Open main menu


Give me reasons why you remove protection level for Sony Pictures StudiosEdit

Why did you remove protection level for Sony Pictures Studios? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@ You are not an administrator on this project and adding the protected template does not protect the page. Continuing to add these templates to articles and user talk pages will result in your IP address being blocked from editing. Operator873talkconnect 04:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Eureka Stockade Article vandalisedEdit

Hi Operator873,

It looks like you were able to revert changes on Eureka Stockade article before, when someone made bad edits. We are a class of primary school students still learning about Wikipedia, and we would like to ask you a question. Can we as an ordinary user revert the current changes on the article (which look like vandalism) to an earlier version? Or does one have to be an admin to do that? We'd really like the page fixed.



@S3Kumera: Hello and welcome! I'm an administrator here and can do many things to help with this article and your class. To answer your question though, anyone can edit our articles... Which means you can help revert vandalism or edits that aren't helpful. Once you've edited a few things, you'll find you have access to the "undo" link which will undo someone's edits. This should be used cautiously and never more than 3 times in a row. We call this edit warring. It should be avoided at all costs. However, this was a situation that you could use undo on. I've reverted the article to a previous version before the edit was made and look forward to your contributions! I'll leave a message on your talk page with several helpful links to get you started here. Please do not hesitate to leave me another message here if you have any questions, I'll be glad to help. Oh! And don't forget to sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Again, welcome! Operator873talkconnect 07:46, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Happy New YearEdit

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Hi Operator873, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas
and a very Happy and Prosperous New Year,
Thanks for all your help and thanks for all your contributions to the 'pedia,

   –Davey2010 Merry Christmas / Happy New Year 18:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion mix upEdit

Hi, thanks for taking care of the RfDs, but I think this set went the wrong way. Christianity and homosexuality was to be deleted. But it is a redirect to Religion and homosexuality. Can you please clear that up so that Religion and homosexuality is back and Christianity and homosexuality is deleted? Thanks, --Gotanda (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gotanda: I did delete Christianity and homosexuality after the RfD. However, I recreated the page with a redirect to prevent recreation of the article for the time being. Since then, Macdonald-ross delete the Religion and homosexuality article. Since he deleted the second article, I had assumed he would delete the redirect to the page as well. But since it still exists and points towards a non-existant article, I'll delete the Christianity redirect now. Operator873talkconnect 02:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for my misunderstanding. Thanks for letting me know. --Gotanda (talk) 02:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Flood flag request for User:StraussInTheHouseEdit


Per the discussion about combating bare URLs, I've created the semi-automated link to reFill which should deal with most of them (list), so I'm applying for the flood flag.

I've read and understand WP:FLOOD and won't edit anything other than the pages on that list for the purpose detailed above. I'll see how far I get with one day and if necessary re-apply.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 17:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@StraussInTheHouse: Granted per request. Please keep in mind no other edits can be made while under flood flag other than those you've described making here. I've set the flag for you for 24 hours. If you decide you want to stop working on this task and return to normal editing, please contact me here or on IRC and I'll remove the flag. Operator873talkconnect 17:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've done about 17.5% of them, I'll get back to you with the analytics I mentioned and re-request when ready! SITH (talk) 17:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@StraussInTheHouse: Sounds good, my friend. Thanks for the work! Operator873talkconnect 18:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Just something to remind you of for the future since you are a newer admin. When they are done flooding, since you granted the flag, you have to go back through their edits checking them. Depending on how many they did you probably can get away with not checking them all. But a random spot check is expected to be done, not sure if anyone told you that was expected if you grant flood. -DJSasso (talk) 15:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: Thanks for the reminder. I was monitoring their edits yesterday and speaking with SITH on IRC during most of his flood flag usage. I haven't reviewed the edits again after the flag fell off, but that's only because I just woke up. I had already planned to review the edits today. Operator873talkconnect 18:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
No worries it was more the during I cared about. I only noticed because he went asking for AWB and mentioned the chat here so thought I would mention it. Back when we first created it we had an understanding that if you left editing you had to remove the flag from anyone you gave it to. But with the new option of adding a specified time for the flag that has changed that I guess. -DJSasso (talk)
  • Hi Operator873 and Djsasso! Of the 8,808 pages from the XML dump (a small, statistically insignificant number of which have since been deleted) which matched the pattern \<ref\>htt(p|ps)\: (i.e. those containing bare URLs for references), I queried 1,547 (17.5%) using a modified fork of reFill. Of these 1,547 pages, 854 (55.2%) contained bare URLs that could be totally fixed with high confidence. A manual check of every tenth page, as well as an AutoWikiBrowser search for citation errors, has confirmed that no pages had references filled incorrectly. Therefore, I'm requesting the flood flag for another 24 hours in which I hope to get to the 50% mark. I expect to get slightly more done because I have more free time (I'm running the queries on my local machine) over the next 24 hours in comparison to the previous period. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
@StraussInTheHouse: Flood flag granted per request. As we discussed on IRC previously, no other edits besides the ones you described. Contact myself here or on IRC to have the flag removed. If I'm not available, please leave a message at the noticeboard. Operator873talkconnect 18:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Operator873! Of the 8,808 pages from the XML dump (a small, statistically insignificant number of which have either since been deleted or been fixed between the release of the XML dump and the start of this little project) which matched the pattern \<ref\>htt(p|ps)\: (i.e. those containing bare URLs for references), 4,404 (50%) have now been queried using the aforementioned fork. I will do a more thorough manual check but the AutoWikiBrowser analysis that I used on the first 17.5% has been re-run on the 50% now completed and it suggests that no citation syntax errors have been generated. As we're now halfway there (whoa...), I suggest, considering that Thursdays and Fridays are the best days for me with regards to how free I am to run the server, and considering that we've found a couple of parsing errors (re the IRC conversation), I suggest that I take a look through the edits between now and Thursday, and, save any major screw-ups, I'll request 48 hours to do the other 50%. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Operator873: I've only just realised that today is Thursday, I thought it was Friday. Herp derp. So yeah, if that's okay, could I have +ff for another 24 hours. Same conditions and I'll be on IRC when querying. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 23:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Done for 24 hours. Vermont (talk) 12:27, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Vermont: thanks, I've done all of them except for the "Deaths in..." pages which are too large and have to be put through reFill manually, which I'm doing now. I've done 14 and there are two left so you can probably remove the flood flag now and I'll mark the remaining two edits as minor. However, for the post-flood analytics, I need to retain AWB access for a short while. Many thanks, SITH (talk) 17:42, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your change to WikipediaEdit

I noticed that you added a Wiktionary link to this article. It happens that we have an article, Portmanteau word, that is a better link. It is best to avoid Wiktionary links where possible, so please do a little research before using them to see if there is an article that could be used instead. In this case, another option would have been to use simpler words instead, such as "Wikipedia's name comes from parts of two words". Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: a bit of research would have shown you I was restoring a link that previously existed on the article after another editor removed the wikilink. Since it is a complex word, it definitely needs to be linked. Since it previously existed (and apparently was no issue before) restoring a previous condition or state should not be a problem. I thank you for improving the wiki by updating the wikilink to something on this project. However, I'd ask that you ensure you understand the context of the edits I make before coming to my talk page and leaving something like "do a little research." This is kind of insinuation is entirely uncivil, unkind, and unbecoming of a sysop. Operator873talkconnect 21:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
You seem to have perceived snark in my comments, but none was intended. By "do a little research", I meant do a small amount, and if that small amount didn't turn up anything, then so be it. In my attempts to be terse, sometimes I forget that people don't always assume good faith. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


@Operator873:Would you please text me your email please -- (talk) 07:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Sure! You can reach me at simple-admins-l or info-simple Also available to you is the email user function, should you decide to create an account. Operator873talkconnect 07:57, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks sir, links removed, article reduced to one para as desired by you sir. If any thing is wrong please delete. thanks -- (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Yonatan NetanyahuEdit

I crossed this page on patrol. It was made by another contributor and it was so insignificant that I decided to give it more content, but you deleted it in the meantime. Would you be kind enough to tell me if it suits you? Best regards. Ping me to talk to me. --Eihel (talk) 07:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel: I'm always very happy to see an article saved. Thank you very much for the work you did here. Operator873talkconnect 07:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

On Talk:MacBookEdit

Well, hello... again, I write to you a lot today  . For this TP, the intervention of our anonymous is it not too "oriented"? It is, imho, a POV that misleads the readers. My question: why did not you remove it right away? Looking forward to reading you. Wikipedially. --Eihel (talk) 08:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eihel: Opinions are able to be expressed on talk pages. Perhaps the IP editor felt we should add the information he proposed? Perhaps it was their first ever real edit on Wikipedia? We all started as IP editors. On talk pages, I allow some room. Operator873talkconnect 08:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Um yes. He/she has only forgotten to write "The PC is bad" or "Run fast buy a MacBook". Which would be even more confusing, but I follow you in your reasoning. See you later. --Eihel (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Bare URL reportEdit


Here's the report on the bare URL filling operation. Pinging Vermont and Djsasso as the others involved in the previous conversation.

  • There were 8,751 articles in the 2019-02-01 dump matching \<ref\>htt(p|ps)\:. This is less than the originally stated 8,808 because I've now had time to calculate the statistically insignificant number already manually fixed or deleted between the dump release and the start of the operation.
  • Of those, 5,713 articles had bare URL(s) which have all be fixed automatically. This means 65.3% of the articles have been fixed.
  • This leaves 3,038 articles which have bare URL(s) which could not be automatically resolved with high confidence, meaning they will have to be done manually. Some of these articles were updated in the operation but only some of their bare URLs were fixed.
  • These articles are listed at User:StraussInTheHouse/sandbox.

Insofar as the next steps, I suggest whoever feels like it at whatever time can just visit my sandbox and pick some of them off. Alternatively, a hidden maintenance category could be created and I could tag all of the bare URLs with an inline tag which users could then fix. I'd probably prefer the first.

Many thanks,

SITH (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Renate FranzEdit

Hi, deletion was OK, because this was not an usable article. But the cause you gave was not OK. Ofcourse Franz is of notability. She is one of the most important historians of cyclingsport history. And now imagine, how much motivation it is for her, due she also is Wikipedia author, to read, she's not of importance. She definetly don't want such articles about herself, but it's an other thing to read aout yourself, how unimportant you are. Thanks for frustrating. Marcus Cyron (talk) 14:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Marcus Cyron: Hello and thank you for the message. The deletion was not a comment about Franz's notability or a determination that the subject is or is not notable. The quick deletion reason was no claim of notability because the article did not make such a claim. While the subject may indeed be notable, the article in its former state did not state why the subject was notable and was mostly a list of books. If you'd like to appeal the deletion, please request a review here. Again, thank you for the message and I hope I addressed your concerns. Operator873talkconnect 18:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Email to admins' mailing listEdit

An email was sent to the admins' mailing list saying that you requested on IRC that they send it. The email has an attachment. Did you ask a user to email an attachment there? I'm not opening any attachment I'm not sure of. Have you opened it? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I did request that email to be sent via IRC with a known editor. The attachment is a text file attached by the mailserver and is completely safe to open, if you like. I have opened it. Sine being added to the email list, I hadn't received any emails and wanted to ensure it was added correctly. I received the email without issue and my concerns were laid to rest. Operator873talkconnect 18:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah our list isn't a busy list, we don't get a lot of emails. The job isn't as glamorous as you probably thought it was before being an admin. ;) -DJSasso (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: I think if someone is seeking a mop for the "glamour" they're probably in it for the wrong reasons. I sought the mop to better serve and protect the wiki. Recently, Bsadowski1 has gotten me into spambot hunting which, I must say, is a busy job. Unfortunately, there is a small chance a legitimate account may be caught up in the spambots so I wanted to make sure I could actively watch the email distro list. I requested the email to be sent so I could make sure my email client was set up to notify correctly when receiving emails from the mailserver. Operator873talkconnect 19:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I was a joke. :P -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
@Djsasso: To clarify, I was explaining my motivations. I didn't think you were being accusatory and I didn't mean to seem curt or rude in my response. My apologies. Operator873talkconnect 19:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems like no matter how I write something today, I just sound flat out moody. *sigh* I'm sorry DJSasso and Auntof6 if any of my responses seemed rude. I'll be over here working on my bot... haha Operator873talkconnect 19:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)


There really isn't a point to blocking open proxies here unless someone has actually edited from them here. There are millions of open proxies out there and because the IPs could stop being open proxies before anyone actually does try to edit from them you could just be hitting collateral damage. I only mention because I noticed you had blocked a couple earlier that never edited here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Djsasso: I know what you mean. And, for what it's worth, I only block the IPs that are compromised and have attempted to add spam. They may not have actually edited, but they have tried to. My course of thinking was basically since the IP is compromised at the very least, it'd be better to reduce the chance of future spam. Operator873talkconnect 16:36, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Ahh never even thought of the ones that tried and had been stopped. Yeah those make sense to block. -DJSasso (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Fixing the link to Welsh WikipediaEdit

Hi. Is that issue resolved, or is there still something outstanding? When somebody uses the protected edit request template, that template needs to be disabled after the request is addressed. Let me know if you don't know how to do that. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Thanks for the heads up. I forgot to null it out. Sorry about that. Operator873talkconnect 21:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Operator873".