This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Somaly Mam is a former child prostitute from Cambodia. Until 2013 she was heralded internationally as a heroine and advocate, saving thousands of children. Then there was a Newsweek article The Holy Saint (and Sinner) of Sex Trafficking claiming to find holes in her original story [1]. For a normal politician such articles are part of the cut and thrust, but Somaly Mam quietly resigned from all her positions, she said to protect the organisation she founded from ongoing attention. Marie Claire magazine published a piece Somaly Mam's Story: "I didn't lie" , strongly challenging the evidence provided by Newsweek. [2]. The US State Department reports, sex trafficking and underage prostitution is rife across Cambodia. Believe what you like about the details, it is highly unlikely that Somaly Mam's original story is a total and/or proven fabrication.
Nevertheless, the wikipedia article on Somaly Mam is strongly biased against Somaly Mam. It's conclusions are far more definitive and condemning than Newsweek, saying "sex trafficking and abuse claims were disproved" and "she pretended to be a nurse". It provides details of a internal report which sofar has not been publicly disclosed. Her success in advocacy is underplayed. Each section of this article is entirely biased against Somaly Mam. Marie Claire is mentioned, but not the independent investigation that alleged Newsweek undertook poor journalistic practices and false claims.
Although it is possible that editors are following Newsweek's lead, is there is a chance that sex tourists who visit Cambodia go on to edit this page? Yes, we deal with biases and lobbying everyday, but pedophilia is not just an opinion. It's not about one person's reputation. Pedophilia networks use the internet to lure children and hide their tracks. Wikipedia cannot be used as part of this. Not only should the article be cleaned up, we should follow the edits of those who put the page in this state. There may be other damage being done. How can we afford to not check this out? 104.237.54.139 ( talk) 08:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Right now if you place an {{ subst:unsigned}} template (and its many sibling templates), you get something like this:
I suggest changing it to this:
This is all about good faith. Everyone forgets the tildes sometimes, so why should there be a permanent record of a routine ordinary goof? Such a scarlet letter is not good faith. The link on the word unsigned is not vitally important. The signing bots will post on user's talk pages if they forget several times, and experienced Wikipedians will tell new users this too. The worst that happens without it would be that the sign-bots sign a few more posts, which isn't a problem. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 03:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
—[[User|''USERNAME'']] ''TIMESTAMP OF EDIT'' (UTC)
yet is encouraged to be used despite the fact it is a template that appears to me and a few others at least to indicate bad faith. What I find even more hilarious is that the following section,
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#sigclean it is indicated that attempts to fake a signature may be edited in a way that changes the signature to the standard form with correct information (—{{
subst:User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)
) or some even simpler variant. So, why not just dump all of the unsigned templates and make it easy by just one template for all situations? — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
04:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)I am not sure I follow the logic here, and I have studied some.
Please enlighten me. — Keφr 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
We could use a variant on User:Oiyarbepsy's proposal:
which is closer to usual sigs, but makes the action clear and retains the link to Wikipedia:Signatures. (See Per procurationem.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's my comment blah blah blah. -- xyzq p.p. Example ( talk) 00:00, 12 February 2015
This change would affect all unsigned templates currently in use unsubsted and would therefore change many archive pages etc. Also, this proposal amounts to autosigning, so new users won't learn how to sign properly. Then, once they get above the signing bot's edit threshold of 800 edits, they'll wonder why their signatures don't show up any more. Also, as I have previously said, the template as it stands is not a sign of bad faith. Any reasonable person will understand that people make mistakes -- including experienced users -- and won't hold it against newbies. Per Kephir, I just don't comprehend it. BethNaught ( talk) 08:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Request_for_Comment:_Including_AFC_acceptance, asking for opinions and comments on whether the bar should be shifted for granting the autopatrolled user right. Please make all comments, questions or ideas there.- McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
re - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant etc
Don't use capital letters for these psychopaths - it only serves to boost their status.
islamic state; they are not islamic, they are not a state.
They are not even muslims.
isil
isis
Call them daiish – apparently they don't like it and it is used as a derogatory term in some parts of the Middle East. Though even this is just another acronym of islamic state.
Only use lower case type for all internationally recognised terrorist and criminal organisations, and convicted criminals.
Please pass this to your policy making people asap
PWWJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by P W W Jones ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2015
I would like to add, regardless of what the sources add, Wikipedia goes by the rules of standard English. If the sources fail to use this, then they fail to be reliable sources.-- Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal: Disallow transcluded to-do lists. Please comment there. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
From what I've seen in past years, right now is probably the last chance for a while that we might be able to pass some proposal that will lead to some eventual reduction of the growing admin-work backlogs. We've had three or four recent votes that people probably won't be willing to repeat anytime soon (see here and following, here, here, and maybe here). I'd like to hear evidence either way about what admin-related work is or isn't getting done these days, particularly the work that concerns bad actors (spammers, vandals, socks, etc.), and any proposals anyone wants to make on how to tackle the problem. I'll consider adding any promising proposals to WP:CENT but not to the RfC list, for now, because I don't think it would be smart to string this out 30 days. For recent discussion on the backlogs, see the backlogs mentioned by Risker, here, and search for "backlog" in most of the recent WP:AN archives, for instance here, here, here and here. For an explanation of why it's happening, this chart from the discussion in November (one of the links above) may be helpful:
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 (projected) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Active admins | 943 | 870 | 766 | 744 | 674 | 633 | 570 |
Admin promotions | 201 | 121 | 78 | 52 | 28 | 34 | 21 |
Admin attrition (actual, not net) | 263 | 194 | 182 | 74 | 98 | 75 | 85 |
Tags added by the edit filter or, when implemented, by bots can be very helpful to track down certain type of vandalism, other inappropriate changes, or wikitext mistakes and visual editor bugs, among other things. Tags are listed at Special:Tags and recent changes can be filtered by tag. However, it is difficult to know when an edit has been checked - one needs to load page history and check manually when not the latest. This is inefficient, but could be improved using the native patrolling feature of mediawiki. For users with permission to patrol (at the moment, autoconfirmed users), a red exclamation mark would be visible next to unpatrolled tagged changes, and when clicking the diff a [mark this revision as patrolled] button would be visible. When patrolled, the red exclamation mark would disappear. Rollback also patrols automatically the reverted edits. Recent changes can be filtered by unpatrolled edits, so with this, we could very easily see which edits have been dealt with, and which still need checking. We could have a list of ignored tags (for example visual editor, HHVM, etc), which don't need to be shown as unpatrolled. It can be implemented without much difficulty, so is this something that we want ? Cenarium ( talk) 12:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I am a relatively new editor and have found the WP 'back of house' to be particularly non-user friendly. I know that I have jumped in at the deep-end, taking on a rather daunting task rather than easing in more progressively and that this has accentuated some of the difficulties I have experienced. I think; however, that my experiences serve to highlight some problematic areas.
I had thought to raise this in a project area but these appear to be inactive so, here goes. I think there are three things that could be done relatively simply that would make all of the 'back of house' content much more accessible for all editors, but particularly new editors.
My ideas are not contingent on restricting access to only logged in users. I have very little idea about how to approach the actual nuts-and-bolts of such a 'project' but I perceive that a lot of the functionality is readily adaptable from what exists. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
For everyone saying we need a 'Portal'... We already have one, it's even linked from the sidebar. We could probably take better care of it though :) — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of the pre-speedy deletion tag failing to gain consensus, I propose we change NPP to allow a reviewer to take an article under their wing, to be exclusively their review project. AFC allows a user to mark an article as under review, this is effectively what I'm proposing.
Benefits:
Example tag:
{{ User:Unit388/draft-review|Unit388}}
Don't fear change people. Unit388 ( talk) 02:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
take an article under their wing, to be exclusively their review project(emphasis mine) sounds like a proposal to weaken WP:OWN. Unless, I've misunderstood something here, my position on this proposal is "No... just.... no". Pathore ( talk) 06:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
+1. Supporting Peridon's 'oppose' arguments. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 06:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that Unit388 is
selectively
canvassing editors for support on the above two proposals.
Reso
lute 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
Under construction}}
, and I don't see the point in duplicating it. And I especially don't want to see AfDs with oppose comments like "You can't delete this article on my basement web business! It's tagged as under review!" and I'm worried that this opens that door.
Ivanvector (
talk) 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Now when I want to compare edits that are not recent, I have to scroll back up after marking the two versions. Some-times this is a long scroll. Couldn't we have the 'Compare these two versions' tab along the left side in a way that we can simply click on it with-out having to scroll up? Kdammers ( talk) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Indef blocking/banning looks like the death penalty on wikipedia. I know there are procedures to appeal and ways to have clean start, but I still think that indef blocking/banning is unnecessary radical and extreme measurement. Even in case of most blatant vandals, after substantial time period has passed, say five years, the circumstances in terms of wikipedia editing should be much different. I think that by limiting period of ban or block to maximum 5 years most wikipedia editors who were indef banned or blocked would return to constructive editing without having to go to tiresome and sometimes unfair procedures like appeals. This could significantly increase the number of editors of wikipedia. Thoughts?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Under Articles for Deletion policy there is the ambiguous procedure for notifying interested people, limited by the terms of WP:CANVASS, placing the burden on the nominating editor, who already has skin in the game, a declared POV to advocate. I would like to propose this process be automated. Also, in order to generate comment from people knowledgeable about the subject, if any wikiprojects are identified with subject of the article, those projects should similarly be notified.
Automating this process eliminates potential bias or canvassing, deliberate or unintentional in any notifications. At the same time, it is reasonable to assume it will improve the discussion of each AfD by notifying people interested in the subject. This process should be carried over to other "for deletion" or euphemistically "for discussion" situations. Trackinfo ( talk) 19:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What about notifying the user of every edit thad added or removed more than 1,000 characters? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
===All authors must be notified of deletion===
- Proposal: The first creator, or everybody who has contributed to an article, must be warned on their talk page of a deletion debate of that article.
- Reasons for previous rejection: Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted. Regardless, editors are encouraged to notify the original author or the main contributors of an article when their article is nominated for deletion, as it is considered courteous; this is strictly optional. This puts less requirements for a deletion proposal than for a Featured Article review, for which all main contributors must be notified.
There is a clear consensus for this proposal. Mdann52 ( talk · contribs) has filed a Phabricator request at Phab:T91934. Cunard ( talk) 00:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The autochecked usergroup has no use since its unique permission, 'autoreview', is possessed by all autoconfirmed users, and in order to be effectively autoreviewed, 'autoconfirmed' is checked too. Due to the way FlaggedRevs is written and for compatibilities with other configs, it is not possible to make it into a potentially useful group as was thought originally. Therefore, I suggest to simply delete it. Cenarium ( talk) 09:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There is only a consensus for implementation if and only if an rfc concerning criteria for its use gains community-wide consensus first.( PC/RfC 2013),
there is consensus for proposals 1 and 2 and 7 to be used as criteria, but only if PC2 is implemented in the future.( PC/RfC 2014) then it is improper to delete this usergroup there certainly is potential and we just need to put the pieces together in the 2015 proposal and see if there is consensus to establish PC2 using the wording in proposals 1, 2, and 7. —
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
17:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This would be a new right that allows experienced users with this right to delete pages with a CSD tag on them and to remove that CSD tag after a successful appeal. They would only be able to delete content that they have not tagged. CSD guidelines are very clear cut and do not need an admin knowledge to delete pages. This will not affect XFD.
This right would be granted at
WP:RFR and I suggest that the minimum requirements are:
If there is any doubt, the patroller should lave that case for an administrator to do. This right will greatly take the pressure of admins working in the CSD area. All deletions will be available for an administrator to undo. However, this situation shouldn;t happen regularly as all users should be trusted and knowledgeable. TheMagikCow ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Also just a comment: CSD Patrollers should only delete content which other users have tagged (no unilateral deletion) and of course there should be a log of all actions done by users with this userright. Ivanvector ( talk) 13:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This is just going to be voted down because of the admin standard for blocking and page deleting, but I would consider it useful. The only thing that I can see going wrong with it is if somebody deliberately goes rogue and decides to apply a tag on a sock account/IP and then be able to delete any page...Presidents, Dictators, media pages, etc. They only need to be quick too, so I don't think that would work. Tutelary ( talk) 14:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.
All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has
Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee and
Category:Welcome templates. Those Wikipedians and those templates provide a useful service. I propose that Wikipedia also have automated welcome messages which appear on a user talk page immediately after a new account is registered. The registration process can end with a brief message directing the registrant to the welcome message by means of a link. The brief message might be "You have a welcome message on
your talk page." The welcome message can have a set of useful links. After a predetermined number of edits, another message can appear on the user talk page, politely reminding the editor about those useful links.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 03:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs an easy-to-use template equivalent to the HoverImage template in Wikibooks, for relatively non-technical Wikipedia and Commons users like me:
The Commons library is becoming vast and Wikipedia's use of pictures continues to increase. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a well-done hoverable picture is worth even more.
-- WikiPedant ( talk) 04:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
(NOTE: Posted before I discovered the "Requested Templates" page, and now posted there as well.)
Ah, that b:Template:HoverImage functionality is similar to Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator (This is an experimental installation of this feature for evaluation purposes. Users interested in trying out this feature can enable it, for the time being, by user script) ... See also info at commons:Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 12:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Anybody who has edited through Wikipedia's mobile view would have noticed the way mobile diffs are displayed. I'm not aware if a similar proposal was made earlier or not.
In my view, the viewing of the edit count and user rights should be discontinued and replaced with quick links to talk page and contribs. It is not difficult to understand the motivations which might have led the devs to work it out that way. They must have felt that mobile editors won't be serious and thus showing them the edit count was a way of egging them on to continue making edits. That still doesn't justify the viewing of user rights, though. SD0001 ( talk) 13:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- The editor's edit count is shown prominently at the bottom, encouraging editcountitis.
- Also displayed prominently are the user rights held by the editor. This promotes WP:Hat collecting.
[citation needed]. -- Izno ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The counter argument: What permissions a user has can be useful as you know you can come to them for help, for instance a file mover or more prominently an admin. Editcountitus is not necessarily a bad thing. It can encourage more editing, which you could argue leads to recklessness, but in general more editing is encouraged regardless of the motive. — MusikAnimal talk 18:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
MusikAnimal raises a good point. Editcountitis could be useful motivation. But it would be beneficial to make links to talk page easier to access. Tony Tan98 · talk 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MusikAnimal and Tony Tan. They make great points. Users would be able to know their user rights by viewing them. Sam.gov ( talk) 22:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments not relevant to the proposal collapsed
|
---|
::@
TheDJ: I can't even remember editing on mobile. If I did, it was very rare, and they way differences/changes are displayed is confusing to me. It should say differences and prevs are displayed in "so and so" color. I might experiment on the mobile platform myself and draw my conclusions from there.
Sam.gov (
talk) 20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
|
There's been WikiScanner before but apparently it shut down for some reason and the successor WikiWatchdog only shows edits for user-specified IP-addresses.
I think it would be time for a new WikiScanner - or an extension of WikiWatchdog to make use of publicly available IP-addresses of various relevant institutions/organizations.
And additionally it might be useful if one could truly subscribe to various of these IP-ranges to have them in a single stream/watchlist.
If this suggestion is only viable as an improvement to WikiWatchdog I'd like to know if there is a way to contact the developers on Wikipedia.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 18:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
A very, very common issue on enwiki is that new users use their userpage to draft articles. No matter what the nature of the article, it won't take much before someone comes along and tags it as WP:U5 or WP:G11, when it would be considered perfectly acceptable in a sandbox or in the draftspace. You also have Special:AbuseFilter/466 and Special:AbuseFilter/499 that bear many false positives because of this issue. Furthermore, userpages are indexed by search engines. This means if the author abandons the draft, you'll still have other new users coming to edit it years later, thinking it's an actual article. So, I'm proposing we use an editnotice to show a friendly message telling new users what a user page is for and where articles should normally be drafted. We can utilize parser functions to ensure the notice is only shown for new users editing their own user page. It is my understanding that we should not worry about performance. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal talk 17:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have created User:MusikAnimal/userpagenotice which is a draft of what I think the editnotice should say. Please feel free to edit it. The idea here is to keep it as brief as possible and avoid all the complicated policy stuff. The boldened "userspace draft" link is the one we want them to click on. I was considering even including the "create userspace draft" form in the editnotice, like the one seen at Help:Userspace draft. However I believe if they type anything in the userpage edit box, then try to create a userspace draft using the form and submit it, their browser will prompt them about leaving the page with unsaved changes. That might lead the to hit save, which is probably not what they want to do. So maybe the form is best left out.
Thanks to all of you for your input and help! — MusikAnimal talk 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@ MusikAnimal: I think I had that same problem about the browser prompting me about unsaved changes even though I think I already saved them. I think that should be taken into consideration. Sam.gov ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as an update, I have been trying to make this work on
testwiki with no luck as of yet. The {{
currentuser}} template here on wiki just uses the
magic word {{REVISIONUSER}}
which only works when substituted, and in the case of the editnotice it just returns a blank string. Does anyone know of a way to reliable grab the current user's username? —
MusikAnimal
talk 05:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Pinging
Chillum,
Ruslik0 —
MusikAnimal
talk 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{User:MusikAnimal/userpagenotice}}}}
except of course transcluding a message from mainspace.
Pathore (
talk) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Thank you! I've added the PAGEID check to ensure it only shows when creating the page. I've tested this on testwiki with testwiki:Template:Userpagenotice and testwiki:MediaWiki:Editnotice-2 and it appears to work. Try creating/editing user pages there. I'm happy with this approach if everyone else is.
I've only one last concern – if the user follows the links to create their userspace draft, which is in fact what we want, it will add {{ userspace draft}} to the top with a button to submit the article for review. This in theory is good, but AfC is perpetually backlogged (though surprisingly low right now!), and we may end up with a surge of new submissions from users thinking they're actually publishing it to the mainspace – or simply don't know that it may take weeks before their article gets looked at. So, I was wondering if we should include a link to move the page as well, like User:MusikAnimal/Userspace draft move. The link would bring you to Special:MovePage with the fields filled in. Thoughts on that? Again feel free to edit User:MusikAnimal/Userspace draft move, I actually couldn't get the "move" link to work. — MusikAnimal talk 06:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, we have one more problem (I keep saying that, so maybe not the only one). I realized the copy "this is your userpage" will be inaccurate when editing someone else's userpage. I would imagine the user could figure that much out, but perhaps it's better to reword with something like "this is Example's userpage". I've made this change at the template's new home at at {{ base userpage editnotice}}. How does that sound? — MusikAnimal talk 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Done Editnotice is live and {{ base userpage editnotice}} fully protected due to high visibility. I'll keep an eye on the relevant edit filters to see what kind of difference the editnotice makes. Thanks for all of your help. — MusikAnimal talk 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Started some documentation at Wikipedia:Editnotice#User and user talk. -- Gadget850 talk 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been mention because this thread is quite long to read but we really should direct users to create drafts in the Draft: namespace as is preferred for drafts to allow collaborative editing and prevent multiple drafts of the same subject. Most AfC reviewers including mmyself move drafts to the draft namespace before I do anything else with them. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 16:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Could an id be added so that it can be hidden ? Thanks, Cenarium ( talk) 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
editnotice-base-userpage
since apparently there's no support for an id parameter on {{
ombox}} and {{
message box}} (even though it says there is for the latter). —
MusikAnimal
talk 22:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The editnotice even shows up on User:Sandbox, which makes it misleading as the sandbox is NOT meant for "limited autobiographical and personal content." Any way to hide it from that specific page? SD0001 ( talk) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
When creating a new user page, there are now 3 message boxes which appear. These could be a little overwhelming, and perhaps new users will not read them all.
What do people think? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
#editnotice-base-userpage { display:none !important}
to their
common.css. —
MusikAnimal
talk 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The messages displayed (from Template:No article text) when creating a base user page should be:
The message displayed (from an edit notice transcluding Template:Base userpage editnotice) when subsequently editing a base user page should be:
I propose "content" rather than "warning" because I see article-on-user-page as more of a content issue than a "STOP IMMEDIATELY!" type of issue. I propose {{ ombox}} rather than {{ fmbox}} because I think omboxes look better and are more intended for this use. In the case of creating a page, having our current message as an fmbox and the "userspace draft" notice as an ombox should help the latter to stand out. Pathore ( talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
#ifexist
to make {{#ifexist:{{PAGENAME}}/Editnotice||{{base userpage editnotice}}}}
should prevent the new editnotice from being shown if a page editnotice is defined.If possible, I think the editnotice should not be displayed while editing the user pages of others. This solves many problems at once: (i) we would be able to user the original wording - "your", which is better, (ii) we won't see it while editing User:Sandbox, User:Example and other such pages, and (iii) no one will see it while trying to create the user page of an inexistent user. SD0001 ( talk) 13:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@ MusikAnimal: The top part of the editnotice poses more problems than it solves.
I'm in favour of all the aforementioned. SD0001, I have removed the top part. I agree it is not well suited in it's current form, and also the copy clearly needs to be tweaked to be more accurate. We probably don't need to say what can be on the userpage, but more so what can't, as that's the entire reason behind the edit notice to begin with. That is, to prevent misuse of the userpage as a place for drafting articles, which happens far too often.
So for now, let's leave {{ base userpage editnotice}} without the top part, and brainstorm combining Pathore's proposed changes with some better copy – bearing in mind the intent behind the editnotice. I will point out however that brevity is sort of the idea here, if the message is too long they won't read it. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 19:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Display a list with the titles of articles that were deleted unless there is something illegal with their title.
And also their previous titles, because you know, a person can change the title and then delete the article.
This is to improve transparency and could help people to ask undeleting articles because they know the articles existed.
You know, the important organizations that have much money could decide that deletion is a good way to get rid of inconvenient material for them. How could they do it? Creating a new article that doesn't have the inconvenient material and then deleting the old article, both with the same or similar titles. This proposal is a way of putting the power in normal people. Abcdudtc ( talk) 08:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What we could use is an external tool (similar to https://tools.wmflabs.org/grep/?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&ns=0 ), just for log searches. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have corrected messages where I couldn't believe someone had (unwittingly) made a destructive change, but didn't correct it. I think by forcing an editor to preview page first would get rid of a lot of stupid errors (which mostly comprise insertion of <ref></ref>
pair(s). A further refinement would be to keep 'save' disabled until preview returns error-free. (This might require additional coding somewhere to pass an error flag.) --
Unbuttered parsnip (
talk) mytime= Tue 10:43, wikitime= 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
12:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)I was wondering whether the banner message that is given to unregistered users when they go to an edit page might be beefed up perhaps with a recommendation or a stated preference that editors work from accounts.
here is the current message:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.
I have just added a reference to this text at Wikipedia:User access levels#Unregistered users which is also accessed through the shortcut WP:IP. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to present this in the form in which it is presented to "unregistered users" with the beige background and the key image.
Also, is "unregistered user" the most appropriate description? Some users may be registered but, either by intent or otherwise, they may have failed to log in. Greg Kaye 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all esp: xaosflux. could a text be added such as "... and other editors may appreciate working with you by a name and not a number." Alternatively a search available username facility may add emphasis. Are there any other rationales that might be presented to show arguments for logging in. Greg Kaye 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and the community comments phase of the process is approaching conclusion.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.
Those who have not commented yet, are encouraged to do so over the next few days.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.
For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles ( talk) 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Already asked at Wikipedia talk:In the news but I didn't realise that was a low-traffic page when I posted.
Is this the correct venue to put forward a proposal that would affect articles appearing in the ITN section of the main page, but only whilst they appear in ITN? Mjroots ( talk) 08:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.
For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles ( talk) 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
This page contains discussions that have been archived from Village pump (proposals). Please do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to revive any of these discussions, either start a new thread or use the talk page associated with that topic.
< Older discussions · Archives: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z, AA, AB, AC, AD, AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ, AK, AL, AM, AN, AO, AP, AQ, AR · 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Somaly Mam is a former child prostitute from Cambodia. Until 2013 she was heralded internationally as a heroine and advocate, saving thousands of children. Then there was a Newsweek article The Holy Saint (and Sinner) of Sex Trafficking claiming to find holes in her original story [1]. For a normal politician such articles are part of the cut and thrust, but Somaly Mam quietly resigned from all her positions, she said to protect the organisation she founded from ongoing attention. Marie Claire magazine published a piece Somaly Mam's Story: "I didn't lie" , strongly challenging the evidence provided by Newsweek. [2]. The US State Department reports, sex trafficking and underage prostitution is rife across Cambodia. Believe what you like about the details, it is highly unlikely that Somaly Mam's original story is a total and/or proven fabrication.
Nevertheless, the wikipedia article on Somaly Mam is strongly biased against Somaly Mam. It's conclusions are far more definitive and condemning than Newsweek, saying "sex trafficking and abuse claims were disproved" and "she pretended to be a nurse". It provides details of a internal report which sofar has not been publicly disclosed. Her success in advocacy is underplayed. Each section of this article is entirely biased against Somaly Mam. Marie Claire is mentioned, but not the independent investigation that alleged Newsweek undertook poor journalistic practices and false claims.
Although it is possible that editors are following Newsweek's lead, is there is a chance that sex tourists who visit Cambodia go on to edit this page? Yes, we deal with biases and lobbying everyday, but pedophilia is not just an opinion. It's not about one person's reputation. Pedophilia networks use the internet to lure children and hide their tracks. Wikipedia cannot be used as part of this. Not only should the article be cleaned up, we should follow the edits of those who put the page in this state. There may be other damage being done. How can we afford to not check this out? 104.237.54.139 ( talk) 08:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Right now if you place an {{ subst:unsigned}} template (and its many sibling templates), you get something like this:
I suggest changing it to this:
This is all about good faith. Everyone forgets the tildes sometimes, so why should there be a permanent record of a routine ordinary goof? Such a scarlet letter is not good faith. The link on the word unsigned is not vitally important. The signing bots will post on user's talk pages if they forget several times, and experienced Wikipedians will tell new users this too. The worst that happens without it would be that the sign-bots sign a few more posts, which isn't a problem. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 03:00, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
—[[User|''USERNAME'']] ''TIMESTAMP OF EDIT'' (UTC)
yet is encouraged to be used despite the fact it is a template that appears to me and a few others at least to indicate bad faith. What I find even more hilarious is that the following section,
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#sigclean it is indicated that attempts to fake a signature may be edited in a way that changes the signature to the standard form with correct information (—{{
subst:User|USERNAME}} TIMESTAMP OF EDIT (UTC)
) or some even simpler variant. So, why not just dump all of the unsigned templates and make it easy by just one template for all situations? — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
04:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)I am not sure I follow the logic here, and I have studied some.
Please enlighten me. — Keφr 19:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
We could use a variant on User:Oiyarbepsy's proposal:
which is closer to usual sigs, but makes the action clear and retains the link to Wikipedia:Signatures. (See Per procurationem.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Here's my comment blah blah blah. -- xyzq p.p. Example ( talk) 00:00, 12 February 2015
This change would affect all unsigned templates currently in use unsubsted and would therefore change many archive pages etc. Also, this proposal amounts to autosigning, so new users won't learn how to sign properly. Then, once they get above the signing bot's edit threshold of 800 edits, they'll wonder why their signatures don't show up any more. Also, as I have previously said, the template as it stands is not a sign of bad faith. Any reasonable person will understand that people make mistakes -- including experienced users -- and won't hold it against newbies. Per Kephir, I just don't comprehend it. BethNaught ( talk) 08:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a request for comment at Wikipedia_talk:Autopatrolled#Request_for_Comment:_Including_AFC_acceptance, asking for opinions and comments on whether the bar should be shifted for granting the autopatrolled user right. Please make all comments, questions or ideas there.- McMatter ( talk)/( contrib) 20:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
re - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant etc
Don't use capital letters for these psychopaths - it only serves to boost their status.
islamic state; they are not islamic, they are not a state.
They are not even muslims.
isil
isis
Call them daiish – apparently they don't like it and it is used as a derogatory term in some parts of the Middle East. Though even this is just another acronym of islamic state.
Only use lower case type for all internationally recognised terrorist and criminal organisations, and convicted criminals.
Please pass this to your policy making people asap
PWWJ — Preceding unsigned comment added by P W W Jones ( talk • contribs) 21:28, 15 February 2015
I would like to add, regardless of what the sources add, Wikipedia goes by the rules of standard English. If the sources fail to use this, then they fail to be reliable sources.-- Nadirali نادرالی ( talk) 01:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
There is a proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal: Disallow transcluded to-do lists. Please comment there. PrimeHunter ( talk) 23:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
From what I've seen in past years, right now is probably the last chance for a while that we might be able to pass some proposal that will lead to some eventual reduction of the growing admin-work backlogs. We've had three or four recent votes that people probably won't be willing to repeat anytime soon (see here and following, here, here, and maybe here). I'd like to hear evidence either way about what admin-related work is or isn't getting done these days, particularly the work that concerns bad actors (spammers, vandals, socks, etc.), and any proposals anyone wants to make on how to tackle the problem. I'll consider adding any promising proposals to WP:CENT but not to the RfC list, for now, because I don't think it would be smart to string this out 30 days. For recent discussion on the backlogs, see the backlogs mentioned by Risker, here, and search for "backlog" in most of the recent WP:AN archives, for instance here, here, here and here. For an explanation of why it's happening, this chart from the discussion in November (one of the links above) may be helpful:
2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 (projected) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Active admins | 943 | 870 | 766 | 744 | 674 | 633 | 570 |
Admin promotions | 201 | 121 | 78 | 52 | 28 | 34 | 21 |
Admin attrition (actual, not net) | 263 | 194 | 182 | 74 | 98 | 75 | 85 |
Tags added by the edit filter or, when implemented, by bots can be very helpful to track down certain type of vandalism, other inappropriate changes, or wikitext mistakes and visual editor bugs, among other things. Tags are listed at Special:Tags and recent changes can be filtered by tag. However, it is difficult to know when an edit has been checked - one needs to load page history and check manually when not the latest. This is inefficient, but could be improved using the native patrolling feature of mediawiki. For users with permission to patrol (at the moment, autoconfirmed users), a red exclamation mark would be visible next to unpatrolled tagged changes, and when clicking the diff a [mark this revision as patrolled] button would be visible. When patrolled, the red exclamation mark would disappear. Rollback also patrols automatically the reverted edits. Recent changes can be filtered by unpatrolled edits, so with this, we could very easily see which edits have been dealt with, and which still need checking. We could have a list of ignored tags (for example visual editor, HHVM, etc), which don't need to be shown as unpatrolled. It can be implemented without much difficulty, so is this something that we want ? Cenarium ( talk) 12:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I am a relatively new editor and have found the WP 'back of house' to be particularly non-user friendly. I know that I have jumped in at the deep-end, taking on a rather daunting task rather than easing in more progressively and that this has accentuated some of the difficulties I have experienced. I think; however, that my experiences serve to highlight some problematic areas.
I had thought to raise this in a project area but these appear to be inactive so, here goes. I think there are three things that could be done relatively simply that would make all of the 'back of house' content much more accessible for all editors, but particularly new editors.
My ideas are not contingent on restricting access to only logged in users. I have very little idea about how to approach the actual nuts-and-bolts of such a 'project' but I perceive that a lot of the functionality is readily adaptable from what exists. Cinderella157 ( talk) 10:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
For everyone saying we need a 'Portal'... We already have one, it's even linked from the sidebar. We could probably take better care of it though :) — TheDJ ( talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of the pre-speedy deletion tag failing to gain consensus, I propose we change NPP to allow a reviewer to take an article under their wing, to be exclusively their review project. AFC allows a user to mark an article as under review, this is effectively what I'm proposing.
Benefits:
Example tag:
{{ User:Unit388/draft-review|Unit388}}
Don't fear change people. Unit388 ( talk) 02:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
take an article under their wing, to be exclusively their review project(emphasis mine) sounds like a proposal to weaken WP:OWN. Unless, I've misunderstood something here, my position on this proposal is "No... just.... no". Pathore ( talk) 06:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
+1. Supporting Peridon's 'oppose' arguments. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 06:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that Unit388 is
selectively
canvassing editors for support on the above two proposals.
Reso
lute 19:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
{{
Under construction}}
, and I don't see the point in duplicating it. And I especially don't want to see AfDs with oppose comments like "You can't delete this article on my basement web business! It's tagged as under review!" and I'm worried that this opens that door.
Ivanvector (
talk) 15:38, 9 February 2015 (UTC)Now when I want to compare edits that are not recent, I have to scroll back up after marking the two versions. Some-times this is a long scroll. Couldn't we have the 'Compare these two versions' tab along the left side in a way that we can simply click on it with-out having to scroll up? Kdammers ( talk) 13:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Indef blocking/banning looks like the death penalty on wikipedia. I know there are procedures to appeal and ways to have clean start, but I still think that indef blocking/banning is unnecessary radical and extreme measurement. Even in case of most blatant vandals, after substantial time period has passed, say five years, the circumstances in terms of wikipedia editing should be much different. I think that by limiting period of ban or block to maximum 5 years most wikipedia editors who were indef banned or blocked would return to constructive editing without having to go to tiresome and sometimes unfair procedures like appeals. This could significantly increase the number of editors of wikipedia. Thoughts?-- Antidiskriminator ( talk) 14:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Under Articles for Deletion policy there is the ambiguous procedure for notifying interested people, limited by the terms of WP:CANVASS, placing the burden on the nominating editor, who already has skin in the game, a declared POV to advocate. I would like to propose this process be automated. Also, in order to generate comment from people knowledgeable about the subject, if any wikiprojects are identified with subject of the article, those projects should similarly be notified.
Automating this process eliminates potential bias or canvassing, deliberate or unintentional in any notifications. At the same time, it is reasonable to assume it will improve the discussion of each AfD by notifying people interested in the subject. This process should be carried over to other "for deletion" or euphemistically "for discussion" situations. Trackinfo ( talk) 19:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
What about notifying the user of every edit thad added or removed more than 1,000 characters? Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:00, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
===All authors must be notified of deletion===
- Proposal: The first creator, or everybody who has contributed to an article, must be warned on their talk page of a deletion debate of that article.
- Reasons for previous rejection: Excessive bureaucracy; people are expected to keep pages important to them on their watchlist. The "first creator" is meaningless for many articles, as this person may have long since left or made few contributions; "everybody" can number several hundred people, including those who have made trivial edits to the article and aren't concerned whether or not it's deleted. Regardless, editors are encouraged to notify the original author or the main contributors of an article when their article is nominated for deletion, as it is considered courteous; this is strictly optional. This puts less requirements for a deletion proposal than for a Featured Article review, for which all main contributors must be notified.
There is a clear consensus for this proposal. Mdann52 ( talk · contribs) has filed a Phabricator request at Phab:T91934. Cunard ( talk) 00:16, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
The autochecked usergroup has no use since its unique permission, 'autoreview', is possessed by all autoconfirmed users, and in order to be effectively autoreviewed, 'autoconfirmed' is checked too. Due to the way FlaggedRevs is written and for compatibilities with other configs, it is not possible to make it into a potentially useful group as was thought originally. Therefore, I suggest to simply delete it. Cenarium ( talk) 09:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
There is only a consensus for implementation if and only if an rfc concerning criteria for its use gains community-wide consensus first.( PC/RfC 2013),
there is consensus for proposals 1 and 2 and 7 to be used as criteria, but only if PC2 is implemented in the future.( PC/RfC 2014) then it is improper to delete this usergroup there certainly is potential and we just need to put the pieces together in the 2015 proposal and see if there is consensus to establish PC2 using the wording in proposals 1, 2, and 7. —
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
17:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
19:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
This would be a new right that allows experienced users with this right to delete pages with a CSD tag on them and to remove that CSD tag after a successful appeal. They would only be able to delete content that they have not tagged. CSD guidelines are very clear cut and do not need an admin knowledge to delete pages. This will not affect XFD.
This right would be granted at
WP:RFR and I suggest that the minimum requirements are:
If there is any doubt, the patroller should lave that case for an administrator to do. This right will greatly take the pressure of admins working in the CSD area. All deletions will be available for an administrator to undo. However, this situation shouldn;t happen regularly as all users should be trusted and knowledgeable. TheMagikCow ( talk) 13:21, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
20:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Also just a comment: CSD Patrollers should only delete content which other users have tagged (no unilateral deletion) and of course there should be a log of all actions done by users with this userright. Ivanvector ( talk) 13:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This is just going to be voted down because of the admin standard for blocking and page deleting, but I would consider it useful. The only thing that I can see going wrong with it is if somebody deliberately goes rogue and decides to apply a tag on a sock account/IP and then be able to delete any page...Presidents, Dictators, media pages, etc. They only need to be quick too, so I don't think that would work. Tutelary ( talk) 14:53, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
This March, we’re organizing an Inspire Campaign to encourage and support new ideas for improving gender diversity on Wikimedia projects. Less than 20% of Wikimedia contributors are women, and many important topics are still missing in our content. We invite all Wikimedians to participate. If you have an idea that could help address this problem, please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 31.
All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Join us at the Inspire Campaign and help this project better represent the world’s knowledge! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 19:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia has
Category:Wikipedians in the Welcoming Committee and
Category:Welcome templates. Those Wikipedians and those templates provide a useful service. I propose that Wikipedia also have automated welcome messages which appear on a user talk page immediately after a new account is registered. The registration process can end with a brief message directing the registrant to the welcome message by means of a link. The brief message might be "You have a welcome message on
your talk page." The welcome message can have a set of useful links. After a predetermined number of edits, another message can appear on the user talk page, politely reminding the editor about those useful links.
—
Wavelength (
talk) 03:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
14:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia needs an easy-to-use template equivalent to the HoverImage template in Wikibooks, for relatively non-technical Wikipedia and Commons users like me:
The Commons library is becoming vast and Wikipedia's use of pictures continues to increase. A picture is worth a thousand words, and a well-done hoverable picture is worth even more.
-- WikiPedant ( talk) 04:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
(NOTE: Posted before I discovered the "Requested Templates" page, and now posted there as well.)
Ah, that b:Template:HoverImage functionality is similar to Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator (This is an experimental installation of this feature for evaluation purposes. Users interested in trying out this feature can enable it, for the time being, by user script) ... See also info at commons:Help:Gadget-ImageAnnotator. -- Atlasowa ( talk) 12:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Anybody who has edited through Wikipedia's mobile view would have noticed the way mobile diffs are displayed. I'm not aware if a similar proposal was made earlier or not.
In my view, the viewing of the edit count and user rights should be discontinued and replaced with quick links to talk page and contribs. It is not difficult to understand the motivations which might have led the devs to work it out that way. They must have felt that mobile editors won't be serious and thus showing them the edit count was a way of egging them on to continue making edits. That still doesn't justify the viewing of user rights, though. SD0001 ( talk) 13:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- The editor's edit count is shown prominently at the bottom, encouraging editcountitis.
- Also displayed prominently are the user rights held by the editor. This promotes WP:Hat collecting.
[citation needed]. -- Izno ( talk) 16:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The counter argument: What permissions a user has can be useful as you know you can come to them for help, for instance a file mover or more prominently an admin. Editcountitus is not necessarily a bad thing. It can encourage more editing, which you could argue leads to recklessness, but in general more editing is encouraged regardless of the motive. — MusikAnimal talk 18:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
MusikAnimal raises a good point. Editcountitis could be useful motivation. But it would be beneficial to make links to talk page easier to access. Tony Tan98 · talk 21:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree with MusikAnimal and Tony Tan. They make great points. Users would be able to know their user rights by viewing them. Sam.gov ( talk) 22:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Comments not relevant to the proposal collapsed
|
---|
::@
TheDJ: I can't even remember editing on mobile. If I did, it was very rare, and they way differences/changes are displayed is confusing to me. It should say differences and prevs are displayed in "so and so" color. I might experiment on the mobile platform myself and draw my conclusions from there.
Sam.gov (
talk) 20:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
|
There's been WikiScanner before but apparently it shut down for some reason and the successor WikiWatchdog only shows edits for user-specified IP-addresses.
I think it would be time for a new WikiScanner - or an extension of WikiWatchdog to make use of publicly available IP-addresses of various relevant institutions/organizations.
And additionally it might be useful if one could truly subscribe to various of these IP-ranges to have them in a single stream/watchlist.
If this suggestion is only viable as an improvement to WikiWatchdog I'd like to know if there is a way to contact the developers on Wikipedia.
-- Fixuture ( talk) 18:54, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
A very, very common issue on enwiki is that new users use their userpage to draft articles. No matter what the nature of the article, it won't take much before someone comes along and tags it as WP:U5 or WP:G11, when it would be considered perfectly acceptable in a sandbox or in the draftspace. You also have Special:AbuseFilter/466 and Special:AbuseFilter/499 that bear many false positives because of this issue. Furthermore, userpages are indexed by search engines. This means if the author abandons the draft, you'll still have other new users coming to edit it years later, thinking it's an actual article. So, I'm proposing we use an editnotice to show a friendly message telling new users what a user page is for and where articles should normally be drafted. We can utilize parser functions to ensure the notice is only shown for new users editing their own user page. It is my understanding that we should not worry about performance. Thoughts? — MusikAnimal talk 17:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I have created User:MusikAnimal/userpagenotice which is a draft of what I think the editnotice should say. Please feel free to edit it. The idea here is to keep it as brief as possible and avoid all the complicated policy stuff. The boldened "userspace draft" link is the one we want them to click on. I was considering even including the "create userspace draft" form in the editnotice, like the one seen at Help:Userspace draft. However I believe if they type anything in the userpage edit box, then try to create a userspace draft using the form and submit it, their browser will prompt them about leaving the page with unsaved changes. That might lead the to hit save, which is probably not what they want to do. So maybe the form is best left out.
Thanks to all of you for your input and help! — MusikAnimal talk 03:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
@ MusikAnimal: I think I had that same problem about the browser prompting me about unsaved changes even though I think I already saved them. I think that should be taken into consideration. Sam.gov ( talk) 20:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Just as an update, I have been trying to make this work on
testwiki with no luck as of yet. The {{
currentuser}} template here on wiki just uses the
magic word {{REVISIONUSER}}
which only works when substituted, and in the case of the editnotice it just returns a blank string. Does anyone know of a way to reliable grab the current user's username? —
MusikAnimal
talk 05:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC) Pinging
Chillum,
Ruslik0 —
MusikAnimal
talk 05:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
{{#ifeq:{{PAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}|{{User:MusikAnimal/userpagenotice}}}}
except of course transcluding a message from mainspace.
Pathore (
talk) 04:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Thank you! I've added the PAGEID check to ensure it only shows when creating the page. I've tested this on testwiki with testwiki:Template:Userpagenotice and testwiki:MediaWiki:Editnotice-2 and it appears to work. Try creating/editing user pages there. I'm happy with this approach if everyone else is.
I've only one last concern – if the user follows the links to create their userspace draft, which is in fact what we want, it will add {{ userspace draft}} to the top with a button to submit the article for review. This in theory is good, but AfC is perpetually backlogged (though surprisingly low right now!), and we may end up with a surge of new submissions from users thinking they're actually publishing it to the mainspace – or simply don't know that it may take weeks before their article gets looked at. So, I was wondering if we should include a link to move the page as well, like User:MusikAnimal/Userspace draft move. The link would bring you to Special:MovePage with the fields filled in. Thoughts on that? Again feel free to edit User:MusikAnimal/Userspace draft move, I actually couldn't get the "move" link to work. — MusikAnimal talk 06:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, we have one more problem (I keep saying that, so maybe not the only one). I realized the copy "this is your userpage" will be inaccurate when editing someone else's userpage. I would imagine the user could figure that much out, but perhaps it's better to reword with something like "this is Example's userpage". I've made this change at the template's new home at at {{ base userpage editnotice}}. How does that sound? — MusikAnimal talk 17:36, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Done Editnotice is live and {{ base userpage editnotice}} fully protected due to high visibility. I'll keep an eye on the relevant edit filters to see what kind of difference the editnotice makes. Thanks for all of your help. — MusikAnimal talk 16:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Started some documentation at Wikipedia:Editnotice#User and user talk. -- Gadget850 talk 10:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been mention because this thread is quite long to read but we really should direct users to create drafts in the Draft: namespace as is preferred for drafts to allow collaborative editing and prevent multiple drafts of the same subject. Most AfC reviewers including mmyself move drafts to the draft namespace before I do anything else with them. EoRdE6( Come Talk to Me!) 16:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Could an id be added so that it can be hidden ? Thanks, Cenarium ( talk) 22:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
editnotice-base-userpage
since apparently there's no support for an id parameter on {{
ombox}} and {{
message box}} (even though it says there is for the latter). —
MusikAnimal
talk 22:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
The editnotice even shows up on User:Sandbox, which makes it misleading as the sandbox is NOT meant for "limited autobiographical and personal content." Any way to hide it from that specific page? SD0001 ( talk) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
When creating a new user page, there are now 3 message boxes which appear. These could be a little overwhelming, and perhaps new users will not read them all.
What do people think? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 12:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
#editnotice-base-userpage { display:none !important}
to their
common.css. —
MusikAnimal
talk 16:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
The messages displayed (from Template:No article text) when creating a base user page should be:
The message displayed (from an edit notice transcluding Template:Base userpage editnotice) when subsequently editing a base user page should be:
I propose "content" rather than "warning" because I see article-on-user-page as more of a content issue than a "STOP IMMEDIATELY!" type of issue. I propose {{ ombox}} rather than {{ fmbox}} because I think omboxes look better and are more intended for this use. In the case of creating a page, having our current message as an fmbox and the "userspace draft" notice as an ombox should help the latter to stand out. Pathore ( talk) 23:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
#ifexist
to make {{#ifexist:{{PAGENAME}}/Editnotice||{{base userpage editnotice}}}}
should prevent the new editnotice from being shown if a page editnotice is defined.If possible, I think the editnotice should not be displayed while editing the user pages of others. This solves many problems at once: (i) we would be able to user the original wording - "your", which is better, (ii) we won't see it while editing User:Sandbox, User:Example and other such pages, and (iii) no one will see it while trying to create the user page of an inexistent user. SD0001 ( talk) 13:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@ MusikAnimal: The top part of the editnotice poses more problems than it solves.
I'm in favour of all the aforementioned. SD0001, I have removed the top part. I agree it is not well suited in it's current form, and also the copy clearly needs to be tweaked to be more accurate. We probably don't need to say what can be on the userpage, but more so what can't, as that's the entire reason behind the edit notice to begin with. That is, to prevent misuse of the userpage as a place for drafting articles, which happens far too often.
So for now, let's leave {{ base userpage editnotice}} without the top part, and brainstorm combining Pathore's proposed changes with some better copy – bearing in mind the intent behind the editnotice. I will point out however that brevity is sort of the idea here, if the message is too long they won't read it. Thanks — MusikAnimal talk 19:47, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Proposal: Display a list with the titles of articles that were deleted unless there is something illegal with their title.
And also their previous titles, because you know, a person can change the title and then delete the article.
This is to improve transparency and could help people to ask undeleting articles because they know the articles existed.
You know, the important organizations that have much money could decide that deletion is a good way to get rid of inconvenient material for them. How could they do it? Creating a new article that doesn't have the inconvenient material and then deleting the old article, both with the same or similar titles. This proposal is a way of putting the power in normal people. Abcdudtc ( talk) 08:08, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
What we could use is an external tool (similar to https://tools.wmflabs.org/grep/?lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&ns=0 ), just for log searches. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have corrected messages where I couldn't believe someone had (unwittingly) made a destructive change, but didn't correct it. I think by forcing an editor to preview page first would get rid of a lot of stupid errors (which mostly comprise insertion of <ref></ref>
pair(s). A further refinement would be to keep 'save' disabled until preview returns error-free. (This might require additional coding somewhere to pass an error flag.) --
Unbuttered parsnip (
talk) mytime= Tue 10:43, wikitime= 02:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
{{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
12:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC){{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
16:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)I was wondering whether the banner message that is given to unregistered users when they go to an edit page might be beefed up perhaps with a recommendation or a stated preference that editors work from accounts.
here is the current message:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to a user name, among other benefits.
I have just added a reference to this text at Wikipedia:User access levels#Unregistered users which is also accessed through the shortcut WP:IP. I was wondering if it would be appropriate to present this in the form in which it is presented to "unregistered users" with the beige background and the key image.
Also, is "unregistered user" the most appropriate description? Some users may be registered but, either by intent or otherwise, they may have failed to log in. Greg Kaye 09:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you all esp: xaosflux. could a text be added such as "... and other editors may appreciate working with you by a name and not a number." Alternatively a search available username facility may add emphasis. Are there any other rationales that might be presented to show arguments for logging in. Greg Kaye 12:02, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and the community comments phase of the process is approaching conclusion.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination subpages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.
Those who have not commented yet, are encouraged to do so over the next few days.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.
For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles ( talk) 07:26, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Already asked at Wikipedia talk:In the news but I didn't realise that was a low-traffic page when I posted.
Is this the correct venue to put forward a proposal that would affect articles appearing in the ITN section of the main page, but only whilst they appear in ITN? Mjroots ( talk) 08:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.
Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.
Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.
The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.
For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles ( talk) 06:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)