Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 45

< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

My user page

Can someone please unprotect my user page? I need to make changes to it and I'm feeling I will need to edit it in the future.  curtaintoad | talk  11:33, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Barras talk 12:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are subpages allowed for IP user pages?

I've just noticed User:50.198.108.221/Nocookiesforyou, and I thought I remembered that we don't allow subpages for IP user pages. There is also a user page. Are they allowed? --Auntof6 (talk) 19:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a way to notify users or IPs about a discussion that may include then on the administrators noticeboard?Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)
A message can be left on their talk page, but right now I'm just asking a general question. Either they're allowed or they aren't, so nothing the IP editor would say would have any bearing on the discussion. If it turns out the pages aren't allowed, then I'll talk to the IP editor and ask if they want to register so they can keep the page. If they are allowed, there's no need to bother the user. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we didn't allow pages, but I can not find it in our policies. We do say that one of the benefits of having a named account is a user page and sub pages.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, register and you get the benefits. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've deleted it, and the other loop which basically just created 4 double redirects (from where I found the pages) and the userpage. Before I saw this discussion right enough. The reasoning I used was Wikipedia:QD#U2, although there doesn't seem to be any policies to back that up... Kennedy (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Kennedy. I've deleted the remaining one and the redirect to it. I think the fact that there is a QD option for that means they are not allowed. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After this discussion started, I knew he/she was going to lose them, so I tried to convince him/her to create an account, but the he/she started making comments about monkeys and salads, so I gave up.--Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 13:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ozzie Da Cooger

Could somebody please remove this account's talk page access? The user's original account is MRivera25 (talk · contribs) which has had its talk page access removed since mid-December, and this is an alternative account of theirs. I didn't realise that the measures had already been taken on the original account, so I warned them about proper use. But I don't think that message has gotten through. Osiris (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Done --Chenzw  Talk  04:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection Request for List of Egyptian gods and goddesses

There has been a lot of vandalism on List of Egyptian gods and goddesses over the past week, and as there is now a post on Tumblr that draws attention to that page, an administrator should probably protect the page before more vandalism happens. Mr. Gerbear (talk) 04:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming by to clean it up. All those "gods and goddesses" lists get vandalised fairly frequently; probably because they consistently rank near the top of page-view statistics for our wiki. The Greek list no longer gets much vandalism at all – since I renamed it after expanding, the page now gets only a fraction of the vandalism it did before but also less than half of the hits it did before. I've semi-protected that Egyptian list for a few days, given the way Tumblr works. Since all of the anonymous edits to that list are non-constructive, so we could consider longer protection or perhaps try what I did with the Greek list. Osiris (talk) 04:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This Vandalism

A vandal replaced an article with this, and stated her first and last name. Should something be done so that the revision of the article can't be see? -Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 22:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We would hide a user's name if the user either was a minor or asked us to hide it. I don't see either of those here. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More of Yasir72.multan

Further to #Semi Protection request (User:Mar4d/2014) above, Pakistan Celebrations (talk · contribs) and Yasir Mushtaq (talk · contribs) are obviously accounts of en:user:Yasir72.multan. I recommend blocking both accounts and deleting any pages they created. — RHaworth (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trick to block me

Hello Administrators,
In the above section, a user RHaworth requst to block me. RHaworth and User:Mar4d are both from from english wikipedia. They are angry of me because I was request for speedy deletion of Mar4d's pages (because they were stoled from my pages)
You can check, User:Pakistan Celebrations has no any contribution on english wikipedia. (But Mar4d is an on going user). So how someone can say that i should be block or what should be the reasons? Thanks. Pakistan Celebrations (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When is a translation a copyvio, and when is it not?

I'm looking at Black Point. Parts of it are close translations of Spanish text on this Facebook page. The translations are so close that you can tell where the translator (whether machine or human, I don't know) didn't understand the language well enough to pick the right meaning for some words. Should they be considered copyright violations, given that they're not in the original language? I should also note that the Spanish Wikipedia article on this person has an exact copy of the Facebook text, and I am pursuing what to do there. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook scrapes wikipedia for its content on pages like that often. Not sure if that is the case here or not. It could be the case where it came from us first. Technically to answer your question a translation is a copyvio. -DJSasso (talk) 12:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This May Interest Admins...

For some reason, when you link text to a Category Page, it disappears. Such as this…[[Category:Wikipedians looking for help|Will disappear]] disappears…here-> <------(Look in edit mode to see it). Pending(tell me I screwed up and where) 20:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you link it like that then it will add the page to the category rather than link to it. If you want to link to a category you need to type a colon before the name of the category, like so: Category:Wikipedians looking for help. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Thanks for the information. Sorry about that.Pending(tell me I screwed up and where)

Protection request

Because of recent vandalism could my user page be semi-protected indefinitely please. I have better things to do than clean up my user page after some IP or vandalism only account messes about trolling. Thanks --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 00:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

just to let you know, I added an editfilter (Number 42) that should detect direct links to other language wikipedias. While these are not very common, such links point to articles referenced, but possibly missing from our wiki. --Eptalon (talk) 20:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds useful. When does it come into play? --Auntof6 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In very basic terms, if you have a link that has ".wikipedia.org/...", I just added a condition to not trigger on links to simple.wikipedia.org. --Eptalon (talk) 09:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll also get the tag "article with links to other-language wikis?" for the edits --Eptalon (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating New Account

Bold text' PLEASE NOTE:Bold text' I AM GWENDOLYN GOULD, AND I AM SIGNING IN UTILIZING MY HUSBAND'S EMAIL ADDRESS: <email redacted> STEPHEN, MY HUSBAND, UNDOUBTEDLY USED THIS ADDRESS IN CREATING HIS OWN ACCOUNT A FEW YEARS AGO. STEPHEN PASSED AWAY ON JANUARY 8, 2013. SINCE THEN, I HAVE BEEN USING HIS EMAIL ACCOUNT AS I HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO SET UP MY OWN ACCOUNT. PLEASE ACCEPT MY DESIRE TO HAVE AN ACCOUNT WITH WIKIPEDIA AND, IF POSSIBLE, TO CONTRIBUTE THROUGH PROOFREADING/EDITING AS WELL AS THROUGH MONETARY CONTRIBUTIONS.

PLEASE HELP ME IN SETTING UP MY OWN ACCOUNT AS ENTERED ON THE "CREATE ACCOUNT" PAGE. THANK YOU.

GWENDOLYN GOULD <telephone number redacted>

Hmmm... It seems strange that a person cannot "SET UP MY OWN ACCOUNT" considering the help which is available anywhere. Assuming verification shows she is who she claims to be, the next question would be, as usual, is this the wiki she wishes to be part of? Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't understand what this person is asking, since the edit was made under an account that the user says she wants to create. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:57, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps she thinks that simply creating an account is not enough to contribute here, that some other level of authorisation is required. I'd have thought it was obvious that anyone can edit here though... Kennedy (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TemplateData and VisualEditor

I would like to get some feedback from the administrators (and the community-at-large) about the adoption of TemplateData and VisualEditor into this wiki. Currently, only 4 templates out of a total of 15,600 have TemplateData in them (2 unique ones). Other than because the community is small and we should focus on our content, is there any reason why we are not adding TemplateData documentation to our templates? --Hydriz (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a priority for us I suppose. There is a lot of upkeep that needs doing on this wiki and only a small number of editors doing it. Only a small fraction of users seem to be using VisualEditor, and not many of them are working with templates. So for the number of users it would benefit, TemplateData is probably a pretty low priority for most of us. I guess the most efficient thing for us to do would be to let editors on the English Wikipedia do the work and then gradually copy it over as we update our documentation pages. Osiris (talk) 05:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a legitimate plan, since many of our templates are from the English Wikipedia. There are some templates that are too complex to be used in VisualEditor itself, so we can exclude those, but this should not be considered to be our "long-term" plan, as there will be more and more editors using VisualEditor, and they will eventually get to editing templates.
Are there any other reasons? Is VisualEditor a tool that is too disruptive for normal editing? Does it still lack some features that we need? --Hydriz (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's been a disruption. But somebody else should respond to this, because I haven't tested it much. Osiris (talk) 06:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For me, Visual Editor is just a nuisance, and I never use it. In fact, I think it encourages silly people some editors to add words here and there which almost always have to be reverted. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Visual Editor to be a very big pain in the butt to use. I actually think its harder for new people to figure out how to use than editing the plain source. I find it ironic that the thing meant to make something easier is actually harder than the original. I also agree that I have found it seems to encourage the silly vandalism more. So basically yeah I find it a disruption and would rather it just be turned off. -DJSasso (talk) 12:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I use both methods of editing depending on what I am doing - if it is proof reading, text, adding pics or linking, then Visual Editor is better to use. But when it comes to working with references and templates, I just cannot do it and have to go back to the old ways. As to template data, this is not an area that I am familiar with, and would like more info.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:12, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it just tells editors using VE what each parameter does and helps you add values while you're changing a template transclusion. You can test it on any page using Template:Infobox football biography. Osiris (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually test it on Cinderella Castle instead. By editing the infobox through VisualEditor. The football one doesn't seem to be working. Anubis (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, I am getting the idea. How do I know which templates use TemplateData?--Peterdownunder (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Through Special:PagesWithProp. Osiris (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────┘

If you need help with TemplateData, I wrote a rather simple guide here on simple.wiktionary to get started. As for the other comments, seems like VisualEditor is still designed for simple editing and not to edit the whole page. As for references though, there is a reference editor in VisualEditor, does it not work? Perhaps maybe because the citation templates have got no TemplateData in them? --Hydriz (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons articles at RfD

At this RfD, there are a couple of categories and a growing number of articles up for deletion. So far, all opinions have been that they should be deleted. More articles keep being created. I don't feel I can close this one because I was involved in deleting some related categories. It has a few days to run, but given that there are five "deletes" (including mine), I wonder if another admin would like to close this RfD now? We would then be able to tell the creators not to create any more similar articles and more quickly delete any new ones that appear. Since the creators haven't responded to the RfDs or messages left on their talk pages, making a decision would allow us to block them to get their attention and try to get them to respond. Any takers? I'm willing to do the work of deleting if the closing admin would like me to. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotection request

A few little wile ago I requested my user page is protected because I was repeatedly vandalised by an IP. Since then all that has happend is my talk page has been subject to vandalism (such as here and here) So there is nothing I can do to stop vandalism so I see little point in keeping my userpage protected.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those changes are to your talk page, not your main user page. Only the main page was protected. I don't think we would protect the talk page, because it's meant for other users to edit. Do you want your main page unprotected? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am asking for my userpage to be unprotected.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to change

Hello, could someone please change "Edit" in MediaWiki:Visualeditor-ca-editsource to "Change"? Thanks.  Hazard SJ  03:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K, done. Osiris (talk) 03:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Import

Its been a while since I've done this and didn't want to break anything; could a fellow admin please import [1] into my sandbox where I'll do some tidying before moving to article-space? Been a while and wasn't sure of the 'rules' of the import function. Thanks Kennedy (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just got an error when trying to import the page. I just asked for help in #wikimedia-tech... -Barras talk 13:04, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Done -Barras talk 13:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Error was probably just the normal too many revisions to import error. Just have to keep hitting import until it grabs them all to solve it. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that wasn't the problem. The page has only about 120 revisions, that shouldn't be a problem for the tool. It was because I wanted the import to directly go into the userspace which is probably why it didn't work the first time. But moving the page is easier then getting one of those nice tech people looking at the problem... -Barras talk 13:22, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. Yeah. I have had the revisions problem happen with small pages too. The real issue is lag usually I think moreso than the number of revisions. But yeah sounds like completely different issue in your case. -DJSasso (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Barras! Kennedy (talk) 13:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/71.198.205.234

Special:Contributions/71.198.205.234 has made changes to the Tom and Jerry article since December that look like vandalism. I'll look through other contributions to see if these type of changes are happening on other articles. Just wanted to bring a few more people's attention to this IP since these are small but persistent changes. Thanks!--Tbennert (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Username violation?

Is this username against the policy? --Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless it contains something offensive... Osiris (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:September 1988

September 1988 (talk · contribs)

I have replied to this user's latest outburst giving what I would call a firm-but-polite warning. The user is learning, but making mistakes. Several users, including me, have tried to suggest ways to improve. However the user replies in a way which I would call emotional blackmail where they claim they are very upset, embarrassed and the insults have caused them to become ill. This is not acceptable and I have placed a warning. Any other thoughts on this matter? Kennedy (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that isn't exactly blackmail: I was upset (for real). And my embarrassing feelings aren't false. Sometimes, I don't always know how to respond. Under no circumstance would I blackmail, troll or use personal attacks — those things are really childish and detrimental here. I'm just an ordinary good editor who needs help due to emotional issues and learning conditions. Is anyone willing to help me react better when the editing and or/environment gets too tense? My feeling upset was not fake.
And someday around 2022 or later, I'd like to become an administrator myself; I really need help though. Angela Maureen (talk) 11:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following the exchanges, but I will try to stay out of them unless specifically asked to participate. For what it's worth, I do not feel personally attacked, and I do believe this user is doing her best. I just feel that a user's personal problems are not a reason to allow problems in the articles. I don't know how to point out the problems in a way she would be receptive to. If anyone knows how to do that, I'd appreciate them letting me know. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Angela isn't trolling, being dishonest or fake, nor is she using emotional blackmail. Her mental disorders impair her judgement, communication skills, emotions and perception. Don't assume she has any bad intent; she's doesn't. She is honestly trying her best to do her best. She is not intending to offend anyone, nor does she want to cause any problems. Jim Michael (talk) 11:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is how I see it. I'm sorry if I gave any other impression. --Auntof6 (talk)
My reply was to the OP, Kennedy, as well as to anyone else joining the discussion. Angela is taking the criticism and suggestions personally, which she feels frustrated with and hurt by. She can't deal with these things in the way that an average person could. Jim Michael (talk) 11:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think Kennedy's warning was appropriate. The criticisms of her work were objective, based on defects seen in the articles, not upon the editor personally. The criticisms were: lack of citations for biogs of living people, lack of appropriate simplification, and changing the meaning of key statements so that the text was inaccurate. The user has put up many new pages, which is something we do want. But it's all pointless if the pages do not meet minimum requirements. The user could, and IMO should, have done much less much more carefully. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy misinterpreted Angela as trolling and using emotional blackmail. I agree that the criticisms of the faults in the articles she wrote are correct and fair. However, it needs to be understood that Angela is trying to do her best and does not have any bad intent. If she's sanctioned in any way, it would be for incompetence. She doesn't have any hidden agenda or bias. I agree that she should do less more carefully. She has ADHD, which causes typically causes impulsivity, inattentiveness and often emotionally blurting out one's thoughts without appropriate restraint. She also appears to be autistic, which partially explains her unusual, and sometimes incorrect, use of language as well as impaired communication skills. She also has suffers depression and GAD, which partly explain why she feels so hurt by criticism, on top of all the other problems she has in her life. I'm not outing her in regard to her mental state; she has chosen to talk about her mental disorders on several occasions on this site. Jim Michael (talk) 12:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to say that I find this quite inappropriate. It's great that you're trying to help, and you probably are, but I'd personally prefer that you didn't announce your surmisations about another editor's mental state. Osiris (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously Angela is a good-faith editor. The content creation just needs some practice. Proof-reading and taking a bit more time to make sure everything is exactly as you want it would be a start. There was also the idea of building up the articles in userspace. I did offer to help quite recently, and that offer still stands. Perhaps Jim Michael might be willing to work with her on content creation? Osiris (talk) 12:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I'm not outing personal info about her. She has chosen to raise the subject of her mental disorders on several occasions. Had she not sone so, I would not have mentioned it. My point is to prevent people from wrongly believing that she is trolling, deliberately doing things wrongly etc, by pointing out the nature of the difficulties she has. Some people don't seem to be acknowledging or taking account of that in their perceptions of her and in their communications with her. On her talk page, it has been suggested that she is faking being upset and that she is trolling, both of which are untrue. Jim Michael (talk) 13:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly. I'm sure Angela will appreciate your intentions, and whatever she has stated openly is fine to repeat. However, unless she has openly shared with us that she is autistic, et cetera, then it is really not something that you should be talking about. Osiris (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely +1 Osiris on that one. Making (even educated) guesses at someone's mental health is inappropriate. Anyway, back on topic; if other users believe that the user is not trolling then fine, I'll go with that. I did look at the users contribs and realised then that it goes back to 2010 therefore not as likely as I initially imagined to be trolling. As mentioned by Macdonald-ross; quality, not quantity - the problem happens here rather often... I wonder if there is some kind of 'spam filter' that can be adapted to a flag to be assigned to 'problem users' where quantity is their ambition instead of quality... Kennedy (talk) 10:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would be useful is if there could be something that would flag up articles that are unsourced or of poor quality. I don't know how that could be done or even if it is possible. There is a flag of 'all in lower-case or all in upper-case' which is useful as such articles are always badly written. Could that kind of flag be extended to articles that are of unsatisfactory quality? Jim Michael (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Centaur

I believe that User:Centaur is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. DeFacto made a few edits on SimpleWP in January 2007 to the article Speed limit. In April 2012 he was been banned from enWP indefinitely. The discussion leading up to his enWP ban can be seen here. In particular may I draw to attention Ron Ritzman's comment about DeFacto's filibustering.

Since then has launched many sockpuppets on enWP - the archive is here. Most of those sockpuppet have been directed against me, usually in articles concerning the metric system. (I have taken four such articles to GA status in enWP). As an IP editor he tried to sabotage an article for which I was largely responsible - even though this article has been commended by other editors here and the article was on the topic of imperial and customary units of measure, not metric units.

A sockpuppet investigation was published against his incarnation as Passy2 on 19 February 2014 and he was blocked on 21 February 2014. Unusually for him, he did not contest the accusation. On 20 February though, Centaur created an account on SimpleWP. One of his first changes was to add an image to the article Kilometres per hour. I believe that his interest in Speed limit in 2007 coupled with my interaction with DeFacto on enWP and the timing of his account creation backs up my suspicion that Centaur and DeFacto are one and the same person.

His comments regarding the article Metric system that were made here and the text changes here suggest to me that he is looking to sabotage this article. This is very much in line with the style that he used on enWP under the identity User:Bill le Conquérant (ANI here) in which he made a number of useful additions to Wikipedia as a cover to his strong anti-metric stance.

I realise that the indefinite banning order applied at enWP does not apply here, but I feel that the disruption he is dragging in from enWP into SimpleWP should be nipped in the bud. Please take whatever action is appropriate. Martinvl (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! What?! Talk about over reaction! I admit that I messed up slightly in the wording of my change to Metric System, and have since reverted it and had a second attempt at putting it right. However, the attack and accusations made above, and the defensive and outrageous utterings are, in my book, indefensible. I think Martinvl needs a stern warning, and a reminder, that no one editor owns or has any claim over any of the articles, or their content, here. Centaur (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best you two just stay away from each other. Theres obviously bad blood between you from enWP, we don't want your arguing to cause disruption here. Something someone did or did not do at enWP has no automatic impact here. We'll deal with things on a case-by-case basis. So just try to ignore each other eh? Kennedy (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comedy Kids and 208.36.136.5

The user 208.36.136.5 (talk) has been removing the placement of a Quick Deletion template on the article "Comedy Kids". The article has been previously deleted before the page was recreated and I added a Quick Delete template to the article. I don't believe the user understands the Deletion notice I've placed on the page or the notices on their talk page, as they have not contested the deletion of the page on the article's talk page like suggested in the template. I figured I best inform the administrators of this so that it doesn't turn into an edit war over the Quick Deletion template. --GeorgeBarnick (talk) 05:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-SALTed it (is that even accepted vernacular? :P) for a week, probably overkill but saves us a small job later down the line. Maybe if he can't edit it he might get the jiist. Kennedy (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes that will change some archive (and other) pages

Your excellencies:

I've been looking at Special:WantedPages to see what could be cleaned up. The top item there is the nonexistent article "Telecommunications of Nasal Sprays from Venus (9*6=42)". It has 698 links. The links come from a signature previously used by User:TeleComNasSprVen. I'm not linking it here to avoid making it 699 links, but you can see it at the top of Special:WantedPages. I'd like to unlink these to help clean up the list. I told the user I wanted to unlink them, and he/she did not object. I am letting you know because a lot of the links are on archive pages, which we normally don't change. Most of the links are on user talk pages, but there are also links on user talk page archives, other talk pages and archives, old RfDs, requests for permission pages, and possibly others. You can take a look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Telecommunications_of_Nasal_Sprays_from_Venus_(9*6=42) to see everything that links to it. Does anyone have a problem with me unlink this item on all these pages? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind, as long as each archive page is not edited excessively to delink them (aka not more than a couple of edits related to this) - AWB or a particular pywikibot script should work fine, I guess? Chenzw  Talk  02:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be only one edit per page. I'd use AWB, since that's the only (semi-)automated tool I use. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool, I'd imagine some regex trick like removing [[Telecommunications of Nasal Sprays from Venus (9*6=42)|...]] or something similar where the ellipsis is a placeholder. I'm not exactly sure why this needs to be on the administrators' noticeboard and not Simple Talk though... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of interest, why was the link there in the first place? Kennedy (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Idk, maybe I was stupid back then and favored fancy sigs... (Oh and try using any sort of colorful sigs on English Wiktionary, my home wiki, and you'll have a mob chasing after you) TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I posted here instead of at Simple Talk because I was first most concerned about the issue of changing archives, which are not supposed to be changed. If people think I should also post at Simple Talk because I would be changing user pages, I can do that, too. I imagine that many of the affected users don't watch Simple Talk, but at least some would see it.

I wonder if I should do the change under my bot account, to try to avoid all the "your talk page has been updated" notifications. Would anyone have an issue with that if I visually check each edit? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority are talk page archives which won't trigger the notice or are IPs who are likely not to care. I would say go ahead with doing it on either. But if you want to do it on your bot just to be safe I approve that task since you are well experienced with running such things. -DJSasso (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Djsasso. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no objections, I'm going ahead with this. Thanks to all who commented. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:35, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's done. There are four links left -- three to protected user talk archives that I couldn't change, and one on a Simple talk archive that I decided to leave because it wasn't in a signature. I'll leave it to User:Gordonrox24 or User:Barras to change their protected talk archives if they want to. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:39, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to adjust my talk page archives, Auntof6. :-) -Barras talk 11:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Barras. I've taken care of it, and of the other user talk pages. I consider this done now. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old RfD needs closing

Would an admin be willing to close Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion#LGBT-occupation_categories? As I mentioned in my note there, if you're reluctant to close the request because it's more work than usual to process, I'm willing to help with that work. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as suggested would be consistent with our other recent decisions to keep the proliferation of categories under control. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:10, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Will take care of it and close it now. @Auntof6, I will probably come back to you for help later, but I think I've enough time to get everything sorted myself. -Barras talk 11:18, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Done -Barras talk 13:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. Thanks for doing all that work. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption by User:Centaur (aka DeFacto)

Please do something about User:Centaur disrupting the articles Metric system, Litre and System of units. I believe that Centaur is a sockpuppet of User:DeFacto. DeFacto made a few legitimate changes on siWiki in 2007 but worked mainly on enWiki.He has now been banned from enWiki, but has created many sockpuppet accounts. He is continually trying to discredit anything to do with metrication and also trying to undermine my activities. He has recently followed me onto siWiki and is acting in the same way as he acted on enWiki. In particular, he is now trying to sabotage my efforts to get the article Metric system accepted as a good article.

System of units

Using Keynes as an example of units Centaur has asserted that just because John Maynard Keyne's had a chapter entitled "Units" that the book is a useful addition to this article. If anybody reads chapters 4, 5 and 6 they will see that Keynes argues that the absence of meaningful units of measure in economics makes it difficult to verify his arguments experimentally. Centaur refuses to accept this fact. I believe that he is trying to antagonise me by his continual refusal to acknowledge that Keynes' book has no place in this article. I find it significant that in his incarnation as en: User:Bill le Conquérant he worked on the article en:OIML yet he failed to see that OIML was one of the publishers of International vocabulary of metrology (VIM), the publication on which the article System of units is based. Merger proposal Centaur has proposed that this article should be merged with the article System of measurement on grounds that the two cover the same topic. Systems of units deal with units of measure – metres, feet, inches, kilograms etc. Systems of measurement deal with data gathering systems and includes not only units of measure, but also inherent errors, measurement devices, data recording etc. Systems of measurement also deals with area where systems of units are not applicable such as economics, phycology etc. I believe that his merger proposal is a device to cause disruption. Centaur has a track record of trying to merge articles in order to destroy them. Examples include this proposal while hiding behind an IP address. This action of his caused the delay of a DYK nomination for several days. Another attempt was here here in his dual incarnations as en:User:Pother and en:User:Ornaith.

Litre

I believe that Centaur is trying to goad me by persisting in making inappropriate references to the "1791 metric system". While it might be true that many books make reference to the metric system having been introduced into France in 1791, they do not define what they mean by "having been introduced" (or similar such phrases). Books that give more detail outline the following chronology:

  • 1791 – Design of the metric system given a go-ahead. Committees seet up to examine various aspects of the system. Go-ahead given for the Dunkirk-Barcelona survey to accurately determine the distance between the North Pole and the equator.
  • 1793 – First draft of the metric system was published.
  • 1795 – Final draft of the metric system published – subject to results of the Dunkirk-Barcelona survey.
  • 1798 – Dunkirk – Barcelona survey completed.
  • 1799 – Definitive copies of the metre and kilogram manufactured.

Centaur is persisting in writing as though metric system was an established fact in 1791. I believe that he is doing this out of sheer bloody-mindedness..

Metric system

I believe that Centaur is trying to sabotage this article in order to wind me up and to prevent it from being classed as a "good article". "System of measurement" or "system of units" When I changed the text "The metric system is a system of measurement" to "The metric system is a system of units of measurement", he reverted. (See System of units) Blatant POV in his opposition to metrication Centaur has taken every opportunity to run the metric system down. In this version of the article, the degree of POV by Centaur is excessive as is the use of unverified sensational language ("…the police…."). It is unnecessary to detail the opposition to the degree that he has done – the article is about the metric system as a whole: the problems that French had two hundred years ago warrants a passing mention but nothing more. For the record, the section on the problems in France after the metric system was introduced runs to 328 words while 173 words are devoted to metrication in the United Kingdom and 286 to metrication in the United States. (Since I made these measurements, he has reduced the UK and US sections further. )

Centaur has a track record of disruption

When I first crossed swords with DeFacto, I tried to explain to him that this addition was not very helpful – the survey to which he referred was an in-house survey while the strawberry promotion was a promotion for a single item by a single chain store. The material was hardly relevant. The discussion, or rather DeFacto gaming the system covered the following items (no need to read them, just measure them with a ruler):

The result was DeFacto being banned from enWiki.


I do not want to go through this tedious argument with him on every point that he tried to make.

Sockpuppet history

After he was banned, he created a series of sockpuppets. I have been the main target of his disruption.

Martinvl (talk) 03:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Martinvl, I'll happily discuss any point you dispute, and supply supporting quotes from the cited references, including those from Alder describing the role of the police. But this the wrong place for a content dispute, which is basically the essence of what you posted, albeit disguised as something else. --Centaur (talk) 10:28, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Centaur/DeFacto - Your past form has been to refuse to discuss anything until your preferred version is the current version. You then present facile arguments and wear everybody else down. This is not a content dispute. This is about you causing disruption by persistent presentation of facile arguments. Martinvl (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop conflating what I have done here with what some other editor has done elsewhere. All that I have done here is try to add relevant detail to, and improve the verifiability of content in, some measurement related articles. I'm sorry if that conflicts with your agenda here. I note that you were banned from editing measurement related articles in English Wikipedia and subsequently blocked indefinitely for disruption there. I suspect you risk similar sanctions here if you carry on like this. --Centaur (talk) 11:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Centaur and DeFacto the same person?

This subsection is written in response to the question posed by Auntof6 in subsection "Administrator response" (below).

There are a number of indicators suggesting that DeFacto and Centaur are one and the same.

  1. DeFacto made three edits in siWiki on the topic of Speed limits in 2007. He made an edit two weeks earlier on enWiki on the same topic and another a week later. Two of Centaur's earliest edits were to the same subject. Another DeFacto sockpuppet, en:User:Ornaith, was a major "contributer" (for sake of a better word) to the article en: Kilometres per hour. A lot of different people interested in speed limits and kilometres per hour. Are they all the same person?
  2. DeFacto's favourite stomping ground as far as I was concerned were articles associated with metrication. His other interest was motor cars and motor-racing. This was brought out in the discussion section of this sockpuppet investigation (in which I was not involved). An examination of Centaur's interests in siWiki shows his interest in metric units (including Metric system and kilometres per hour), the latter being a link between his motoring and metrication interests. Are they the same person?
  3. A total of 23 sockpuppet investigations have been made against DeFacto Sockpuppets on enWiki. 17 of these were instigated by me in response to disruption by DeFacto of work I had done. The majority of my complaints were upheld. This demonstrates that Defacto has launched Sockpuppets in the past so the possibility of Centaur being a sockpuppet of DeFacto should be investigated. This also shows that DeFacto was harassing me on enWiki. Centaur started work on two articles in siWiki where somebody else was already working – both were articles on which I was working. These both show a similarity in interests. Are they the same person?
  4. Neither DeFacto nor Centaur have a sense of notability. The ASDA incident on enWiki shows that he was incapable of realising that a single promotion of a single product by a single supermarket chain was not notable. Likewise devoting over 10% (392 words out of 3689) of the article Metric system to problems that France had over 200 years ago shows no sense of proportion. In my view it is appropriate to devote 10% of the article discussing the development of the metric system in France with no more than a quarter of that to French PR problems in selling the system to their own people.
  5. DeFacto's puppets refused to abide by the en:WP:BRD (bold-revert-discuss) principal. He would engage in brinkmanship forcing me to risk a 3RR ban when I tried to revert to the last stable version prior to having a meaningful discussion. It was easy for him – if the sockpuppet was exposed and banned, he would create another one. In this series of edits on enWiki DeFacto (in his incarnation as EzEdit) refused to base discussions on the last stable version of the article. In this series of changes Centaur likewise refused to follow the BRD principle.
  6. DeFacto, in his incarnation as Bill le Conquérant started writing the article Legal metrology as a spin-of from en:Metrology. There was no real need for a spin-off, nor did Bill le Conquérant demonstrate any real knowledge of the subject. Most of the article was waffle. After Bill le Conquérant was exposed as a sockpuppet, I salvaged what was worthwhile from the article and merged it back into en:Metrology. Centaur started writing the article System of measurement. What has been written to date shows that he does not really understand the scope of the subject. The article itself would be much better off as a subsection of the article Measurement . I notice that both these editors attempted to write articles on similar topics and that they were ill-equipped to write them.
  7. DeFacto's sockpuppet Passy2 was exposed as a sockpuppet on enWiki on 19 February 2014 and banned on 21 February 2014 (See here). Centaur opened his account on siWiki on 20 February 2014. Were the two actions related? When Passy2 realized that he had been rumbled, did he decide to go and cause trouble elsewhere and seeing that I was working on siWiki decided to go there?

Each of the above on its own could be put down to coincidence, but when viewed together, I believe that they present overwhelming evidence that DeFacto and Centaur are one and the same person. Finally, why is Centaur using a new account when he already has a valid account on siWiki? Is he trying to hide something?--Martinvl (talk) 14:10 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, Centaur's first few days on Wikipeida appeared to be quite productive. Within 24 hours of creating an account, he spotted that I had overlooked a copyright issue. On the same day he inserted an image into the article kilometre. Quite remarkable for a beginner, unless of course he had been previously been editing on either simpleWiki or enWiki. If he had been editing previously, what was his username? Was it DeFacto (or one of his sockpuppets)? Martinvl (talk) 22:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that I was a beginner here? I never did. I've been doing it for years elsewhere. Centaur (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator response

First of all, you have both been edit warring. Because of that, effective immediately, I am imposing a topic ban on both of you: you are both forbidden to make any content edits related to measurement until I (and/or any other admins who want to help) have time to analyze the edits that you both have made. I will leave a message to this effect on both of your talk pages. If either of you violate this restriction, you will be blocked from all editing until an admin has evaluated the issues mentioned in this complaint. It might take some time for that evaluation to be done, given the number of edits made.

As far as Centaur being the same person as DeFacto: I do not see anything at the "series of sockpuppets" link provided by Martinvl that says they were determined to be the same. If I am missing that, please point out where it was stated. Unless I see evidence of that, I am not going to consider anything related to DeFacto on other Wikipedias.

As for the nomination of Metric system as a good article, I am putting that on hold. With the article changing so much, it is impossible for editors to evaluate it for possible good article status.

The one thing I have noticed so far is that some of the references given for disputed information in these articles are not sufficient. When there are disputes as there are in this case, it is not enough to give just a book name and author. More specific information is needed, such as a page number or chapter, so that people who want to look up the information or verify something can find the referenced information.

That's all for now. I will get back to you as I evaluate each article. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Auntof6, I'm sorry it has come to this, and that you will now have to waste your valuable editing time on it. If you have any questions, I'l happily answer them.
You mention above that supporting references might need more qualification. If there are any specific instances you want clarification on please mention them here, and I'll look up the details.
In the meantime, further up here, Martinvl questions the use of 'unverified sensational language ("…the police….")' This is the language used in Ken Alder's book, The Measure of all Things (I have the 2002 Paperback, isbn 0-349-11507-9, version). There's a later, searchable, version on Google books here. In that we find the word "police" used in several places. Particularly in support of my addition is this - page 270 (cited in the article with page number from my paperback edition): "Police inspectors insisted on the new measures [the new metric unit measures]; customers preferred the old measures; and shopkeepers stocked both". Centaur (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and in case you haven't already noticed, Martinvl has also opened another attack on me at WP:VIP which you might want to take a look at too. --Centaur (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that report has now been deleted by another administrator with the comment: "... removed in appropriate reporting." --Centaur (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a quick comment on the big new section just recently added by Martinvl... Apart from the flaky and fallacious reasoning being used in relation to my addition of the speed limit picture and the equating of a disagreement with Martinvl's POV to must therefore be DeFacto, the giveaways seem to be: a/ even if I was DeFacto no rules would have been broken here, 2/ DeFacto does not appear to be blocked or banned here so he wouldn't need a new account anyway. I could address each point in detail, but don't forsee any need for that, unless asked.
Hence the answer to Martinvl's "finally" question is self evidently that we are indeed unrelated. --Centaur (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to behave yourselves. No more bickering, no more attacking each other, no more complaining about each other, no more accusing each other of vandalism or anything else. The more you do that, the more I have to review before I can get back to looking at the actual articles, and the longer your topic ban will stay in effect. Consider this a warning that the scope of your ban might be extended if you can't control yourselves. I don't have unlimited time to spend on Wikipedia, y'know, and I'm not spending all of my Wikipedia time on this issue.

As far as whether Centaur and DeFacto are the same person, I am not convinced by either of your arguments. In any case, I don't really care: I am only looking at the changes to the three articles listed. Now please clean up your acts and let me get back to that. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser indicates they are the same person. He is doing the same sorts of editing as on English Wikipedia, where he is banned. --Bsadowski1 08:51, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bsadowski1, can you confirm you mean Martinvl, not me, beause I know he is banned there, but I am not. --Centaur (talk) 09:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he means you are DeFacto who is currently banned on en.wiki. I am attempting to get confirmation. If it is true, you will be blocked based on WP:ONESTRIKE for continuing the same types of edits here that you did on en.wiki. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note, that Martinvl is also making similar edits to those that caused him to be topic banned/banned on en.wiki would also be a violation of WP:ONESTRIKE so I am debating on whether he too should be blocked. -DJSasso (talk) 12:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a discussion with Bsadowski it does appear that Centaur is DeFacto. And in looking at the edits of both users I am going to block both per WP:ONESTRIKE. I welcome Auntof6 to continue looking at the edits of Martinvl if she wants to confirm I made the right move. But in looking at everything since yesterday I am convinced this is indeed a perfect example of when onestrike is to be used. -DJSasso (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Djsasso. I support the action you took. Tha ks also to Bsadowski for the checkuser results. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User name and actions

May I draw attention to user:SemenStain, whose handle and actions deserve appropriate treatment. Thanks, Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No don't draw attention to it! Bsadowksi has blocked it.--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another RfD that needs to be closed

Would an admin please close the RfD at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2014/Categories showing mixes of national ancestry? Assuming the RfD succeeds, I am willing to do the somewhat considerable work of processing it (although help with it would be welcome, too). Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -Mh7kJ (talk) 20:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm working my way through them. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-EnhancedInterwikis.js. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that yesterday evening already, I just wasn't sure why there are three equals. Aren't there usually only two? -Barras talk 11:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In this case they are equivalent. I just noticed that sometimes h5 is also undefined, so another check for that would need to be added as well. PiRSquared17 (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinvl is appealing his block

See his talk page. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with what happened on enwiki. Yes, DeFacto caused disruption at both places. But two wrongs don't make a right, and Martinvl was pushing several POVs on enwiki, and I assume here too. Enough is enough. --Rschen7754 01:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, looking at edits on both wikis there was issues on both wikis. Onestrike is purposefully created for solving such situations where trouble crosses wikis. In this case it was clear the two were going to eat up far to much editor time in the same manor they did at en.wiki. So the best solution for the wiki was to remove their editing capabilities. -DJSasso (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was very annoying at enwiki, and I'm glad it was stopped more quickly when it spread here. Keep him (and the DeFacto sock, obviously) blocked. TCN7JM 12:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock request is still outstanding. Could an admin please review and do the standard accept or decline so the user isn't left hanging? I'm not reviewing because I was somewhat involved in the case. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

d-batch option on Special:PrefixIndex

I was using this special page to look for misnamed categories (for example, "Rivers in Foo" that should be "Rivers of Foo"), and noticed the d-batch option. It's apparently to delete everything listed on the page, but clicking on it did nothing. Is a special right needed to use that option? If so, what hoops does one have to jump through to get it? --Auntof6 (talk) 09:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any d-batch option. Apart from the input form, 'Hide redirects', 'Strip prefix in list' and namespace selection are the only options I can see. Could you tell the steps to reproduce this, perhaps? --Glaisher [talk] 10:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tab at the top of the page. Maybe "option" wasn't the best term for it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh indeed. Nothing happens when that link is clicked. Twinkle's batch deletion/protection module is probably broken. Someone savvy with Twinkle could perhaps look into this? --Glaisher [talk] 10:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks, I didn't recognize it as a Twinkle thing. I'll follow up accordingly. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a user's edits

User:86.163.23.56 has been adding phrases like "on the morning of" to a lot of biographical articles. These changes, among others, prompted warnings on his/her talk page and a report at WP:VIP. I declined to act on the VIP report because I felt the changes were done in good faith. I still feel they aren't strictly vandalism, but they might be adding detail that makes the articles unnecessarily more complex. User:Rus793 did make the point that adding this to text that is sourced can be a problem (see User_talk:86.163.23.56#Source citations).

My question is: is this kind of thing something that warrants progressive warnings and a possible block? --Auntof6 (talk) 08:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are seeing pointless changes dotted all over some articles. Changes of that type gradually destroy the stylistic coherence of the prose -- death by a thousand changes! I believe it is a consequence of the Visual Editor, which lets inexperienced users stick words in without really understanding what they are doing.
For a new unregistered user, this may not be vandalism. But if a user persists after clear warning, then I think it may be treated as vandalism. The guideline I have often used on my reverts is: changes should be improvements. Not just an alternative way to say the same thing. An improvement can (of course) be an improvement in factual content or in explanation or in appropriate simplicity or in sources. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until a few days ago I was removing these "edits". However Auntof6 told me not to but I still belive that these edits are pointless and should be removed. The IP should be blocked for complete failure to communicate and not addressing the concerns of other users.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 15:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't tell you to stop removing the changes. I told you to stop calling the "on the morning of" edits vandalism and issuing warnings for vandalism because of them. Not all problem changes are vandalism. If they were vandalism, the remedy would be more straightforward and I wouldn't have brought it up here. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that when the IP addresses used by this user is blocked at English Wikipedia, (s)he moves onto Simple English Wikipedia like many other cross-wiki vandals do. Also there are vandalism edits at Wikidata from two of these IPs. There has also been 'adding false information' type of edits to German and Danish Wikipedia (both edits were reverted by locals). If this user does not respond to any of the messages and if this type of pointless edits are not stopped, this IP should be blocked, imo. I do not believe that this user is acting in good faith (1. has been repeatedly warned at enwp and sewp 2. has failed to stop these edits even after warning 3. has been blocked several times at enwp). Even if these edits were made in good-faith, they are more disruptive and making the articles more complex. Also edits such as this (totally opposite to the sources there) convinces me even more that these are not good faith edits. My answer to the original post is yes. This IP should be warned (done), blocked. -Glaisher [talk] 16:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Special:Contributions/86.163.23.56 for 1 month. Edits like this is nothing but vandalism, imo. User was sufficiently warned before block but nothing happened. Feel free to comment on the block. Regards, --Glaisher [talk] 17:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Glaisher. Adding false information is certainly vandalism, but I didn't see that. The only (potentially) problem edits I saw were the "on the morning of" edits, and those are the ones I am asking about here. Unless you are saying that the events in question didn't happen in the morning, those aren't false information.
As for the block, how did you decide on the length of one month? I believe we usually start with shorter blocks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has been known to be back when the block expires. Seeen:Special:Contributions/86.157.182.246 and the applicable block log. Since it appears to be a dynamic IP, I'm fine even if another admin shortens the block. --Glaisher [talk] 17:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He's back again as 81.132.241.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) JV Smithy (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mistake with User:Château de Lunéville

I think the page User:Château de Lunéville should be Château de Lunéville withought the "user" prefix. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 16:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was already looking at that because the author left me a message. It's taken care of. Thanks for the note, though! --Auntof6 (talk) 16:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your welcome! Just to tell you the user has moved the page again (to User:Château de Lunéville) after you moved it. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Centaur is appealing his block

See User talk:Centaur#Unblock request. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My comments above at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard#User:Martinvl is appealing his block also apply to this request. -DJSasso (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The present block is well justified, and should continue. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mac, but this case does really need an admin to review, since it wasn't a community ban. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The community can endorse it however, it then becomes a community ban. -DJSasso (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This unblock request is still outstanding. Could an admin please review and do the standard accept or decline so the user isn't left hanging? I'm not reviewing because I was somewhat involved in the case. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for rollback

I would like to rewrite the article that was poorly written and make it more notable for the readers to understand and enjoy. Cmacmore1987 (talk)

Rewriting an article does not require rollback. Just go ahead and work on it. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Richardson (actor)/Brandon Richardson//Brandon Q. Richardson

He's back again, and still isn't notable. This is at least the fourth time that an article on this bit-part actor has been created. Should it be salted? Jim Michael (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Create-protected by DJSasso for a month. --Glaisher [talk] 17:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's here again - it's also on French WP! More salting needed. Jim Michael (talk) 20:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User blocked. --Bsadowski1 21:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And again! Jim Michael (talk) 17:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted (again) and this title salted for a bit. Enfcer (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In case no one has seen it, a user has brought forth a Deletion Review of this article. Enfcer (talk) 02:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On here, or on en? Please leave a link to the DelRev. Jim Michael (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jim Michael: At WP:DRV. There is an edit filter at English Wikipedia preventing additions of "Brandon Richardson" to pages. --Glaisher [talk] 12:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah we should just move the edit filter over here. -DJSasso (talk) 12:13, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Should be easy to setup a filter but I suppose we should wait until that DR is closed. --Glaisher [talk] 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated cat

I created Category:Fiction set in the United States without realising that Category:United States in fiction already existed. Which wording is better? Please delete one of the cats so that the subcats can all be on the cat that is kept. Jim Michael (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a slight preference for United States in fiction, because it's a little more inclusive. I'll make the change. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do, however, prefer the way you categorized it, so I'll do the same with the existing cat. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The subcats are in two different formats: place-location (eg. Category:Chicago, Illinois in fiction) and location-place (eg. Category:Fiction set in Colorado). They should all be of the same format - which is better? Jim Michael (talk) 10:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I slightly prefer "Foo in fiction" for a couple of reasons. Partly because it's shorter, but more because it's a slightly broader meaning. "Foo in fiction" could cover a place being described in fiction without actually being set there.
I've just shut down my main computer for a while, so I can't do the changes myself right now. (Well, I could, but I'd end up wanting to throw my tablet across the room!) I'd be glad to do them later, or you can do them and then QD the old categories -- I think there's a QD option for renamed categories. Or you could also wait to get more input about which name is better. Your choice. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

‎24.239.92.169

Please nuke contributions JV Smithy (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to give a reason why you would like to see these items nuked. I have gone through the contributions, and most were either classifiable as test edits or nonsense, and have since been delete. Enfcer (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Group/potentially promotional usernames?

While patrolling the new changes, I noticed that a user account called Bensoncompany was created. Now, if I was over at the English Wikipedia, I would report the username for having both the name of a company and for implying that it won't be operated by a single user. However, I checked out Simple English Wikipedia's policy and I don't see much specifically regarding promotional/company names or account names implying they are being operated by more or one person. When I looked for Usernames for Administrator Attention, I was redirected here. For that reason, I wanted to ask about our seemingly vague username policy and what might (or might not happen) in this specific case. MJ94 (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its only really an issue if they start editing articles related to the company. So far this account hasn't edited. You might get a 'fan' of a company who names their account after them, but doesn't necessarily mean they will edit unconstructively. If they were active I'd warn them, but they're not so I won't bother. If they start editing then the position might change. Kennedy (talk) 10:12, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Potential spambot edit

I noticed this edit while new changes patrolling and I thought it looked a bit off – like perhaps a spambot did it. While reviewing the edit a few moments again, I also noticed a tag in the edit summary that said it could be a potential spambot edit. What do you all think of it? MJ94 (talk) 20:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've undone the edit. (You could have undone it, too, if you wanted.) It was such nonsense that if it was a spambot, it was doing a poor job! --Auntof6 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This particular edit looks like an edit from a spambot. However, there are lots of false positives from Special:AbuseFilter/30 so even if the tag is there, it does not mean that it was from a spambot. I rewrote that filter last Thursday but it seems that we are still receiving a considerable amount of false positives. --Glaisher [talk] 04:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iwilldefeatitachi

Lots of vandalism from this account; please block it. Jim Michael (talk) 18:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by Auntof6. Looks like a sock of Bambifan or someone pretending to be him. --Glaisher [talk] 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual Editing - Possible Bot or user script

I noticed that an editor tagging edits as (Bot: Fixing redirects). When you look at it globally the account is only a few days old, and has similar edits on a couple of other wikis. None of which have it listed as an authorized bot, nor is it on global as a bot. Is this a true bot or a semi automated script that the user is using, or does that still qualify as a bot? Enfcer (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked it and left a message on the talk page. I don't think it's run by someone new to Wikimedia. Edits to other wikis also appears to be from different pywiki scripts. --Glaisher [talk] 04:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Looneyboy6

This user continues to disrupt the project by constant test edits such as breaking templates. The user keeps things like this and this to articles. It is getting really frustrating now.

  • here the user reverts my edits to previous vandalism.
  • here adding random words to articles
  • here adding random words to articles
  • here yet again adding random words to articles
  • And edits like this (which was done yesterday) I would expect to see from new users, not users who have been here for nearly a month.

Please note this user never responds to talk page messages and is blocked from other wikis for the exact same disruption. I have notified the user of this discussion however from past experience I doubt he will respond or take part in this discussion.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Following another round of test edits made earlier today, I have blocked him indefinitely. Other administrators should also note that he has a tendency to continue making test edits as an anonymous user (block evasion). Chenzw  Talk  03:13, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks. Hopefully this will put an end to this constant disruption.--Mr Wiki Pro (talk) 08:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Editor citation tool

The latest version of the Visual Editor has a citation template function. This is not currently installed on our wiki. Does anyone know if it will work here? There are instructions for installation Media Wiki instructions. I would try it but as I don't really know what I am doing I thought I might ask if there is someone who does know.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, we might consider removing the Visual Editor completely, on the grounds that it makes vandalism too easy, and is not needed by genuine editors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure how it makes vandalism easier - vandalism doesn't tend to be well formatted so doubt it would make any difference to either the amount of vandalism or the 'quality'. I've used it on occasion and found it helpful to get to grips with certain things so it might be useful to keep it up-to-date. Kennedy (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am starting to use it more and more as it improves. For working on text and links it is great. With citations, it is a pain. Hence, can we get it up to date? --Peterdownunder (talk) 12:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find it a pain. I used to be able to turn off the tab like I do on en. wiki but that functionality has somehow disappeared. EDIT: Actually it is removed again.... weird for weeks it forced me to pick change source instead of just change. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theoretically I just installed it and it should work for all users. Feel free to try and report back. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Article Wizard by Ural Monster

I'm thinking we should delete this whole series of pages. This note is to see what others think. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would say wait and see where they are going with it since they just created it today. But I am guessing they are trying to create the Article Wizard set of templates. But we already have those so new ones aren't necessary. -DJSasso (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cithy Jerusalem

Recently i made an edit on the article old city jerusalem ,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_City_(Jerusalem)

The edit was about the population of the old city of Jerusalem and the ethnic and religious distribution, which is common when you you talk about demographics or population to mention it.

Then two users undid my edit and removed the mention of the ethnic and religious distribution and used the division of population by the quarters of the city (the city has four quarter ) instead, without providing any valid reason despite being requested that by me in the talk page.

I believe that the reason behind their vandalism is political The interesting thing is that we both are using the same reference and they dont object to it.

I believe that the arab israeli conflict is a very controversial subject where it is really difficult to find an accurate and independent article even here in Wikipedia, but i am trying to improve as much as i can.

I am requesting you to take action and protect the article in the right version and not allow vandalism in it anymore.


Regards

I'm sorry, but we can't help you. This is the Simple English Wikipedia. It is separate from the English Wikipedia where you made your edit. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Coolie

I have contacting you today to inform you about the article "coolie" this article is very inaccurate and offensive because it classes collies as slaves when it is a fact that collies were indentured laborers and indentured laborers are not slaves. The majority of this article needs to be re-written and I just wanted to formally file a complaint.

I have provided several credible sources from encyclopedia yet unreliable blogs are being used in this article.

First of all the Category must be changed from Slavery to Indentured Worker. If a category was not created for Indentured Worker then in should be. Coolie should not be lumped in the category of slavery because it is false. Second the etymology for coolie is hired laborer or wages. And kuli in Turkish means hireling. Many people of Indian and Chinese background took exception to this article because they knew that a lot of the subject matter in this article is false and misleading. Indians have land today because of the work that they did; slavery and coolie cannot be compared. Coolies were given wages, land, and houses for their labor. Generally speaking people today are not even given this. This resulted in a lot of jealousy and anger from African slaves towards coolies and perhaps rightfully so. Indian coolies were paid about $45 dollars a day plus food and clothing. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/136194/coolie http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/indian-indentured-labour.htm https://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/11/25/247166284/a-history-of-indentured-labor-gives-coolie-its-stinghttp: http://www.sahistory.org.za/politics-and-society/anti-indian-legislation-1800s-1959

80% of the immigrants who came to the Chesapeake Bay colonies were white, European indentured laborers. Indentured laborers were: White Europeans, Chinese, Indians, and other Asian ethnic groups and these people were not slaves. "Coolie" needs to be listed under a category called Indentured Worker or it should not be in a category at all. Coolie should simply not be listed under the category of Slavery because that is very false and is misleading to the public. How do I remove "coolie" from the category Slavery or get a new category created entitled Indentured Laborer? https://sites.google.com/site/rydenonushistory/home/directory-study-guides/southern-english-colonies Also the etymology of coolie is "hired laborer" or an "unskilled Asian Laborer" There are several other etymology used in the present article that is not relevant and they must be removed. Can you please remove this. Thank you for your help. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=coolie http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coolie To me it is obvious that this article was written to degrade peoples whose ancestry goes back to Asia. Coolies and Europeans were both indentured laborers. They were majority unskilled workers and a minority of skilled workers that were paid.

Coolies were paid and given land in exchange for work. How could this possibly be classed as slavery? Most WHITE Europeans that came to the United States when this country first started were indentured servants. 80-90% of all white Europeans that came to the Chesapeake Region of the United States were Indentured Servants. 80%-90%... that's a large number right... Over 60% of all white colonial immigrants were indentured servants... are you saying that all these white people were slaves? Check out the source from encyclopedia... http://www.answers.com/topic/indentured-servant Coolie / Indentured Servitude should not be classed as slavery and that is a fact. This must be edited. I would like to be contacted by an administrator who can remove "Coolie" and "Indentured Servitude" from the Slavery Category.

Thankyou for your comments. The Coolie article you are referring to is on the English Wikipedia; this is the Simple English Wikipedia. We do not have an article on Coolies. If you would like to write such an article we would be grateful. --Peterdownunder (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stedwards

A number of user accounts have been created (yesterday and today) with this name as a basis. I assume we have a policy about this sort of thing! Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no, people are allowed to create as many user accounts as they want as long as they follow the alternate account policy in that they don't use the accounts for bad reasons like double voting, and they don't edit the same pages pages etc. -DJSasso (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at them a little closer some were capitalized a little different. stEdwards. There is a St. Edwards University in the US, and one of them has on their history page a comment that they are part of a class, and have 26 students. So this is probably a school based name for students to change and research articles, In my opinion. Enfcer (talk) 22:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that's it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese man 38202

Chinese man 38202 is nothing, but trouble. I'm reverting his edits, resorting pages so to speak, and yet he reverts them and says that I'm vandalizing the articles. He's adding meaningless and obviously unnecessary links to a pornographic actress everywhere he could. He's currently threatening to block me. Please I believe a long block and maybe even a ban would be necessary. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admins, please actually LOOK at my edits before you ban me. I'm fixing errors but this guy just reverts me for ab-so-lutely no reason. Whatsoever. TDKR Chicago 101 should be the one blocked - for libel and defamation. --Chinese man 38202 (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
TDKR Chicago 101 is obviously a troll, he's reverting my edits left and right for NO REASON WHATSOEVER. CAN'T SOMEONE BAN HIM, THIS IS TOO MUCH --Chinese man 38202 (talk) 07:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked one week for being unkind and rude, especially in the "Change summary". Please also remember that the next time that you assume bad faith, you will get banned. --M7 (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks M7. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 07:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lab Rats

This article seems to be stuck on the New pages list (like Charlie on the MTA). I can't see any way to mark it patrolled. It's been there for some time now. Thanks Rus793 (talk) 12:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marked as patrolled through API. (<patrol rcid="6721441" ns="0" title="Lab Rats" /> Request time: 0.256) I couldn't find another way to do it. Also note that after 30 days, pages expire from the unpatrolled queue. --Glaisher (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's good to know. Thank you. Rus793 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Glaisher:, what is API and how does one use it? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6: It provides direct access to data in a database etc which can then be used to request actions/querying on the database. Most bots work by using it. There is an article about it here (en:API). MediaWiki's API is well documented at mw:API. You can use Special:ApiSandbox to play with it. However, note that you can do stuff like blocking/deleting with it so please be careful when doing actions with API. --Glaisher (talk) 05:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for admin comment(s) re: warning levels

I asked Griffinofwales to use the standard warning levels, after he had started with final warnings with some users. He replied that he was following procedures that were set forth by admins in the past. Would any and all willing admins please comment at User talk:Griffinofwales/Archive 2#Warning users and let me know if I am indeed missing something? Please reply there only about procedures that are already in place: I am looking to learn if there are procedures and practices I'm unaware of, not to discuss what the procedures should be. We could certainly have a conversation about the latter, but elsewhere, please.

For your convenience, here is a list of the users who received the warnings I objected to in case you wish to review:

  • Jamesmcleish2000
  • 46.60.252.97
  • 46.60.252.112
  • 78.40.232.73

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:01, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Associating an IP and a username usually requires a checkuser test to be run (which in turn, will require some hints, and some vandalism beforehand); while I have the checkuser flag, I have not run a test on the cases above, so I could not tell you whether they resolve to the same user (or institution). In addition, over the time, there are some IP address blocks which have been associated with vandalism (or users performing vandalism). so depending on the extact type of vandalism it is often apparent that the user has no intention to help and simply wants to be a nuisance. In such cases, going through all levels simply wastes time; same with school ips, where a short block may often solve the problem, as the pupils lose interests. Anyway, I trust the admins to warn appropriately, and I don't think dissecting every case is worth the time. When you know somewone burnt down the church in the neighboring village, and you see them with a pair of matches, what do you do?.... --Eptalon (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_45&oldid=8893298"