Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Pxos, and welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Happy editing!
Yes, thank you! It is the most important line in the whole message box, which seem to originate from the year 2009 as supplementary messages but these supplementary messages have for some reason become the only message provided to donors. --Pxos (talk) 02:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hey Pxos,
I wanted to ask for your help. As you may be aware we have been running banners on many language wikis. We have a lot of new content this year and I really want to conduct a thorough review of our translations. This is a combination of feedback from the community, readers, donors as well as those with professional translator experience. This will help us ensure the highest quality of translations used in our messaging.
To help us out with this I wonder if you would be willing to give us feedback for Finnish using This Link
Simply follow the simple instructions on that page and if you have any questions feel free to contact me on my talk page.
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion
Per Ajr's comment comment on the request page to move the discussion - Yes if this occur again you should refer to the ACC processes since this is exactly what we do. Yes this was messed up by a user who had a clear mis understanding of what fiwiki can do and what stewards are able to do as well as apparently the technical limitations. I've spoke with them and hopefully resolved the issue internally and this in future will not happen again. Should it happen again to any use you notice - just poke me and I'll see why. Thanks, John F. Lewis (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Well as we have analysed on the English Wikipedia, there were several contributing factors involved. I don't think you should lay the blame just on a single user who obviously tried to help. If there hadn't been a range block in place and if the user had waited before unifying the Finnish account with the SUL system, he wouldn't have faced any major problems. If there is a SUL account and the user is himself able to automatically create an account on the English Wikipedia, he won't need the ACC process at all. On the other hand, if the user cannot create a username because of the SUL conflict, the ACC process will fail as well. In conclusion, the ACC process should NOT be recommended as a first resort to tackle problems of this kind. One should rather contact the English Wikipedia bureaucrats straight away. --Pxos (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes and no. ACC is in place to assist users with creating accounts and overcoming SUL conflicts (we can do this). This was a rare case because the username 'Jiwe' was already being used on enwiki thus ACC could not create an account because the user was already in use which meant a bureaucrat was needed to rename the account to free it up. The rangeblock is in place for a reason as determined by a CheckUser, so we can not decide whether it is useful or a hinder as we do not have access to the information he did when making the range block. If there was no range block - the user and ACC process should would not be able to help as 'Jiwe' would still have been an account requiring a bureaucrat anyway. Also if the user had created a unified account already - it still would not be possible as 'Jiwe' still would have existed. I hope you get I am putting emphasis on the only problem here is that the account the user wanted already existed. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
ACC has no way of creating an account which is reserved for an SUL; nobody is able to do this. This case was particular in that it required a usurption and then an account creation, but in either case, a bureaucrat would be required since it requires renaming. Unless I'm missing some tool that the ACC has (in which case, it would be helpful to make it more widely available since the ACC exists only on enwiki) Ajraddatz (talk) 16:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Actually AFAIK at the time, the username was no reserved for SUL. It was the classic 'override antispoof to create' assuming the account did not exist on enwiki. John F. Lewis (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Dear Pxos, since you are an administrator on a wiki from which no user participated in this discussion, I'd like to make sure you are aware of some recent events which may alter what the Wikimedia Foundation lets you do on your wiki: Superprotect.
Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! I noticed your edit to the chart. If I remember correctly, 6 months were set in order to prevent long usernames of new global sysops to be cut off. Do you also have a solution to this problem by any chance (for example how to move the username more to the left in case it is too far on the right)? Kind regards, Vogone (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes I do. You use the shift parameter which I have demonstrated here. The first number defines left–right shift and the second is the vertical alignment. At least I have a tendency to think that the right border is the present day so with this solution the added time can be further reduced, perhaps to a week. --Pxos (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
Ahaa, kiitos paljon tiedosta. Se siis toimii samalla transkluusiolla kuin mallineet. No, olkoon toistaiseksi pois sen aikaa kun tutustun tai jätän tutustumatta tähän uutuuteen. Ajatella, että tämä sama informaatio näkyy nyt kaikkialla. Se on jotain se. --Pxos (talk) 11:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi,
You get this message because you’ve previously participated in the Community Wishlist Survey. I just wanted to let you know that this year’s survey is now open for proposals. You can suggest technical changes until 11 November: Community Wishlist Survey 2019.
You can vote from November 16 to November 30. To keep the number of messages at a reasonable level, I won’t send out a separate reminder to you about that. /Johan (WMF)11:25, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
