User talk:Sänger

Civility
As you may or may not be aware, the users of mediwaiki.org expect a certain degree of politeness and civility. You are not showing that.

This is not the English Wikipedia, nor the German Wikipedia, nor Meta, nor Commons, nor anywhere else that allows rude and hostile communication.

If you wish to continue contributing here, you will need to do so civilly, with respect for all, and try to be helpful. Otherwise, you can expect a topic ban or even be blocked in short order.

Best. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jorm (WMF): I've got a question regarding civility and the WMF: In this virtual surroundings of the Wikiverse I can't fathom anything more hostile then the brutal actions of Erik against the German community, closely followed by those against enWP, to get his buggy bling-thing MV made opt-out instead of opt-in, as the communities wished. How did you deal with such extremists, if you find some hard words about the uselessness of this blabber-device Flow and the short-sightedness of it's developers punishable?

In other words: How was Erik reprimanded for his extreme hostility, I would even call it a declaration of war, against the communities? --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 07:19, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * @Sänger S.G - the politics and wherefores about Superprotect and its effect on the communities is not really a topic for mediawiki.org. It is a topic appropriate for Meta or the local, affected wiki.  You'll have to have those conversations there, I'm afraid - though I'll wager that if you use the same mode of hostility and incivility in those communications, you'll get exactly the response one would expect:  none.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 14:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * This is the wikiverse, MediaWiki is just one part of that big community, not that divided from it, and such hostile actions by paid staffers against the paying community are on topic anywhere in the wikiverse. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go  17:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Mediawiki.org is a project that is devoted to the development and maintenance of the MediaWiki software and its extensions. It has a limited scope with regards to the politics of the Wikimedia movement. Super-protect is off topic here, except as a discussion of its technical implementation.  The actions and policies of the Wikimedia Foundation are likewise off-topic, except in regards to the resourcing towards various technical initiatives. --Jorm (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki.org is the project that delivers the software to Wikipedia and its sister projects, and as well as a spin-off, but not essential, free software for other, off-wikiversum projects. The core is WP and its sisters, they generate nearly all the donations by delivering good content through it's editors, the rest will have to work with what's done for them. The tail won't wag the dog, at least it should not do so. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 18:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm a volunteer (not tied with the foundation) and second what Jorm says here. And even if you feel like you have a point on superprotect, which I know many people do, two wrongs don't make a right.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

added your items and renamed the page
I added your text from the talk page, renamed the page to make it relevant, while keeping your existing text. This is done in complete good faith in order to help your very helpful thoughts become more visibile, and as part of our Be bold culture. I hope this was helpful, and of course you are always free to edit or revert. Than you--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 11:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No problem, looks good this way.
 * I've just seen too many eager hiding in the times of the putsch against the communities with superputsch. Lot's of stuff was pushed to archives as fast as possible in the so-called community consultation. The SLA (Schnelllöschantrag, speedy deletion) just looked as the same pattern again: Shove it somewhere, were nobody has to read it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:32, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * No, no the target isn't to hide your ideas. I believe we had a misunderstanding. In the new page, I suggest you add more specific tools that you think will enhance interaction with content and users (without facebookization;), you can also think of ways how, as an editor, you would like to interact with readers and teach them something about how Wikipedia works?    This will be a very good starting point for others to build on.   Now, don't get me wrong, I am not trying to hide your ideas, but we have 2 pages with identical content, and different names, it makes sense to keep the new one, which has a relevant title, to its content (the list of clear ideas, as well as your explanation of how Wikipedia needs to remain authentic without converting it to another platform), this is a good page to build upon, so if you can help remove the other that will help direct others, who want to nominate more tools to be enhanced, to the right place.  Grüße vom :)--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My bad experience was from the other open WMF-wiki, meta. In the so-called consultation about the MV (where no real consultation did occur, it was just about superficial nonsense) the archiving was set to an extremely hostile 3 days by WMF-staffers. I had to revert those eager deleters several times, first time here. On Lilas talk page there was as well an edit war between those who wanted to archive as much as possible as soon as possible, and those from the community, who would have liked some answers before archiving occurs. So this speedy(!) deletion attempt against my post was definitely not taken with any AGF at all, the WMF has lost next to all AGF within the last years. Not all persons over there, but the institution as such, including the board.
 * So sorry if I dig at the wrong people, but imho the WMF has to come a really long way to regain the trust it so light-hearted threw away with such fiascos as the VEs first roll-out, the use of brutal force explicitely against clear community consensus with MV ans superprotect just for personal vanity, the development of Flow (a completely useless forum impersonation) the ditching of a community elected trustee for no reason at all, a useless thingy called UserProfile, that was neither a profile nor discussed with the community and more, you probably know yourself.


 * I'd have liked it to be distinct topics, one against dumbing down the system with facebookisation rubbish like Flow, another pimping the3 working system with new gadgets and maintenance. But I can live with the current situation, so I won't change it back. But I won't as well support the deletion of the redirect that was my old topic. I won't fight it, but I won't help deleting it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 18:17, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your explanations here. Yes, we have a long way to go, but it is good to start somewhere.  Userprofile is gone, same for Gather after the RFC, so there is some listening and reacting happening here :). Talking about the long way to go, as a general suggestion, using words like "rubbish" might be okay to express your opinion about something, but if you are talking to the person responsible for this "rubbish" then you need to choose a different word, in order to help them listen and understand your point.  Sometimes it is an excuse to ignore the conversation, if it is offensive, and then so many valid points would get lost in the tone, which is a pity. :). I will ask an admin to delete the page, and as agreed this is not an effort to mute you (you already have your text elsewhere) but in order to keep the more relevant title. Tausend dank :)--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Topic:T2q1jtrwx74r3np4
Please stop doing this to push your POV that you know reality and how software works and that we don't. I'm going to revert you, again, to stop misleading other people. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 17:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

There is no difference between a wikipage and a wikipage, full stop. There is no difference in regard of any page here, if you don"t take the failed Flow or LiquidThingy into account. I think that"s the main reason for your insistence on this difference. Flow is dead. Flow will not work. Putting Flow in this discussion has no validity. Up to now there is no difference between the markup on the article page and the discussion page, and that is the only valid premise. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 19:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

revert
Sorry,

hab während der Bearbeitung nix gelöscht und auch keine Bearbeitungskonflikmeldung bekommen. Sorry und Danke fürs korrigieren! --Fano (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Kein Problem, ich habe extra nen revert gemacht, damit Du es auch mitbekommst. Wenn mensch ZuQs editieren könnte, könnte ich jetzt also das probably jetzt streichen ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Tone and expression of your comments
This message is an official communication from the Code of Conduct Committee, responsible for general enforcement of the code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces.

The CoC has received a complain about the tone and expressions of some of your comments. This is one of the comments that prompted the complain: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Tfvdax4qh9t3ijxd&topic_showPostId=tkaj4mzadqyb752p#flow-post-tkaj4mzadqyb752p. On behalf of the CoC we would like you to be aware that we consider terms such as "fanboy" inappropriate and demeaning to other community members. We would like to ask you to refrain from using such a terms in the future and we ask to please apologize to Benoit. We encourage you to disagree with civility. Please have in mind that using derogatory terms can lead to a user ban.

--TechConductCommittee (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Tone and expression of your comments (2)
This message is an official communication from the Code of Conduct Committee, responsible for general enforcement of the code of conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces.

End September, we asked you to apologize to Benoit, something you haven't done. Instead, your last contributions don't look like you adopt a civil behavior: as indicated before, we encourage you to disagree with civility.

The CoC has so decided to enforce a block of a one month duration. --TechConductCommittee (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Some news about hosting the Talk pages consultation
Hello

You have volunteered to be a coordinator for the Talk pages consultation 2019. Thank you!

We want to share with you some important information, so as some advice. All of this is based on feedback, observations and some decisions taken around phase 1 of the consultation.

Can you ask for details?

On the already started consultations, we have noticed that some people explain what they wish to have, and they express what they like or dislike about talk pages. However, they don't explain the reasons why.

Explaining why is very important: it allows us to find the common needs between users. Can you please review the feedback already received, and ask for details and "why"?

Reaching at other projects

Most of the consultation pages are hosted on Wikipedia, on several languages. We also need to get the feedback from people who contribute to other projects. Don't forget to invite them to participate (or setup their own consultation page). The more feedback we have, the better.

Reaching at newcomers

Most feedback received so far has come from experienced users. It is unfortunately not representative of all the users who use talk pages. Please consider to send an invite to some active newcomers. Again, the more feedback we have, the better.

To find some newcomers to contact, you can replace the RecentChanges link on your wiki with the following set of filters:. It will show the list of users who have made less than 500 edits, and some edits on discussion pages. You can also invite people who left messages on your local Help desk.

Due date is now known!

Community summaries are due by April 6, 2019. We advise communities, especially the ones that would have had collected a lot of replies, to end the conversation by March 31. That way, volunteers will have enough time to wrap up the discussions.

How to close the conversations?

We have seen that some of the coordinators have started the conversations using the usual places to have conversations on their wikis. It is an easy way to reach people. However, since the consultation is based on a different consultation process than the usual ones, those rules regarding how to close conversations may not need to be applied. It is up to you to decide!

And again, thank you for your help!

Trizek (WMF) 17:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)