User talk:Silicona

Add topic
From Miraheze Meta, Miraheze's central coordination wiki
Latest comment: 11 hours ago by Silicona in topic Commons

Translating into British English[edit source]

Hi Silicona, I'm Agent Isai, a local translation administrator. I noticed that you began 'translating' pages into British English. As was the case on Test Wiki, this isn't really needed on here. A lot of our pages already prefer and have British spelling on them. As such, it's not very useful to translate into British English and that practice can cause fragmentation in what user's who speak British English see should no one 'update' the page after changes are made to the original version so I formally ask that you stop. If you wish to test translating, you're free to do so on pages designated on TestWiki for translation extension testing but not general pages. Agent Isai Talk to me! 14:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2022[edit source]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks, legal threats; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies will not be tolerated.

Hi there. You were blocked for two weeks by a Meta administrator for not heeding previous warnings and formal requests for you to stop translating pages to British English. Please refrain from doing so both here and on TestWiki, thank you. Agent Isai Talk to me! 17:36, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RhinosF1 was recreating translations that was mass deleted. Any reason why? Silicona (talk) 17:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably as a result of the Translate extension updating the page after the deletion of the translation units. Agent Isai Talk to me! 17:59, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblock request[edit source]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
An administrator reviewed Silicona's unblock request and has accepted the request.

Silicona (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribs change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

In analytics, 6038 users reading this wiki are from USA, and 1025 users reading this wiki are from the UK. I translated many pages to British English and carefully checked for spelling (i.e. in USA we use "color" and in UK we use "colour"). However I am blocked from editing this wiki. Can admins unblock me? Silicona (talk) 17:37, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acceptance reason:

While your unblock request does not indicate whether you will discontinue translating pages to British English, the fact that other users have translated pages into British English in the past and not been blocked suggests a block was particularly needed here. Moreover, RhinosF1 using Special:Nuke to nuke translation subpages doesn't work with the Translate extension, as the extension system user will recreate the pages. The mass deletion should have have occurred on Phabricator where an SRE volunteer would run a maintenance script to delete both the translation subpage and the translation units for the page, That being said, British English translations are so subtle of a change. You can just make a change to the source page, in all honesty, provided no one disagrees with you. I personally don't see a problem with intermixing British English and American English spelling into source pages, though I would note that as Miraheze is a UK-based company and Meta Wiki uses UK date formats for its global policies, arguably the source pages should use British/Canadian/Australian/Commonwealth country English where possible. We're not English Wikipedia with an exhaustive Wikipedia Manual of Style and other fussy things. In other words, this unblock was very much an edge case, at best, and perhaps incorrect, at worst. I personally prefer to assume good faith and avoid biting the newcomers. Still, though, consider this to be very much a strong advice that you should discontinue the practice of creating British English translations. Dmehus (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Hey[edit source]

u interested in editing here, mh:footyworld? I see you visited. Thanks. SperosDurrell (talk) 21:18, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Thank you. Silicona (talk) 07:23, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply][edit source]

Can you re-open this wiki please? It closed due to inactivity. --Blad (talkcontribsglobal) 13:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reopened. Silicona (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miraheze app[edit source]

Can you provide the icons and other assets you used in creating the prototype? I'm working on creating a prototype React application to remake your design. I don't know if it'll go anywhere but it seems like a useful idea.

Also, do you have a GitHub account? Collei (talk) (contribs) 11:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Icons from Microsoft PowerPoint (can be replaced with Material icons), File:Miraheze-Logo.svg and File:Nintendo Wii Video Game Console Pal.JPG, the latter two are from Wikimedia Commons. Also I have a GitHub account. Silicona (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And also the assets:
Silicona (talk) 14:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just notifying @Collei as they didn't respond. Silicona (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Collei is likely working/school, sleeping or something and at least a day or so should be given with this in mind as there will no doubt be a reply when feasible. I haven't seen Collei in several hours so one of these can be assumed. --raidarr (💬) 17:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Collei (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki requests[edit source]

Hi. While your intention to help out with wiki requests is appreciated, please do note that the role of deciding which wikis should be declined or approved is reserved to wiki creators and it would be confusing if regular users were allowed to interfere in that process by providing their own views to users which may turn out to be wrong. Therefore, even if in this case you might have been right, it's best if you leave handling requests to wiki creators only. Thanks! Reception123 (talk) (C) 12:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About RfCs[edit source]

I'd suggest reading the Requests for Comment Policy and reviewing what kind of requests have been previously accepted. The RfCs you've opened aren't relevant to the purpose of RfCs. I'm not critical of most of your ideas, it's just that you don't seem to know what RfCs are for. Thanks. Collei (talk) (contribs) 03:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recent Creations of Requests for Comment[edit source]

Hi Silicona,

I wanted to reach out as I've noticed you've been creating quite an awful lot of RfCs lately. You clearly know what an RfC's intent and purpose is, as the proposals laid out are each written in the form that a question would be, but I'm concerned that you're attempting to create them without fully clarifying their thought and purpose first. I am so glad to see you're involved in the community and want to help, but I'd probably recommend against further RfC creations in the near future without consulting another user or two first - there have already been reports on the sysop noticeboard and while I am not a sysop myself, it's some friendly guidance that I myself had to follow a few years ago as well, believe it or not. I'd be happy to help you draft your RfCs going forward, if you wish, but I will note that the most recent RfC you've created has no ability to be approved by the community, as the table you've provided is discretionary at best.

From a fellow Miraheze peer, please know that you can always reach out to me (see my userpage for contact methods), and I'll be happy to help.

All the best,

BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 15:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting wiki name change (cross-post)[edit source]

(cross-posting on your wiki and meta to ensure visibility)

Hello Silicona,

Per discussions elsewhere it has come to our attention that you are using Miraheze in the name for your wiki, which conveys officiality and isn't permissible. We understand that choosing names is hard and not something to be taken lightly though, so please identify and set an alternate via Special:ManageWiki/core within the next 30 days. Thank you in advance!

--NotAracham (talkcontribsglobal) 18:11, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NotAracham I created the renaming plan table and gantt chart on that wiki. Please see mh:cookbook:User:Silicona/Renaming plan. Silicona (talk) 19:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Much appreciated, thanks for taking quick action.
-- NotAracham (talkcontribsglobal) 19:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admonishment and final warning on creating Requests for Comment[edit source]

Hi Silicona,

I appreciate your eagerness to contribute to the Miraheze community. However, your recent Requests for Comment seem to miss the point of what Requests for Comment should be. I will analyze why each of your recent RfCs have missed the point of what RfCs are:

  • Requests for Comment/Update “Hosted by Miraheze” at bottom of wikis - While evidently well-intended, the design was not very well received by the community. A change like this should have been consulted first on venues like Community portal where you would've seen that the community was fine with the current design. In this RfC, you began going down the rabbit hole of the fallacy of 'x is old so let's replace it'. While indeed, change is good sometimes, othertimes it's not needed. The web badge was perfectly fine, it had just been updated around 2 years ago and fit in perfectly with the "Powered by MediaWiki" badge.
  • Requests for Comment/New fonts on Miraheze Meta body content - A font change did not need legislating through an RfC and should've been first discussed on some other venue like Meta:Community portal. Had this been discussed, you would have realized that Meta tries to be as bland as possible because it's supposed to showcase how a default Miraheze wiki will normally look. Again, in this RfC, you make a reverse appeal to age where you say 'the default fonts are old so let's change them'. This alone is not a valid argument.
  • Requests for Comment/Miraheze redesign - As with the previous RfCs, you should have asked for consensus. Changing the logo to a set of 3x3 circles was evidently not something well recieved by the community. Had you sought consensus, you would have seen that users did not like your proposed logo. Again, you made an appeal to age when you said "The current Miraheze logo is almost 9 years old. I would like to propose on the possible new looks for Miraheze. Companies change logos every several years, for example Google changed their logo in 1999, 2010, 2013 and 2015." That is not a valid rationale. Yes, change is sometimes good but no, it's not always needed.
  • Requests for Comment/Wiki broadness thresholds, Dormancy Policy timeframes and miraHow controversy - This RfC is overly complex and very badly explained. It is a solution looking for a problem. The thresholds seem subjective but the goal of your RfC is to get your wiki approved. You are bludgeoning the process by trying to force a such a small thing like a wiki creation by subjecting the community to a full-blown RfC which is time-consuming. This circumvention of the process and attempt to get your wiki approved by wasting everyone's time considering a new system is unacceptable. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, and the process was certainly not broken and does not need fixing to accomodate your request.

With all of this in mind, due to how time-consuming Requests for Comment can be, you are strongly admonished against making more Requests for Comment without first consulting the community through a post on the approriate venue like the Community portal or Meta Community portal. Those venues are good ways to gauge whether your proposal has any realistic chance of actually making it. Even then, I would advise against too many proposals. If you have ideas, they should be consolidated into one thread rather than making multiple threads when a new idea pops up which clogs the noticeboards. Should you continue to make more frivilous Requests for Comments, you will be restricted from making them as these take time to go through and vote which wastes the already scarce resource that it is. Please take this warning seriously. Agent Isai Talk to me! 20:22, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When you see already 3 users stating that this is not a good idea, and you still add another proposal to it, it gives me an idea that you ignore warnings (like given by @Agent Isai) and just do what you want. It's a shame, because on one side, you could be very valuable as volunteer, helping others with your knowledge, but on the other side you work against yourself. You're giving yourself a bad reputation.
I think you have a very creative brain, which constantly thinks how can I make things better.
I think that you better could use that creativity to help on our development wiki. Create templates that are easy to understand. Create easy to use frontpages with a documentation for users to understand.
There are a lot of things that could be changed, but not everything has to. Some things are not broken, and do not need fixing.
It would be better if you withdrew your RfC yourself. As I can see it, it has no chance of being passed.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   💬 Talk ✉️ Email  📝 Edits   Auth →  13:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fully second this. Not to dog pile, but I've seen how helpful you can be to the project, heck the thread directly below this is a wonderful example. But this behavior with serial RfCing is frankly silly and childish, which really is a shame and has given you an unfortunate reputation among the Meta community and us volunteers. Should you take what everyone keeps telling you to heart and stop making RFCs and such without any community consensus, I, as well as many of our volunteers I am sure, would love to see you helping around Meta and to see that bad reputation dispelled. If you ever want to talk or get a second opinion, my talk page, Ro's talk, Agent's, or Community Portal. Many of our volunteers and users discuss on Discord/IRC, and you're free to join us if you want to talk. Keep that in mind, and have a nice day. ╚pixDeVl╝ (Talk Contributions CentralAuth) 14:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the new RfC was as bad as the old ones because the concept of extended confirmed protection has existed on many wikis and wikifarms so it is easy to see why Silicona would want to propose it. コレイ (talk) (contributions) 15:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@User:Collei: See Agents warning.
With all of this in mind, due to how time-consuming Requests for Comment can be, you are strongly admonished against making more Requests for Comment without first consulting the community through a post on the approriate venue like the Community portal or Meta Community portal. Those venues are good ways to gauge whether your proposal has any realistic chance of actually making it. Even then, I would advise against too many proposals. If you have ideas, they should be consolidated into one thread rather than making multiple threads when a new idea pops up which clogs the noticeboards. Should you continue to make more frivilous Requests for Comments, you will be restricted from making them as these take time to go through and vote which wastes the already scarce resource that it is. Please take this warning seriously.
Making meaningful RfC's is not a problem. But not taking to heart the strong advice, to ask the community first whether it is a good idea to open the RfC, is a problem. It feels like Silicona is just ignoring the advice and does what Silicona wants. Eventhough the RfC is perfect, it would be better to humbling ones self and ask if it's okay. It would show that Silicona wants to do things to regain trust from the community.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   💬 Talk ✉️ Email  📝 Edits   Auth →  16:47, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi all,
This message isn’t meant at anyone in particular but just overall - this discussion has reached its point. If Silicona wishes to respond and ask for advice, they’re more than welcome to do so, but otherwise, think it’s best if we move on from this topic as there’s little more useful information to add. BrandonWM (talkcontributionsglobalrights) 16:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Designing skills[edit source]

Creating a new frontpage for Meta? Looks great. I wish I had those skills. Does it flex for mobile users though? Just wondering.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   💬 Talk ✉️ Email  📝 Edits   Auth →  13:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes at <600px! Silicona (talk) 13:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can I hire you? hehe. Kidding. I am just being jealous. Just wished I had the skill set and time to change my front/mainpage :-P  Kind regards,   Rodejong   💬 Talk ✉️ Email  📝 Edits   Auth →  13:42, 14 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Warning: Improper policy enforcement[edit source]

Hello Silicona,

While we appreciate the recent notice on a user's talk page was likely in good faith, policy warnings should only be issued by those volunteers actually tasked with policy enforcement. In future, if you feel there's a policy violation that should be addressed, please notify a Steward through:

  • Tthe SR board
  • The stewards[at] email alias, or
  • Via the CVT channel on Discord/IRC

-- NotAracham (talkcontribsglobal) 18:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons[edit source]

Could you upload the Meta Screenshot image to Commons please? It will be available globally, in stead of locally on Meta.  Kind regards,   Rodejong   💬 Talk ✉️ Email  📝 Edits   Auth →  07:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, as the Chrome user interface is copyrighted by Google. I updated the permission in that file. Silicona (talk) 10:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]