Hello,
(If your project doesn't have a CommonsTicker... GET ONE...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Duesentrieb/CommonsTicker
and if nobody maintains it... well don't complain you were never informed :P )
CommonsDelinker is a Wikimedia-wide bot designed to remove image
redlinks from pages after an image has been deleted at Commons.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:CommonsDelinker
At the moment it is in the "testing" stage of image "relinking" --
replacing one image with another. I want to get some input from
communities about under what circumstances it would be acceptable for
Commons to use the bot for "relinking".
There are several reasons why replacing images might be desired:
1. Avoid conflicts with local image of the same name (bug 889, 2717)
[although usually this would be done at the local wiki rather than
Commons, but if the Commons image is poorly named, it can be
appropriate]
2. Rename images: as redirects don't work, the only option to upload
under the new name (bug 709, 4470)
3. Consolidate use of duplicate images at just one of them
4. Replace an image with a distinct, "improved" version
I guess (hope) 1 and 2 are not controversial. So I want to talk a bit
about 3 and 4.
Regarding 3: some people feel that there is no need to consolidate
duplicate images together. While it is true that there is no argument
to do this for "disk space reasons", consider it like a 'fork' of the
image. We don't allow forks of articles. One reason, for sure, has to
do with NPOV, but another reason is just about efficiency and the
natural human tendency to sort, collate, collect and organise. It
makes sense to have all the info about one thing in one place, whether
that is a topic (article) or an image.
Now regarding 4. This is the first point where the image being
replaced is not a true duplicate to the original. The most contentious
point has been where images are converted from raster (GIF, JPG, PNG)
to vector (SVG) format.
I don't want to hash out the details of a PNG vs SVG debate here. Some
PNGs are superior to SVGs, some SVGs are superior to PNGs. I want to
establish: what process should take place before a bot replacement
like this is acceptable?
Because it's a bot, I want Commons to have really clear guidelines
about when it is OK to use it, to avoid disrupting local projects.
Currently, such images are tagged with {{superseded}} and listed at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Superseded
. This page is quite backlogged (nearly 5 months, over 5000 items in
[[category:superseded]]) and almost no-one works on it (since our
copyvios are also backlogged, and they are more urgent, this is OK,
IMO).
Note: we have {{superseded}}, which usually means the old one will be
nominated for deletion, and we also have {{vector version available}},
which merely advertises the existence of a vector file and does not
imply the old one should be deleted.
So basically my question is, assuming someone putting a {{superseded}}
tag on an image appears on your local CommonsTicker, how long is it
acceptable to wait before we replace such images? A week, a fortnight,
a month?
What should consensus look like in such discussions? Since we don't
have to delete things for copyright reasons, is *one* person objecting
enough to keep the image? What if that person is the uploader? What
reasons should ensure an image gets kept?
Here are some main ones I know of:
* Art. IMO no art "near-duplicates" should be deleted unless they are
TRUE duplicates (eg by hash). Colour differences are too subjective to
rule which one is the most accurate, so best idea is to keep them all
and let local projects decide which to use.
* Small size PNGs used as icons - may be hand-optimised for rendering
in IE, which SVGs will still suffer from (as they thumbnail to PNG but
without special treatment).
* Errors in SVG rendering (there are many in bugzilla)
* PNGs as source files - should be kept for historical record (luckily
we can undelete now, this is not such a big deal, but still something
to keep in mind)
So, please take this as an opportunity to describe the most open and
accessible way Commons can work with your project, and how you would
like to see it operate to best benefit your project in this regard.
cheers,
Brianna
user:pfctdayelise
Hi all,
Bot users are able download database dumps of the wikimedia projects at
http://download.wikimedia.org/backup-index.html.
These bzipped dumps can be fairly large (especially for the English
language). Would not it be handy to have a bitorrent link to lower the
load on the download server?
Greetings,
Annabel
Hi,
2 days later, it will be the Chinese New Year, and some Chinese Wikipedian
has made the Chinese New Year celebration Wikipedia logo. During the Chinese
New Year period (Feb. 18 to 23), I think Chinese Wikipedians are proposing a
celebration of new year on Chinese Wikipedia. You can take a look of this
logo, http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wiki_pig.png
There are 2 changes:
1. The logo is using red color which means happiness and celebration in
Chinese community.
2. The logo is changing the original Chinese character 袓 to 豬，the later one
豬 means pig. This year is the year of pig.
Please comment.
THD
Hi.
I'm a sysop and a member of info-ja team of ja.wikipedia. (see
signature)
I request for OTRS account named "tietew" and maintener of
info-ja queue. Other member of info-ja will request OTRS account
later.
I'm trying to make OTRS fully-compatible with Japanese at
otrs-dev mailing list. (see http://lists.otrs.org/)
Thanks,
--
[[User:Tietew]] <tietew(a)tietew.net>
Blog: http://www.tietew.jp/
Wiki: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Tietew
PGP/GPG: 26CB 71BB B595 09C4 0153 81C4 773C 963A D51B 8CAA
There haven't been many helpful suggestions so far, so I'd like to
bring this to more people's attention:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Donation_appeal_ideas
This is a brainstorming page for the donation appeal that appears to
unregistered users on each en.wp pageview. The idea of randomized
messages has also been suggested. Either way, we need more messages to
choose from. This could also be helpful to other WMF communities that
choose to implement an appeal through MediaWiki:Anonnotice.
Please add your ideas to the page or associated discussion.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
I think this is a useful resource that deserves some attention:
http://oergrapevine.org/OER_projects
OER Grapevine is meant to be a neutral meeting place for activists in
different "Open Educational Resources" projects (a buzzword used in
the education community to mean pretty much anything from free
download to free license). This is both an opportunity to evangelize
free licensing, and a chance to share ideas about technology, policy,
and content development.
--
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
"An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
No, it only requires some alterations of the site configuration file.
Nothing major, actually. The main issue here is if it is acceptable to the
Foundation.
Titoxd.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Casey Brown
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 2:58 PM
To: 'Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves
inpt.wikipedia.orgThankyou
Hi Daniel, one question: Was this conclusion reached from a "straw poll" or
discussion? Otherwise, it seems good, but it would probably involve a
site-wide semi-protection against moves and upping the "new account cut-off"
to 45-days.
-----Original Message-----
From: foundation-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel Nix
Sent: Sunday, February 18, 2007 4:25 PM
To: foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Foundation-l] Restriction on page moves in
pt.wikipedia.orgThankyou
Hi everybody,
In a recent poll on pt.wikipedia it was decided to restrict move
pages to users with at least a 45-day-old registered account, the same
minimum period to grant right to vote (but without the request of 100 valid
editions).
I made a request on http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9024 and
it was suggested to consult the Foundation because the decision seems to be
very restrictive.
Well, the community decision was:
First question (pro or con):
*52 pro restriction
*11 contro restriction
Second (time restriction):
*15 votes - 5 days
*8 votes - 15 days
*38 votes - 45 days
So, I'd like to know what you think about it and what could be done after
this decision.
Thank you,
Dantadd
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Dantadd
__________________________________________________
Fale com seus amigos de graça com o novo Yahoo! Messenger
http://br.messenger.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>why was his block length shortened to 19 days?
>
19 _fortnights_. That's equivalent to 266 days. I had thought a
permanent block was too harsh, but I did not know it was an interwiki
vandal with such an illustrious history. When Jeff re-blocked him, I
left it that way, although that didn't stop Jeff from hurling a
barrage of less-than-good-will at me. In fact, he blocked me recently
for "legal threats", apparently not realizing that admins are capable
of unblocking themselves.
Regarding so-called "spaming links", the link was a "contact us"
mailto link to my personal e-mail. Similar arrangements have been used
in the past on the Chinese and Romanian Wikipedias.
Since Jeffrey clearly felt there was a problem with this, I moved it
off the site notice onto a "Contact Us" page, where it was listed as
one of 3 contact options (the other two being the local Community
Portal and Wikipedia-l). Considering how long my e-mail was there
prior to the arrival of Jeffrey, and the fact that I received several
e-mails regarding the site but no complaints about the presence of the
e-mail address, I'm not sure exactly what the problem is.
Jeffrey proceeded to remove the e-mail from that page, again accusing
me of "linkspamming" (which, although I told him it offended me that
he accused me of "linkspamming", he has repeated several times).
He said that that was against foundation policy. I asked him to cite
the appropriate policy, but rather than citing any sort of policy, he
accused me of legal threats (unrealted to this matter, from a separate
conversation), again called me a spammer, and blocked me for 12
months.
He seems to also be accusing me of holding back the nv.wp from making
any sort of progress, while he claims to have several native speakers
on hand, and yet neither he nor they have contributed any articles.
Mark
>_______________________________________________
>foundation-l mailing list
>foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>
--
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
Hoi,
Recently there has been a lot of traffic about search engines. The tone
of these discussions have been hostile towards Google. I want to remind
you all that it is because of the value Google attaches to our content
that we became the number 10 or whatever in the Alexa rankings. When
Google were to drop the value it attaches to Wikipedia in favour of for
instance Citizendium, it will become clear how important Google is for
the dissemination of our Free content. When Citizendium finally gets its
act together, and does a better job that we do, it will make sense to
Google to change its preference. We should not sit on our laurels but
innovate. Frankly we can use some competition.
The point that I am making is NOT that we might not consider dabbling in
search technology. When we are to do this, we will find a well written
proposal in Meta to consider. My point is that Google did a world of
good to the Open Content movement. It is relevant that we acknowledge
this. They are not like Microsoft who gives us a low ratings because of
us competing with their product. Google did good, Google does good.
Thanks,
GerardM
2007/2/18, Artur Fijałkowski <wiki.warx(a)gmail.com>:
> > Well, I just got an explanation for that:
> > 1. Official foundation policy is that open proxies are blocked
>
> * Why for logged in users?
Because there was only one way of blocking when the policy was created.
2. Any change from that should work and have no negative consequences
> > 3. This change does not work because people in countries with these IP
> > still
> > cannot work on WikipediaNL
> > 4. This change has the negative side effect that people can create a
> > sockpuppet and use an open IP to edit from their sock puppet, which
> makes
> > sock puppets less easy to detect.
>
> * where is 'Assume good faith' ?
I don't think we have a rule 'assume good faith' on nl:. Apart from that, I
cannot answer questions about the opinions of people I don't agree with...
Do I agree with this? No. But I'm not a sysop, so my voice don't count. And
> > if I were a sysop, probably anything I do would be considered wheel
> > warring,
> > with me voluntarily giving up sysop powers being the most likely
> outcome.
>
>
> * Always thought that sysops are for helping Wikimedians not only banning
> :(
I guess that relationships are too much damaged on nl: to make that a valid
option. There's quite a few people who feel it's "us vs. them", with them
being the sysops. Or at least are of the opinion that the sysops have too
much power.
--
Andre Engels, andreengels(a)gmail.com
ICQ: 6260644 -- Skype: a_engels
