User talk:HaeB

Willkommen bei Meta!

Meta-Wiki ist die mehrsprachige Webseite über alle Wikimediaprojekte, weshalb auf Meta nicht nur englische sondern auch deutsche Dokumente liegen.

Der Inhalt von Meta verteilt sich auf vier Kategorien: Diskussionen über die Wikimediaprojekte, Veröffentlichungen der persönlichen Essays, Internationale Koordination besonders Übersetzungen und Entwicklung der MediaWikisoftware. Weitere Informationen: Meta:About (en).

Hier sind einige nützliche Links:

• Hauptseiten: de - en
• Neuigkeiten: en
• Übersetzungsanträge: de - en
  • Übersetzung des Foundationsrundschreiben: Translation requests/WQ/3
  • Wahl 2005
• Meta:Babel: "Ich brauche Hilfe" auf Meta für alle Sprachen.
  • Translator's noticeboard: Portal für Übersetzung, bekannt mit Nebenname, Babylon
• Categories: Liste der Hauptkategorien auf Meta

Kurz, Willkommen und viel Spass!--Aphaia | WQ2翻訳中 | talk 00:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My username on meta and de: is "Hoch auf einem Baum", my master IRC nickname is HochaufeinemBaum, and I would like the cloak wikipedia/HaeB. regards, Hoch auf einem Baum 05:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Haeb, I did the categorization as part of general maintenance related tasks along with several hundred other pages(approx. 500), I found all the pages listed under Uncategorized pages needing categorization. Global message delivery's main pages, had been categorized as "Global Maintenance" by user:Pathoschild much earlier, I just used his categorization for the rest of the pages under it, its wasn't my decision to categorize it under that. If there are any issues please feel free to revert my edit, I will remove that categorization from those pages for now. Sorry for any inconvenience, Regards. Theo10011 17:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

For fixing the date typos :) guillom 19:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I imagine you're already aware, but just in case... this delivery had spaces before some of the bullets, causing funky rendering when the message delivered (for example). --MZMcBride 14:50, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I noticed :(

I wrote up an excuse explanation for what happened here.

Regards, HaeB 22:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I imagine you're already aware, but just in case...

• http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2857779&oldid=2830973
• http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=2857966&oldid=2857779

I don't think the bot has been programmed to do the global delivery yet. Or something. --MZMcBride 04:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I looked into your Global message delivery troubles.

Regarding this edit, the bot checks the last editor to both the /Spam and /Status subpages against the /Access list before running. It does so to ensure that no nefarious user has vandalized the /Spam page between the message being loaded and the bot being started. In this case, I believe due to replag, the bot thought that the most recent editor was The ed17 (due to this edit by him). The ed17 is not on the bot's access list currently (he should probably be added!).

Regarding the bot not starting after you commanded it to most recently, it was due to this error in your message.

In short, there's nothing really wrong with the bot, just its operators. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for sorting this out! I believe "your" is used in the second person plural, but note that I wasn't involved with posting the stalled Signpost message originally - I just thought it would be nice to help getting it out before I was going to overwrite it with out the subsequent message.

"this error" - thanks a lot for the explanation! Are there any other aspects in which the bot's parsing of this tag differs from MediaWiki's? Would it be an idea to handle this kind of error like others, with the bost posting a note to the Status page instead of aborting silently?

Again, thanks a lot for your help, and your work on the bot is much appreciated, as always.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I meant "your" in the sense that you were the one who reported the issues to me.

The </source> tag being on its own line isn't really a parsing issue, per se. The bot looks at the /Spam page and it relies on certain strings of text being present (such as "SUBJECT", etc.) and being in a particular format. When that text isn't present or it's in an unexpected format, the bot goes ape-shit. I guess catching this a bit more gracefully would be nice. It'd be nicer if people just didn't screw up the format, though. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|test2.wikipedia.org}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that OTRS volunteers sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have been identified as an OTRS volunteer and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy. If you do not sign the new confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015, you will lose your OTRS access. OTRS volunteers have a specific agreement available, if you have recently signed the general confidentiality agreement for another role (such as CheckUser or Oversight), you do not need to sign the general agreement again, but you will still need to sign the OTRS agreement.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnumwikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 31 December 2015 to retain your OTRS access. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 21:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC) • Translate • Get helpReply

The 2021 Community Wishlist Survey is now open! This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 30 November, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 8 December and 21 December.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

18:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

We invite all registered users to vote on the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey. You can vote from now until 21 December for as many different wishes as you want.

In the Survey, wishes for new and improved tools for experienced editors are collected. After the voting, we will do our best to grant your wishes. We will start with the most popular ones.

We, the Community Tech, are one of the Wikimedia Foundation teams. We create and improve editing and wiki moderation tools. What we work on is decided based on results of the Community Wishlist Survey. Once a year, you can submit wishes. After two weeks, you can vote on the ones that you're most interested in. Next, we choose wishes from the survey to work on. Some of the wishes may be granted by volunteer developers or other teams.

We are waiting for your votes. Thank you!

SGrabarczuk (WMF)

16:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

hi HaeB. I started a proposed item at https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN202109 for my research paper, now formally published, with open peer review, and as a fully reproducible (from data sources and research software sources and software library sources) research paper. The primary data set is that created by the heroic (and still ongoing) effort of Wikipedia volunteers, so I think it's justified to appear in a Wikimedia Research newsletter (and to be tooted and tweeted as Wikimedia research). I also think that the issue of official open government data versus reliable open government data is going to be critical for Wikipedia and Wikimedia more broadly, since we risk distributing official disinformation. Boud (talk) 06:24, 20 September 2021 (UTC) And it's quite likely that we are currently distributing (some) dubious government open data without warning. See the research article and the Wikipedia essay for details. Due to COI, I've only done very light editing of the most relevant Wikipedia articles (probably only on the talk pages of a few of the worst cases - the record is easily checkable anyway). Only some of the governments' data is unreliable, at least according to this analysis. Boud (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-07-25/Recent_research, it looks like a Signpost review of a research paper can be quite tough :). That's good. The journal peer reviews of my paper are public, but post-publication review can't hurt. Boud (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello I'm Nfana kaba DIAKITE and my user name is KAG1LP2MDIAKITE. I'm Wikimedia Mali president. And I recherche on oral letterature language. Sorry I speak french and I fo mistake in English. So I very interested to your recherch project. Thank you so much 41.73.105.20 00:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bonjour KAG1LP2MDIAKITE (feel free to write in French, if that is easier). I have not done research on this myself, Bbut some other people have explored the topic of oral knowledge and Wikimedia projects. Perhaps these links are of interest to you:

• Back in 2011, there was a widely publicized project that resulted in a documentary film (File:People-are-Knowledge.ogv). See Research:Oral Citations.
• User:Pgallert, a Namibian Wikipedian, has been quite active in the area of oral knowledge or more generally indigenous knowledge. See e.g. the oral citations experiment described in this blog post, or the academic book chapter we reviewed in the Wikimedia Research Newsletter here. I see he has a list of further related links on his user page: User:Pgallert#Indigenous Knowledge and Wikipedia
• There is some more material by other Wikimedians at commons:Category:Oral_citations.

My personal impression is that there are some fundamental tensions between Wikipedia's/Wikimedia's "anyone can edit" principle and the ways in which oral knowledge is traditionally communicated and retained. These might be the main reason why there has not been a lot of progress in this area since 2011 (combined with heightened concerns about misinformation in general), at least on the larger Wikimedia projects. But maybe there could be success in some specific situations.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I saw your user name here, I subscribed to the research newsletterhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/postorius/liss/research-newsletter.lists.wikimedia.org/ but have not received anything for 2 months (via email), any help is appreciated, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply