Wikipedia talk:Suppress display of the fundraising banner

Absurd
This is absurd!! So you'd have to stay logged in all the time to use wikipedia without having to constantly close full-page banners???

Please at least tell me you're doing this on purpose to collect and sell better-quality analytics!

I did donate, for the first time, and I was actually pleased when I kept seeing banners after doing that ("Good, they don't know that it's still me, they are not tracking me in some creepy way!").

Then I saw that the banners kept getting opened even if I just closed one. "Hmm... ok wow I suppose they're so committed to privacy they don't even want to store a plain text session cookie! That's kinda good, although a little too extreme...!"

"So... how do I explicitly tell that I don't want to see that banner anymore (because I already donated?)"

"What??? There's no way other than logging in???"

"Are you f*ing out of your minds??"

Leaving aside that donating ought to be voluntary, if I already donated the sum I was willing to donate I can't be anything but pissed by continuing to crash against banners asking me to donate. If it has to be so, I'll refrain from donating next year, at least I won't be adding insult to injury!

Even more irritating is that if you're using script- or ad-blockers you'll be used to not seing banners anywhere on the web. Except here, where "you'll never run ads". (here you see them because they are displayed by the main-site javascript). You're a nonprofit, all right (supposedly), but that doesn't entail that you can't ever be regarded a*holes whatever you do.

If you're looking for a way to make the unthinkable happen and have wikipedia fail and shut down, this is it!!

Just support a stupid session cookie DontShowDonationBanners! (set when you close one). You think it's right to nag people? Fine, set it with a short expiration time! (at least one hour, preferably) Ideally, also an url parameter to have them disabled even when you don't yet have the cookie (with the cookie getting set when you visit such an url).

And really, by the way. Full-screen banners. They are just moronic. However good your intentions and poor your finances.

--Gabrolf (talk) 20:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy close. Obviously not a bona fide WP:RFC. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I closed it; this is indeed not a RfC matter. Please see WP:RFCBEFORE. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I did read it and using those RfCs seemed the right think to do (but I know very little of how these things work and I first heard about the RfC template yesterday, while trying to understand how could I discuss this issue with the community and the staff).
 * I'm sorry to bother you again but if you could point me towards the right think to do, I'd appreciate. It doesn't look like just leaving a plain comment on this talk page is likely to get this issue discussed and handled anytime soon. I suspect it would take years before reaching someone who has voice on the matter. Gabrolf (talk) 18:15, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It says "Before using the RfC process to get opinions from outside editors, it's often faster and more effective to thoroughly discuss the matter with any other parties on the related talk page." That's here, because (presumably) your problem is with the page Suppress display of the fundraising banner. It continues: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others." I see no evidence of discussion on this page before you  - all that there was is the banner.
 * If you need help, there are plenty of avenues available that do not need a full-blown thirty-day process that will be brought to the attention of dozens of people who wonder why their time is being wasted. But when you do use one of those means for obtaining help, cool it with the abusive language, yes? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * My problem was not with the Suppress display of the fundraising banner page itself, but with the aspects of (the current) Wikipedia that it describes. I wanted to discuss the problems and possibly have them solved, and from what I could glean from the Wikipedia documentation placing that comment on this page (the only in any way related to the fundraising banners that I could find) and adding that tag seemed to be the best way to do it. I surmise it wasn't so.
 * I still haven't found out what would be the correct way, but I imagine that the first step would be to ask on irc or Help_desk.
 * As for the language, you're probably right, but it reflects the effect that the current fundraising advertising system can elicit, and I did contain myself significantly; I believe that letting some emotions transpire is helpful in discussions, but, again you're most likely in the right.
 * BTW, I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that there seems to be no proper discussion place for the core aspects of Wikipedia.
 * I'll probably ask what to do on irc or Help_desk, then. Thank you for your help. Gabrolf (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you follow my link? It goes to Help:Contents, in which Help desk is one of the options, but irc is not. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Link to this page
Would you mind if a link to this meta page was included in the banner itself? It would only be fair considering that many people choose to not save cookies between their browsing sessions. Flegozoff (talk) 17:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)