Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 47

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

8 RfDs are ready for close

Just a nudge to my fellow admins. I can't close them because I proposed most of them. Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed the RfDs. Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page protections

Hey all! I've recently noticed an increasing number of protections, see Special:Log/protect. I actually like protection against vandalism. I think it should probably be even more used. However, something I generally don't like is the permanent protection. There are surely (few) articles that warrant a permanent protection, same with a protection against recreation. For most pages I'd prefer a timely limited protection time. Over the time, subjects move out of the scope of vandals or a protected title becomes then notable. I think it's not actually the best practice to protect pages indefinitely. I right now thought about removing some of those indefinite protections set quite some time ago. However, before doing so, I'd like to know what you think about that actually? Some articles that come to my mind, which might be worth to unprotect (at least for test purposes) are Banjo-Kazooie‎, Dragon Ball, Croatian Liberation Movement‎ or List of 100 greatest NHL players by The Hockey News. -Barras talk 17:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I generally don't like protection unless an article gets heavy vandalism. That being said the reason for the hockey one is because its contents will never change and it gets vandalized extremely often. The Croation one we can try unprotecting but it used to get hit alot. The others I don't see an issue with. But I definitely wouldn't for the hockey one, especially since its only semi-protected. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about articles (as opposed to administrative pages or high-visibility templates), you have a good point. What do you think is a good length of time for different cases (salting vs. vandalizing existing pages)? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only talking about main space articles. Templates and other meta stuff are a different story and there it is way more likely that a permanent protection is justified. I don't really know what a good length is. In most cases, I'd assume that one year is more than enough, however, there are also things that should surely be protected for longer or shorter terms. However, a recent example I think that is simply too long for a protection against recreation is Judah Bennett or Bailey Bella Jones. I simply don't think that a permanent protection is really useful (that doesn't mean I disagree with the protection, just with the set time!). Those, as well as the ones named above are just examples of pages that have been indefinitely protected. -Barras talk 18:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah salting deleted articles should be a really rare thing, especially indefinitely. -DJSasso (talk) 02:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Bridgeburning

I do not get what is going on with this page. There is a big article on it edited by more users. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think its an attempt to get articles onto the wiki without them getting deleted. Basically it appears to be spam to me. -DJSasso (talk) 20:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToQ100gou

Page is here, I accidentally made a second account which I am using now, need page protected to prevent any vandal (not administrators, just random vandals) claiming it's a sockpuppet, and also other vandalism which could happen in circumstances.

Kind regards, ToQ100gou2 (talk) 08:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani POV articles

The Pakistani POV-pusher may be back. Several new stubs on the New Pages list. User:Rus793 (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protection Request

Hi all. Article which named List of highest-grossing Tollywood (Telugu) movies is facing so much ip vandalism. It will make glad if you protect or semi-protect this article. Watch it's history here. Thank you. PK^talk 05:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Protected for 2 weeks. Chenzw Talk 16:24, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet(s) of AASMOHAMMADABBASIACTOR

Please consider deleting the following userpage(s) created by a sock puppet of AASMOHAMMADABBASIACTOR:

User:Rinki Singh Jatav

Thank you, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aas Mohammad Ali Abbasi

This is a user promoting himself at enwp, commons, and simple. Could you please search from time to time and block and delete creations?

He will sometimes also create accounts in the name of his parents or co-stars with the purpose of making a userpage infobox littered with his name.

Please paste any account names found at the "Not yet filed" section of my enwp orange sandbox. I will then file names en masse from time to time at the enwp SPI for the record. I will also do a commons image search for the accounts as well as request global locks.

Here are 4 needing blocks and userpage deletion (already listed at the orange sandbox):

Links:

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[Global proposal] m.Wikipedia.org: (all) Edit pages

Hi, this message is to let you know that, on domains like en.m.wikipedia.org, unregistered users cannot edit. At the Wikimedia Forum, where global configuration changes are normally discussed, a few dozens users propose to restore normal editing permissions on all mobile sites. Please read and comment!

Sorry for writing in English but I thought as administrators you would be interested. Thanks, Nemo 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castilleja School editing Wikipedia class 3/23/2015

Hello,

My school would like to continue our multi-year tradition of having students edit pages in Simple English Wikipedia. We would be deeply grateful for an administrator to help us make this process go smoothly. We work hard to create worthwhile content matching Wikipedia's standards and following rules of Simple English, and look forward to working with you.

This year, we would like to celebrate Women's History Month by adding to stubs/adding pages about notable female authors commonly read by middle school students. I've confirmed that the time is planned for Monday, March 23, from 8am-11:50am Pacific. Students are creating accounts later this week, and I will have all the information in place on that ASAP.

Thank you so much, Tasha, Castilleja Librarian Castilibrary (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Peterdownunder, we are covered with an administrator Castilibrary (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looneyboy6 and friends

Looneyboy6 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
100.34.175.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
71.162.176.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
...as well as IPv6 range 2601:b:ac80:7b6::/64, based on contribs on EN, yet to be active here

Hi all, please be advised of the above and editing habits, as well as Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Current_issues_and_requests_archive_45#User:Looneyboy6 (and maybe Rottweiler, with long history). He has a tendency to focus on articles related to dogs or rappers. Not quite sure whether no clue or trolling. Previous attempts to communicate have been unsuccessful, and nowadays he seems to be obsessed with convincing us to "accept" his changes. Chenzw Talk 15:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He has reappeared as the following:

50.204.27.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
108.52.37.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked today as Cardinal25 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log).--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and ‎69.249.186.91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log), at present on a short-term block. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page Andrea Zorzi patrol problem

This page shows as unpatrolled in Special:NewPages, but I do not get a "Mark as patrolled" button when I go there. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's because Djsasso imported revisions from the English Wikipedia article. --Bsa dow ski1 18:47, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thx. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP vandal

A persisting vandal under these IP #s 69.157.67.189; 69.157.74.218; 69.157.72.55; 65.92.155.30; 64.228.75.167; etc

This person adopts a new IP#, often a few weeks after a block. He changes vital data on biogs, adds useless comments, and sometimes vandalises central pages. He edits a repeating circle of biogs, usually including Selena Gomez, Ricky Martin, Richard Kiel, Mel Gibson, Macaulay Culkin, Patrick Swayze etc. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block, revert, move on... -Barras talk 12:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 30 pupil accounts

Brazil

We require 30 accounts for Year 4 pupils to create their own Wiki pages. The pupils have been shown how a wiki works and have been shown how to edit pages but they have never used one before. Pupils will be adding text and pictures relating to Brazil. We plan to finish our project by 22 May 2015. --GMICTTech (talk) 08:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for 31 user accounts for school project

I am a school teacher and would like to work with my students in creating/editing articles on Simple English Wikipedia. Could we please be set up with 31 user accounts? If someone can direct message me, I can provide a list of desired user names that use a similar naming scheme to make it easy to identify these users as a group.

We'd like to use these user accounts from April 20 to May 28. Thank you for your help! — This unsigned comment was added by Hammondsalmon (talk • changes) on 00:03, 11 April 2015‎.

Hello, User:Hammondsalmon. Would you please add a section about your project at Wikipedia:Schools/Projects. That will help us determine the best way to help you. It would also be helpful if you indicate how familiar you and your students are with the way that this specific Wiki operates -- it has some significant differences from others.

By the way, please always sign your posts on talk pages by putting --~~~~ at the end. When you save the page, that gets converted into links to your user page and user talk page. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Hammondsalmon: Thanks for adding your project to the school project page. It sounds like a very helpful project. You might actually create the project page that's linked in what you added. I would like to help you further, but I don't know how to help get all the accounts created. I'll leave it for my fellow admins with more experience on this. I suspect it takes more than a plain admin like me to do that. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @Auntof6:. I will create our school project page. I'm not yet able to specify which articles the students will be editing because I wanted to give them a chance to look around and propose what they would like to work on. Any chance you could put out an appeal to your fellow admins to help get my students set up with accounts? Looking forward to working on this project with the students! --Hammondsalmon (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just the information on how this is done. Apparently admins can set these up. Here's what I would need from you for each account:

The account name
The password you would like, unless you would like me to choose and let you know. In either case, the passwords could be changed later.

You can either leave a message on my talk page or email me (using the email function) with a list of the account names you would like. If you are choosing the passwords, then email me: I will not use any passwords that are posted online. If you want me to choose the passwords, I would need your email so I can let you know what they are. I'll wait to get the list from you. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention that there's another option for the passwords. A temporary random password can be assigned. I would need a separate email for each account, and the password would be emailed there. Neither you nor I would know the passwords. I believe each password would have to be changed the first time the account is used. I'd prefer one of the other options, just to reduce the chance of mistyping something. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "mail password" option is actually more secure. I'm pretty certain that you can use the same mail address for multiple accounts. All my test accounts and also my bot use the same mail as my main account. So that shouldn't actually cause any troubles. -Barras talk 20:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Hammondsalmon: I got your email and will work on those tonight and tomorrow. (It's currently late Friday where I am.) It will take a little while because they have to be created one at a time. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it didn't take as long as I thought it might. The accounts are all created. Feel free to let me know if you see any problem with them. I suggest that any further correspondence about the project happen at Wikipedia talk:Schools/Projects/Electronics Review. I have added that page to my watchlist. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help, @Auntof6:! The students are beginning to propose articles that they would like to work. --Hammondsalmon (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removing "Tag:" prefix on tags

The Tag: prefix on MediaWiki:Tag-very short new article and MediaWiki:Tag-Text after interwiki or categories should be removed, since they are no longer required. MediaWiki now appends "Tag:" in front of the name of the tag, so this practice is redundant. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! :D --George (Talk · Contribs · CentralAuth · Log) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProjects under user "Project" have all been moved to user "Project~simplewiki"

This apparently got caught in the standardizing of usernames across Wikipedias. See here for list. We may or may not want to leave them there. Your thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 04:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Either ask the people who created those projects to take care of them as in have them moving their project to their name space or delete them. I prefer the second option as no one ever really took care of projects here. -Barras talk 07:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Broken redirects resulting from user renames

The recent massive renaming of users has left us with a hundred or so broken redirects (so far) to user and user talk pages. See Special:BrokenRedirects for the current ones. They appear to have happened due to the following scenario:

In the past, a user was renamed and redirects were left from their old user name to their new one.
The new spate of renames came along and moved user and user talk pages, but did not leave redirects. That left the old redirects broken.

I'm not sure how to handle these. It might be OK to delete some, but it might be better to update others to the new user names. I deleted some that were either for IP users or for user "Project" (now Project~simplewiki). Thoughts? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think most can be deleted without causing much problems. However, those WMF-accounts should be fixed and probably also (if there are any) those from globally known/active people. -Barras talk 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Student pages run riot

I thought we made it clear that school users should not put up test pages on the main wiki, but work on sub-pages set up by their teacher? Well, evidently they did not get the message. We have had another 20 or so pages which have been deleted as either test pages or recreations of previously deleted pages. I think the problem is that students have been given accounts but their teacher has not understood the necessity of creating subpages for their exercises. Anyway, those admins who keep in touch with school projects might consider this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that students use subpages if they are developing proper articles with proper titles, and the articles belong here and will improve Wikipedia. There is a banner to explain that the article is being worked on as part of a class project. I see, though, that the ones that were deleted did not fit that. The next time we see these, maybe we could move them to a user subpage instead of deleting them, and leave a message explaining why that was done. Is there a class leader for these articles?

Also please note that WP:QD#G2 is for things that have been previously deleted at RfD, not things that have been QD'd before. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be primary school children, all writing a few lines about plants, so similar that they probably all come from one class. I don't know if the teacher contacted us: several have recently. I suppose we could write on their talk page(s) to ask the teacher to contact us. The children could each have a subpage under their teacher's account. There's nothing objectionable in their writing, but none are suitable as redirects to our plant page. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to make contact is a good solution. Helping them make subpages can work too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 16:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since they created their own accounts already, the subpages might as well be under their own accounts. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a note on talk:AmeliaRclass4plants. Macdonald-ross (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different topic

This is zhyboo, I wasn't very pleased when I saw that McDonald-ross deleted the human article, because it erased the page history. I feel disappointed, because I don't think you can find the page history of the article once you have deleted it. If you have any information on how to find the page history, let me know, because I'm really anxious, and you should report McDonald-ross, instead of him fixing articles, that are did wrong, he deletes them, and it's not appropriate for the site, let me know if you can discover the page history for "human", that was deleted, because I'm very upset, message me back please, and McDonald-ross should owe me an apology for deleting it, because I felt so bad, I couldn't sleep, please let me know if you can discover the deleted history, I'm so sad. I'm 19 years old, I love Wikipedia, and I love the history, could any of you please be nice to me, aunto f6 and McDonald-ross haven't be making me feel welcome, I hope that the both of you start making me feel welcome, and tell me if there's a way to find history that was deleted with an article, later on today, let me know if you can see what you can do :-c. Zhyboo (talk) 14:44, 5 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Could anyone please let me know if you can find the page history for "human" that was deleted with the article, I need someone to respond ASAP. Zhyboo (talk) 00:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators can access the page history. What exactly do you need from it? When Mac restored it, he could have restored all the history; I'm not sure why he didn't. In any case, we could email you a copy of what was there at a particular point in time, if that would help. Just don't ask for copies of all the different versions.

As far as not making you feel welcome, if you mean the warning messages that have been left for you, those messages are canned text designed to cover various situations. Don't take them personally. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure why you want the history, but you can find them here. See Help:Page history for more details. Chenzw Talk 11:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I just like the history, I've always been a fan of Wikipedia, I just started being a user a month ago, I just always loved reading the history, that's all. By the way, could any of you add REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP and AMC theatres to the simple English Wikipedia, I added them, but I wrote them in complex form and they were removed. I just use Wikipedia for enjoyment and I love reading information and the history for enjoyment and fun, that's all and it's good to keep the history. I'm not that old, I'm really only 19 and I'm very intelligent, so I joined Wikipedia, because I thought it was fun. I really would love to remain a user. Zhyboo (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can request articles at WP:Requested articles. Just be sure to follow the format used on that page. You could also try writing them yourself in a sandbox, where you could get help making them simple.

When you say you'd like to remain a user, it sounds like there's something that might stop you. If that's true, what would stop you? --Auntof6 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no, there's nothing that would stop me from being a member, I just thought that McDonald-ross said something about teens adding vandalisms on Wikipedia, and I'm nine-teen, so I didn't want anyone to think I would like adding vandalisms, that's all. Zhyboo (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unsuitable usernames

We have a rash of quite unsuitable usernames. Stewards wanted! Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions: For what are stewards needed? Admins can indef users whose names violate the policy on user names. What do you consider unsuitable? --Auntof6 (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help on Sidebar

The Help link on the sidebar links to mw:Help:Contents. Wouldn't it be better if it linked to Help:Contents? Sending someone to Mediawiki when they want help on Simple seems a bit, well, unhelpful. QuiteUnusual 16:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the link to point to the local page. Thanks for reporting! --Glaisher (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - QuiteUnusual 08:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

direct wages

There is not given the meaning of direct wages which is related to accounting. — This unsigned comment was added by 36.252.116.67 (talk • changes) on 13:48, 25 May 2015‎.

Could you throughly explain? --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Canterbury problem

University of Canterbury page has highly non-neutral information in 'Personnel' section, likely from a disgruntled staff member who lost his/her job 3 years ago. Page is locked against vandalism and either needs to be opened for edits or the section deleted or the section moved into a new article on the controversy.

This article is not on the Simple English wikipedia, you need to make the request on the English Wikipedia. And don't forget to sign your comments too.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Change filter

Do we have a procedure for adding new rules to the Wikipedia:Change filter? I have a new one in mind. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We must have, but I don't know what it is!--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any admininistrator can create new filters and update existing filters through Special:AbuseFilter. Please be extremely careful when editing these as it has the potential to block ALL edits to the wiki! You may want to look at en:WP:EFM and mw:Extension:AbuseFilter/Rules_format. Regards, --Glaisher (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Glaisher. I'll take a look at those. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also recommend looking to see if en already has one that does what you want and use it as its likely to have been tested good through use. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 15:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revdel

@Eptalon, you probably want to revdel an adjacent change on Simple Talk. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:37, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I hid both changes. They were essentially the same graffitti, only that in one case, there was only the graffitti... Thanks for noticing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Eptalon (talk • contribs) 21:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)}[reply]

We get that particular word a lot in vandalism, often in combination with some form of "penis". I wonder if it's worth putting some of the variations in a change filter entry. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also adapted the respective Abuse filter (Filter 1, "bad words"), as we did not have that spelling variant yet. --Eptalon (talk) 22:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request IP block

I've twice reverted vandalism at The Holocaust from this IP: 194.83.57.1. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think it's necessary anymore and also WP:VIP instead of AN. -Barras talk 17:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(change conflict) I was replying, but Barras beat me to it. I was also going to decline action, due to:

Stale report, even stale at the time of report (an hour had gone by)
Insufficient warnings to editor (only one, and started at too high a level)

I know it's annoying when an editor vandalizes multiple times, but if vandalism by an IP editor isn't still going on, we don't usually block. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. (I started with a high-level warning because User talk:194.83.57.1 already showed a pretty clear pattern.) StevenJ81 (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Think of it this way: the first warning may be the first time they hear that they shouldn't vandalize, so we don't want to be too harsh. That's why there are different warning levels. It should be common sense that people shouldn't vandalize, but Wikipedia wants to give them the benefit of the doubt. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, dear, Aunt: you are way too kind! In this case, I actually reverted once using rollback instead of Twinkle. I used Twinkle the second time so that I could warn. But the vandalism was obvious, crude, and twice in a brief period. So in my view there was no doubt left to give them the benefit of. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template imports

I accidently imported a batch of templates. I have been checking to see if this has broken anything, but so far it looks OK. If you find a problem can you let me know so I can try to fix it.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have found a Lua error but don't seem to be able to find which template is causing the problem.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was in the cord template. Now fixed. Still looking for other problems.--Peterdownunder (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request Protection of Simple English Wikipedia

Can an admin protect Simple English Wikipedia? Plenty of vandalism, and no sign of stopping. I think semi and indefinite would do.--ABCDEFAD_✉ 13:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that's the page you mean? That page had one vandalism and a revert today, and the edits before that were a few weeks ago. To protect or semi-protect a page, we usually want to see vandalism happening so fast that editors have trouble keeping it reverted. Besides that, we would never indefinitely semi-protect an article. Therefore, I'm declining to protect or semi-protect this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad vandal

Hi all. Be aware of a vandal who has been plaguing the English Wikipedia with a huge article about Muhammad in the Bible who appears to have moved over to here. The typical behaviour is pasting the same huge article, which can currently be seen at Muhammad the Apostle in the Bible, against consensus anywhere vaguely related they can find that isn't protected. I've got an edit filter that's been pretty successful if you want to import it. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See en:Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Block evasion / disruptive editing / 5.107.141.137. StevenJ81 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Advice needed

I am troubled by the invasion of huge copy/paste articles on The Apostle Muhammad & the Messianic prophecies and similar titles. Since 50,000 bytes can't be typed in a short space of time, they must have an electronic origin on some wiki. They seem to violate about three of our guidelines: copyright violation, unsimplified material from another wiki, and very POV. I have not been very effective in stopping the flood of articles, and would welcome another view. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1st thing, there is no copyright violation at all. You can't simply accuse someone of violating copyrights without giving evidence of your accusation. 2nd thing, I simplified the article several times but you couldn't listen. 3rd thing, there is no POV at all. Every paragraph in the article has been attached with a source listed in the bibliography, so the article is consistent with the sourcebooks listed in the bibliography. If you wish to improve the article, then don't delete it, and I will improve it or someone else will do so.--5.107.38.125 (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Muhammad vandal. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be mentioned, Samwalton9 is one of the "meat puppets" who serve in the cabal of anti-Muslims on the English wiki.. See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cabal of meat puppets vandalizing the Islam-related articlesl.--5.107.38.125 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mac, if you know where the article was copied and pasted from, please tell us. If you can't point to a specific source, you can't claim it's copied and pasted no matter how much you suspect that it was. Just because it reads like it comes from somewhere else doesn't mean it's copied: if people can write articles elsewhere with a certain tone, they can just as easily write them here. Just because it's large doesn't mean it was copied from a wiki or anywhere else: it could have been worked on offline before being uploaded here.

Many times before you have claimed things were copied and pasted, and you have deleted articles for that reason. You need to stop doing that when you can't point to the place they were copied from.

I'm not saying this article should be kept, or that it wasn't copied from elsewhere, just that we can't claim that it was copied (or delete it for copyvio reasons) if we can't point to a source. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is now established that the IP put it up on English wiki first, which means that if he wrote the material, then he no longer owns the copyright. It just took time before this was established. Macdonald-ross (talk) 04:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfD close needed

Could someone please close Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Peace be upon him (Islam)? I can't, because I voted on it. I only ask because it has been getting vandalized. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating this request. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: That request was closed yesterday. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Sorry. Was thinking it was the other one, which you closed yesterday (Wednesday). StevenJ81 (talk) 11:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NP ... but ...

NP, @Auntof6. I get it. But my point still holds: is there any way to emphasize the page WP:VIP more strongly up top? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first thing listed under "are you in the right place?". I'm not sure it warrants being emphasized more than the other things there. Maybe we could repeat the "are you in the right place" stuff in an edit notice for this page. Would that help? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try it; couldn't hurt. (Just the question and the five bullets, or even the question and the two larger-type bullets.) You get a fair number of vandalism reports here, and whatever is currently on the page is not redirecting them to VIP. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not really that big a deal to get it on this page either. -DJSasso (talk) 21:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

64.222.150.193 (talk)

keeps writing no context in articles. --Softstarrs23 (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles this IP has created have been deleted, and the user has been warned. By the way, the template you put on the talk page was not used correctly. You can see the warning templates we use at Wikipedia:User talk page warnings. If you have come here from another Wikipedia, such as English Wikipedia, it would help you to know that many things work differently here. Take some time to look at how things are done and feel free to ask any questions you have. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a close at ...

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Mi querida España. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:52, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Mh7kJ (talk) 19:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TY. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Harell Horn

Could you include Cindy Harrell Horn in Wikipedia? She was a very popular cover girl starting when she was young in the mid seventies,having been on numerous TEEN magazine (now defunct) covers from 1974-1978,then was featured in Cover Girl cosmetic ads, both on TV and in print. Some of her other modeling assignments were TV/print ads for Faberge Organics Shampoo,Cover Girl Marathon Mascara, Virginia Slims cigarettes,Cover Girl Long and Lush Mascara and other Cover Girl products. She also was an actress starring in such movies as Model Behavior (1984), The Final Terror (1981?) and of course was the girl in the Ghostbusters video (1984). Cindy is 5'10, blonde hair,green eyes and who's daughter is Cody Horn, the actress from Magic Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.172.56.111 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! I have added a request for this article to Wikipedia:Requested pages. Someone may see it there and decide to write an article. You could also write the article yourself. Just make sure you have enough references to show that she was notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notability. If you have any other requests like this, you can add them to the page for requested pages, or leave a message at Wikipedia:Simple talk. Thanks, and feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Main Page Question

I am planning to implement a template like {{MainPageInterwikis}} on Ladino Wikipedia. What I can't figure out is: Where is the code that adds "Complete list" to the end of that? I can't find it either in the template or in the Main Page proper. Thanks for your help. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it happens automatically when there are too many interwikis on a page. But that is a guess. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link is added by JavaScript in MediaWiki:Common.js under "Main Page layout fixes". Chenzw Talk 15:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chenzw (and DJSasso). StevenJ81 (talk) 15:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, Chenzw, one other question: I actually have five different versions of the main page (though only one talk page). Since I'm not a coder, just a quick question: Do I code this as

( mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) === 'main_page_1' || 
mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) === 'main_page_2' || mw.config.get( 'wgPageName' ) === 'main_page_3' || ... )

? StevenJ81 (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it should also work that way. Chenzw Talk 00:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Talk Page Access

There currently aren't any admins around, but User talk:70.24.33.8 is being abused by the blocked IP. eurodyne (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access now blocked as well.--Peterdownunder (talk) 06:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting a close at ...

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Template:Infobox basketball game. I'm the only one who doesn't go along with the consensus. So please go ahead and close as delete. In closing, kindly move Template:Infobox U.S. legislation to User:StevenJ81/Sandbox/Infobox U.S. legislation, then go ahead and outright delete the rest. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steven, in the event the closing admin doesn't see this note and just deletes, you can ask any admin to restore that template to your userspace. :) --Auntof6 (talk) 15:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know. Thanks for the reminder, though. (;-) StevenJ81 (talk) 19:06, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done :) --Peterdownunder (talk) 23:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BLP templates

Are there any biographies of living persons templates like there are in English Wikipedia. Some of the articles on here are outdated which is in clear violation of BLP. Nepaxt (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are some depending on what you are trying to tag them for. Our BLP isn't quite a strict here as on en.wiki though so you will frequently see things like that since our regular editor numbers are no more than 20 people. In fact ours pretty much just says don't say things that aren't true. Outdated is different than not true. -DJSasso (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, if you see something on a page where outdated facts make it untrue, by all means either fix the page or tell someone.

If you remove sourced material—especially if you do not replace it with other sourced material—please be sure to say in the edit summary that you removed sourced material because it is outdated and no longer true.
While we'd always encourage you to replace sourced material with other sourced material, see WP:BLUE. If the outdated material is obviously no longer true, it's better to take it out, even if you don't have a replacement source. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes it definitely is better to fix it than leave it. But depending on the fact, outdated doesn't mean untrue. Take an athlete for example, a page only has information up to the 2013-14 season with career stat totals as of that point. You wouldn't remove all the stats because it was "untrue". The facts are true as of the last time it was updated. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree. To summarize: (1) Outdated-but-still-true should stay. (2) Outdated-and-no-longer-true should go.

Outdated should always be updated whenever possible. (Do we have a template to encourage updates?) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Template:Update -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I saw the BLP template while editing Tim Tebow's page. //nepaxt 22:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A biography of a living person

Michelle Bachmann. Here is the diff that was changed today by an IP editor (bless their heart): [1]. I believe there was some discussion I was involved in about us losing the battle regarding vandalism (in mid-July on Simple talk)...I shall engage in a moment of silence. Please, no one scold me. Peace. Fylbecatulous talk 17:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you thought it was a good idea to post a link to libelous information to a noticeboard? -DJSasso (talk) 02:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki import request: Lua-Module:Ns has subpages

Please import Module:Ns has subpages (used in Template:Ns has subpages) from en.wp. -- Reise Reise (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Barras talk 13:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Titleblacklist change request

I can't post at MediaWiki_talk:Titleblacklist (perhaps because I've only got a few edits over here?), but it suggests posting here instead, so here I am. Just a heads up that the the self-promoting Paul Easter sockpuppeteer over at the English Wikipedia has returned his attention to the Simple English Wikipedia recently (after having an article deleted here in the past). You may want to add .*Paul[\. ]?[A-Za-z\.\"\' ]{0,20}[\. ]Easter.* to the title blacklist. --McGeddon (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added. It appears this vandal was here socking a few months ago too. Thanks for the heads up. -Mh7kJ (talk) 22:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CAT:TWU

I was clearing CAT:TWU earlier and I was wondering what its purpose is. It's not a big deal to maintain, but after seeing that it was discontinued on the English Wikipedia, I wanted to ask for opinions on potentially getting rid of it here too as unnecessary extra maintenance. Any thoughts? -Mh7kJ (talk) 22:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it has been our policy to delete these pages. Even if we keep this page, we don't necessarily have to do anything with it. I'd stop cleaning it if you haven't already. I might even put them back, depending on what was on them. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Usernames

reporting Ahole and scumbag. --Fdena (talk) 23:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have users with those names. Where did you see them? --Auntof6 (talk) 01:01, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a close at ...

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/Template:California's Great America. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason this one is urgent? It's not the end of the world if RFDs don't get closed right away. (I'd close it, but I can't because I initiated it.) --Auntof6 (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just like to keep them from piling up. It's not especially urgent. As a general rule, would you prefer me to wait to post something like this until a week after the "scheduled" close date? StevenJ81 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really I just wouldn't post them unless its a complex close that really needs special attention. -DJSasso (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of agree with DJsasso. When I see a post like that (or when I see a non-admin closure, for that matter), I feel it's a complaint that the admins aren't doing their job. Sometimes we aren't keeping up with things, but we have lives ouside of Wikipedia, too. It usually hurts nothing if an RfD isn't closed right away. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

redirect

Someone help me on that redirect I created, 0-16. I want it redirected to the 2008 Detroit Lions season page. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done by myself. Never mind. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:NBA Office

User:NBA Office has been blocked indefinitely on English Wikipedia because of username choice. Does Simple Wikipedia have a policy on bad usernames? //nepaxt 20:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do. I have just blocked this user because of the user name. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Extension:SandboxLink

I wonder if we can install mw:Extension:SandboxLink. I used to have a gadget for this, which I found really helpful. Gadget is no longer functional, but this extension was written in its place. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This would require support from the community. I personally think it's a good idea. Chenzw Talk 12:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally its annoying me over on en. I'd rather it be a gadget than always being there. -DJSasso (talk) 14:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would continue to use the gadget if it still worked, but it doesn't any more. It can be suppressed if you want by adding a line to your personal .css. Probably later today or tomorrow I will post this as a proposal for community approval at Simple Talk. StevenJ81 (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done This brief chat copied over to WP:Simple talk. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strange message

Hello. I got a strange message, "As an anti-abuse measure, you are limited from performing this action too many times in a short space of time, and you have exceeded this limit. Please try again in a few minutes."

Why? Stewi101015 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done on User talk:Stewi101015 by User:Auntof6; thank you. Stewi101015 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access

would it be possible to remove the talk page access from 108.61.226.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), as he has been abusing it be inserting inappropriate content, thanks. --Druddigon (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014-15 Kentucky Wildcats men's basketball

Please help me improve that article I just created. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an administrative issue. Chenzw Talk 02:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where should I take this then? --74.130.133.1 (talk) 02:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gibbon1234 creating fake pages.

Is a block warranted for a user who creates fake pages? //nepaxt 01:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, not to mention that he is aware of his deliberate creation of hoax articles. Chenzw Talk 01:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I HEARD THAT! Didn't you read my user page?! I EXPERIMENT FOR PETE'S SAKE!!!!!! User:Gibbon1234; 08:13 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
This user has been blocked indefinitely for using his/her account only for vandalism (specifically, creating pages about fake topics). --Auntof6 (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for action/warnings from admin other than me

I thought we might have reached an entente cordiale with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), but it appears not. With this edit ("kneejerk deleting") he is again being uncivil. I understand that he is angry that I deleted some of the articles he created, but I believe we have tolerated enough instances of this ("your kneejerk reaction", "there are only small minds, not small Wikipedias", "arbitrary and capricious", "you just pulled that out of your butt"). Please, would someone issue a stern warning (or even a block, if you feel it warranted) related to this? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warning has been issued. Any further comments like the ones quoted above, will require a stronger response. --Peterdownunder (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you could show courtesy to me by tagging my articles for notability and notifying me, so they can be improved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for page protection: Tucson, fart Arizona

Per these results I request that the page be deleted (yet again) and then salted to prevent recreation. Thanks. The Checker of Kemz Five (Talk to me!) 01:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done (even before I saw this request!). --Auntof6 (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request for page protection: User talk:74.130.133.1/Archive (October 2015 to November 1st 2015)

Per my request, semi protect it indefinite protection. Protect it once it is deleted. It is abandoned to me so please protect it indefinitely. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done There is no real need to semi-protect this page. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subpages for unregistered users

I know we don't usually allow subpages for unregistered users, but what about subpages that are archives of talk pages? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs are also allowed to have subpages in their user talk pages to archive old messages. Imagine having an IP that got a lot of notices, the page would just get too big if archives are not made. --Hydriz (talk) 11:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IPs can have them, in fact we as admins create them sometimes when the size of the page gets crazy from warnings. But the example from the section above, I probably wouldn't have archiving happening for stuff that is brand new. -DJSasso (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just "archive" the stuff to the page history and be done? -Barras talk 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you can search that kind of "archive". StevenJ81 (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remove everything and leave a link at the top of the page to the "archived" version. -Barras talk 21:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2015/2012 Green Bay Packers season

I am withdrawing so please close it. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 04:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately as long as there are Delete comments it can't be withdrawn, but its looking likely to close keep. -DJSasso (talk) 14:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

username

The account All about love and life is a unacceptable username and needs to get blocked. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 16:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem unacceptable to me.

Not done unless someone else disagrees. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 16:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pmlineditor. What do you think is unacceptable about it? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambig. page for Tiffany

Could an admin delete Tiffany so that I can make a disambiguation page? Thanks! //nepaxt 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can just edit it to do that, it doesn't require deletion. -DJSasso (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Vandal

Could someone revert all of the changes that the Disney vandal has made? He/she has made sneaky vandalism. Thanks. //nepaxt 16:46, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, but I will. --Cosmic16 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done --Cosmic16 (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cosmic16. @Nepaxt: Did you know you could have done that yourself? --Auntof6 (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was busy on English Wikipedia. Plus, the vandal made a lot of edits. //nepaxt 18:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but whoever took care of it would have had a lot of edits to revert. The admins don't have any special tool to revert that kind of change. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is that Disney Vandal Bambifan101? It could be. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please Block

For obvious reasons: User:Lets create sexual redirects.--3 of ♦ _{I go}^first 15:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Peterdownunder Auntof6 Macdonald-ross--3 of ♦ _{I go}^first 15:30, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

question...

Please, how do I find out whether I'm already "listed" or "entered" on Wikipedia"? I tried to register, and was told that my proposed "user name" was already taken. I don't know that anyone else has the name James Randi, in any language. If I'm already registered, how do I find out, please...?

— This unsigned comment was added by 2601:589:0:26e8:4d75:f611:96ca:8eea (talk • changes) at 17:01, 13 November 2015‎.

Go to Special:ListUsers to look up the username. If the username is not taken, then you can register it. However, Special:ListUsers only applies to this wiki, which means your username could be taken in another Wikipedia. Cheers. //nepaxt 21:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entries suppressed in page history (this page)

Does anyone know why there are suppressed entries in the edit history of this page? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was personal information on ANI. //nepaxt 19:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve entries were suppressed. I know there wasn't personal info on all of them. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive Username

Could an admin please block User:Deez nuts got ee. It is an offensive username. Thanks. //nepaxt 17:17, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is it offensive? --Auntof6 (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Deez nuts" is a slang word for penis. //nepaxt 18:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know "nuts" is a slang term for testicles, but I didn't know this one. I'm not sure it's offensive enough to block -- we don't usually think of body parts as offensive, even parts we usually don't see. Let's see what other admins think. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Block it.--Peterdownunder (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's a term I wasn't familiar with, so I didn't know how offensive it was. Thanks for the education -- the things we need to learn to be admins! --Auntof6 (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not a common one downunder, so we all learn--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update messages

I am not sure if this was brought up before, but I do hope that an administrator can update the following messages so that it is more consistent and/or simpler.

MediaWiki:Visualeditor-ca-editsource should be changed to "Change source".
MediaWiki:Mypreferences should be changed to "Settings".
MediaWiki:Mycontris should be changed to "Changes".

Thanks! --Hydriz (talk) 04:34, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ping. Is help required on updating these messages? --Hydriz (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or people don't agree. Personally I don't see the point. The first one already says that. The second two basically already say that as well. The last two use the word My because it makes it simplier, in that the context is given and doesn't need to be assumed. -DJSasso (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having some response is always better than complete silence on a high traffic page. Please see the discussion about this message on why the "My" should be dropped. From a user experience perspective, it is not ideal. Having just "Settings" or "Changes" is even simpler than having the "My" in it, which just seeks to confuse the user more. --Hydriz (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to set it to the (new) MediaWiki default (without the "my"). I believe we just need to delete the MediaWiki page for it to revert to the default. This will ensure consistency across the other Wikimedia wikis, as well as with the other links on the personal tools (beta, watchlist, talk). Chenzw Talk 12:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, having no "my" makes it more complex to non-English speakers as it makes it harder to understand what is meant. Using the word My gives it context to the user. Remember shorter does not always mean simpler. -DJSasso (talk) 13:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DJSasso on this one. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not exactly sure what kind of context you are referring to, but basing on your opinion, we should change the rest to become "My <something>". The inconsistency isn't professional. --Hydriz (talk) 14:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What settings? Page settings? Wiki settings? User settings? What changes? Recent changes? Page changes? User changes? The only two that require the context are those two so it isn't inconsistent. We are different than other wiki's. What might be perfectly fine for them does not work here. Remember we have to be simple in everything we do on this wiki, not just the language we use. -DJSasso (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I would like to bring in the problem of it being confusing to the user. Have a look at some best practices regarding these. If you are referring to those kind of contexts, then having "Settings" or "Changes" alone is sufficient. Why? This is because from the user's perspective, they can see that it is on the same row as the user's name and they know the context is about the user himself. Also, by inconsistent, I mean that some links have "My", some don't, and that is not a recommended practice, regardless of whether this is simple English or not. --Hydriz (talk) 15:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For people who don't know the language well having them alone is not sufficient. Experienced users might be able to deduce that, but not all users. And since we always opt for the simplest common denominator we must work for those who are not experienced. And yes, I was aware that is what you meant by inconsistent. My answer still holds, only two of them require the My. But I would be perfectly find adding My to all the others. I would not however, be fine removing them. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that is an assumption about the differences between the experienced and inexperienced user. I proposed this change precisely because it is to simplify it for inexperienced users. Our users aren't people who are new to the Internet and Wikipedia is certainly not the first website that they have seen. Other websites that they are more likely to go to have dropped the "My" or "Your" in all user-related links, and for us to leave them there, it probably have harmed than helped. --Hydriz (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there is a good chance they are. Don't forget our audience is partly children who haven't necessarily been exposed to the internet much. -DJSasso (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they haven't been exposed to the Internet much, what is the likelihood that they will create an account, even more specifically try to change their account preferences or looks for their own changes? Even if they are, again my point is that it will only seek to confuse the user. Also, please have a look at this wiki's own mobile site, it just says "Settings" when you click the hamburger, and it is very clear to the user what it is referring to. Children are more likely to be accessing this wiki from the mobile site, and even more likely to have a shorter attention span. "Settings" and "Changes", they are clear, concise and in simple English. --Hydriz (talk) 13:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't clear, that can very easily be misinterpreted. And how is the word My confusing. Are you suggesting people don't understand the word My? -DJSasso (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand why you keep claiming it can be misinterpreted. The context is about the user and "Settings" is just what, 2cm away from the user's name? Having the "My" is completely unnecessary and calls for unneeded stress on the user. --Hydriz (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
So, any progress on this? I have been thinking for so long and it still does not make sense to not change the message. --Hydriz (talk) 13:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the progress is that this isn't something that should be changed. You are on simple wikipedia, your change would make it less simple. -DJSasso (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can other administrators please provide their comments? --Hydriz (talk) 02:59, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Djsasso, change not needed.--Peterdownunder (talk) 12:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for new change filter entry

Can we add a filter to stop unregistered users from creating user pages? I'm not talking about user talk pages, just user pages. Unregistered users aren't allowed to have their own user pages, and we've had cases recently of unregistered users creating user pages that weren't even for themselves. For example, User:Username has been created four times by one or more users using four different IP addresses. --Auntof6 (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible, but can I suggest that either:

The filter will only stop unregistered users from creating user pages in their own userspace, or
The filter will warn only, and will not prevent the action

I feel that preventing anonymous editors from creating any page in userspace is too broad an editing restriction. Chenzw Talk 02:51, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why not both, maybe with multiple filters if necessary? The first would take care of one issue. The second might help with the other issue, but I doubt it would stop the vandals that I've seen create such pages. I'm curious why you think my original suggestion is too broad. Why should unregistered users be creating pages in other users' user space? To me, that's a worse offense than creating in their own. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is just that we will be preventing unregistered users from creating pages in an entire namespace. Since no one else seems to have any objections, however, I can get started with creating the filters, hopefully finishing by tomorrow. Chenzw Talk 06:45, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this hasn't been posted for very long. It's OK with me if you want to wait to see if anyone else has any comments. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me.--Peterdownunder (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Filter 55 is good to go (just waiting to be enabled) for unregistered users creating pages in other editors' userspace. The warning message is the generic abuse filter warning. For unregistered users attempting to create in their own userspace, we should look into crafting a warning message that is milder instead. Chenzw Talk 13:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have enabled filter 55 since there have been no objections thus far. Will look into the filter on preventing creations in own userspace soon. Chenzw Talk 03:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Filter 57 is ready (not enabled yet), and I have also created MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-unregistered-userspace‎. Please take a look. The aim is to make the warning message something friendlier and that will encourage contributors to create an account. Chenzw Talk 09:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

About the user Fuckinshitup

I would like the parameters changed.

First off, please disable autoblock.

Second, please allow account creation.

This is because it's a username block. Krett12 (talk) 02:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. The block parameters used are appropriate. Chenzw Talk 03:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krett12, may I ask what your interest is in this user? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a username block, right? So I think the parameters should be changed accordingly. Krett12 (talk) 16:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No valid reason specified for your request.--Grind24 (talk) 20:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This action is standard procedure for truly bad user names like this. So, no, there should not be a change. Additionally, in the future, please take this kind of concern to the admin who carried out the action rather than the noticeboard. Only (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Auntof6 said I should use the noticeboard, which one of you is right?! Krett12 (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere where you and Auntof6 talked about the user prior. If that happened, then, yes, bring it here since the blocking user is giving you permission to get input/action from other admins. But wherever that conversation occurred isn't apparent/obvious to me. Again, when you question a user/admin's judgment, you should talk to that person first and not just go straight to the boards. Only (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You ask me if I even looked, I ask you the same thing. I am already being treated horribly on enwiki and I do NOT need a repeat of that here. Krett12 (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
"I don't see anywhere where you and Auntof6 talked about the user prior." Auntof6's talk page was about 65.94.52.232. For 65.94.52.232, the editor was vandalising on their own user talk, so this kind of incident can be reported to VIP directly to adjust block parameters. For this user Fuckinshitup, you are requesting for more relaxed block parameters, so you should look for the blocking administrator first if possible. Also, perhaps you need to reflect on why you seem to be "treated horribly" on enwiki. You are in no place to demand nice treatment if you continue coming across as arrogant to others. Chenzw Talk 00:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mywikibiz

Can an admin add mywikibiz to spam filter? Thanks. //nepaxt 19:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be effective because it is not added as an external link [http://example.com like this]. If there is no "http://", the spam filter will not attempt to check it. I will add a new entry to the abuse filter instead. Chenzw Talk 00:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have created and enabled filter 59. Chenzw Talk 00:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully, that will solve things. //nepaxt 01:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getantandrusasap

Some of the vandalism included his talk page, so the block should be modified to prevent use of his talk page. Krett12 (talk) 22:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the block log? "account creation blocked, cannot change own talk page." I know what I'm doing, thank you very much. Only (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krett12, you need to stop questioning admin actions as if we don't know what we are doing. I don't want to repeat what some people have already said on the English Wikipedia. Consider this a warning. Chenzw Talk 00:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't say that when I checked. Oh well. Krett12 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must not have read carefully because the log was not (and cannot) be modified. Only (talk) 01:04, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with this, everyone ... this is a long term cross-wiki abuse issue; I clean his stuff from all Wikimedia projects where I find it. You can slow him down by blocking these four ranges as I did on en:. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 02:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Early reminder about deleting articles following end-of-year RfDs

Some RfDs are started near the end of a year but not closed until the following year. When those RfDs are closed as delete, we can't use the usual delete option because it doesn't show the correct year. To close those, we need to enter a manual reason. Just a heads-up. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:19, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are all my fellow admins prepared to do the extra steps for closing these RfDs? We could consider asking users to hold off as much as possible creating new ones on the last week of this month. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, no problem for me. On that note, I think it is possible to use some clever parserfunctions to dynamically adjust the year in the deletion dropdown (i.e. if no 2016 RfD page exists, display the 2015 RfD page as a deletion reason instead). This is something we could consider if it becomes a greater problem. For now, just look carefully when deleting pages (which is something we should all be doing anyway, end of the year or not). Chenzw Talk 02:18, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or just close them manually...I have never even realized this was an issue people had. Throw the template on the top and bottom and then you are set. You realize those drop downs are just suggestions for what you can put in as a reason. You can use any edit message you want. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Of course I realize that. I brought it up because we've been caught by it before. At least once an article was deleted using the provided edit summary with the wrong year. In that case, the article was restored and re-deleted with the correct year because the admin happened to catch it. I'm just trying to be proactive. --Auntof6 (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my point is that there is no real big deal if it gets the wrong year. Its just an edit summary. -DJSasso (talk) 17:23, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Protect request

On the edit notice for my talk page, semi-protect please. Since it's not my real talk page, only I have any business editing it. Krett12 (talk) 00:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Only (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it or isn't it ?!?

I tried to create account WGroleau. #$^%##&#$% autocorrect changed it to Groleau when I clicked submit. Message says it is already in use.

Managed to coerce the browser to not alter Groleau and the message says it is not allowed because it is in use "on another Wiki" That's probably me on the original Wikipedia. But trying to "recall password" for either name gets no-such-user message.

I can be reached via Wiki (at) Lang-Learn (dot) org

Accounts exist across all Wikipedia projects now. An account created on any of the projects will reserve (in an inactive state) the same username on all of them. Signing into one of them, clicking the "stay signed in" button, and then navigating to any other project will result in the account being auto-created. That said, the various projects don't see the global account list unless you are trying to create a new account, which is why you are being told that the username already exists. The fact that the account hasn't been created on Simple will prevent Simple from providing a lost password to you. Perhaps others know of a tool to figure out which project the original account name was created on; that would be the place to go through the lost password routine. If you go to www.wikipedia.org, (be sure to scroll down to the very bottom) you will see a list of Wikipedia projects, any of which might have been the location where the account was first created. Also, don't overlook the possibility that someone else created the same username, especially given that "Groleau" is not an unheard-of surname. You might consider creating an account with a username based in literature, science, fantasy, or other interests. If you go this route, be sure to read the policy on usernames, which can be found by clicking here. Best wishes. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 14:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia on strike?

Are you all on strike all your current information since the 11th of December is out of date I understand a couple of hours but 4 days is ridiculous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.132.96.93 (talk) 16:10, 15 December 2015

Feel free to jump in and help constructively! This is a small project with many fewer editors than the English Wikipedia project has, so not everything gets done as fast here as it does there (and they get backlogged sometimes too!). Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 05:57, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Krett12 & templates

Krett12 (talk · contribs) has created a new account, Warnings Plus (talk · contribs), as a place to create/store his own created templates. I think that this is an inappropriate use of an alternate account. The templates are not of good quality. See examples like User:Warnings Plus/vandalismOxO and User:Warnings Plus/disrespectful3. He insists that his templates are important to have on this Wikipedia. I disagree. What do others believe about the Warnings Plus account and about Krett12's creation of templates in general? Only (talk) 02:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Auntof6 has blocked the alternate account and moved the templates back to Krett12's space. So the question then is how we view his template creation. Only (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what about w:User:UBX ? That's where I got the idea from. Krett12 (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Only said, I moved the templates back. I blocked the alternate account as abusing multiple accounts and told Krett12 not to create any more accounts here. (He previously created at least four others besides his main one.) I'm hardpressed to think of a reason not to block his main account as well for abuse of multiple accounts.

As for the templates, I agree that this was an inappropriate use of an alternate account. It's fine to propose new templates. However, if the intention is to have them in the regular template space, the proper procedure would be to first discuss the need for them and/or create them in one's existing userspace and ask for feedback.

Aside from that, I don't believe this user is able to create appropriate warning messages. He is probably not aware that the existing warning messages were vetted and very carefully worded and agreed upon before going live. The messages he created had incorrect grammar and vocabulary, not to mention that they are probably just not needed. We will never have templated messages for everything we might need to say to a user, and we shouldn't be afraid to use non-templated posts when needed.

I'd really like to find a way to channel this user's enthusiasm. I believe he means well, but even after being blocked for a day he doesn't understand that many of his edits are disruptive. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:40, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts here:

Just because w:User:UBX exists on EN wikipedia does not mean that the same idea is acceptable here. Currently I view the action as the creation of a pseudo-namespace for the warning templates, which is something which requires consensus. It doesn't matter who is/was in control of the account. I agree that it was inappropriate use of an account and that account should remain blocked.
Now that these "templates" have been moved back to Krett12's own userspace, he is free to do as he deems fit with these warning messages, including subst'ing them on other user talk pages (as how you would do so for the usual warning templates) for now. However, these warning messages in userspace are not to be treated as conventional warning templates (ie. they should not be on Twinkle or any other gadget, nor should any other editor be/feel compelled to use them). If someone thinks that it is detrimental to the project as a whole in the sense that these warning messages are unprofessional, not properly worded, contain errors etc., then those pages should be brought up to RFD. Until someone creates a RFD nomination, I think individual administrators should not unilaterally restrict the use of such warning messages, and should instead treat them as if Krett12 himself typed them out on another editor's user talk page as a personally typed warning. Chenzw Talk 05:38, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two points:

The analogy to en:User:UBX is not really fitting here. There were some good, specific reasons to use that approach at that point on that wiki. And, very differently from this case: the templates (userboxes) stored there were only transcluded onto other userpages by the users themselves, not by others.
I'm not sure I entirely agree with User:Chenzw about whether User:Krett12 has the "right" to use these. In fact, I do agree with his idea in principle. But in reality, if the templates look like official warnings, and there is a risk of confusion there, we have a problem. And, on the other hand, if Krett12 has the right to type such messages by hand, he has the right to create userspace templates for them, too. So RfD is not a great solution, either.

I'm with @Auntof6. We ought to channel Krett12's enthusiasm to something constructive for the project, not disruptive. Personally, I don't know how. Any ideas? StevenJ81 (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional comments:

@Krett12: has the potential to be a great editor, but is focusing too much on correcting others and trying to seem important to this project. The user's edits show a natural intelligence that has the potential to be a great benefit to the project, but inexperience with Wikipedia (and more specifically Simple Wikipedia) and how it is supposed to work, is all too obvious.
The user needs to understand that ultimately, what is needed here is content creation. I would invite Krett12 to look at En-Wiki, find interesting articles there that are missing here, and copy them and simplify them for this project. I don't have any particular genre of article in mind -- anything there that is properly sourced and gets reasonably simplified for this project will be fine. I don't even mind if there are some grammar mistakes in the simplified versions -- they'll get fixed after the article is posted here. There are over 5 million articles on EnWiki; we have less than 3% of those here -- this is important work that needs to get done. Imagine if Krett12 brought over just one article every day... Within a few months, the user would be one of the most prolific article creators we have seen in a long time!
Regarding the UBX account on EnWiki, Krett12 needs to understand that that account exists by community consensus, and if the community decides that it is no longer appropriate there, then it will go away. The account was created when some major changes were underway, and there was a very-real possiblity that numerous userboxes were going to be deleted due to those changes. Those userboxes were migrated to the UBX account to preserve them. Since then, many more have been added, but that was the original purpose. The account includes information that clearly states who created it, why it was created, and who now controls it. Also, the account is not used for any editing, nor has it ever been used for any editing, not even within the UBX namespace. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 06:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal - topic ban?

Many have expressed a desire to channel his energies to more productive endeavors. How about a topic ban that limits him to article edits (no reverts or deletion proposals) and user space drafts of articles, plus the discussions of articles at talk pages? His last real article edit was November 24. Everything else has been a revert or deletion nomination. Except for the edit where he said wedding dresses are black and reverted himself because he somehow confused wedings and funerals. I think we are seeing a massive obsession with vandals which only further causes vandals to strike against him and too much distraction of the templates and inserting his two cents about admin actions. Thoughts? Only (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Being on vandalism patrol is not a "massive obsession with vandals"--and I also object to blaming vandals targeting me on me. Krett12 (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this would have the opposite effect of "channeling my energies to more productive endeavors"--I'll give you a hint Krett12 (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you should focus more on article editing and not templates/vandalism is forcing you to take a wikibreak? Wow. Only (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Wikibreak isn't a bad thing, and in this case, I think Krett needs it. I'm having some serious CIR concerns about this user, their competence, and maturity. eurodyne (talk) 14:54, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably a worthwhile essay to import and simplify. Would someone please import it (with at least the end of its edit history) to my userspace at User:StevenJ81/CIR essay? I'll get at it after I finish a couple of Jewish subject pages I'm currently working on. Thanks. StevenJ81 (talk) 15:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have it. We just don't have that specific shortcut. --Auntof6 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've established WP:CIR as a shortcut now. Only (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think reverting vandalism without adding stuff to articles is really a problem: I think Krett12 should just avoid creating his own templates for vandalism, and other activities related to this which have been seen as disruptive. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 18:11, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think are the "other activities related ot this" which are disruptive? Just seeking clarification. Only (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Only: The entire of what this thread is about. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant creating an alternative account for the new templates, to be more specific. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just issued a final warning to Krett12 because of his complete patience wasting. I welcome further input both here and at his talk page. Only (talk) 11:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree: his rate of disruptive messaging has, if anything, increased. It is wasting our time rather than building an encyclopedia. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that the original topic ban proposal was derailed as a result of his own wikibreak (which lasted for slightly less than one day). Right now there does not seem to be a clear consensus in this section. Nevertheless, I will hazard a guess that there will be further development to this situation within the next few days, without even needing a ban proposal (be it topic ban or the ban that requires a particular special page). Chenzw Talk 12:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review

I am not sure how to notify an admin of my request for a deleted article to be reviewed. Please advise and thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by Filmbuff311 (talk • changes) 10:59, 19 December 2015‎ (UTC)

Deletion Review is not just an administrator action. It is a community discussion to which administrators carry out community consensus, as most DR's are after a community deletion through an Request for Deletion, as such they are like an appeal to a community delete through RfD. Simply putting it under DR is usually sufficient, and if after a couple of days no discussion on it has been made then posting something in Simple Talk is the appropriate venue. -- Enfcer (talk) 02:40, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Importing an article from en.wiki

Resolved.

Can an administrator import en:Alcide De Gasperi from en.wiki and put it in User:Nepaxt/A. I need to simplify it. Thank you. //nepaxt 19:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done -Barras talk 19:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! //nepaxt 20:07, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam account or faulty bot?

User talk:Twitter-support-number-866.769.8127-twitter-support number looks a bit weird. They just created wall of text user and talk pages with their own account name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.51.68.57 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:Spam. An administrator has blocked the account. A Google search for that phone number shows that it is being spammed all over the place as being tech support for various companies. I'm not going to call it, in case it's the spammer's own number and they are collecting phone numbers for marketing purposes, but it definitely does not belong here. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user is also now globally blocked for cross-wiki abuse. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 15:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted user page and user talk page are still showing up in Google searches. Is there any process to completely remove even the "Deleted page" template, or to convince Google to not index it any more? I don't know how to add the "noindex" magic word to a deleted page (although I would think it would already be on the template that shows the page was previously deleted)? Can the entire account creation -- through deletion -- be oversighted? I doubt anyone in the community would object in this case. Also, I would not object to refactoring of the first line of this section, so that the phone number no longer appears as such (in case this page is ever indexed by Google). Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]