no separate pages; |
simply click "history"
to view old threads
- 1 Reverts at Help:Namespace
- 2 Many Thanks
- 3 Advice needed
- 4 Project:Requests backlog
- 5 Whack!
- 6 Bug?
- 7 Usurp User:L
- 8 Interested in a trip to improve MediaWiki documentation?
- 9 Rename request
- 10 Login unification
- 11 An important message about renaming users
- 12 Harsh editing--a bit of a discussion starter
- 13 uss
- 14 Halbsperrung der Hauptseite
- 15 woolrich
Reverts at Help:Namespace
Hi there! I wanted to ask if you could explain a bit more why you reverted my edits to Help:Namespace. I thought I understood the project's scope when I started, but clearly I'm missing something. I was working on expanding the very minimal content there with ideas from meta:Help:Namespace and en:wiki:Help:Namespace. I agree that perhaps some of the content I added would have been better placed at Manual:Namespace, but do you really think that the original version was better than any of my edits? Happy‑melon 15:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hello Happy-melon, I reverted your edits because your additions were (and are again now) too detailed for a basic help page, and because you mixed up content that clearly belong to the manual namespace with usual help content. Well, good help pages follow the KISS principle (linked from the summary). They are as short and as compacted as possible (= not too detailed, not cluttered e.g. with needless subheadings or information that only experienced users understand like e.g. the API hint you added, it's not self-explanatory). – Please always keep in mind that these help pages have to focus on what real wiki newbies want to know. The audience is a very general and broad one (thousands of very small, private or intranet wikis; lots of them even administered by people who know less about wikis than you and I do, some of them haven't even edited Wikipedia before they installed MediaWiki …).
- Please don't take the following personal, but I don't see an attempt to restrain the content of Help:Namespaces to these needs in your edits. It seems you want this page as detailed as possible (maybe geared to Wikipedia's extensive help?). The former versions aren't perfect too, of course not … so I'll try to rewrite the page soon, perhaps that's better to understand than long explanations ;-)
- Hmm, I also noted your new page Help:Extension:ParserFunctions. Generally this is a better attempt (creating additional help pages instead of adding all possible details to one help page). I'm unsure about its naming ("extension:" in the title seems needless) and location (in the help namespace) though – the PD set of basic help pages should only explain stuff that is available with the default installation.
- Anyway, thanks for your edits so far. We'll see … --:bdk: 01:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I certainly agree and am aware that these help pages need to accomodate users with very minimal wiki experience, but I'm not sure that I agree that keeping the help minimalistic is the best way to go about it. The way I see it, we should rather be structuring the help system to be cumulative, gradually leading readers on from simple things to more advanced features. Maybe some indication of the level of knowledge required would be helpful, but I can't see any justification for less than full documentation. Otherwise we are simply neglecting to document features that are useful. How we go about organising that 'learning curve', I agree, is a matter for debate, and it may be that splitting such material into separate pages would be preferable. But given that we're trying to write a documentation that can stand alone entirely independently of mediawiki.org, I don't think that saying "people who want advanced features can read the Manual: pages" is viable; all of the MediaWiki features that are of use to wiki editors should be available in PD namespaces.
- That leads on to Help:Extension:ParserFunctions; there is currently an ongoing discussion at Project:Forum#Extension help on this. I agree that having it in the Help: namespace is not ideal, but I maintain that it must be in a PD namespace, or it defeats the whole object of having help here in the first place. Really, I think we need an "Extension help:" namespace. Happy‑melon 12:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi, some time ago I put a request in to move Help:ParserFunctions from Meta, which relates to this discussion. There was the suggestion that Extension:ParserFunctions was going to be moved into the core mediaWiki code, if this is the case in the future then having a name such as Help:Extension:ParserFunctions would not be useful. Also making titles look like nested namespaces when internally in the mysql [PREFIX_]page table they are stored at a single level e.g. 12 =>Help: page_namespace with Extension:ParserFunctions page_title doesn't seem to be a good way of naming pages. I tend to agree that either Help: or Manual: namespaces is a more appropriate place for documentation on ParserFunctions, and Extension: for availabillity and installation. Regarding the KISS principle, linking and embedding of additional more advanced material I think is the way to go. --Zven 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that the "Help:Extension:" construction is not ideal; but it seems to me a simple way to preserve the disctinction between 'core help' and 'extension help' while still satisfying the other issues. If, as you say, ParserFunctions is moved into the core code, we will then need a public domain help page to include in the core help documentation. We would then have realised that we'd shot ourselves in the foot if we'd spent the past few months writing a beautiful howto in the Manual: or Extension: namespaces and then realise that it's under the wrong license. This is why I maintain that help content should be in a public domain namespace; of which the only one currently available is Help:. We can move content from Help: to any other namespace with impunity, but moving content into that namespace is an utter pig. Why not put it there to begin with? Happy‑melon 22:56, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, it looks as if this will take a constructive way. More general discussion should go to the forum, though ;-) --:bdk: 22:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Bdk! Many thanks for your help in completing the unification of my global account. It is very much appreciated. Katalaveno 14:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
- you're welcome :-) --:bdk: 12:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi! I need your advice: if the third-party website is blocked (blacklisted) in one from Wikimedia projects (as attack-site or spam-based site), remove it from Sites using MediaWiki/ru list or to save? As example, last edit-war between the two anonimous users - (1). removed two blacklisted sites, (2). restored with comment "the laws of the Russian-speaking Wikipedia does not apply here". How to proceed? --Kaganer 14:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Kaganer, sorry for the delay (I was away for a while). The question is outdated now, or not? ;-) --:bdk: 22:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
- No, This a permanent conflict. Nothing urgent ;) But the advice will still be useful. --Kaganer 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry Kaganer, this went out of my mind again, and, to be honest, it seems to be a complicated conflict with a long history (and it's still present as it seems). Well, I don't understand Russian, so I'm not really able to check the sites in question on my own. Generally I'm not in favor of removing sites from such "stupid lists", but I also see the need to respect certain and rare removals/bans based on (perhaps) extreme, illegal or (from Wikimedia's site) unwanted contents. That's how all blacklists work … some entries are banned from one project only, some are banned globally, some entries stay long, others are dropped after some short period. And users often develop workarounds to evade blacklist bans :-/ MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is still nearly empty, btw, and MaxSem seems to take care :-) --:bdk: 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
- No, This a permanent conflict. Nothing urgent ;) But the advice will still be useful. --Kaganer 00:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. Your two accounts are renamed now :-) --:bdk: 16:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
<rc> Special:Log/rights rights * Bdk * changed group membership for User:Bdk from bureaucrat, sysop to bureaucrat, sysop, editor, reviewer: d'oh! missing some stuff i got used to ;-)
weißt du, warum ich diese Erweiterung nicht downloaden kann? Im SVN fehlt auch jede Spur. Grüße--GenJack 12:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- Hmm, Deine Frage ist jetzt schon eine Weile her … jetzt scheint's (wieder) da zu sein. --:bdk: 22:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
as I can't find a specific request page, I am asking you for help. I have the SUL-Username "L". The local name is blocked for vandalism and has only vandalism edits. I like to usurp the local username. Here is a confirmation link: http://fy.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meidogger:L&oldid=366010 can you please help me? --188.8.131.52 14:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Request transferred to page Project:Requests --L temp 17:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Interested in a trip to improve MediaWiki documentation?
Did you know about the Doc Camp this October?
"Individuals with a passion for free documentation about free software may apply to attend by filling out the application form and submitting before 5 August, 2011.... Accommodation and food will be covered by the GSoC Doc Camp. Part or complete travel costs can also be applied for as part of the application process."
I'm going to send a proposal to get MediaWiki into the Doc Camp and to have us do a Quick Sprint to improve MediaWiki's documentation. Please let me know if you know people I should include in my proposal. Can I put you down as a possible participant?
best, Sumanah 17:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) Volunteer Development Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation
- Thanks, bdk. Then I also say to you: if there's anyone you think I should contact because they're a good or potentially good documenter, please let me know! And if I know what locations might be more suitable for you, I can let you know about future get-togethers in that region. Thanks! Sumanah 01:14, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I would like to ask, if you can rename me from user:Juan de Vojníkov to User:Juandev. The reason is that it is internationally easier and also the previous name reveals some personal data. Thx!--Juan de Vojníkov 12:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
- Done – You probably need ro reattach the renamed account to your unified login (see Special:Preferences). Please check these links and see if you want to fix the signatures. In case you do, I could also delete the user page redirect – just let me know. --:bdk: 01:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to unify my account. Not Tarodnet (it was created to discuss with you), but Tarod.
Tarod is my username used in wikipedia.org, except fr.wikipedia.org and www.mediawiki.org.
I've checked the user Tarod in both sites, and the user hasn't any contributions, so I suppose it is possible to change that username so I can unify my account.
Thank you very much,
- Sorry, I didn't take care (wasn't here), but Krenair handled your request :-) --:bdk: 22:28, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
An important message about renaming users
I am cross-posting this message to many places to make sure everyone who is a Wikimedia Foundation project bureaucrat receives a copy. If you are a bureaucrat on more than one wiki, you will receive this message on each wiki where you are a bureaucrat.
As you may have seen, work to perform the Wikimedia cluster-wide single-user login finalisation (SUL finalisation) is taking place. This may potentially effect your work as a local bureaucrat, so please read this message carefully.
Why is this happening? As currently stated at the global rename policy, a global account is a name linked to a single user across all Wikimedia wikis, with local accounts unified into a global collection. Previously, the only way to rename a unified user was to individually rename every local account. This was an extremely difficult and time-consuming task, both for stewards and for the users who had to initiate discussions with local bureaucrats (who perform local renames to date) on every wiki with available bureaucrats. The process took a very long time, since it's difficult to coordinate crosswiki renames among the projects and bureaucrats involved in individual projects.
The SUL finalisation will be taking place in stages, and one of the first stages will be to turn off Special:RenameUser locally. This needs to be done as soon as possible, on advice and input from Stewards and engineers for the project, so that no more accounts that are unified globally are broken by a local rename to usurp the global account name. Once this is done, the process of global name unification can begin. The date that has been chosen to turn off local renaming and shift over to entirely global renaming is 15 September 2014, or three weeks time from now. In place of local renames is a new tool, hosted on Meta, that allows for global renames on all wikis where the name is not registered will be deployed.
Your help is greatly needed during this process and going forward in the future if, as a bureaucrat, renaming users is something that you do or have an interest in participating in. The Wikimedia Stewards have set up, and are in charge of, a new community usergroup on Meta in order to share knowledge and work together on renaming accounts globally, called Global renamers. Stewards are in the process of creating documentation to help global renamers to get used to and learn more about global accounts and tools and Meta in general as well as the application format. As transparency is a valuable thing in our movement, the Stewards would like to have at least a brief public application period. If you are an experienced renamer as a local bureaucrat, the process of becoming a part of this group could take as little as 24 hours to complete. You, as a bureaucrat, should be able to apply for the global renamer right on Meta by the requests for global permissions page on 1 September, a week from now.
In the meantime please update your local page where users request renames to reflect this move to global renaming, and if there is a rename request and the user has edited more than one wiki with the name, please send them to the request page for a global rename.
Stewards greatly appreciate the trust local communities have in you and want to make this transition as easy as possible so that the two groups can start working together to ensure everyone has a unique login identity across Wikimedia projects. Completing this project will allow for long-desired universal tools like a global watchlist, global notifications and many, many more features to make work easier.
If you have any questions, comments or concerns about the SUL finalisation, read over the Help:Unified login page on Meta and leave a note on the talk page there, or on the talk page for global renamers. You can also contact me on my talk page on meta if you would like. I'm working as a bridge between Wikimedia Foundation Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Stewards, and you to assure that SUL finalisation goes as smoothly as possible; this is a community-driven process and I encourage you to work with the Stewards for our communities.
Harsh editing--a bit of a discussion starter
Hi, I noticed that somebody nuked hundreds of hours of work done by other people. I believe that your name was next to a few deletions that were templates included in many pages.
In general If there is content that is too detailed, it is best to MOVE IT to another page. or split it appropriately.
If a user goes in and makes really nice menus for all of the pages using proper templates, and somebody nukes it... There is a lot of frustration.
Somebody broke the help: namespace.. and I don't feel like working on it if editors delete content that might not be perfect, but was better than was there before.
I know that a lot of my hard work was reverted... I'm angry. The site is hard to use, and the work I did made it easier to use. This isn't necessarily you, but noticed that you nuked a few templates that I made that worked extremely well. -AP
uss means umiya saikshanik sankul. it discover 5 organisations
Halbsperrung der Hauptseite
ich hab gerade gesehen, dass du die Hauptseite von MediaWiki nur halbgesperrt hast. Wäre es nicht sinnvoller, die Haupseite nur für Admins veränderbar zu machen? So ist das jedenfalls in den meisten anderen Wikis. Was denkst du dazu?
Schöne Grüße aus Düsseldorf,
--Rogi (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
i love you