The following is an automatically-generated compilation of all talk pages for the Signpost issue dated 2011-10-03. For general Signpost discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Signpost.
Was it really necessary for the invitation to comment on CU/OS candidates to completely replace the reports about ongoing arbitration cases? Guy Macon (talk) 04:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it replaced the reports, that would mean the reports were there in the first place. I think understaffing may be a concern here. –xenotalk 12:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
"Pages in the Arbitration Family"
I'm not entirely certain what this graph is intended to represent. I note, also, that it appears to only include pages of current cases, and does not include amendment requests, clarification requests, noticeboards, talk pages of noticeboards or other committee-related pages, anything to do with the AUSC, any other committee-related subpages (including the current CU/OS candidate pages). If that could be added in, it might give a picture that is a bit more realistic for people who are attempting to assess the amount of discussion related to the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
The edits graph is for all arbcom activity (Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Jorgenev/arbcomwatchlist). "Pages in the Arbitration Family" meaning all arbitration pages of any type. You are right though that I am missing the edits from the elections, I forgot about them and so I didn't think the watchlist needed updating this week. I only tabulate page views for cases because pages like the amendment requests or enforcement requests are transcluded onto a single page and so that individual page data is lost. JORGENEV 09:57, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Eh, I would, but there's not much point now. Most people who are going to read this week's Signpost already have. It doesn't really matter, just thought I'd mention it. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
« the Wikimedia Foundation formally launched QRpedia » : Beg your pardon? Sorry, but I fail to see how the WMF launched anything, formally or not. They hosted a blogpost that highlights a tool launched 5 months ago by two british volunteers (one of them quite involved in chapter Wikimedia UK) and that since has spawned several implementations in various parts of the world, thanks to the work of people unaffiliated with the WMF. A “launch” actually suggests the WMF developed QRpedia. Jean-Fred (talk) 00:19, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. I've been bold and changed the page directly. The current plan is that QRpedia will be hosted by Wikimedia UK in the near future - we're working through the details of transferring ownership at the moment. Mike Peel (talk) 15:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the word fungi in this page title be spelled as shown, rather than as funghi? — Cheers, JackLee–talk– 08:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I corrected it. Angr (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it ironic that the piece against Tumblr is based on a WP:PRIMARY and a blog post that is likely in Wikipedia terms considered unrelible. Regards, SunCreator(talk) 22:19, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
OMG, that's terrible about the Italian law - Can anybody design like a widget or something that is the equivalent of a black armband with the Wikipedia Italy logo on it that we can use to show solidarity? KConWiki (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it.wikipedia is closed, starting from 08.00 PM of October, 4th. It is not clear when the Italian wikipedia will restart its activities, nor it is clear if it will be able to re-open. In the meantime, Italian politicians discuss in Parliament their censorship rule to be imposed to Italian people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truman Burbank (talk • contribs) 11:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it's back up now. I read the statement on the Italian wiki. There is a notice on the top of every page, however. Since I can't read italian... WikiCopter 00:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
It does seem that the discussed change (i.e. putting the "manifesto", as it's been called, up for every page), actually has been implemented. It does not seem possible to access articles on the Italian Wikipedia. Calvin 1998(t·c) 05:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this is due to the accidental late publishing of this week's Signpost. I added a short blurb at the bottom of the story to explain the discrepancy. It's a bit out of tradition, but we'd look even more foolish then we already do if we didn't mention this had occurred.Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I just rewrote most of the article. Hope this isn't too big of a deal for everyone. :-) Ed[talk][majestic titan] 06:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The front page still says "Italian Wikipedia threatens site shutdown [...]". I'd edit it, but it's (semi-)protected. 82.83.155.231 (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Interested readers will notice that the proposed law did not come about in a vacuum. The Burlesconi government has a history of passing laws that that benefit Silvio Berlusconi and his close colleagues, in particular laws that have meant criminal cases against Berlusconi have collapsed. The DDL intercettazioni originated in the wake of a number of leaked wiretaps of the regime, and negative press comment in that part of the print media not controlled by Berlusconi, notably La Repubblica. RichFarmbrough, 11:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC).
I would like to point out that this Vituzzu "user" which speaks out as a "spokesman for the italian wikipedia" is the one that has disclosed a private mail I sent him where I was commenting the Catholic sex abuse cases. This very same user has threatened me of legal action on this page written in sicilian after removing my sicilian admin priviliges. If someone is to be chosen for criticising the Italian Government that allegedly could be "responsible for likely sinking the very pillars on which Wikipedia has been built – neutrality, freedom, and verifiability of its contents – by paragraph 29 of an Italian Law also known as "DDL intercettazioni""... well IMHO I don't think he's the right person. Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Where is there information about this? What was the rationale for preventing mobile users from actively contributing to Wikipedia? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
In what way are mobile users prevented from contributing? Reach Out to the Truth 14:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
No login button for example Ottawahitech (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
There is not yet any functionality that would require a login. Once they add some, such as editing, the login form will surely be fixed. Reach Out to the Truth 14:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
It was considered nearly impossible to allow editing from the old (Ruby) app. When the new (PHP) mobile site was created, the first stage was the mimic the old functionality (i.e. read-only). However, it is considered much easier to add specialised editing functionality now than it was before, and hence why it has become a priority again (because everyone recognises that mobile users should be able to contribute easily).
Incidentally, mobile users can always edit via the usual non-mobile site. It's just ill-suited to small screens, and hence rather difficult. - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.] 17:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I did some editing when I could use the desk-top version of Wikipedia on a mobile. Now I cannot view the desktop version any more. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Have you tried the links at the bottom of the page? That's how I got here on the mobile device I'm using right now. Reach Out to the Truth 14:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes I have in the past when I was able to edit, but now when I click them nothing happens. Ottawahitech (talk) 19:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
That's interesting. What type of mobile device are you using? And what model? - Jarry1250[Weasel?Discuss.] 16:48, 14 October 2011 (UTC)