User talk:Anonymous Dissident/archive 3

Latest comment: 15 years ago by AdjustShift in topic Hey!

Changing Meta-Wiki Username, then Re-Unify?

edit

Anonymous Dissident:

Could you help me change my username here on meta-wiki, and then help me re-unify it (if that's possible)?

Trtam 06:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course. What would you like to change your username to? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would like to change it to TravisDST so it's the same on Wikipedia. Trtam 18:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry! I forgot about the case-sensitivity. It should be all lowercase except for the first character = Travisdst. Could you change it? Sorry again! TravisDST 05:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Admin rights

edit

Hi, Anonymous Dissident. It happened something wrong with what I did? Thanks. Alex Pereira falaê 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

No, I got mixed up. Apparently, we can read each others' mind. ;) I was about to promote Seth, so I closed the RfA first, but you were promoting him at the exact same time. I got confused somehow. I've fixed it all. Thanks, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Ok. Really, we can read each others' mind... lol. Thanks. Alex Pereira falaê 12:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia/Logo discussion

edit

Hello! I am writing you because of your involvement at Talk:Errors in the Wikipedia logo. This is a message to inform all the Wikipedias that there is an ongoing project to fix the errors in the Wikipedia logo. There's also a plan to add more characters in the blank spaces and find characters for the other sides of the globe. Feel to visit Wikipedia/Logo on Meta-Wiki and discuss it on the talk page. Thank you, and see you there! Cary Bass demandez 19:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)Reply

Wikispecies

edit

Wikispecies needs your help, check your talk page over there. OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

re: Deletion

edit

Hello Anonymous Dissident, thanks, I have done that now, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Confirmation of user rights

edit

Hi,

Just letting you know that your user rights are up for confirmation this quarter; the discussion is currently taking place at Meta:Administrators/confirm.

Cheers,
Daniel (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2009 (UTC)Reply


hello dear me

edit

After all this contributions on translating and editing the contents of this home page الصفحة الرئيسية why I am not authorised to continue the work on it. it seems there isn’t any corporation. I am very sorry for this action….? ترجمان05 18:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry about that, ترجمان, I unprotected it for you. If you run into any more problems, please don't hesitate to poke me on my talk page. Thank you for your efforts to enhance Meta's multilingual support. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 19:13, 21 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yo

edit

Just double-checking to make sure you got my response. Given your email, I felt like silence on my end would come across very, very badly. ;) EVula // talk // // 06:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Responded. :) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Your decision

edit

I respect your decision (even if I disagree with it :) ) and I appreciate that you took the time to deliberate. Thank you, AD. -- Avi 17:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Avi, I think you have all the makings of a steward - except the interwiki experience. Thus, I find a support likely next year if you have any plans on expanding your horizons at all. But that's entirely up to you. Good luck nonetheless. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

blocking

edit

Hello Anonymous Dissident, while it is sometimes essential to block first and talk later (e.g. user blanking or moving pages fast), in case of User talk:Buehlermotor I disagree very with this practice, he created one page Special:DeletedContributions/Buehlermotor, got one warning on his usertalk by someone else and was blocked? I unblocked this user now, but I'd like to ask You kindly to rethink such blocking practice, because what might be offtopic for Meta might not be for other projects and some may become valuable contributors to our projects. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 15:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps you did not read the article? I felt that it was promotional of the company. In addition to that, his username reflects this. The fact that he created a promotional article that matched his username was enough to convince me. I won't re-block, but surely you see my reasoning? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 20:56, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I did read the article, even if promotional the user can be warned and it can be explained to him, why it is not something useful for our projects, I still don't see a reason for an indefinit block for adding this one time, if he would continue to add it although warned, that would be more appropriate imho. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, I guess we'll have to differ. The fact that the user made a promotional article matching his username pretty much closes the matter up for me. In the strictest of policy, his username is a violation anyway. We're not supposed to allow usernames that make reference to real groups; it indicates a COI, which is clearly present in this case. Oh well. Cheers, Anonymous Dissident (IP)
This is not Wikipedia, and even if You think the username is a violation, You can softblock it. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 21:40, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I don't believe I said it was. All I know is that Wikimedia's views on spam and what is acceptable for a username is global. Anonymous Dissident.
There are 0 links in that page, so how can that be spam.
It is just an offtopic page, and even if it would have contained spamlinks a block without explaining first that this site is not for hosting some advertising is imho in this case not the treatment I would expect and I believe that blocks can drive people away... Maybe he would have been interested in editing projects with valuable contributions, but after that rather not, but that is all speculations and just my personal opinion. Fact is I unblocked him based on his message on his unblock request on his talk and I disagree with this block, I just wanted to let You know of my opinion, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 02:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Back; I can certify that the IP was me. Coming back to the point, I'm not going to concede here. So I'll guess we'll both have to have our view. I understand this is not Wikipedia (and I don't particularly appreciate the reference, as if to imply I was naive to Meta's policies), but Wikipedia's policy on the matter is the closest and best-written we've got since Meta doesn't have its own policy (if I'm mistaken, then it needs to be added to Meta:Policy; I looked there and everywhere else, and there isn't a policy.) I think most of what's on the Wikipedia page is of global application anyway. This account created a promotional article about a corporation that matched its username. It seems common sense to me that such an account is not here for WMF documentation and has a clear conflict of interest. How does this sound as a compromise: the user is requested to change their username to one that is less promotional, and then their edits can be watched to see if they re-offend. If not, that's great and I'll be glad to accept that I was wrong. Aside from this particular instance, I think it'd be a good idea for a formal policy to be drawn up on usernames; perhaps I'll raise the issue at Wikimedia Forum. Your thoughts? —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, but I don't think there needs to be a policy for everything and this is something that I'd call common sense. Imho opinion blocking is only for preventing damage, not to teach someone or even punish (was not the case here). I don't understand why that even had to be discussed so long, I just informed You that I disagree with a block of You and why, unblocked because of an unblock request and asked You politely to rethink this blocking practice for good, You can disagree with me or even reblock him, that is all Your decision then, best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 05:43, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see your point, but, put it this way: if there were a policy, our discussion would not have been so extended. I have no plans to re-block; that'd be rude and inviting of conflict. I might still bring the matter up at the Forum; feel free to participate if you like. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just to randomly weigh in (since I popped over here from the Babel discussion that was spawned from this discussion), I don't see what the problem with AD's block is; a user created an obviously promotional article with the same name as his wiki name. That's about as blatant evidence that the user isn't here for Meta's true purpose as it can get. I don't see how driving people (that only want to create spam articles here) away is a bad thing. EVula // talk // // 06:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Birdy. And EVula, it is quite a jump from seeing someone writing about themselves (which you call a "promotional article") to conclude that that person "only want to create spam articles". Hillgentleman 09:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't themselves; it was a company, and it was written in such a way as to present the company in a biased light, complete with a listing of products and a link to an external website. And I think you've extrapolated things a bit there, and it's not entirely fair. My comment is that writing promotional content that coincides with a user's account name is very indicative that the user is not here for Meta's real purpose. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
So we should delete and ignore, and assume good faith. Block if they become persistent. Hillgentleman 10:09, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I respect what you're saying, and your argument has some merit and I see your point. However, as I said above, I'm not going to concede. I stand by my action, and I'll try to elaborate as exhaustively as I am currently able on why. People coming onto the Wikimedia projects to promote their companies or corporations is a problem common to each and every one of them, and assuming good faith comes to a point. It is a generally useful principle, but pages I've read on it typically state that dogmatically following the guideline of AGF when there is strong evidence to the contrary is not productive. I consider this instance strong evidence to the contrary; the reasons why have been outlined by me above three or four times. Even though it was a first offence by the user, I felt that other actions by the user taken prior to the creation of the page were strongly suggestive of what he was blocked for. I refer, of course, to his registration of an account that had a username that matched the name of the article he would go on to create, a username that also matches the name of a real company. Coupled with the content he created, this is something I believe to be a blatant violation of our doctrines on the promotion of external groups. Assuming good faith in this situation would have been an action taken only to tick off a box on a checklist, not because it was common sense to do so; and that's where the key difference is. Returning to the broader issue, we'd not be having this discussion, which has been needlessly prolonged, if we were to codify some policy on the matter, and that's why I've taken the issue to Babel. To use a word EVula used, "winging it" all the time will not work, because then it just comes down to admin viewpoints when blocks occur. We need a better benchmark. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see Your points. You are referring to your proposal of a username policy (as indicated by your reference to "winging it"). You have got to get your points straight. What could help you in that case is instead a block policy which says certain behaviours are considered "spamming" and blockable. Hillgentleman 10:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's what I meant; sorry I didn't make that clear. But, do you see my point about AGF? "Assuming good faith" on one hand while waiting in the wings for a user to re-offend is entirely hypocritical and, more than that, counter-productive. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 11:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Eh, I totally disagree; when a user's very first edits are spam, I can't imagine them turning right around and suddenly discussing cross-wiki matters. AGF is something that can safely be abandoned in the face of blatant evidence; a user creating a spam article on Meta (if it was on en.wiki, there'd at least be some sort of argument that they were trying to write an encyclopedia article) about a company that they have based their username on counts as blatant evidence, in my opinion. *shrug* I honestly don't think we're biting anyone unnecessarily with the block. They're likely to not even so much as come back after the page is deleted even without the block, so I don't see it as a net loss for the project regardless. EVula // talk // // 23:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

File:Gefahr.jpg

edit

Before deleting a file, mentioning it was "useless", you should check whether it might be in use. Greets --Dan-yell 22:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No, the predominant reason was a lack of sourcing. That's not my fault, that's yours or whoever else forgot to source the image properly. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Deo Volente

edit

Sorry. Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 08:46, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem, just please appreciate the importance of the integrity of another person's statement and don't alter someone else's comments again. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:48, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ok! Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

User:Anonymous Dissident/Ageism

edit

Hi. I've read through User:Anonymous Dissident/Ageism, and I just wanted to let you know that I think it's a great essay. Captures my thoughts precisely. –Juliancolton (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

...well, it was, anyway. :) –Juliancolton (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
It was a useful essay, I just want to change some of the sentence structure and the phrasing. Thanks, though. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Question

edit

Did you notice that I voted twice for EdBever by accident? XD. Cheers, Razorflame 22:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

floodflag

edit

Yeah, I was just in a hurry. I guess I should have asked someone else to give me flood. Will try to do it in the future. --FiliP × 10:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Inactive admin

edit

Hi A.D., user:Benjamin-no (formerly kph) has been retired from wikimedia since september last year, I wrote him an e-mail asking about why the account still was sysop/'crat at Meta, and he answered that the rights should of course be removed. I didn't pursue this issue further since I thought he would be up for regular confirmation april 1st, now I just realised that confirmation has been abolished. So could you please advice me what I/we should do about this now? (I will of course forward the e-mail exchange to a meta-'crat or steward if requested). Finn Rindahl 13:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Since the user has stated that he no longer feels the need for his tools and has effectively requested they be removed, I will do such now. See Meta talk:Administrators/confirm for the current procedure on access removal. Best, —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
In addition, he hasn't been around for close to a year, and thus does not meet the threshold that gained consensus at the same talk page in January. Open and shut case. Done. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
(ec)Thanks! I did have a look at that talk page before posting here, but I must confess I'm still a little confused about what the current procedure of access removal is. We'd probably need to implement some routines similar to the the inactivity desysop at Commons, but being the most newbie admin around here I'll leave sorting that out up to others ;) Regards, Finn Rindahl 13:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Not a problem. :-) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 13:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

On Meta's Role in the Years to Come

edit

Hi A.D., I just read On Meta's Role in the Years to Come, it was interresting and encouraging thoughts, and as a eager (though sometimes frustrated) Commons-janitor I particularly liked your reference to the Commons-Wikipedia relationship as a positive model for what we should strive to achieve in crosswikicooperation. There are many challenges, and new ones will rise, but it was very refreshing to read an essay that focus on positive experience, possibilities and hope for future growth and not on past failures, impossibilities and problems! Belated congrats for receiving community trust in your en:wiki RfB btw (I read Rfx's there, but I don't participate). Regards, Finn Rindahl 09:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, Finn. It's something I feel strongly about as well. We need to increase cross-wiki integration and focus that integration on Meta. And I appreciate the congratulations for the RfB. :-) —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Licensing update/CentralNotice

edit

hello, thanks for your helping of updating the lzh one, however, since we are still using the old invented code zh-classical, we need to update the one with this old code too, just like what yue do :MediaWiki:Centralnotice-licensingvote-intro-text/yue, MediaWiki:Centralnotice-licensingvote-intro-text/zh-yue. Can you create corresponding Centralnotice, just like MediaWiki:Centralnotice-licensingvote-intro-text/zh-classical, MediaWiki:Centralnotice-licensingvote-vote-text/zh-classical, which have the same message with the lzh one, to fix the problems? Thanks!--Itsmine 11:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

  DoneAnonymous DissidentTalk 13:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Making sure you see this...

edit

[1]

Transwiki'ing is something I know absolutely nothing about, so I can't tell if this is a valid complaint or not. *shrug* EVula // talk // // 14:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

He forgot to note that it was in the "Manual" namespace on mw.org, should be fixed now. ;-) Cbrown1023 talk 14:59, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I just forgot the first parameter of the template. Thanks for fixing it, Casey. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 23:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey!

edit

Dear Anonymous Dissident, I'm only active on en.wiki so far. I want to contribute to other projects of Wikimedia Foundation. Can you give me some tips on how start here? Have a nice day, AdjustShift 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much, Anonymous Dissident. I read you Beyond the English Wikipedia essay about an hour ago. I'm an admin on en.wiki, but I've not contributed to other projects of Wikimedia Foundation. I'm looking beyond the English Wikipedia! :-) Have a nice day, AdjustShift 15:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Many thanks for your affectionate note. :-) AdjustShift 15:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)Reply
Return to the user page of "Anonymous Dissident/archive 3".
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous_Dissident/archive_3
meta.m.wikimedia.org
CC-MAIN-2024-30
222886
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5QVG5CSCFUYY2YOPCQRS2O44GYMFJZEK
<urn:uuid:e966624a-b0b9-44ce-8045-39a93a9d55b9>
2024-07-13T06:11:28Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:LFISO3QT27F34QWARYJZ7WJAJHMXQIVW
<urn:uuid:1f352705-1d15-461d-b45a-8c42d0321cd7>
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonymous_Dissident/archive_3
response
<urn:uuid:93956b2c-bafe-43e8-b51b-dfff0ea5a16d>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-30
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for July 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-32
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/