"You can continue this translation, or start it again to use the updated content". I want to restart it, how?
About this board
This page is only for discussing issues related to MediaWiki.org site.
How to restart the translation
Centralize "Used by" data of extensions
Can we centralize the "Used by" data of the extensions using Lua modules? It is to avoid changing the extension pages to add "Used by".
That's a great idea, +1.
I don't have a preference one way or another, but why is it bad to change an extension page to add "used by"?
Most extension pages are translatable. Every time a translatable page is changed, the translation administrators must review the diff of the change and mark the revision for translation...
Hello? It is tedious to mark for translation a large number of pages where only "Used by" has been changed.
+1. It keeps bumping dozens of pages on my watchlist (and thus email), for changes that I don't need to be aware of.
Error: This is not a Wikipedia
I want to publish documentations for tools on mediawiki but I keep getting the error: "Editing the main namespace is limited for new users.
This site is for documenting the MediaWiki software. It is not the wiki that you set up for your class, workplace, or personal use, nor is it Wikipedia.
Think this is an error? Ask at Project:Village pump."
What am I not doing right?
I added you to autopatrol group which should let you bypass the filter.
Selection of the U4C Building Committee
The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.
-- UCoC Project Team, 04:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Global ban proposal for Leonardo José Raimundo
There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Leonardo José Raimundo be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! Elton (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Report on voter comments from the revised UCoC Enforcement Guidelines ratification vote
The Universal Code of Conduct project team has completed the analysis of the comments accompanying the ratification vote on the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.
All respondents to the vote had the opportunity to provide comments regarding the contents of the revised Enforcement Guidelines draft document. A total of 369 participants left comments in 18 languages; compared to 657 commenters in 27 languages in 2022. The Trust and Safety Policy team completed an analysis of these results, categorizing comments to identify major themes and areas of focus within the comments. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki here. Please help translate into your language.
Again, we are thankful to all who participated in the vote and discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and its Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.
On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team,
Seeking volunteers for the next step in the Universal Code of Conduct process
As follow-up to the message about the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines by Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Vice Chair, Shani Evenstein Sigalov, I am reaching out about the next steps. I want to bring your attention to the next stage of the Universal Code of Conduct process, which is forming a building committee for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). I invite community members with experience and deep interest in community health and governance to nominate themselves to be part of the U4C building committee, which needs people who are:
- Community members in good standing
- Knowledgeable about movement community processes, such as, but not limited to, policy drafting, participatory decision making, and application of existing rules and policies on Wikimedia projects
- Aware and appreciative of the diversity of the movement, such as, but not limited to, languages spoken, identity, geography, and project type
- Committed to participate for the entire U4C Building Committee period from mid-May - December 2023
- Comfortable with engaging in difficult, but productive conversations
- Confidently able to communicate in English
The Building Committee shall consist of volunteer community members, affiliate board or staff, and Wikimedia Foundation staff.
The Universal Code of Conduct has been a process strengthened by the skills and knowledge of the community and I look forward to what the U4C Building Committee creates. If you are interested in joining the Building Committee, please either sign up on the Meta-Wiki page, or contact ucocprojectwikimedia.org by May 12, 2023. Read more on Meta-Wiki.
Xeno (WMF) 19:00, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I found very nice to indicate "true" or "false" using the appearance adopted on the article MediaWiki 1.38
This setting may now be set to
false to disable size checking before scaling
T:26.......nice and readable
What do you think to replicate the same appearance here?
It seems some parts inside the section T:23 are not marked for translation
I think its fine to use <code> to denote things typed into config files. Feel free to update the page.
Invalid translation + abuse filter false positive
Hi! I tried to mark Translations:Parser functions/3/es and Translations:Parser functions/8/es as an invalid translation, but ran into two abuse filters (see ). Could an admin (or translation admin, if they can delete) delete the translations, and evaluate if a change should be made to the edit filter? Thanks!
I've deleted the translations. The first abuse filter is working as intended, and only tags the edit rather than disallowing it. The second abuse filter triggered because you added a newline and probably should be modified to exempt speedy deletion tags. Cc Ciencia Al Poder, who wrote the disallowing filter.
Ok, I've exempted speedy deletion template. However, I'm not a fan of adding speedy deletion templates to translation units, since they leak to the translated page, and it puts the entire page in the category for deletion. Let alone seeing a deletion template in the middle of an otherwise legitimate translated page.
Issues with an administrator removing valid content from talk pages
I'm posting this here because User:Clump has protected or semi-protected his user talk page.
May I ask what this user is doing here and here? And why?:
- (diff | hist) . . topic on Extension talk:ConfirmEdit; 21:20 . . −67 . . Clump (talk | contribs) deleted the topic "hCaptcha is proving itself vulnerable to "brute-force" spam attacks" (spam/essay)
- (diff | hist) . . topic on Extension talk:Antispam; 21:09 . . −11 . . Clump (talk | contribs) deleted the topic "Limitations" (spam)
"I'm trying to raise valid technical points about blocking spam as a sysadmin on a server running MediaWiki. That does not make my posts spam, nor does it mean that I have anything to sell. If you think that what I'm seeing is inaccurate on valid technical grounds, please explain why instead of randomly deleting other people's comments."
Where should I go to appeal these arbitrary deletions? 22.214.171.124 21:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
To help any other admins reviewing this: this is about Topic:Xh1awofbko55khzw and Topic:Xh2mhhtvhos6lweu
I already undeleted the first one. The second one does, to my relatively uninformed eye, look a bit like advertising for CleanTalk.org, so I won't undelete it myself, but have no objection to another admin doing so.
If I were advertising for CleanTalk.org, StopForumSpam or anyone else, I wouldn't be raising the issues I did - such as false positives affecting human users. An advert is always one-sided and positive. Much of what I have to say after spending the last week fighting spambots on my tiny non-commercial wiki is not.
I took a closer look and you're right - Antispam itself is using CleanTalk, and your post itself is criticizing that - I've undeleted the second comment as well.
I deleted it since the first iteration of that post was deleted as out of scope, and it reads like a generic blog-post or indirect spam more than a specific comment on the extension. I don't object much to restoring it, but being more directly a comment on the extension rather than a broad discussion of that site would have avoided the ambiguity.