Wikiversity:Notices for custodians

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
Favicon.gif Action required

Favicon.gif Templates

Favicon.gif Development

Favicon.gif Reference

Favicon.gif Events and news

This page is a central location for communication between custodians.

Script error[edit]

Mr. Stradivarius has been converting various high-use templates over from template code to Lua code. However, the dependent Lua modules are not being copied with it. What's interesting is that he made his changes on on October 20, and I didn't notice the script error warnings until this weekend. So I'm not exactly sure what's causing it. It almost seems like there's module code that should be importing from Commons, and it works for awhile and then stops. I tried importing the supporting modules from Wikipedia, but there is an error in Module:Category handler that is preventing the Lua code from working. I rolled back the change to Template: Ombox for now, and that fixed one problem I was having, but there are still script errors appearing because of the Module:Category handler problem. Does anyone know who to follow up with on this? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a problem with this script error too, that started this weekend. I hope I didn't import anything that caused this. - Sidelight12 Talk 13:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

(copied from Wikiversity:Request custodian action)

Czech listed as "undefined"[edit]

How would the link display be changed to the proper name, instead of "undefined", under "Languages"? The source shows, in the similar way to the other languages listed. - Sidelight12 Talk 15:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

History split[edit]

How can I split the history between two pages, in case of a content split or other reason? - Sidelight12 Talk 21:04, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can, not directly. I have generally left the version with the most edits as the page itself, i.e., the version being kept with its history, then I copy the other material as wikitext to the other page, with a reference to the source page(s) in the edit copying that material or at least on the new Talk page. That satisfies the license for attribution, and someone looking for that history can readily find and understand it. There should be references both ways, so future generations can fimd the source for all text, and what happened to old removed text, or at least a version of it.
However, if you really want to confuse the hell out of future generations, transwiki the page elsewhere, then reimport it to a new name. That would accomplish what you have asked for. I don't think the gain is worth the effort, but I suppose it's possible at some point, somewhere, some very complicated situation. I haven't seen anything like that. It would do "interesting" things to the contribution history of those who edited the page. —Abd (discusscontribs) 21:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh ok, thanks. So making a copy of it would be part of it, then hide the revisions. I can't import to another wiki, since I am not a custodian anywhere else, to be able to import it back (to make a copy). - Sidelight12 Talk 21:26, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
You would not "hide" any revisions, I don't think. That would conceal context for the original editing. You would, in the single wiki version, revert to a revision or leave it as the latest, whichever, and you would copy text to the other version, referring to a permanent link or links where you got the text. Then people, if they want to see the history, can look at the other page, the one with the history.
If you used transwiki to do this, you would simply revert those two pages to different versions. I do not recommend directly using admin tools for content control, absent consensus. Especially don't hide revisions, it puts people off their feed, it makes the wiki not transparent, some will think there is some monkey business going on. That is, there should be strong reason.
As to not being an admin elsewhere, you can simply ask an admin to do it. That's what I do here when I need admin tools. I also think there may be a wiki where you can get admin tools, test wiki? It could be easy peasy. —Abd (discusscontribs) 22:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocked User: TeleComNasSprVen[edit]

User:TeleComNasSprVen has been blocked indefinitely because of disruptive edit warring and publishing inappropriate personal information on page User_talk:Diego Grez. Edit history has been deleted (hidden) to avoid additional public review of the personal information. Custodians, however, may review the history and confirm. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:59, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Block was lifted today. TeleComNasSprVen (discusscontribs) 22:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Email privacy[edit]

On email transactions, there is a privacy concern, that it shows the email addresses (at least to the receiver), rather than having the Wikiproject relay it with username and the Wikiproject as the sender or receiver. I believe other websites use that route. Unless the mail server is run through a commonly used internet mailbox, that uses a name that is not the user's. My preferences say, "E-mail address is optional, but it enables others to contact you through your user or user_talk page without needing to reveal your identity. You can also choose to let others contact you by email through a link on your user or talk page. Your email address is not revealed when other users contact you." - Sidelight12 Talk 07:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The wording is correct, but perhaps misleading. It indicates that if you turn on email, users can contact you by email without revealing your email address to them. When someone sends email, that page states, 'The email address you entered in your user preferences will appear as the "From" address of the email, so the recipient will be able to reply directly to you.' The recipient would only reveal private information if they respond directly. Users who prefer not to reveal their private address should not respond by email.
I just checked, and Wikipedia has the same settings and the same result. They have a better banner that highlights that the sender's address is revealed, but it's the same effect. I don't have any reason to believe there's anything we can change in terms of settings that would alter this behavior, but feel free to take a look at the MediaWiki documentation and let us know if there's a setting that covers this. Otherwise, it would be a matter of finding the appropriate forum and proposing the change, or submitting it as a bug. It may also have already been discussed and rejected. The problem with allowing anonymous email is that the wiki becomes responsible for it. By sending email as the sender, you remain responsible for your own activities.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:44, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
If you wish to respond without revealing your identity, you can use any free email service, it is trivial to set one up, and respond to the email you receive using that other address. or just set up that address as your wiki email. The way the software is set up is excellent, for the reason Dave has explained. There is more. The email is quite private, checkusers can only see that an email was sent, and when, but not to whom it was sent or any other content. So if someone sends an abusive email, and denies sending it, the recipient can provide the headers to a checkuser and the checkuser can verify a mail was sent at that exact time. In my opinion, a secure checksum on the mail should also be kept, to avoid a recipient modifying an email to make it seem abusive. On that point, I don't know if anything is done. Basically, don't send an email to someone you are not willing to trust with you email address -- which could be an anonymous googlemail account -- or who might complain about the email. --Abd (discusscontribs) 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)