the users to refrain, but if you are amazed that I responded to your comment, on the point of procedure demanded by you -- which had nothing to do with the editor you think was being berated --, well, you are amazed at ordinary events. Few respond cooperatively to "Shut up!"

You don't seem to have noticed that if I was berating anyone, it was Michael. He can take it, I consider him a good friend. The editor you are defending might have some problems of his own, TCNSV, but if he does, it won't have been caused by me, or Michael, or you. Michael is concerned about someone soliciting WMF office action. I think that's unlikely to succeed, and that the other editor has gone through enough trauma in the last few days. Indeed, he should be allowed to calm down and cool down. But do remember he just tried to get the same target reblocked, when it was totally unnecessary, pure wikilawyering. People like that can do harm to the communities. That RfC made quite a few users look pretty bad. I'd have nipped it in the bud if I'd seen it in time. A global ban RfC is an invitation for everyone who has ever developed a dislike for someone to show up and dump it in the pile. If you want to help this user, advise him to stay away from that kind of process, he doesn't know what he's doing. He has no clue about legal risks to the WMF or users. And you weren't helping. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious right now that for some reason you can't, and won't, let this matter drop and detach yourself from it peacefully. Instead, I am amazed you chose to continue despite my instruction not to, continually stirring the pot and wasting time away from other people like myself. I asked Lewis to refrain from interacting with or commenting on Daniel any longer, endorsed by one other administrator, and he complies. When I ask you to do the same thing, drop the matter with him and forget about it, you continue on with long posts and rants. What am I supposed to assume? What am I supposed to do to get you to drop the hammer? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

TCNSV, if you wish a topic to be dropped, I suggest you stop responding to it. Expecting others to drop it when you do not is foolish. You are holding and using a hammer and "instructing" others to drop theirs. That flat-out doesn't work, unless you have the power and authority, and you don't.

You have useful work to do here. Do it! --Abd (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Granted access to Poke

User:COIBot/Poke is a page where users granted rights can get COIBot to run a links report (some detail at Small Wiki Monitoring Team/IRC). I have granted you access to poke these reports. To note that COIBot is up and down at the moment, so you will need to bear with us while issues are resolve, but to know that the report will be created at time, and a level of oversight will begin. BTW I thought that you were taken a few days off, go and do that, the spam isn't going away, have a few nice days)  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning re removal of talk page contributions of others

[2]. This user is very likely to be blocked in short order if the behavior continues. Seeing what she had just done, I was reminded of your blanking of my comment to her. That comment was serious, frank engagement with a user who is looking for or is pretending to look for serious engagement. If you thought my comment was trolling or unsupportive, then responding to it, supporting the user, would have been appropriate. Not blanking it. --Abd (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've come back after a couple days and this is the message on my talkpage? Fine, it was perhaps expected but I will bring it to greater review. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

While you can disagree with an opinion, it is their opinion and they are entitled to it within the norms of the community. Blanking another's comments on a talk page should be undertaken with the greatest caution, even on one's own.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

It was perhaps not the correct response but I don't want a new user being harassed so easily. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Then you would be free to do something like this, which was totally correct as a response to a perceived harshness.

You took this to the administrative request page, the second time in 3 days you have requested sysop attention over an objection or warning from me.

Repeatedly hollering for admin help when your own hands aren't clean could cause the community to lose patience with you. It can cause that even if you are spotless! That you presented misleading evidence there won't help, if anyone checks it out.

I've suggested, on User talk:TeleComNasSprVen/Abd, that PiRSquared17 might mediate, he hasn't said he's willing yet. Would you cooperate if he did?

I notice you blanked your attack page. Small steps. I kept a copy in case you ask for it to be deleted. --Abd (talk) 03:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I asked before that we stop this toxic interaction with another, because I knew specifically that this train wreck would happen. Luckily PiRSquared seems willing to mediate, though that won't be for long, and his patience is also running out. The first instance was a true and honest attempt for an administrator to review whether that comment was breaching AGF or not, the second was related to your harassment of Miriam. Further mention of Miriam could get you blocked for disruption. I would also advise you do not disrupt my translation work again by having the annoying new messages banner pop up again on my talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tolerated this annoyance a great deal while working on translations, but I think it's time you realize how detrimental to the health of this wiki your actions have been. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 04:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

thanks for one, but then warn again removing comments

[3]. You may be correct that this wasn't an RfC. Since it was listed as one, and in the RfC subspace, I treated it as one, but what you did, moving it, may be fine, I'm certainly not going to object to that. It was, then, properly removed from the RfC list, and you left that change. Thanks.

However, with [4], you reverted a close and did not convert the closing comment to a request to close comment. See This is essentially removing my opinion from the RfC. You have done this before.[5] I fixed it. I shouldn't have to. Please don't repeat that. If you wish to revert a close, you have just as much right to your opinion as I do, but you do not have the right to suppress my opinion. Basically, a reverted close will then stand as a request to close. Okay? --Abd (talk) 03:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I was going to double check to see if I missed anything, including reinstating your comment. Please don't assume I'm trying to 'suppress' anyone's right to free speech, I'm actually trying to do the contrary as you can see with my comments about Requests for comment/Wikimedia Commons interwiki prefix. I'm happy your tone this time around is much more civil than previous messages. Please do take my comments to heart. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, I'm quite busy in real life and I'm not fast enough to do it before you fixed it. Please don't jump to conclusions on this basis, like what happened on Billinghurst's talkpage. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

[6]. Thanks, and my apologies for any untoward appearances. My suggestion as to process: Instead of reverting, and then fixing the comment issue later, just edit the page, simply moving the closing comments to a request for close, framing them as needed, then respond to them if you wish. The edit summary would the simply be "reversing close" or something like that, and your reason would become a comment in the RfC, replying to the original closing comment, arguing for keeping it open. That is now what we have, more or less. --Abd (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Global rename policy

Could you avoid transcluding RfCs, as you did at Talk:Global rename policy#Requests for comment discussion? It generates an mw:Echo notification for everyone who participated in the discussion, which can be a bit irritating. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry, wasn't aware of that. Abd and Scott Martin on the RFC page suggested transclusion as a way of merging discussions, so I thought it appropriate to carry that out. Perhaps that's a bug, so I'll ping the developers responsible for Echo. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I may have led TCNSV down the rosy path here. However, I'm not understanding what happened, exactly. What TCNSV did was a bit more complex than what I had in mind, but I'm not clear what is generating the notifications. There were edits to the transcluded page, those would generate notifications without the transclusion. I'm suspecting that someone saw those edits, saw the transclusion, and jumped to conclusions. But maybe not. If I'm correct, any edit to the page generates those notifications. As can be seen, in history, I closed the inactive RfC, TCNSV re-opened it, and so then there were edits resulting from that, and I referred to possible transclusion. TCNSV re-closed, doing a transclusion. This might have generated the irritating traffic. My test edits may have generated traffic as well, for people following the policy discussion page. I don't think there is a bug involved here, necessary. Rather, notifications can be irritating! I'll keep that in mind.

The essence of what I proposed does not require transclusion, it could just be a reference to the closed RfC. Copying comments is worse, bad idea, for many reasons. --Abd (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about, but you feel compelled to comment on it on my talkpage anyway. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I think you missed the part where I said notifications can disrupt someone else's work. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

For reference, bugzilla:50082. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Non-compliance

You could probably send those to the legal team - legal@wikimedia.org. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

EDP draft

Hi, I have reviewed your draft Exemption Doctrine Policy: User:TeleComNasSprVen/sandbox I think this is a solid document. I made one (small and, I hope, uncontroversial) change, and I have a couple questions/feedback:

• I am unsure why #1 doesn't simply require a basic fair use rationale for every non-free file; even when the reason may seem "obvious," I think it would be better to have a short note explaining the reasons.
• It seems to me this document blends 3 distinct things:
  1. Explanation of why the policy is needed
  2. The policy itself
  3. Guidelines/instructions for implementing the policy

On the second point -- I think that is OK, it certainly makes it a complete and readable page. However, I wonder if it might be worthwhile to break out the actual, brief, text of the policy itself, independent of justifications or assumptions -- and propose that for formal adoption, using the rest of the document as a reason when putting it up for consideration?

I'm curious what you think of that approach. And moreover, I'm curious if you feel this document is ready to be put up for community consideration. It seems ready to me, and it would be nice to move forward with something like this.

Trijnstel has pointed out that there is another draft as well. I'm not sure if you see important differences between that one and yours; so I'm unsure whether a broad call for comment/consensus should offer up both as alternatives, or whether it would be better to first "merge" your document and the other draft. Thoughts? -Pete F (talk) 01:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review the draft version I've written. I've just come back and I have a few initial responses to your questions. Though I have forgotten the original reason for my creation of that draft, I believe it was in response to Meta:Exemption doctrine policy, which was by Deryck Chan, had been insufficient in answering for the general justification for the policy; that is, why bother to have an exemption doctrine policy in the first place? The working draft I have solves point #1 on your list, and also expands it to documents beyond those being discussed, the Wikimania bid media files, to possibly include other non-free files on Meta as well. Regarding criterion #1 of the draft, it was in response to the RFD thread so the language was mostly directed toward taking a less restrictive view of the Wikimania bid media files, but I suppose you can take out the "if..." clause to read: "There must be a suitable description (called a fair use rationale) written on the file description page explaining why such a file is relevant to the Wikimedia movement." Critieron #1 is also open to interpretation, as to whether you think it takes a permissive or restrictive view; questions about the "scope" of a file in relation to the Wikimedia movement might be brought to RFD for proper discussion and consensus.
• If you plan to write up the RFC as indicated at Meta talk:Exemption doctrine policy#General support, and I thank you for considering the drafts ready for broader discussion by the community, I suggest you structure it this way:
  1. Section for draft #1
  2. Section for draft #2
  3. Section for "merged version" of the two drafts
  4. Section for no EDP on Meta at all, with users explaining the reasons (e.g. the current drafts are inadequate) Actually on second thought this is a bad idea and allows an escape hatch for people to perpetually stall the RFC process from passing, we should just have users opposing all three versions give their rationale.
  5. A miscellaneous "discussion" section.
• In my opinion, it should be based on the RFC structure for similar adopted policies (c.f. Requests for comment/Global bans and Requests for comment/Global Interface editors group policy) and take into consideration both drafts involved, and more importantly community consensus on what to currently do with the non-free Wikimania bid media files. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I like what I'm reading here, thanks for the quick reply. The next week or so will be busy for me, but yes, if nobody gets there first maybe I can help move toward a discussion like you suggest. -Pete F (talk) 08:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Re:

At least, thank you from my part for having tried to help. I asked some Wikimedia experts, but I was told that there are too many nested scripts... --M/ (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Should FuzzyBot remove all potentially outdated translations?

Hello, thanks for adding multiple new translations in your language here at Meta-Wiki in recent years. Please join the discussion with your opinion: Should FuzzyBot automatically remove all potentially outdated translations?. Nemo (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)