Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 17

Edit... please.

Please can you change this, as there is a bit about halfway down that still reads http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki when it should read simple.wikipedia.org — thanks. mC⁸ 13:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - What does the script do? Chenzw  Talk  13:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"transwiki from en:User:Henrik/js/automod.js - copied to enable status template at User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate)" -- Creol(talk) 13:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at en:User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate. mC⁸ 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

GADGET! Yay!

Any chance of this as a gadget:

// This script changes the "Your signature with timestamp" edit button to use a real em dash instead of two hyphens.

(function () {
    var oldAddButton = window.addButton;
    if (typeof(oldAddButton) != 'function') return;
    window.addButton = function () {
        if (arguments.length > 2)
            arguments[2] = arguments[2].replace(/^--(~+)$/, '—$1');
        oldAddButton.apply(this, arguments);
    };
})();

//

Because I get annoyed easily with the stupid -- everyone seems to use — I'm a grammar stickler. mC⁸ 13:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would you need it? You do not have a '--' in your signature to replace.. -- Creol(talk) 13:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

*looks at Creol's signature and scowls* mc8 13:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That reply tends to be the reason I am against this gadget. The only purpose for it that I can see is to edit people posts because you do not like the way they signed it. It is one thing to edit a post for an obvious typo (if you happen to already be posting to it yourself and your spell check caught theirs as well), but to change what someone wrote just because it annoyed you? That goes against the basic tenent against editing what other said. I have had issues with many of your signatures, and those of a number of other people, but as long as they follow policy there is nothing to be done about it. I certainly would not just go around changing your signature because it annoyed me. Only in cases where a signature is in violation of policy and the user has been adaquately informed of this violation but refuses to comply should something like this be considered. I chose to put two dashes in front of my signature. I did not chose one big dash, an arrow or a cross - I chose two dashes. It is perfectly within policy to use two dashes (even <Big> ones if they are not disruptive to the rest of the text) and well within my rights (and those of anyone else) to use them. In a place where there are signatures with colors some people cannot see, are 22-24px high and tend to overlap each other, or just run on for multiple lines without end, I find it hard to beleive that two dashes is a problem worth breaking standard practices for.-- Creol(talk) 06:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of the time, I appreciate the wise advices of such an experiented Simple-pioneer like you. But, in this very case, it's remains hard for me to understand what you've said about my unconfusing signature use if I compare with your sentence : I certainly would not just go around changing your signature because it annoyed me. ONaNcle (talk) 08:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

What you did and what this seems intended to do are two different things (although there is some similarity). Your edits in that situation made it look like either EchoBravo gave warnings on those pages or you were impersonating him when you gave the warnings. In this case, a user wants to edit talk pages and change what other editors said. While it may be changing something as small as the way they sign the page, it is not anyones right to change what people chose to say or how they say it. Some people may not have a problem with these minor changes, but others may. I do not see any reason to add a tool to make it easier to violate a basic wikipedia convention. -- Creol(talk) 13:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) You were copying and pasting warnings which another user had given. However, you copied that user's signature as well. That's what Creol meant. Chenzw  Talk  10:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I do agree both with Creol and you that I was wrong to vote against you as admin giving stupid arguments. BTW, please tell me what is wrong (when quoting someone) to quote - as long as it is unconfusing - the signature as well. ONaNcle (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually had to read that twice to see if you'd really written that... When quoting someone, it's fine to give a source. But when giving a warning yourself, don't you think it a tad wrong to give the same warning with someone else's signature on the end of it? Especially since warnings are not quotes.

The point of signatures is to show where that warning came from in the first place. You gave identical warnings to different vandalism. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 12:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you mind yourself to be fine to give a source of what I was supposed to do badly. ONaNcle (talk) 12:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Creol: That's why it is a gadget. After all, It simply corrects the technically grammatically incorrect -- to a proper — that appears if you click the button. mC⁸ 12:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has this been implemented, or is someone going wild with AWB? It seems that many comments (including Creol's at the top of this section) have been changed over to a dash instead of two hyphens. mc8 18:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

TV Channel Logos

Could I please have permission to upload logos for television channels? Commons does not allow uploads of fair use files and I don't think I can use the ones that are on the English wiki. --Terryblack (talk) 20:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but no image uploads are allowed here. Are you sure there are none on Commons? --Gwib ^-(talk)- 20:55, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I searched but there are none of the ones I want.

Why are there no image uploads? --Terryblack (talk) 20:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We are a small Wikipedia here, and to check each licensing for each individual picture uploaded would be too much work. Commons already has more than enough free images to use and it makes things easier for us all over here. --Gwib ^-(talk)- 21:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Link title

Just like Red link, we should not have cross-namespace redirects. Is this an agreed-upon principle? Cassandra 05:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Mainspace to User/User talk spaces redirects are in violation of policy (covered by R2 in the deletion policy). With a few exceptions, there should be no need for cross-namspace redirects. Main to wikipedia space is an exception in many cases - all WP:Some Wikispace Acronym (WP:ADMIN, WP:RfD, etc) redirects fall under this category. Short of having the developers create a WP namespace solely for redirectiong to the Wikpedia namespace, Main -> Wikipedia redirects are not going to change. Rare exceptions may occur, but generally, all Mainspace pages should be either articles or redirects to mainspace articles. -- Creol(talk) 06:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

FC Hansa Rostock

Could an administrator email me the content that was in FC Hansa Rostock? Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Heck, I can post it all right here "German Soccer Team." thats it - three words. (plus one cat and the iws). No real need to email that. -- Creol(talk) 01:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm, can I see the cat? -- RyanCross (talk) 01:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Category:German Bundesliga -- Creol(talk) 01:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was particularly looking for. Thanks, RyanCross (talk) 01:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Independent research?

Hello, one of the reaosns enWP has is "independent research" (or similar, don't quote me on the exact title). I do not find anything like that in our deletion reasons; Where can the list be chahged, so that this can be added? --Eptalon (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that QD criteria? If it is, I am not so sure about adding as A4 can more or less fulfil it. Chenzw  Talk  12:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT, What wikipedia entries are not, item 10; not a QD criterion, tohugh. --Eptalon (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

QD A4 generally refers only to people and organizations, so it wouldn't apply to all the cases of independent research.--TBC 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll have to change an existing template or create a new template. Wait, so Eptalon, are you requesting it to be added to the QD template or the RfD template?--TBC 14:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I want an entry in the delete dialog admins have. --Eptalon (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind then, thought you meant something else.--TBC 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

TBC has given a good point. I think more consensus is needed for this (+ 3 or 4 users) as it is a change in our policy. Chenzw  Talk  14:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Outside the Foundation, there is an using-mediawiki-wiki allowing those independant researches ; please notice how far this is leading to. ONaNcle (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't work. For me. Just now. --Hordaland (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Try dia instead of ...d1a. ONaNcle (talk)

The original question: "Where can the list be chahged, so that this can be added?" - MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown or just hit the delete tab on any page and at the bottom right of the delete page there is a link "edit delete reasons". (a similar link is on the block page to edit its drop down reasons as well). -- Creol(talk) 17:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)