Jump to content

Wikimedia Forum/Archives/2012-06

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Mobile Wikipedia!

Latest comment: 12 years ago10 comments8 people in discussion
While viewing the source of the mobile version, I saw a link to Mobile Projects/Mobile Gateway. I guess you need to read that page to learn how to configure what goes on the mobile version of your homepage. It would have been nice for someone to alert the smaller wikis about this. Killiondude (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I've asked Tomasz Finc or Phil Chang to speak to this. Hopefully they can weigh in soon. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 18:54, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Currently the instructions are not in languages other than English. Sorry about that. We will look into translating the instructions. In the meantime, perhaps a bilingual user can help? Regarding the interface elements such as "Type your search here," those text elements will eventually be translated by our software localization process. You can see the current status of translations on www.translatewiki.net. Hope this helps. --Phil Chang, Mobile Product Manager (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
  • I can help for translations but there is another problem in mobil verison of Turkish Wikipedia. The main page is empty in term of content. "Today's featured article" is not on the homepage. Nazif İlbek 10:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Data protection, MediaWiki and watch list

Latest comment: 12 years ago32 comments15 people in discussion

I hope to find some interested parties here: The latest system update introduced a feature, that shows on my watch list which edits happened since my last access to each page. Obviously MediaWiki logs all my accessed pages with a time stamp. I am not happy with that. Not at all! I consider it a serious breach of European data protection law and urge those responsible for this "feature" to disable it globally very, very quick. --h-stt !? 13:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

<squeeze>"Data protection" is, I believe a mistranslation, what H-stt means is data privacy. --Neitram (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2012 (UTC)</squeeze>
en:Data Protection Directive is the European law in question. Data Privacy is an American English term, but American Data Privacy laws and European Data Protection laws are not entirely compatible. However the servers are in Florida and the terms of use do warn people that US law applies on this site. WereSpielChequers (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
I believe that the feature has been around for years. It just wasn't being used on some projects.
Please identify the exact place in the law that says a website may not record which user loads which pages at a given point in time when that data is necessary to provide functionality to that user that depends on it. I do not believe that you will find any such prohibition. Telling you (and only you) which pages you have read is not generally accepted as a breach of your privacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Which functionality would that be? No purpose of any WikiMedia project justifies to collect data on each and every reading access to all pages. I'm totally disgusted by the mere idea of collecting this kind of data. rgds --h-stt !? 14:34, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Are you sure that it's for all pages and not only watchlisted pages? Besides, it tracks only the last time you visited/ignored the page. Nemo 14:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it is every page that a logged in editor looks at. My theory is that this would explain how as a logged in editor my account becomes "active" when I visit Wikimedia wikis that I've never edited before. I could understand if I watchlisted a page on such projects or set my user preferences, but I'm pretty sure there are dozens of wikis where my account has become active merely because I've opened a page there whilst logged in. My reading of the Privacy policy is that it doesn't cover this, and if the WMF is going to do this they should cover it in the privacy policy. Having just checked there there is indeed a slightly dusty thread Talk:Privacy_policy#Browsing_triggers_publically_logged_account_creation_-_violation_of_privacy_policy in which we discussed this and are awaiting WMF comment. Since anyone can check which wikis an account is active at there does seem to me to be a contradiction between what the WMF says about privacy and the way the devs have implemented it. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
By now, some colleagues on deWP explained the functionality because I wasn't the only one, who felt disgusted when the function got active there today. As far as I understand the issue works like this: Every entry in the watch list has an additional field for a time stamp. And with each and every edit, the system checks which user watches the changed article. If the corresponding field with the time stamp is empty, the current one is set. Every time any logged in user reads a page, the system has to check whether the page is on his or her watch list anyway, in order to render the blue star in the correct color. If it is a page on his or her list, the time stamp there is deleted.
I'm still not happy with this feature, as it can be used to trace mere reading of logged in users, at least for pages on their watch list. I don't see why this kind of data would be necessary. And is this feature compatible with the wmf:Privacy policy#Reading projects? There we are told, that only the usual server logs are written, but reading will not be connected with individual user, logged in or not. rgds --h-stt !? 15:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
I'm very happy about this feature. It's been very helpful to me when I want to know what has changed since the last time I read a page, rather than since I last edited a page. Previously, I had to remember every change I had read, or guess. The data is absolutely necessary to have this feature work.
There are no privacy problems involved in providing your information to you. Privacy only becomes a concern if the WMF decides that they will look at your information. The privacy policy tells you that they will not do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of privacy issues around even aggregating this kind of information. And as the WMF has full access to each and any data on their servers, they can look at this information. The privacy policy states, that mere reading will not be monitored. But obviously this feature can be used to determine the times of reading any page on someones watch list. I'd like to hear Geoff on that issue. rgds --h-stt !? 09:21, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
As far as I know, I saw this on Commons: already a few years ago. -- Lavallen 18:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's been the default for smaller wikis (like meta!) for years. It still is an interesting thing to think that someone not only knows which pages were accessed but at what times (!). I wonder if this data is ever purged from the system and if anyone has ready access to it or it's one of those things that takes some prying to get to. I asked Philippe if he'd like to comment. Killiondude (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Would it be very difficult to add an item in the user's settings where this feature can be enabled and disabled? --Neitram (talk) 11:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Comment from the Legal and Community Advocacy Team

Hi everyone, thanks for the interest in this feature of MediaWiki. We've seen the above comments and spent the weekend just double-checking our answers, prior to presenting them here. Apologies for the delay. Please note that Geoff is currently on holiday and unable to respond to questions, but has asked that Kelly and I look into this and report back to him - and to you.

To our reading, there's nothing in this feature that's in conflict with the privacy policy: as noted above, providing YOU with YOUR OWN data, at YOUR request when you sign up for (or view) a watchlist, is not a privacy violation. This feature is not available to users who are just readers (since, in order to have a watchlist, you must have a user account). The information used to provide this feature is what is typically collected by all websites when you visit them and is not shared with third parties. Thanks for the great questions. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed it is a rather nice feature :) Snowolf How can I help? 18:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously I'm not happy with this reply. My concern is not about my access to my data as it is presented in the watch list, but in the Foundation's retention of data on mere reading. The privacy policy states, that reading will not be tracked. But with this data the WMF can determine the last reading access of users with watch lists. If ones watch list contains articles with many edits, then the time frame of the last access can be deducted pretty well. Certainly the WMF has no intent to do so, but they have the ability. And this is enough for concerns over data protection and discrepancies between policy and actual function of software. rgds --h-stt !? 15:28, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
Although I like the new feature, I can well understand h-stt's point of view. I think, too, it should be left to the user which data is collected about him, so it seems that the only way to implement this feature compliant to European and German data-protection law should be to make it an opt-in feature and leave it switched off by default. The reason is that WMF may only collect and save data after prior consent of a user, i.e., the user must know in advance which data is saved about his actions in a wiki and on which purpose it is collected and how long it remains saved, and he has to agree to that. However, no user has been told in advance that the WMF collects these data before the feature was activated, and no new user is told that the said data will be collected about him in the future. So no one has agreed to the new watchlist feature. This is probably not compliant to European data-protection standards. So it should please be changed accordingly. It does not matter at all who can view the watchlist. The only thing that matters is whether the WMF may collect and save those data about its users. Thanks to h-stt for bringing up the matter here.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
The Wikimedia servers are located in the United States, so European laws don't apply. Thus, the Wikimedia Foundation is allowed to ignore all European laws as long as no US law is violated. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
European law applies to everyone within the European Union. Remember the cases against Microsoft and now against Facebook by the European Commission and by German data-protection administration. Remember the case about the Loriot stamps on Commons ruled strictly and exclusively according to German law. But what's more important is that our commitment to privacy and fairness is the only capital we have to make us distinct from other major web-2.0 platforms out there. We must earn our users' trust. And we do have something to lose here. I for one would not like the WMF projects to stand in a line with companies such as Google, or Facebook etc. that do not care about data-protection laws at all. They give a negative example, and public opinion in this country is rather critical about this. We have to respect our users' expectations. These are founded on what they are used to in their usual environment, including local laws. So, this is not only a matter about which laws would apply in a court ruling, but what is fair and good practice towards a user. American standards are known to be very lax, so they cannot in any way serve as a standard for the rest of the world. Users in other parts of the world will not accept this, being used to more strict and more user-friendly laws. I don't accept the current situation either, and be it only because this seems to be a precedent. This is why I strongly recommend to switch it off immediately and make it an opt-in feature.--Aschmidt (talk) 01:13, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Philippe says above that this kind of information is "typically collected by all websites when you visit them". Your comments about Google and Facebook imply that you agree that this is typical (NB "typical" ≠ "desirable") practice, but I'd like to get your explicit opinion: do you agree that this kind of information is "typically collected by websites"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Whether data are typically collected by websites is not a matter of my opinion. --Aschmidt (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I suppose that what Philippe refers to is the web server logs. There you typically have at least the IP number and the page visited. The feature is about making the information easily available instead of having to digest the logs (which is trivial in principle, but probably not with this busy a site). Thus the question is not about gathering the information but about how long it is saved and the feasibility for someone (a WMF employee, a cracker or the authorities) to extract information about individual users.
I think the feature is useful, but I share the feeling that the information might be sensitive. WMF should respect the users and take these concerns seriously. If technically feasible I would like the feature made opt-in. If extracting the information from the logs is nearly as easy as from the database, and the feature thus just makes available information available also to the user himself, then it is of course the logs, not the feature, that is the problem, but I doubt that.
--LPfi (talk) 07:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Aschmidt, it's not an idle question. The privacy policy says that the WMF does this: "When a visitor requests or reads a page, or sends email to a Wikimedia server, no more information is collected than is typically collected by web sites." Users are therefore warned and have agreed to this (the Terms of Use require the Privacy Policy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Philippe, thank you for responding. But I don't think the issues have been fully answered. WereSpielChequers gave an example, where users are reading a WMF page, this is logged and made public by an automated process. This just happened to me, I read a page on ro.wikipedia.org and immediately got a new user page and template on it with a time stamp. You can see it here, but everybody be advised: If you click on this link, I and everybody else can track when you did it. Not editing, but just reading! Why? What about WMF's "page visits do not expose a visitor's identity publicly"[1]? What about the strategic task force recommendation to consider privacy one of the WMFs advocacy concerns? Why has this issue never been answered (since 24 June 2011) or fixed by WMF? It makes me proud that Wikipedia is the only website of the top100 that does not track its readers (Moglen on re:publica 2012). But what about the editors? We agree to an extraordinary public transparency when editing, but not on our reading habits. I'll give you one more example: For every user, WMF software produces a RSS feed of his watchlist. You can't opt out, even though 99% percent of users don't need it and don't even know it exists. Other people can subscribe to the RSS feed of your watchlist, if they know your user name and an automatically generated token. A man in the middle sniffing your unencrypted traffic could retrieve your watchlist token and watch your watchlist forever after. This concern is known since 2009, a bug was filed, concerns about the "random" token in 2011, but nothing happens... --Atlasowa (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Even if it were so, WhatamIdoing, the discussion shows that we have to put the WMF's policy on data protection to the test, and if the WMF does not comply to our concerns we have to make it public in order to bring about a change. Atlasowa is also right. There is absolutely no need for these potential leaks and shortcomings in data protection. We have had a white paperbag movement in German Wikipedia that has prevented the image filter being implemented. I can well imagine another one. Privacy rights is am important matter in German and European politics at present with the Pirate Parties entering parliaments.--Aschmidt (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Atlasowa, what you describe seem to be an instance of bug 19161: Auto account creation creates privacy vulnerability. As a workaround, you can visit all the projects (thus autocreating an account), that way, it can't be used against you (worse options with an external url, of course, but that can't be fixed). Platonides (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I can speak only for myself, but I would definitely prefer not to have these data collected and stored in my profile compared to having that feature available, which to me is frankly more of a nuisance than anything else. Would it be so difficult to give users the option to decide whether they want this enabled or not? --Prüm (talk) 23:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You are free not to use the watchlist. That way, no data about when you visited your watchlist pages is collected. The list of pages on your watchlist is IMHO a much greater privacy concern than the hours when you visited (which is likely to be pretty frequently, due precisely to the fact that you're watching it). If you worry about the hours when you look at wikipedia (as opposed as to what you look), I think they could already be deduced from your edit pattern quite well (not just at a list only-for-you). Platonides (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Dude, thanks for explaining the web to me, really. Am I at least entitled to my own opinion on what is important or useful to me, what I feel worried about or not? The classic watchlist feature _to me_ has a usefulness that outweighs the cost, whereas the changes since your last visit feature clearly does not. Feel free to go on patronizing me, I won't mind. --Prüm (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
If I understand it correctly, the feature does not store the actual date and time, but just the version number. So it knows, to give concrete example, that I have viewed the current version of en:Cancer, which is about four days old, but it doesn't know whether I viewed it four days ago or four minutes ago, and it certainly doesn't know whether I actually read the page.
Can you tell me how this information could be used to harm someone? Pretend that a parent or a policeman somehow acquired the information that I have (or have not) viewed the current version of en:Cancer. What's the cost to me, not counting the costs inherent in having the page on my watchlist in the first place? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
The point is, anyone who gains access to this data over a certain period of time will be able to build a fairly detailed browsing history for watchlisted pages for a given user. I do have a browser with a built-in browsing history that for me accomplishes just about the same functionality as the feature in question without giving away information about me to people I don't even know. The idea behind my reasoning may be alien to you, in German we call it w:de:Datensparsamkeit und Datenvermeidung. For more context, see w:de:Informationelle Selbstbestimmung (w:en:Informational self-determination). --Prüm (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that's possible.
The feature appears to record "WhatamIdoing has read version 12345 of this page." AFAIK, it only records the most recent version that I've read, not all of them. It's not even smart enough to figure out if I've read some recent versions unless I read all of them. (Try it: Click here to get the history on a busy page. Click on an unread version halfway down the page. Now reload the history... and it still believes that you haven't read any of them.) Additionally, you can click "Mark all pages visited" and thus thoroughly obfuscate the data, making it look like you read everything when you actually read nothing at all.
How does that turn into "a fairly detailed browsing history"? Given a single version number, you cannot tell when I read it, whether I read each revision as it came up, or anything else. You can't construct a "history" based on a single data point.
And as for "giving away information", the WMF says they won't ever look at this information, and nobody else can see it. So who do you believe the information being given to? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Is it possible to change an established interwiki title? My question concerns interwikis that link to Uzbek edition wikis, they read O'zbek, but more correct title would be Oʻzbekcha. Abdullais4u (talk) 09:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You should check to see if a bug has been filed at bugzilla using the search "interlanguage links". You can file a bug yourself to request the change. Allen4names (talk) 14:50, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
It seems that a discussion with the original translators may also be appropriate. Is there a way to see who set the current language-name? –SJ talk  09:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
You can trace it via 'annotate' in Names.php. It used to be Ўзбек (can't find the original revision for that) but they changed it to O'zbek because of bugzilla:5958#c7. Note that CLDR still says Ўзбек. SPQRobin (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimania 2012 visa assistance

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello. I registered for wikimania2012, order# 82, and I need visa assistance. Because I registered for visa assistant but didn't receive any contact until now, I sent an email to wikimania-registration@wikimedia.org, etc. and information desk from last week but got no reply yet. How can I request for the visa assistance as soon as possible? Thank you. Oz750 (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You should contact User:Harej (by e-mail)—he handles the letters of invitation. Ruslik (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. I tried to contact addresses above for several times but I got no reply since 3 weeks ago. My visa interview is scheduled at next week but I still have nothing in my hand. I attended Wikimania for several times in different countries, the visa assistant always comes on time, also easy to contact, made the visa applied smoothly. Is there any else method to request the visa assistant, urgently? Thank you. Oz750 (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Change of global user group rights

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Please add the autoreviewrestore and movestable permissions to GR, GS and stewards as it has been discussed on Talk:Global rollback#'autoreviewrestore'. The changes must be performed on en.wikipedia because the FlaggedRevisions extension isn't active on meta:

Thanks and kind regards! Iste (D) 17:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll close the discussion first and only after that I'll try to change the rights from testwiki, on which the old logs were. —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 18:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Done. There was a weird problem at testwiki at the moment that didn't allowed me to make the requested changes, so I did them at mediawiki.org; which I think is a better place. See mw:Special:Log/gblrights. I'll copy a snip of the performed changes:
  • (Global rights log); 18:35 . . MarcoAurelio (Talk | contribs | block) changed group permissions for Special:GlobalUsers/steward. Added autoreviewrestore; Removed (none) ‎(As per discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_rollback&oldid=3799670#.27autoreviewrestore.27 [can not be done trough Meta-Wiki])
  • (Global rights log); 18:34 . . MarcoAurelio (Talk | contribs | block) changed group permissions for Special:GlobalUsers/Global sysops. Added autoreviewrestore; Removed (none) ‎(As per discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_rollback&oldid=3799670#.27autoreviewrestore.27 [can not be done trough Meta-Wiki])
  • (Global rights log); 18:32 . . MarcoAurelio (Talk | contribs | block) changed group permissions for Special:GlobalUsers/Global rollback. Added autoreviewrestore; Removed (none) ‎(Per As per discussion at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_rollback&oldid=3799670#.27autoreviewrestore.27 [can not be done trough Meta-Wiki])
Please check if all is OK. Regards, —Marco Aurelio (audiencia) 18:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, I don't see any problems – the feature works as far as I tested it on sqwiki. Regards --Iste (D) 19:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Velimir Ivanovic

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can some of the stewards to unlock my account? Greeting --178.222.74.212 23:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Nope. --Vituzzu (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Come on I'll be good. Do you think that can be repaired in the shortest period. Greeting --178.222.74.212 00:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No. -- Tegel (Talk) 02:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Why? Give a reason if you want. --178.222.74.212 09:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Update on IPv6

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language. Please consider translating it, as well as the full version of this announcement on Meta)

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning to do limited testing of IPv6 on June 2-3. If there are not too many problems, we may fully enable IPv6 on World IPv6 day (June 6), and keep it enabled.

What this means for your project:

  • At least on June 2-3, 2012, you may see a small number of edits from IPv6 addresses, which are in the form "2001:0db8:85a3:0000:0000:8a2e:0370:7334". See e.g. w:en:IPv6 address. These addresses should behave like any other IP address: You can leave messages on their talk pages; you can track their contributions; you can block them. (See the full version of this announcement for notes on range blocks.)
  • In the mid term, some user scripts and tools will need to be adapted for IPv6.
  • We suspect that IPv6 usage is going to be very low initially, meaning that abuse should be manageable, and we will assist in the monitoring of the situation.

Read the full version of this announcement on how to test the behavior of IPv6 with various tools and how to leave bug reports, and to find a fuller analysis of the implications of the IPv6 migration.

--Erik Möller, VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation 01:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

2011 Picture of the Year competition

македонски • norsk • polski

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2011 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We are interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year 2011. Any user registered at Commons or a Wikimedia wiki SUL-related to Commons with more than 75 edits before 1 April 2012 (UTC) is welcome to vote and, of course everyone is welcome to view!

Detailed information about the contest can be found at the introductory page.

About 600 of the best of Wikimedia Common's photos, animations, movies and graphics were chosen –by the international Wikimedia Commons community– out of 12 million files during 2011 and are now called Featured Pictures.

From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons Features Pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories.

We regret that you receive this message in English; we intended to use banners to notify you in your native language but there was both, human and technical resistance.

See you on Commons! --Picture of the Year 2011 Committee 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Fix here.)

Iw problem

Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I'm creating the wiki to our chapter-to-be, Wikimedia Uruguay. I can't find the proper iw to main page in spanish. I tried meta:Portada/es, meta:es:Portada, meta:es:Portada/es, etc, but always says "the link page does not exist". Can someone please tell me wich one is the right iw? I need it to finish this template to put in our Main page. Thanks. --Andreateletrabajo (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Try:
m:Portada/Es
--DavidL (talk) 18:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Main Page in Spanish is m:Main Page/es. Ruslik (talk) 18:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Main Page in English, Portada in Spanish. Both links are valids.--DavidL (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, Main Page/es was a bit off, and I'm not sure why there's a capital (Portada/Es) but I've fixed redirects and stuff to hopefully assist. Killiondude (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

WMIN portals

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all,I need a small help. Wikimedia India has come with static portals for Indic Wikimedia projects. Can you please help to make it dynamically updating the stats ? --naveenpf (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Highlights from May 2012

Highlights from the Wikimedia Foundation Report and the Wikimedia engineering report for May 2012, with a selection of other important events from the Wikimedia movement
About · Subscribe/unsubscribe · Distributed via Global message delivery, 02:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

How to make project get its logo from commons? We need to implement it on Uzbek Wikipedia. 94.230.234.20 18:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

You should upload your logo to the Commons and then file a bug report at Bugzilla requesting a change to be made in http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php configuration file. Ruslik (talk) 18:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Wow, thanks for the rapid answer. We did uploaded the file to the Commons, so now time to create a report. 94.230.234.20 19:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I plead with you to read it.

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I already write it.. at steward snowolf talkpage: User talk:Snowolf#Dear Snowolf. I plead you.

I'm sorry to using open proxy. But, I need anonymity.. I agree open proxy policy, If I am blocked, I agree all.

I beg your pardon; I write it using open proxy. I need anonymity. You want to block it, I accept your block. But, I plead with you to read it. Can I ask a favor of you? I feel crisis in kowiki. Although I don’t edit in kowiki, but indiscriminate IP and account block in kowiki is serious, I think. I do not know you perceive recent sockpuppet problem, User:Unypoly. I monitor it; I also agree he must be blocked in kowiki. He changes himself IP, account and then aggravates community troubles. However, now situation is not proper action. Admin in kowiki do block many account with suspicion. Editing pattern is only evidence. Of course, checkuser function is useless, cuz he switches his IP address. But the chance of victim is being increased if the method using. See kowiki blocking logs; ko:special:log/block. Five users are blocked, just one day. I express concern about wrong blocking or victim due to it. In former days, ko:User talk:영동우체국 is suspected. But, he asserts that he is not User:Unypoly. All users in kowiki don’t listen his voice, cuz he uses sockpuppet. However, I think that he wants to proof his innocence, but all users in kowiki don’t listen his mention, he uses sockpuppet. He also requests arbitration request. But, arbitration committee reject it cuz they are sure that he is User:Unypoly. I cannot be assured he is not user:unypoly. But, User:Unypoly can change his IP and accounts. He does not have to arbitration request. Return to topic, I hope that you express concern and worry about it to kowiki. What do you think about cases? I always concern it. --123.203.4.105 11:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

project proposal: WikiSoftware

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just created a proposal for a project called WikiSoftware. Please let me know what you think! --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at similar projects that have been poposed in the past for Wikicode? –SJ talk  05:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Project proposal update: Travel Guide

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The Travel Guide project proposal to create a new wikimedia Project dedicated to travel, merging communities and content from Wikivoyage and Wikitravel, has been finalized. Can we run a local sitenotice about this for a week to drive more attention to the discussion? And perhaps a global sitenotice for a day? (cross-posting to the sister project committee's talk page). –SJ talk  05:55, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

By local sitenotice you mean watchlist notice? Ruslik (talk) 06:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I believe the intent was to alter MediaWiki:Sitenotice. --Peter Talk 23:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I meant, on each project, the traditional way to share a message widely among the editing and reading communities. It's worth getting input from readers in general, and from active contributors. –SJ talk  21:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC on global bans

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey everyone. Translations are still trickling in (please help if you can!) but I wanted to drop a note that we're kicking off a request for comment on the global bans policy. The new terms of use calls for a community policy about global bans, but we need to decide whether there is any kind of consensus about what is in the policy as it stands. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 21:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the Internet Defense League

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Recently, the Wikimedia Foundation was approached by the founders of an organization called the Internet Defense League, which is soon to be launched. The founders would like the Foundation to join the League. However, the online community as a whole is the heart of this proposed grassroots movement and therefore, the Foundation would like guidance from the community as to whether or not the community feels the Foundation should join this effort. Please let the Foundation know how you feel at Requests for comment/Internet Defense League. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about statistics

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi everybody,

Could anybody explaine me, do Ukrainian Wikipedia reach 10 M edits or not? According to http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%BF%D0%B5%D1%86%D1%96%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%B0:%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0 - yes. But according to https://uk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=10000000 - not yet (only 9,82 M).

Which statistic is true and which is false? --A1 (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikimedia_Forum/Archives/2012-06&oldid=4097199"