Meta:Babel

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Post a comment

Archives: Template:ScalesOfBabel

• As far as possible, please leave your messages on the Talk page of a relevant article with full details, and leave just a single line here with a link to it.
• Dans la mesure du possible, veuillez laisser vos messages dans la page discussion de l'article concerné et n'insérer ici qu'un lien vers ce message.
• En tanto sea posible, coloca tu mensaje en la página de discusión del artículo concerniente, y deja aquí solamente una línea con un enlace hacia el mismo.
• Sofern möglich, hinterlasse Deine Nachrichten auf der Diskussionseite des betreffenden Artikels und plaziere hier lediglich einen Link dorthin.
• По возможности, оставляйте ваши комментарии непосредственно на странице «Talk» соответствующей статьи Вики, а на данной странице помещайте только ссылку туда.
• Kolikor je le mogoče, pustite svoja sporočila z vsemi podrobnostmi na pogovorni strani ustreznega članka, tu pa naj ostane le vrstica s povezavo nanjo.
• くわしい話はなるべく関連するページのノートに書いておき、ここにはそこへのリンクを添えた1行程度のメッセージだけを残すようにお願いします。
• Laŭeble metu vian plenan mesaĝon en la diskuton de la koncerna artikolo kaj jen nur unu linion kun ligo tien!
• E kement ha ma c'hallit en ober, laoskit ho kemennadennoù war bajenn gaozeal ar pennad zo e kaoz, ha na skrivit amañ nemet ur gerig displegañ gant ul liamm.
• 请尽量在讨论页发表你的详细意见,只在本页用一行写下你的意见摘要,然后做个链接连到即可。
• 請儘量在討論頁發表你的詳細意見,只在本頁用一行寫下你的意見摘要,然後做個鏈結連到即可。
• การอภิปรายเกี่ยวกับหัวข้อเรื่องใดๆ กรุณาเขียนไว้ที่ หน้าพูดคุย ของเรื่องนั้นๆ และทําลิ้งก์จากหน้านี้ไปสู่หัวข้อเรื่องนั้น โดยเขียนไม่ควรเกินหนึ่งบรรทัด.
• Laat je gedetailleerde berichten zo veel mogelijk achter op de discussie pagina van het betreffende artikel en hier een enkele regel met een verwijzing daar naar toe.
• Nei limiti del possibile, lasciate i vostri messaggi nella pagina di discussione dell'articolo e inserite in questa pagina solo il link alla discussione.
• Dins la mesura del possible, daissar vòstres messatges dins la pagina discutida de l'article concernat e inserir aquí pas qu'un ligam vèrs aqueste messatge.
• Калі гэта толькі магчыма, калі ласка, пакідайце свае каментарыі непасрэдна на старонцы «Talk» адпаведнага артыкулу Вікі, а на дадзенай старонцы пакідайце толькі спасылку туды.

Dear Babelists,

I just wanted to drop a line to notify my work on grc-x Babel templates (grc-1 - grc-2 - grc-3) done by studying and embedding what has been done till now from meta to other wikipedias. Now also it.wiki has its BabelTemplates for Ancoent Greek Users. Since not only I think that any improvement is welcome, but also that they would be useful to update the existing template here in meta, I point out all the detailed process in my sandbox. Sorry, it's written in Italian. And sorry again, I'm leaving it for another fortnight, then I'll use the "sandbox" for what it's supposed to exist.

From fair Verona (Italy), OrbiliusMagister (mail here)

The past month, we decided in ca.wikibooks to change the name of the project to Viquillibres. I've been trying in the system messages to change the name of the site, but there is a {{SITENAME}} template and I don't know how to change it. Can anybody help us? --Arturo Reina 16:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC) Reply

Hi!

I'm finding that all things Wicki are a great help to me in my college life, however I need to cite sources (obviously!) and am interested in finding out a) who writes the actual articles, and b) how to establish the veracity of the source to my professors liking. I been searching the sites, but there is such a bewildering aray I got lost! Help!

TIA

Jenni

• Please see the comment left at User talk:67.171.29.61. WAvegetarian 21:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

As User:Taw told me, that pages are generated very rarely because of technical issues. I recently found that they are very useful for tracking poorly written articles and correcting them according to recent etitor gudelines. Is it possible to refresh that special page at least once a month? A.J. 11:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC) Reply

en: About the error page you get when the server is busy, which says "The Wikimedia Foundation servers are currently experiencing technical difficulties." In the Japanese error message, the link to the fundraising page seems to be broken. My guess is that the words "寄付をお願い致します" should link to http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/寄付 , but in reality, I got http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/(115)%20Operation%20now%20in%20progress5%AF%84(115)%20Operation%20now%20in%20progress4B%98 , the latter part being the error message displayed at the bottom of the page. I'm not sure if I'm posting this information in the right place, but I feel that this mislink needs to be fixed because it directs away people who considered donating. Someone please look into this matter, thank you.
ja: サーバーが混雑している時によく見られる、「現在、ウィキメディア財団のサーバに技術的な問題が発生しています。」というエラーページに関してです。日本語のエラーメッセージの、寄付ページへのリンクがバグってます。「寄付をお願い致します」という部分は http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/寄付 にリンクされているべきだと思いますが、実際に飛ばされたのは http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/(115)%20Operation%20now%20in%20progress5%AF%84(115)%20Operation%20now%20in%20progress4B%98 でした。このURLの後半は、エラーページの最下部に表示されるエラーメッセージと一致しています。寄付をしようと思われた方の出端を挫いてしまいかねませんので、どなたか対処してくださいますようお願いします。
朝彦 09:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

Thanks to a quick work by Mark Ryan, the problem has been addressed! 朝彦 (Asahiko) 06:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

I am talking about a Create Article button like the one here Help:Starting_a_new_page

see: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inputbox

La muevo a mejor página, y gracias por su aclaración. --204.116.85.24 05:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

I couldn't find a page to request page locks, so I'm doing it here.

Help:Configuration settings index has been replaced by this page on mediawiki.org and should no longer be edited. All data on the page has already been copied over. Can we now lock the page to stop any future edits, as despite the big notice (now even bigger) there has been a recent edit to the page. Once this is done, can you also adjust the notice at the top of the page to indicate that it is no longer editable (currently it requests that people do not edit). Thank you --HappyDog 02:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

The image Image:Canterbury Tales.png, used in Help:Images, has no copyright information. See my comment at Image talk:Canterbury Tales.png . --Kernigh 20:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

On Meta:RfD, the September 11 wiki has been enlisted. I don't know if that's the right place to put it (will it get any attention there?), so I'm posting this reminder of it here. Jon Harald Søby 16:05, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

This is certainly a bit silly to discuss the future of a project on the Rfd page. If we could avoid on this page, which is yet difficult to maintain, any kind of political (sort of ...) debate, I think it would be great. Unless otherwise expressed, I'm going to create a meta page in order do discuss sites lockings ([[Projects closings]]?) villy ♦✎ 08:14, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

Yes please! Right now there is no appropriate place to discuss such proposals. Please message me once you have created the page as I would love to make use of it. Thanks! Kaldari 00:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

chr: Lots of bot accounts created, articles moved around, junk images uploaded. If anyone cares. I tried to do some repair work. --Pmsyyz 05:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

Darn bots, their operators have little to no effort in destroying a wiki, while we have to spend the entire afternoon cleaning up after them. It should be fixed now. Jon Harald Søby 10:23, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

It is again destroyed we need some help there ... maybe the admin sould restrict the permission to edit or move articles ... User:Wanna help

We need help to stop recurring bot attacks at a wiki designed to help survivors of hurricane Katrina FEMAanswers.org. I am a sysop, and a primary contributor, but don't know enough to stop bots from attacking dozens of pages daily. I have read advice at metawiki, but new registrations every day elude me. Any advice appreciated. ---Thanks! Castellanet 08:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

Well, the day after I posted this message I got an attack which killed this wiki, not just a spam bot, but hacker bot attack. These were direct hacks intended to harm the site, not promote another. It seems to be related to my writing here. I don't have time to fix the damage and allow wiki edit use, the wiki site is dead. The hacker will be satisfied by inflicting harm. Unfortunately the victims are no corporation or profit making scheme, there is no one to fix this vandalism. The only people really harmed are the low income displaced families who formerly lived in hurricane ravaged areas. Lovely, Castellanet 06:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

I'm sad to hear this. It looks very much like the bot attack on the Cherokee Wikipedia, above, but this seems even harder to fix. Would it help ifyou closed registration, and only enabled it through email verification? Jon Harald Søby 10:26, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

Ho iniziato a redigere una bozza di templates per gli operatori OTRS in lingua italiana. Invito tutti a dare un'occhiata, integrare e proporre tutte le modifiche del caso.

I started a draft of templates for the OTRS operators in Italian language. I welcome additions, modifications, checks and anything that helps.

Grazie. --Paginazero 11:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC) Reply

I have downloaded Wikimedia Software for my site: http://www.shadowfell.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

However, I don't have any way to upload files to the site. When I go to "Preferences" and "Files," I have no options to upload files. When I just try to insert files (mainly images) directly into the proper directory via FTP, I can never access them on the wiki site. Can someone help me with this problem please?

Also, I don't seem to have any sort of Administrator Functions. I'm not positive I'm supposed to, but it seems odd that I have no more abilities with the site than would anyone else who logged on.

Thanks, B

The file upload should be at Special:Upload. "Preferences" is, as the caption states, your preferences. Jon Harald Søby 19:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

My Special:Upload page is disabled for some reason... http://www.shadowfell.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Upload

Proposal; I think it would be useful for Meta to enable the "patrol"-function. That you have a red ! on the RC for every edit. And then you can mark the edits as checked. To see it; w:nl:Speciaal:Recentchanges this function is enabled on the dutch wikipedia. That makes it more easy the check the anonymous edits . --Walter 14:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

If there comes no responds I will assume there are no objections if I request to enable it. I will wait 2 weeks. --Walter 10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

I've nevre the feature useful, but I've no objection to it being enabled if other people do think it's helpful. Angela 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Personally, I support having it enabled. Linuxbeak 19:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Good idea, I support too. --Taichi - (あ!) 01:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Something else; on NL all registered users can mark a edit as "patrolled". But the software also supports that only sysops can mark a edit as patrolled. I suggest to allow all registered users patrol rights --Walter 22:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

I think this is a good suggestion ; This function seems to be very useful. Of course, vandals who are in-the-know may use it to hide their edits, but this function would be a great help in ip-vandalism. Furthermore, we can still turn it off if we see the system doesn't work. Guillom 08:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

support - oscar 23:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

I have requested to enable it. bugzilla:4747 --Walter 21:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

I've noticed that walloon wikipedia consists (wa.wikipedia.org), for a great part, out of dictionary articles (just take a look at new pages page and chek all the articles beginning with Moti). Since "wikipedia is not a dictionary" guideline is still in power, for wikipedias in all languages, shouldn't we make it clear for walloon wikipedians, that if thay want to work on dictionary, they would better request a creation for their wiktionary? I absolutely dislike that ignoring one of the basic wikipedia rules has becomen a common practice on one of the wikipedias Kneiphof 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

I think the the rule "wikipedia is not a dictionary" is not absolute like the NPOV rule and that it is up to local Walloon Wikipedia community to shape the wikipedia like the wish. Walloon is also something special. It is a micro-language and there are almost no real users. I would say that it is positive that there is at least some live in that wiki. --Walter 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Understand me right, I'm a kind of small-languages-supporter myself, so I appreciate the fact that Walloon wikipedia users provide acces to Walloon dictionary online. But wouldn't it reaaly will be better if they'll separate encyclopedia and dictionary? Separate dictionary will allow better integration with other wiktionaries, and walloon words will be better presented in those other wiktionaries. Kneiphof 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Yes, but the current Wiktionary is not user friendly. And now whit the the categories and bots and so it is not so difficult to move them later to the Ultimate Wiktioanry when I exist. I understand them for using Wikipedia for this. --Walter 10:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

This thread moved to Sep11wiki/Request for deletion .

An idea to advertise *about* Wikimedia Foundation projects and activities, and not *on* Wikimedia Foundation projects. - Amgine / ^{talk meta} 04:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

The "Privacy Policy" link in the footer of all pages on this site goes to a page that says "There is currently no text in this page". The page can also be edited, so I suppose anyone who cares to may set your privacy policy.

Fixt now I think. --Walter 11:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

The message mediawiki:Searchresulttext, which is the message at the top of the search results page, reads: "Remark: recently created pages can you not find with this search function. The search function is using a special database that only periodical is updated." This is poor English grammar and needs to be revised by a sysop (the page is protected).

Thanks. I have written that. If you put your updated version on the talk page it can be changed. That is so with all pages in the MediaWiki-namespace. --Walter 18:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Please take a look at: Template_talk:LION-Interwiki, could You help me? Please answer me on w:pl:Dyskusja_Wikipedysty:LION --LION 12:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Users registering new accounts at it.wikibooks, en.wikibooks, and maybe some others must now pass this spam defense . --Kernigh 18:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

That's great. We should have that on every wiki. Jon Harald Søby 10:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Hello, and although I have a small problem. I have me be a Wiki made with the help of mediawiki, I have noticed this internal links not taken on the special signs in the database containedly correctly. Shall want to be called Ä Ö Ü replaced by any cryptic signs in the SQL database. Thanks for help.

	Basta con las provocaciones

En la Wikipedia en español hay censura ideológica y se impide la libertad de expresión para las decisiones que requieren consenso.

Recientemente he creado el es:Wikiproyecto:Libertad de expresión en wikipedia e inmediatamente he sido bloqueado de forma indefinida.

La forma de pensar de un sector importante de bibliotecarios se refleja en este texto:

En realidad, es cierto que no hay libertad de expresión, pues está restringida por el punto de vista neutral, no se aceptan fuentes primarias y por la Wikipedia:Wikipetiqueta. ¿Desde cuando el objetivo de Wikipedia es la libertad de expresión? Estas limitaciones son principios fundamentales de la filosofía de Wikipedia. Es algo irrenunciable, que no se puede modificar. Por lo tanto en Wikipedia no hay libertad de expresión

.../...

Wikipedia es una enciclopedia, no una democracia. Aquí no hay que luchar por la libertad de expresión, aquí hay que construir una enciclopedia. Menuda chapuza de enciclopedia construiríamos si cualquiera pudiera decir lo que quiera.

[1]

Este proyecto nació para profundizar en la causa de conflictos recientes en los que de forma sistemática se insulta, desacredita y bloquea a los usuarios.

Agradeceré a cualquier usuario que hable español y que desee apoyar esta cauda que me indique como he de proceder. Gracias.

--File:Yin yang.png Manuel Joseph (discusión Email) 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

Free trasnlation into English:

by Chlewey 16:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

	Stop provocation

At the Spanish language Wikipedia there is ideologic censorship that hinders freedom of speech for the decisions that require consensus.

I have recently created the WikiProject Freedom of speech in wikipedia and immediately I have been blocked for good.

The way of thinking of an important sector of sysops can be shown in this text:

Actually, it is true that there is no freedom of speech, as this is restricted by the nuetral point of view, primary sources are not accepted and by wikipetiquette. Since when is freedom of speech the goal of Wikipedia? These limitations are fundamental principles in Wikipedia's philosophy. It is an unrelinquishable matter, that cannot be modified. Hence there is no freedom of speech in Wikipedia.

.../...

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a democracy. Here, we should not fight for freedom of speech; here we should build an encyclopedia. Such a poor encyclopedia would we build if anyone could say anything he/she wants.

[2]

This WikiProject was broght in order to deep in the cause of recent conflicts in which users are systematically insulted, discredited, and blocked.

I will thank any user that speaks Spanish and is willing to help this cause that point me in a way to proceede. Thank you.

Unfortunately I do not speak Spanish. However, I have some ideas you might be able to use. There is apparently an authorized de.wikiversity.org and many of us are developing materials for the en.wikiversity.org which is currently in limbo with the stacked Board of Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. I think your adversaries suppressing speech (How do they collect information they do not have if nobody but people who agree with them can speak or provide links?) would have a harder time arguing at a Spanish Wikiversity that free speech is outside the charter of the organization or host site. Obviously students at a Spanish Wikiversity would likely be reading, editing and correcting Spanish Wikipedia and Spanish Text Books at Wikibooks. In the longterm, as the Spanish Wikiversity started producing networks of coolaborating critical thinkers, your freedom hating oppressors at Spanish Wikipedia would likely find rising grass roots activists opposing their vision of totalitarian Spanish Wikipedia. Another approach might be to ask w:user:maveric149 to help mediate. He is possibly influential with the stacked Board. He speaks at least some Spanish and edits at Spanish Wikipedia. As a U.S. Citizen he is likely sympathetic to free speech, on at least the discussion pages in the pursuit of diverse useful information ... unless, he has joined the Cabal! Another approach is ... there is/was a Spanish Fork of wikipedia early in the project's history hosted at a Spanish University somewhere I believe in Spain. Perhaps your efforts would be more wisely invested there. A search for "Spanish Fork" should turn up a useful link either in the Wikimedia mailing lists, the databases, or perhaps at Google. Have a nice day! Lazyquasar 05:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

--File:Yin yang.png Manuel Joseph (discusión Email) 16:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC) Reply

When I recently wandered into a Czech version of Wikipedia, I found myself puzzled. I was fully aware of the basic principles of Wikipedia, that Wikipedia is not a democracy and that you can not demand the right to freedom of speech as we understand it in America, but still - it was a shock.

The Czech version of the Wikipedia is populated by Czechs, citizens of the Czech Republic - a country which emerged recently after the fall of the Iron Curtain. More than 60 years (officially only 42) of living under the Stalinist boot certainly made an impression on all of them: they are still brainwashed beyond recognition.

The Czech Wikipedia is an encyclopedia about flowers, animals and many other non-controversial items - there are virtually no articles about their recent history of communist rule, because they are considered "controversial." If somebody attempts to submit any such articles (not opinionated or harshly critical pieces, just historically accurate facts), the article is deleted by administrators and the user that submitted it is permanently banned. The reason is simply fear - the communists in the Czech Republic changed their coats, they are not "communist" anymore, but they remain in positions of power. This has the administrators of the Czech Wikipedia quaking in their boots. [removed personal attack]

The situation with the rest of the Czech Wikipedia administrators is not much better. All of them are fervent nationalists (at par with Muslim fanatics offended by a simple cartoon) and simply will not allow any articles related to recent history of their country to be on their site. At the same times their encyclopedia sports pathetically subservient, overblown and exagerrated biographies of their current leaders and politicians (Havel, Klaus, Svoboda, etc) that would be comparable only to the official biography of Kim Il-sung in the North Korean Wikipedia (if there was one). When you consider that the Czech (then Czechoslovak) government voted for "legal continuity with a previous communist regime" in 1990 then it is no real surprise.

The solution to this problem in nowhere to be seen. Administrators will not resign voluntarily (being the communists that they are, they will attempt to sit there forever just like Brezhnev-era aparatchiks) and Wikipedia's central command in Florida is about as willing to act as Kofi Annan's United Nations. Therefore the only solution is simply to ignore the Czech version of Wikipedia, because at its current level it is nothing more and nothing less than another mouthpiece of communist and leftist propaganda from Eastern Europe.

• Ross Hedvicek, author of several books and hundreds of articles, lives in the U.S., and can be reached at ross285@comcast.net

FerdinandH 17:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Language is the greatest barrier to utopia. :-\ — Omegatron 18:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I wonder what Ross will say about English Wikipedia when English speaking editors discover a vanity page which he founded en:Ross Hedvicek. 130.230.1.90 19:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I'm a Polish contributor, and I know the Czech Wikipedia community. It's hard for me to stand neutral because of that, but I'll try to defend them, because I know most of the administrators there are all good people.

I'll just give a quick example, from the Polish Wikipedia. On many Polish mailing lists the Polish Wikipedia and its admins is being accused of being antisemitic. For example, we wrote a historic fact, that the catholic Saint Maksymilian Maria Kolbe hated the Polish Jews and wanted to exterminate them. With that said, many Polish nationalists were stating that the Polish Wikipedia is lying on this fact. But there was one problem - we only stated the truth. We wrote what he said in his editorials and what were his views. People who criticized us didn't give us any proof - they only stated, that we're lying and we're anti-Polish.

So now my question to you - do you have any proof on what you wrote? You wrote: at par with Muslim fanatics offended by a simple cartoon - with this said, for Muslims you're no better then these "Czech nationalists", as you called them. So please - talk from a neutral point of view and give us proofs. Without this no one here will comment on this case and help you. Datrio 19:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I must say I am amazed. The Czech wikipedia is - in my POV - really in disarray, but it has only small relation with Ross Hedvicek. His statements are generally untrue, his understanding of wikipedia mechanisms is very limited (he supposed every user critising his articles is an administrator), his behaviour is quite disturbing (his standard addressing of other wikipedians is "Dear children", every opponent is - according to him - a member or former member of communist party and so on) and his style of writing is suitable for commentary, not for encyclopedia. --Radouch 19:54, 5 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I'll write my comment soon. In most statements I agree with Mr. Hedvicek and disagree with Radouch. -- Vít Zvánovec 09:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Here it is. I disagree with Datrio that Czech administrators are good people. They are very vigilant and block too often. For example, they ban quite innocent nicknames, beacuse they simply dislike them. User:RuM instead of refactoring personal attacks simply delete them.

Reason is obvious: postcommunist situation of the Czech Republic. People are there accustomed only to command and obey. They are not accustomed to discuss, to persuade. So if you are a non-conformist you soon begin to be punished. Like Ross, like jvano, like Malý čtenář, like Tomáš Pecina, like me. It is simple. Which another proof do you need?

-- Vít Zvánovec 18:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Ehm, krk. Sorry. It is just an another view. -jkb- 20:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I just want to stress Vít Zvánovec did not refute any of my statements. --Radouch 20:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Which refutation would you like? "I must say I am amazed." It is your right. "The Czech wikipedia is - in my POV - really in disarray, but it has only small relation with Ross Hedvicek." You're correct, but quantity of "smallness" is, of course, subjective. Pavel Vozenilek is right and the problem lies in postcommunism of today's cs: sysops. "His statements are generally untrue" This I deny, it is your turn to prove it. :-) "his understanding of wikipedia mechanisms is very limited" He is a newbie. He learns every day. "he supposed every user critising his articles is an administrator" That is because especially Cynik behave like the owner of the Wikipedia. "his behaviour is quite disturbing" No, it's not. He just have critised cabal of cs:. "his standard addressing of other wikipedians is "Dear children"" He just noticed that most Czech sysops are almost teenagers. "every opponent is - according to him - a member or former member of communist party and so on" This I deny, it is your turn to prove it. "and his style of writing is suitable for commentary, not for encyclopedia." It is not a reason to ban him so often and so cruelly. -- Vít Zvánovec 22:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

What to except from this post-communist criminals running Czech version of Wikipedia? They are secret agents procommunist section of secret police BIS. George Vanek http://www.geocities.com/gvanek2000/Bohemia.html

Related to the subject - http://hedvicek.blogspot.com FerdinandH 00:26, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I have been watching Czech Wiki all the time (I'm Czech) and these are reasons why I decided not to work there. Handful of people on Czech Wiki treat it as substitute of battlefield and ready to use soapbox. Revert wars, not based on facts but on opinions are/were frequent, wheel wars occured, personal attacks and name calling is/was rampant - including labeling as nazis, fascists, communists and religious fanatics of every kind. Whatever complaints I have against English Wiki, such a people would get blocked quickly on en:, regardless of their (often substantial) contribution. I do not think Meta has any chance to clean up the mess on Czech Wiki, that's only their task. Pavel Vozenilek 20:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

The current administrators of the Czech Wikipedia cannot clean up the mess because they are the creators and producers of it. As we know from Russia, "perestroika" never worked - because it was expected that the communists would make themselves into honest a productive people - instead of liars and thieves. I am predicting that the decline of the Czech Wikipedia (on which all those present surprisingly agree) will continue until the point, where current administrators will have to be forcibly removed and replaced. There is no other way in the post-communist Czech Republic. They will accept it well - afterall they are used to it. - Ross Hedvicek FerdinandH 00:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I agree. -- Vít Zvánovec 17:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Wikibooks has come out of a somewhat similar experience, but mostly neglect so it may be difficult to strictly compare the situations. There was a small cadre of users who felt that things were just not happening the way that they ought to be, especially compared to similar experiences on other Wikimedia projects. Some "manifestos" were written (like b:en:User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks and my own at b:en:User:Robert Horning/New Policies) about what needed to be changed, as well as some considerable user discussion.

Ultimately, we got together and elected a new bureaucrat from among us and started filling the ranks of admins to more than double the number of admins we had before on Wikibooks, and almost 5x the number of active admins. This is important for a number of reasons. Most importantly besides giving fresh ideas and new blood into the project, this also helped to stabilize the community where the actions of a single admin can't be overwhelming to the whole project, and those actions can be generally reversed. There are now "camps" or schools of thought over the future direction of Wikibooks, but all of these philosophies are now well represented by admins who are peers rather than having somebody step on you from a god-like position being an admin. If one admin starts blocking other admins or playing a heavy hand at that point, it would be obvious signs of abuse to bring in the big guns from the Foundation Board or at least the Stewards and try to clean things up.

Obviously with something like this you need to work through changes slowly and gain community concensus for all of the changes. And this strategy for "taking over" a project does have its detractors as well. It is important that if you start to change policies, that you try to keep with at least standard Wikimedia-wide policies like NPOV or Original Research guidelines.

From a "rule" philosophy, I believe that you should only create new rules when existing rules prove inadequate to deal with obvious abuses. It sounds like on the cs.wikipedia doesn't have this philosophy and instead is inventing rules for simply having rules. What rule one person creates another person can change, so keep that in mind as well.--Roberth 17:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Tyranny on cs: continues. I am one part of the recent arbitrage and the other party routinely ban my advocates and me.[3] The rest of community applauds it.[4] The main role of a tyrant afer Mr. Vrba's leave assumed cs:Wikipedista:Che. My last block was because I spoke about Cynik like "Mr. Pospíšil" – the first information he provide on his home page (cs:Wikipedista:Cinik) – and beacause I pointed out that even one abitrator commited the same offence as me[5]. It is not no longer serious, but only funny what -jkb-'s heirs do. -- Vít Zvánovec 00:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

There are 13 languages waiting for their wiki to be created by now. Some of them are waiting for three months. I can understand that people who are ready to work for wikis in these languages get frustrated and even angry. When will developrs make work of creation of wikipedias for approved languages? Kneiphof 18:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

please mention it on wikitech-lATwikimedia.org :-) Anthere

Can you give us information about FGM in Ejagham/Banyangi? It concernes asiel on humanitarian grounds in Spain or Holland. Thank you so much Anabel

There is a poll concerning whether to drop the requirement of adminship at certain other wikis before becoming a sysop of Meta. See Meta talk:Requests for adminship#Policy proposal . --Kernigh 22:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I was so bold that I have wikified a substub [6]. I was punished by 2-hour banning: cs:Special:Log/block and my improvement of Wikipedia was destroyed [7]. Now I have even less: I have just add a missing bracket [8]. cs:Wikipedista:Karakal has punished me by 24-hour banning. Her reasons were cryptical as always since it is established practice on cs:. I was so bold that I have written my opinion on wikistalking. I was so bold that I refused an attempt to force me obligatory usage of orthographical errors. Adding a bracket is punishable offence on cs:. No clear indication who asked her and why not on Wikipedia. It is a clear proof of cabal-like way of life on cs:.

After my protests nowadays nobody reverted my improvement of Wikipedia. One good thing at last, but IMHO too little.

How long the terror on Czech part of Wikipedia will continue? How long stewards will remain silent? -- Vít Zvánovec 11:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

User Vít Zvánovec is blocked since 10. 9. 2005 by clear consensus of the community [9], which is currently being revised by our brand new Arbitration Committee [10]. The commitee decided to unblock him during the process [11] but he is only allowed to edit the arbitration pages not any Wikipedia articles. The 2 hours on friday were for violating this, today he did it once more. But the 24-hour ban was mainly for something else. One of ArbCom's precautions states that arbitration participants have to use only full login names of others [12], no abbreviations, no real names, no garbled names etc. Vít Zvánovec violated this several times. The precaution gives clearly a sanction for this [13] - ban for 24 hours. That's all. --Karakal 12:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

This "clear consensus" of the community was merely a lynch – punishing me for alledged bestialities. I've already written about this. "Clear consensus" was based on lies and artificial and intentional silencing of me.

The Czech ArbCom lacks any sufficient knowledge to lead an arbitrage. Its members often openly support one party. Since I was not banned legally, only blocked, I can be only unblock. Inhibitting me even from doing even minor edits is clear violation of the purpose Wikipedia: to bring better and better articles. The Czech ArbCom has no right to punish me before sentencing in rightful process.

The Czech ArbCom has no right to set new rules which clearly contravene a will of both the parties. The Czech ArbCom violated consensus on cs: and behaves like junta. It is very strange to punished somebody for using a real name which the other uses as the first information on his home page. It is not legitimate, it is a totalitarian practice.

-- Vít Zvánovec 14:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Vít, pretty much anyone can see through your words to what is going on here. There are two sides to every story and usually it's somewhere in the middle. If you eliminate the types of difficult behavior that have led to your sanctioning you probably won't be sanctioned in the future. But my guess is you're not willing to look at what you've done wrong and you aren't going to change that. - Taxman 16:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

No, you are mistaken. I once again make some interwiki: [14] and [15], and for this I was blocked for one whole day: cs:Special:Log/block. If you this consider normal, I don't. -- Vít Zvánovec 11:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Though I don't speak the language, it appears you've been blocked and made clearly aware that you are not to edit articles other than the arbitration precedings until they are over. You have been sanctioned for violating that, which is perfectly consistent. Stick within your restrictions while they are in force and reread and think about what I wrote above and you should be fine, no matter how fair or unfair your original block was. - Taxman 16:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I don't think it it fair to block me from 2 September 2005 (almost half a year) without any proper judgement and hardly any interruption. The arbitration began on 19 January 2005 – more than one month ago. Since 16 February 2006 Czech ArbCom did nothing – more than one week.

All what I have done is that I have made some minor edits. For this only I was blocked. How long is it normal to be blocked? How long is it normal to be arbitrated? How long is it normal to wait if the ArbCom does not do anything?

As far I as I know the blocking was invented to stop vandals. In the Czech part of Wikipedia it is regularly misused to "punish" people who current sysops dislike. By "chance" almost all of them are my attorneys. Is it normal not to repair obvious mistakes? Is it normal not to be bold in editing pages? Just to be in good terms with illegal lynching and with the ArbCom which is not able to act properly? -- Vít Zvánovec 22:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

If the diff above is described accurately you were banned by a consensus of the community. 33 people didn't vote for that for no reason. Blocking is to stop people that are damaging the project, vandals or otherwise, and to enforce decisions. So I'm not going to respond anymore because you're not listening to what I'm saying. I would recommend presenting evidence in your arbcom precedings and concisely responding to key points instead of ignoring them as you have what I'm trying to tell you. In the meantime edit another language project if you like and stay away from any edits that aren't to your arbcom pages in the Czech Wikipedia. If you act more clearly in the best interests of the project while you follow the restrictions laid out for you you'll eventually be able to edit productively if that is your goal. Yeah, waiting months for the arbcom to do anything isn't fun, but then if you hadn't done what got you banned, you wouldn't be in this position. - Taxman 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

No, you are mistaken again. I was not banned, only blocked, since cs: sysops were not able to make distiction between them. 33 people voted to confirm imflammatory statements of Miraceti about my bestialities and so on in time when I was blocked to prevent me to plead myself. If you consider this normal, I don't. These 33 people voted in the hostile atmophere "blame the victim" and many of them were sorry for their voting or confessed that they voted for something completely different (for temporary blocking only, not for a life-time ban).

Decisions shall be made on rules. On what base is set unilateral decision of Czech ArbCom to prevent me editing everything else than ArbCom pages for months? I have the same rights as everyone else. To ban edit anything is not proportional. It would be to ban me edit pages which I worsened or they are controversial. But since they are none, they could not do such decision. The Czech ArbCom merely wanted to harrass me and you sanction it. What a shame! You don't have to answer me. It is your right. What a luck that there is not a lot of such sysops on en:. There's a friendly atmosphere – quite contrary to cs:.

I know you don't speak Czech. If you did you would know that is impossible to present evidence to such vague charges as: "Vít Zvánovec repeatedly disturbed way of project; Vít Zvánovec systematically broke rules of Wikipedia; Vít Zvánovec destroys and depreciates work of other contributors" and so on. These personal insults were never made concrete and are totally ill-founded. What can I do? What would you in my place? I can only watch this another lynching and try to do something useful for Wikipedia before me and my friends are again blocked.

I might say I ignore nothing. Maybe even I talked too much and that is why I am not now much supported. People are used to be bored with those who are complaining too much, before misusers of rights tread on them. But alas: it is too late. See w:Martin Niemöller.

I edit en: sometimes. But I am injured by injustice on cs: that I think over to leave a project totally. The Czech ArbCom will lynch me again, no doubt. I will repeal to the Foundation and I will see. I hope injustice will not prevail.

"you'll eventually be able to edit productively" You are a fool (no offence intended). I was the first bureaucrat of cs: for almost a year. I translated almost all engine to Czech. What was my price? I was illegally desysopped and eventually even blocked. You asked why? It was the orchestrated plan of people who by personal reasons did not wish to allow my return from a wiki break.

"if you hadn't done what got you banned, you wouldn't be in this position" I did nothing to be punished for 175 long days. The whole arbitration so far only proved that I commited 4 reverts in January 2005, July 2005 and September 2005. In July 2005 it was partial revert and in September 2005 it was only a defence of Jewish POV of the other user. The standard punishment of 3RR violation is 1 day ban, not 175-day ban. I am sorry. -- Vít Zvánovec 00:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

It's possible your version is correct, but more likely there's another half of the truth that would provide a different view. I come to that conclusion based on the language you use and the way you describe the situation. It's just not plausible your version is all there is to the story. Words like terror, illegally, injustice, fool, etc, just weaken your position drastically. But if you're more right than not, if I were you I would ask that your arbitration be conducted in English so that more people could review the issue. Would add a lot of overhead, and may just make a mess out of it, but could be worth it. Try creating a subpage here at meta with a very concise and neutrally written summary of the issue with all the evidence on both sides. Allow the other side to add more evidence to support their position and stick to adding evidence on your side. So far on this page you've added no convincing evidence for your side, just made large claims. I suggest reversing that. The success or failure of this effort would hinge on how concise and fair you could be in presenting the issue. After that, it's probably better to move this conversation to your talk page or a subpage of it, as it's getting long in the tooth for uninvolved people. - Taxman 04:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your suggestion. Perhaps I was too bold at you address, I have some personal problems now. I am sorry.

I agree that conducting arbitration in English will be very useful. Will you agree to be a voluntary arbitrator? If you do, I propose this on cs:, because processing arbitration led by non-impartial Czech ArbCom is meaningless. But sorry, I am not neutral and I cannot be. Try to ask Waerth to describe his case from NPOV. Es tut mir leid, we could not. Reason is obvious.

It may be my personal disadvantage that I use strong words such as terror, illegally, injustice, fool and so on. But is this punishable offence? Which my statements should I prove? I can prove anything. And, I agree you can move anything anywhere. You have my consent to edit even my pages. I have written My defence on 5 September 2005, there is a lot of statements about cs: on Cswiki issues. -- Vít Zvánovec 08:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I have no time to write reaction on everything so let's pick up some crucial things. You wrote: "I was not banned, only blocked, since cs: sysops were not able to make distiction between them." The september plebiscit had two possible answers: Vyloučit Víta Zvánovce or Nevyloučit Víta Zvánovce which can be translated exactly as To ban Vít Zvánovec or Not to ban Vít Zvánovec. Other good translations may be to exclude or to interdict. I think the meaning is obvious. You say that "many of them were sorry" for that later. Please, give us a number how many of that 33 people. Maybe two or three? Despite that, you got another chance with newly established ArbCom. But your behavior didn't change even a bit, you obviously don't understand where is the problem. It's in your belligerence and fighting your personal war very hard instead of showing some good will to cooperate with others, to follow the policies and guidelines to prevent problems and disputes, and not to provoke someone with nearly each edit. That's the other side of the story. --Egg 10:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

You have to decide what the lynching actually meant and what the lynching did not mean. On one side you and your colleagues write blocking is not punishment (which is correct), on the other side you claim I was actually banned and that I was banned for ever. What is it true? Was I banned or wasn't I? Who decided how long I would be banned? These very simple questions and it is your turn to answer it.

I have not a habit to spam everybody, so I have not asked all 33 people. I can only say what is obvious: Vrba, Zanatic, Liso, Karakal, Zirland, and Pastorius either expressly, either by their behaviour have shown their regrets.

I understand problem very well. It is you and your colleagues who behave like modern conquistadors. But Wikipedia is not your property, you are responsible to Wikipedia community and the Foundation.

Your statement about my belligerence and fighting my personal war is simply a lie. I took seriously Miaow Miaow's advice: "Vít Zvánovec should have demonstrated his good will by doing routine work, such as interwiki and so on". I repeatedly did routine work, such as interwiki, categorisation and so on. You awarded me for that: I was repeatedly banned for that. -- Vít Zvánovec 12:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Here are the answers. I comprehend banning as a tool to protect Wikipedia and the community of it's editors, not a tool for punishment. You were banned because the community decided to protect itself against consequences of your activity. Since there was no expressed time limit, I comprehend it as "until revoked". It can be revoked by ArbCom's decision or the whole community decision. Yes we are responsible to the cs Wikipedia community and the Foundation and I do my best to save the project's purpose and meaning. It should not turn into your personal battlefield again. --Egg 13:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for explanation which perfectly explains how Czech sysops or candidates understand difference between banning and blocking.

Symptomatic is your statement as well: "the community decided to protect itself against consequences of your activity". I hope this lawlessness and anomie on cs: will soon be ended. -- Vít Zvánovec 13:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

is here [16]

Vit Zvanovec, (with Czech diacritics Vít Zvánovec) born 1974, Czech lawyer and one of the leading personalities (also sysop and bureacrat) of Czech Wikipedia until recently.

He made multiple enemies in the current very nationalist and totalitarian Czech Wikipedia by his insistence on historical accuracy of the articles and NPoV [17]. It did not go well with a large group of leftist Czech students who organized probably the first Wiki-coup and not only stripped him of his sysop and bureaucrat designation, but also banned him from editing.

Since he still wanted to contribute to the Czech Wikipedia, even as an ordinary Wikipedian, he requested access and now holds the infamous distinction of being the first person of certain notability to be subjected to Wiki-stalking, subsequently to a very flawed trial by the Czech Wikipedia Arbcom, and probably the very first politically motivated trial on Wikipedia. Due to language differences, there has not been any interest in the case from Tampa’s top honchos or Jimmy Wales, in spite of the fact that the case is gaining similar notoriety as the case with John Seigenthaler Sr. [18]

Zvanovec’s so-called "trial" is taking place without public access to proceedings in a very totalitarian style. Zvanovec himself is blocked from access to Wikipedia or from commenting on his own case. Additionally, anyone trying to voice their support to Zvanovec by leaving comments on Wikipedia is also promptly blocked from accessing the site.

Main page about Zvanovec trial is at [19]

Main characters in this unbelievable thing and "judges in the arbitrage" are

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Beren

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Petr.adamek

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Miraceti

http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedista:Wikimol

The last two, Miraceti and Wikimol, are currently harrassing (on English Wikipedia) also Ross Hedvicek [20] who is in their eyes guilty of defending abovementioned Vit Zvanovec (guilty as charged). I believe that Miraceti and Wikimol are guilty of Wiki-stalking [21] in Ross Hedvicek case and all of the current crop of Czech Wikipedia sysops are guilty of abuse of power and Wiki-stalking in case of Vit Zvanovec.

FerdinandH 00:47, 5 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

I've just started a new topic on the Commons' Village Pump. Please add your comments : Commons:Commons:Village_pump#The_case_for_dividing_Commons_into_separate_language_editions Theo F 08:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

on the list of global times I miss time at Jerusalem or Tel-Aviv

 micaela@zahav.net.il

Please see the m:User talk:Galadrien. - Ellif 06:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

I'm making an appeal here because of a recent serious (IMHO only) development at Wikibooks which I think Wikipedians may want to investigate further. I first made this appeal at Wikipedia, where the only response was ("not a Wikipedia issue - try Meta") so here I am.

I somehow got involved on the wrong side of a small gang of users that regard themselves as the policing sysops for Wikibooks. The single incident was that I did not appreciate placement of banners on the content and other pages of a book I was working on, banners that declared the book out of compliance with a Wikibook page naming policy (being developed but has not yet been voted upon, and one which I actually agree with). My removal of one of the banners brought down on me a personal attack by one of these self-appointed policemen (see Wikibooks:User talk:Marshman#Basic Ecology Contents). I then voted "opposed" on a vote on this sysop's bid for extended policing powers. Now I have now been listed by him and a cohort for removal of sysop rights (see Wikibooks:Requests_for_adminship#Requests for de-adminship). Curiously, this process is being discussed and pushed forward by a very limited number of participants (see discussion at Wikibooks:Staff_lounge#Removing_Sysop_Status concerning removal of admin rights from sysops that do not use them). While this may be well-meaning with regard to Wikipedians that have left the scene, in my case it appears to be a way to punish me for opposing a small group of self-appointed rule-makers at Wikibooks. I am a steady and long-term contributor to a number of textbooks there (for example Wikibooks:Botany and Wikibooks:Ecology), and regularly (daily) utilize my sysop powers for administration duties (although, mostly I do that at Wikipedia where I devote about 85-90% of my limited time).

I find it dangerous that I or anyone wanting to be a serious contributor and positive member of the community would be subject to what appears to be a personal attack under the guise of yet another non-existent policy. I am even being faulted for using my admin powers "only on my personal projects", by which is meant just those books I contribute to, as if those were now personal projects instead of Wikibooks. Is it really now the desire at Wikipedia/Wikibooks that sysops are to be administrators and policemen, and serious contributors should not have admin powers if they mostly only contribute and edit text? As it certainly is the case that some syspos regularly abuse their powers, is it not a good idea to have all kinds of good contributors available for voting and responding to appeals of those non-sysop users that feel they have been abused? It has always been my sense of admin rights that they are NOT police powers; I have tried to respect that and fault me where I've abused them; but not living up to someone else's idea that I do not contribute enough time to administration duties seems far-fetched at the very least. If I am wrong, then please someone clarify for me; otherwise you might want to take a look at what is developing at Wikibooks. Presently, this whole issue is being discussed and decided by surprisingly few users and seems very un-Wikipedian to me. I would really appreciate your attention to this matter as it has potential to alter the community in some unpleasant ways. - Marshman 17:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Doubts about someone's usage of sysop rights are not a personal attack as I comprehend it. Each sysop bears the responsibility for using it and sometimes he/she has to substantiate a concrete usage. On the other side I see your reaction with statements like "Man, where did they find you?" and "stupid banners (essentialy a form of vandalism)". I think that Derbeth used the banners in good faith. Sysops should be polite and trusted by the community. Are you? --Egg 11:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

Anyone is allowed to have doubts about others here. My question is, if one is a steady, regular contributor, should he/she be required to have to spend time defending his/her activities based only on time contributed to certain tasks (and my record at Wikipedia shows more admin efforts than editing these days). Wikipedia is a voluntary effort and the good faith of volunteers should not be subject to questioning of this sort. I've encountered some admins over there that are not nice people. Although my responses you cited were (in hindsight) a bit rough, you can not tell me after reading the discussion under my "de-sysoping" that other admins have not been as bad or worse. It seems pretty obvious I was targeted only because at one point I crossed Derbeth. Admins that seek revenge should be at least suspect of bad faith.

Am I a trusted member of the community? I would hope so. It is easy to find an example of where one says something in a rough manner (nothing is face to face here), and not bother to look at the complete record. I have gotten positive feed-back over the years, but the active membership is constantly shifting, especially at Wikibooks where the point is to produce textbooks and therefore attracts pretty focused individuals. Why I came to Metawiki was because of the small number of participants—two very aggressive—involved in discussing my value to Wikibooks, and most of that discussion is personal in tenor (and I do not know why, as I've never had any interaction with User:"Matt" before). If no one wishes to come to my aid, then I will withdraw completely from Wikibooks, and the de-sysoping can become a mute point. - Marshman 19:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC) Reply

As for the desysopping - is there any suspicion that you misused the rights? If there is none, I see no clear reason to desysop you against your will. The revert (or two), even if it was a misusage, is not so bad if it happened only once. On the other hand - would it be so terrible if you had no special rights and you were an ordinary contributor? IIRC, you nearly do not use the rights anyway, so why is it necessary for you to keep them? I don't think that just your sysop flag is a "serious problem of Wikibooks". If you think so, there is something wrong with your thorought. Nevertheless, this is only my personal opinion as an external observer. I'm not a steward or so. --Egg 02:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

I respect your opinion. I did not misuse any rights. I'm being accused of not participating (under-utilization of rights, I guess). I am very cognizant of the three revert rule, and am careful to involve other admins when things get to that point (actually I can not recall that happening). It would not be so terrible to not be a sysop at Wikibooks. The "serious problem" is only that a contributor (me) can be singled out for revenge by another admin. It amounts to a "takeover" by a policing body, which seems very un-Wikipedia-like to me. I'd simply stop contributing there if it succeeds. Otherwise, I've really got no complaints. Seems like some pretty aggressive sysops are warned but never de-sysoped, so the whole thing is sort of foolish. - Marshman 05:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Marshman. As you have described the situation I find it mystifying. Of course I find the entire concept of "Text books only" mystifying when the typical production route of most high quality text books and reference books are produced by teams of professors with daily access to lots of grad students and paying students using their materials to study. Notes, lectures, tests, exercises, discussions, editing, typing, etc. evolve into a textbook ... often revised every few years or terms. How the original idea of a virtual online Wikiversity was degraded and stalled into a high quality texts only project will no doubt be studied thoroughly by future historians. It is no surprise progress at Wikibooks is slow. Where do amateur or volunteer authors learn to write high quality texts or duplicate the resources applied by their professional counterparts in Academia? As far as I can tell this has not yet been addressed at Wikibooks. My idea or suggestion for your consideration is this: fork your book to Wikiversity, set up a course using it (as well as other applicable materials as participants find it elsewhere online or in libraries worldwide), then proceed to collaborate fairly with all comers. The time you spend mentoring and exchanging view with other Wikiversity participants interested in your course should easily be recovered by the editing and review assistance you receive in improving the quality of your book. Later when the Wikibook administrators insist that your polished text book must be moved to en.wikibooks.org immediately and all duplicates destroyed immediately; there should be plenty of assistance from the rest of Wikiversity's participants not really involved in Wikibooks and tired of high handed disruption of course critical materials. If trolls arrive who insist on damaging or disrupting your work we (Wikiversity community or local participants) can ask them to fork the materials and proceed at their own pace with their own helpful participants. Perhaps it will be necessary to develop flow control warnings to enable less adventurous or impatient Wikiversity participants to avoid underdeveloped areas. That is an acknowledged possible problem of excessive forking to be dealt with in the future as participation levels rise sufficiently to justify the concern. Please compare and consider these draft policies:

• http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity:Productive_Forking_and_Tailoring_is_Encouraged
• http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Forking_policy

I think you may agree that an academic environment interacting with other scholars, authors, and students may be a preferred environment over an adminstrator or librarian controlled set of bookshelves with room for only one monolithic book per topic approved by every adminstrator who chooses to review or impact the project. I hope to see you active soon at Wikiversity. If not, good luck at Wikibooks. Sincerely Lazyquasar 06:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for the suggestions. I will seriously investigate what you suggest. In a couple of years I've had very little help or problems at Wikibooks with "my" textbooks and it used to be a quiet place to go work when Wikipedia got a bit stressful. That seems no longer the case. - Marshman 02:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

The policy pages on en.wp have a template that says that "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." If a policy (or a guideline) becomes biding as the result of acceptance among local editors, then a policy that has been accepted on one language version of wikipedia is not necessarily an official policy on other language versions of wikipedia as well unless it is accepted on each language version locally and independently. If so, everytime you want to introduce a new policy from en.wp to your local wikipedia, you not only have to translate it to your local language but also propose it for adoption as a new policy. Is this understanding of mine correct?

en:Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines also says that a policy is officially binding if it is issued by Jimbo, the Board, or the Developers. In such a case I suppose that the policy is binding on all the language versions of wikipedia, whether with or without acceptance among local Wikipedians. If so, it would be helpful for the editors of other language wikipedia to designate which policies are from Jimbo and which are adopted as the result of local consensus.

Please come to Talk:Wikipedia policies for further discussion. Hermeneus 07:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I don't know if this is the right place to post this as I don't use meta wiki, mainly wikisource & wikipedia. Nevertheless, just to let you know that the original creator of the wikisource iceberg logo has just assigned his copyright on that logo to the wikimedia foundation so it can be used by them in the same manner as any of the other wikiprojects logos. See W:User talk:Kils#Precisions_needed_on_the_Iceberg_image. AllanHainey 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

In the RC page there are no links to wikibooks other than en.wb, could some Admin fix it? The Doc 14:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Hi--I think Wikipedia is the best thing ever. ever. Has Wikimedia thought about putting together a site for genelogical interests?

Thanks! Well, there's the genealogy Wikicity, but I don't know much about it. FWIW, we've been thinking of doing genealogically-based projects as part of Wikimedia UK. Cheers. Cormaggio ^@ 12:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

On the Dutchlanguaged Wikibooks, the time in signatures and in the template currenttime are given in UTC. However, this should be given in CET. Strange point is, that the time from b:nl:MediaWiki:Rclistfrom, which is regulated by a variable 1,ドル shows the time already in CET. Can I somewhere change the timezone, so that everywhere on WikibooksNL it will be CET, or should someone from Meta do this? Koos ... 00:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

The time is shown in UTC on all projects. The Dutch Wikipedia isn't the Netherlands' Wikipedia. UTC is the closest we can get to NPOV as times are concerned. Jon Harald Søby 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

First, this isn't about the Wikipedia, but about Wikibooks.

I've seen that currenttime on nl.Wikipedia is in UTC also, which sounds logical. But signatures should be in CET I think. They're about discussion and a timestamp in some timearea there couldn't be NPOV i think. Besides, the Dutchlanguaged area is mostly in one timezone and other Dutch-speaking country's relate their time rather to CET than to UTC.

On the Dutchlanguaged Wikipedia, signatures are already in CET, but on the Dutchlanguaged Wikibooks, they're still in UTC. Koos ... 19:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Help, we've got a page move vandal! Please block User:Baulgher. --Rschen7754 23:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

I am currently reorganizing pages related to MediaWiki extensions. The current setup is very ad hoc. Some controversial issues relating to these may be:

• Category renamings
• Moves from userspace to articlespace
• Infobox {{extension}}
• A new organization system (currently thinking about it)

This is one man being bold. I wonder where this will all turn up.

Ambush Commander 22:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Meta sucks. The way that it is right now is completely and totally unacceptable. As David Gerard put quite nicely, Meta is the junkpile of Wikimedia.. heck, I even deleted several pages that were TOTALLY unrelated to Wikimedia in general. I found an article that has been in a vandalized state for over three years.

Now... I would like to form some type of committee or something that will focus on making Meta, well, you know, not suck. I've already gone through about 10% of the entirety of Meta (by hand, mind you), and I would appreciate some help. I would prefer administrators, but at this point I can use whoever I can get.

Comment, please. Linuxbeak 00:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

I'll help organize the MediaWiki development information. I've already started actually. Maybe I should apply for adminship to help with cleanup (I'm an admin on English Wikipedia). Ambush Commander 03:34, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Cool. We've already got a MetaProject started at Meta:MetaProject to Overhaul Meta. Sign up and help out! Linuxbeak 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Whee. Ambush Commander 03:37, 25 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

I'm in. - Taxman 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

I've already started helping.. Esteffect 00:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

This seems like a list of barely, if at all useful pages. I didn't want to tag them all with {{delete}}, but many of them probably deserve it. Any thoughts? Is some of it worth historical interest, and if so where should it go? - Taxman 00:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Overly broad discussions on issues that don't tie themselves straight to Wikipedia, in my opinion, are clear deletes. Others probably shouldn't be, but many may be of only historical significance. Ambush Commander 05:53, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

That was my thought too. The speedy criteria mention anything with no relation to any projects are delete worthy. But Amgine removed my speedy tag on A day in the life of an ordinary Canadian, which to me has no redeemable value to any of our projects. There's nothing wrong with it as an essay, and if someone wants to userify it that's fine. But it seems we need to come to a community decision about what to do with these essays. At some point it seems meta became a dumping ground for essays from Wikipedia's early days. - Taxman 14:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

It would occur to me that if anyone objects, we should run it through the regular deletion process for a week or so, and then delete. I think Amgine's main objection (and I may be wrong) is that we're moving too fast, and that something useful might actually get deleted. Ambush Commander 18:39, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

The Canadian essay is cubemail - the sort of thing office workers forward each other. If it showed up on en: today it would be speedied. That said, there's no hurry to delete. Best to tag with Category:Looks useless or similar; anyone disagreeing can put it in a better category - David Gerard 17:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

That actually sounds like a very good category. I'll start using it instead of speedy. Ambush Commander 21:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

A friend of mine (his name is Ignác Pokorný) created a user account on the Czech part of Wikipedia which was called "IgnácP". Asthonishingly, he was promptly blocked by admin Beren, because his username should have to be confusing with the username Cinik! As he tried to get his way and argumented that there would not have been any reason to block this username, he was declared to be a slug (!) and nobody responded to him.

As there is no other way to carry one's point in the discussion because one is simply declared to be a slug when he has a different opinion than the admins, I have to ask for my rights here.Anonymní 20:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Account IgnácP was created in the middle of the night in a sequence of accounts "Cinikilinky" (01:41 CEST), "IgnácP", "I.P", "Ignácek", "Ignácínek", "IG", "G-nácek" (=G-nazi), "Pospíšilek", "Cinikopedista" (01:48 CEST), etc. --cs:che

However, I have a right to create as many user accounts as I want. There is no violation of Wikipedia caused by this action. Anonymní 06:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

You? Or Your friend? :o) Cinik 07:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

No, you are not entitled to as many user accounts as you want. This is called sockpuppetry. Ambush Commander 23:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Who is the Meta "community", singular? There doesn't appear to be one. There are various separate groups who use it for various purposes, but there doesn't seem to be a coherent thing. When people on RFA talk about "the meta community", what do they mean? (And I don't mean a generic definition of what a wiki community constitutes - I mean what and who this alleged single coherent social unit is and isn't.) - David Gerard 18:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

I think it's already been pretty much agreed that we don't have a strong singular community. Of course, for any wiki, there will be sub-communities with their own interests, but for overarching issues, a global consensus is needed, and we don't seem to have that. Multilingualism and diverse goals don't help with this objective. Ambush Commander 21:23, 28 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

/me watches tumbleweeds blow past

The lack of any response here suggests this page should be marked "historical" as well. If this is the place for discussion on meta, where is everybody? - David Gerard 18:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

zzzz... Linuxbeak 18:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

You can actually track this wiki through Special:Recentchanges. That's how sleepy things are. Most of the work nowadays has to do with overhaul meta. Ambush Commander 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Its an interesting question - I basically agree with Ambush, although if I had to guess that community (if there was one) would be a group of the stewards (Sj, Aphaia, Anthere, Angela, etc.), some admins (M7, Korg, a few others) and a few misc. users. So its not like a huge one and generally AFAIK there arn't usually intense policy discussions (or discussions in general :)), and usually its just decided/updated by a steward like Sj or pos. another admin, for example. Someone once compared Meta to MeatBall and I think that is a great comparison of the type of (disconobulated?) community Meta has. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 22:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC) Reply

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Babel&oldid=318985"

Categories:

• Communication
• Multilingualism
• Meta-Wiki organisation

Hidden category:

• Pages with broken file links