User talk:Lx 121
- 1 provisory scriptorium
- 2 Restore Feedback
- 3 Wikilivres Status Update
- 4 Movement of Github Repository
- 5 Ultimate categories
- 6 Page completed
- 7 uppercase
- 8 Ad. User:Dzukiriikobe
- 9 please do not discuss here with vandals
- 10 Bibliowiki Donations needed for Expenses for August 2017 (and rest of year)
- 11 End of year donation drive
I created a provisory page for the community talk - see User talk:-jkb-/Temporary Scriptorium, regards -jkb- (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2017 (JST) - - - P.S. I don't want to present it in the sidebar now, so pls note this for you.
thanks! :) so far, so good. waiting for everything to finish restoring @ this point. hope all the templates were included in the "scrape".
btw; what time zone is the wiki's clock on? indochina, or...
- Hi Lx 121, Timezone is set to America/Montreal (where the server is). That's EDT currently. Are dates showing up incorrectly anywhere? There is a setting under user preferences to choose timezone offset to where you are located. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
- not sure @ incorrectly. when i asked it, the timestamps in history pages didnt seem to make sense, unless they were for eastern asia. but i might have read them incorrectly; or the timeclock setting may have changed since then.
- FYI, the timezone of the server is Montreal, but MediaWiki is not configured with a timezone offset and uses UTC. Individuals can override this in their preferences. I think using UTC is the best (since there is less confusion). I've reset the Analytics logs to use UTC about a week ago. If the world had a single timezone, it would be easier. Eventually (if we survive as a species and become spacefaring) surely Earth Time will be UTC. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Wikilivres Status Update
Movement of Github Repository
Hi @Lx 121:, this is just a note to let you know I've moved the Github Repository over here. There was a non-related change for the move, having to do with Github access on mobile apps (easier for personal vs. organizational repositories). --Jeffmcneill (talk) 06:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Hi back :) @Jeffmcneill: the idea is very cool, & i think we could do things with that; but the execution (as shown) seems kind of "cluttery" to me? i.e.: not well laid out for an "ordinary human" to process; at least not @ first glance, & not quickly.
- "getting used to it" probably helps; but i think we could design the layout to be better.
- will come back & look at it some more, after i get through the next 5 days... >__<
- This is just a demo meant to extract what Wikidata "knows" about a particular topic, and use more than straight xml which is barely readable. Some of what it knows is explicit, and other bits are inferred based on some light text processing rules. The main thing is that this kind of info from wikidata is available (in some form or another). Wikidata is fairly complex as it is meant to deal with a general purpose encyclopedia, and other projects. However, we can look to it for the kind of structured data we would want to present (and how to store that in a way that is not a rat's nest of templates and categories). This is something I want to look into once all the functionality parts are addressed on the wikilivres site (which will take a few more months, likely). Also, I think a move to a better organization of languages should probably come first. So, this would be this year, but closer to the end, is what I am thinking. In the meantime, I suggest not spending too much time on categories and templates, as these we can deal with once a better way of storing structured data is available (wikidata). --Jeffmcneill (talk) 06:59, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @Jeffmcneill: found the timeline -thing; it is neat, but it's not @ the bottom the way it displays on my screen. there is a big box of "related media" that comes after it. (btw the info page also includes those alphanumeric "univerasal unique identifiers" i mentioned. & yes the system is very fragmented @ this stage, but wikimedia is serious about including/using it, & it's a part of serious library science)
- i understand & approve of your plans, but we still need a basic framework to organise the material (certainly until "newer & better" is both implemented & passed its beta). mostly we already had a decent cat-system framework in place. not uniform across langs, but i had the eng sorted reasonably well.
- new topic -- we should consider adding google search (site-internal) to our wiki. even IF the native search engine in media wiki ever does get significantly better, it is never going to "catch up" to what google can do. would also make us "better-integrated" with google, & for potential future google-based page "sponsorships" if we do that.
- I'd like to hear mor about the basic category structure at Wikilivres. Regarding Google, while it is good, it only knows about what we tell it (via sitemap.xml, general link-following, and robots.txt), so it can't search in namespaces we exclude. Pretty sure it will work fine once it is tuned properly. --Jeffmcneill (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
if you are referring to what i think, i understand your feelings, but please understand this is an exact transcription of what appears in the text of the item. they used block capitals when they printed it, & source-accuracy matters more than local style. Lx 121 (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi, In my opinion it is rather account and edit done by a spam bot, with the link to advertised site... But if you don't think so, you can try to unblock the account and see what will happen... Regards Electron ツ ➧☎ 00:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, Lx 121, if you take in charge to do the explaining to this user and make them understand what was wrong, I'll try and send them to you for explanations next time, instead of blocking them indefinitely. Is this convenient? --Zephyrus (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
- ok & ty, works for me :) although if they don't speak english, i may need help. but i can write up some standard messages to use.
- & to be clear: if a user keeps on being a problem, or if they are just interested in vandalising or posting advertising links, i have no problem with stopping that. but in this case, it's not entirely clear if the person was trying to contribute something useful, albeit not well suited to wikilivres/bibliowiki. the "article" & link i saw was for a football (-soccer) club; it seemed more like a "fan page" than advertising-spam, Lx 121 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
please do not discuss here with vandals
please do not discuss here with vandals and don`t change my blocks and protections. You do not have any - I underline any ! - experience with and qualification for this. Thank you in advance. -jkb- (talk) 22:31, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
yes, i have "any experience". i have been working on multiple wiki projects for about 10-12 years thanks. what are you qualifications?
& if you look @ the previous conversation, you will see that it was agreed by several admins, that i would try to "outreach" to potentially useful new editors.
to put it another way:
please can you explain to me, with all your "experience", why it is better to prevent the user from having a dialogue on their own talk page?
because... i REALLY don't see your logic in this.
& please do not remove other user's messages from my talkpage, ever again.
i am perfectly capable of dealing with it myself, no matter what it is.
AND with your great experience, please could you explain to me why you think it is "better", NOT TO EXPLAIN to users, WHY they have been banned?
because, respectfully, i do not see the logic of that, either.
- Hello, @Lx 121: and @-jkb-:. I agree with -jkb- and Electron that the user's behavior is best characterized as a vandal (both CityOfSilver and Dzukiriikobe). They introduce changes that do not improve the site, but are distracting. Anything that doesn't look to be straightforward work on sources can be seen as someone confused, or simply wrongheaded. Blocking is the right approach in these cases, especially if there is a pattern. A notice on their user_talk page (and allowing them to edit their own user_talk page) is not wrong. It is highly unlikely they will come around and decide they want to be good bibliowiki editors, but stranger things have happened, allowing them a voice (on their one page) can't hurt. Both of you have admin rights. If either feel the other is not using those rights effectively, then it is better to discuss with each other, than to revert what each of you has done (before discussion). If it is something that cannot be agreed upon, then bring it up in the policy discussions page, so more editors can provide guidance. Let's keep the tone civil. We are losing that in some of these discussions. Both of you are valuable editors, and admins. --Sysadmin (talk) 12:17, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Bibliowiki Donations needed for Expenses for August 2017 (and rest of year)
Hello, I'm contacting directly active users of Bibliowiki who have not yet donated for the hosting costs in 2017. For August, 2017 (and indeed for each month moving forward) we are looking for one or two donations of $7. Our current monthly costs are minimal, but not free. Active users put in time and effort, and we are all grateful as a community. Bibliowiki is not affiliated nor does it receive any technical or monetary support outside of its own editors. Therefore financial donations are needed as well to keep the community up and running. For July there were five active users with many edits, who have not yet donated. If each of the five donate then we will have hit our goal for the year (and you won't have to hear more from me about this until 2018). Can you help? Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. --Sysadmin (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
End of year donation drive
Hi Lx 121, Thank you for your valuable contributions to Biblio.wiki. I'd like to make a request to help fund the monthly server costs. I don't have any record of a money donation from this account (but maybe it was done anonymously or under another name, please let me know). We don't need much, but it costs more than zero dollars/euro/rubles to keep the site running. Paypal of $10 USD (or any other amount) would be very welcome at this time. Thanks for all your help on the site! --Sysadmin (talk) 09:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)