Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 39

From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Protection request

Resolved.

Please semi-protect Call of Duty series, as many IP socks are vandalizing it. Thanks, Goodvac (talk) 08:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change MediaWiki message

Resolved.

I have requested a change at MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer. Could can admin please change it? πr2 (talk • changes) 23:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protection request

Resolved.

Please semi-protect User:Katarighe, as per user request. Thanks, --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 00:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:29, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to add documentation display to some protected templates

Resolved.

I'd like to add Category:Subtemplates of Template Precision to each of the following protected template subpages:

Would someone please add <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> to the end of each one so that I can create doc pages? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -Barras (talk) 14:01, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Auntof6 (talk) 17:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.

For advertising on Requested Pages.

Me, πr2 (talk • changes) 23:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jon@talk:~$ 03:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archive this page...

Resolved.

Can we? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First please answer my requests above. It can be done now that an admin is on. πr2 (talk • changes) 03:04, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've done the thing.  :) I've also changed the archive days from 30 to 14. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is set at 30 on purpose because that is the point where the most people can see what happens on this page while still generally keeping the page from passing the 100k mark. There is no need at all to change the archive time. If there is a sudden explosion of size then we can alter it but at this time it is clearly working as designed. -DJSasso (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purplebackpack89

I have set the block length at 14 days, I see no consensus for a ban. I'm willing to unblock, so this also means that there is also no defacto ban. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how did you arrive at that conclusion? Have you actually looked here? Can we all stop messing around with block durations and allow a discussion to take place please? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a lot of odd decisions here recently but this one really does take the biscuit... Goblin 08:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge![reply]
Really, if you don't know what you are doing, and if you don't know where to find a discussion, then just ask for a link. This is ridiculous. -Barras (talk) 08:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. This is amazing. How in earth did you get 2 weeks? There is an ongoing discussion and you've went completely against it. I'd even say this is completely incorrect use of the tools and perhaps a discussion on whether or not you should have the mop after that is called for. Normandy (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh nothing I hate more than admins jumping into situations they have clearly not researched. There is currently a ban discussion where every single person has said ban except one who has said 6 month block. -DJSasso (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
@Kennedy, I've got two people on such a list so far. Though I can't be bothered with the drama... Goblin 12:35, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
Action taken: I have restored the block duration to indefinite (also meaning that we don't know when it will end yet). The duration will be adjusted if necessitated by the result of the discussion on ST. If you ask me, I would probably dismiss this admin action as a one-off oversight. Chenzw  Talk  13:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I've commented at Jon's talkpage and sent him an email because he may not return for a fortnight or more given his current edit record. Thanks to Chenzw for restoring some normality, perhaps in a week or so we can find someone like Chenzw to close (and action, if necessary) the ongoing ban discussion? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:09, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He comes back after a few days away, his first actions are to blindly change a block which was agreed by community consensus then to disappear with no ability to contact him. Is this the actions of an admin? Hardly. I'm waiting to see his reply before considering further discussions. This is how strongly I feel at this decision. Normandy (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've to agree. A review of his adminship and bureaucratship might be useful. Seeing such actions, it might be worth to determine if the community still has trust in him. -Barras (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Goblin 23:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
I can understand that. While I thought the change was strange, I do have to agree that the discussion has become very fragmented and hard to follow. Mistakes happen, and I think we are being just a tad harsh calling for reviews of tools.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jumping out of nowhere and doing something you haven't really been involved with, is something an admin or even bureaucrat should very clearly not do. I'm afraid, but I cannot really have much trust in people who do this. If I remember correctly, this isn't the first time when Scream did such quite odd things. (I think that every admin should be confirmed at some point anyway as it happens on dewiki.) -Barras (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I said I made a mistake, I apologized. You would rather your admins be uninvolved if possible. I missed a very important section in one of the discussions where the ban was discussed. The discussion was help in many places (and potentially IRC). Mistakes are easy in this case. It was not my intention to cause uproar. I really apologize this happened. What else do you need? Jon@talk:~$ 10:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is theres a difference between 'uninvolved' and just being completely oblivious to whats happening. To blindly take action on something you don't know anything about is a big error of judgement. Normandy (talk) 10:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't gonna comment on this but I feel I must put in my two cents in Scream's defense. He made a mistake, one that anyone could have made with three separate ban discussion going on for one person. The discussions are so fragmented I'ms surprised this didn't happen sooner. He's apologized and assured us that it won't happen again. I think we need to learn to forgive and move on in this case. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to understand the discussions should' be a reason not to revert an admins block. If he couldn't follow the discussion (no matter how fragmented) then he should have left it and commented. Not jump in head first and change a block. If you don't know what you're doing, walk away. Normandy (talk) 14:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look I completely understand the "outrage", if I may call it that. But you need to remember that Admins are human too, they have the same ability to make stupid mistakes as say Addihockey. If we can't forgive minor easily corrected mistakes like this, then well, we're in trouble. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is something he has been talked to about before. Jumping to action too fast when he doesn't fully understand what is going on. I don't know that we need to take any drastic action in this case. But he does need to realize he does this sort of thing fairly consistently. Might be a good idea for someone relatively inactive at the wiki to avoid jumping into such situations as often as you do. -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

twinklespeedy

Resolved.

I have requested a change here. It is related to the other TW change I made (to fix wpMinoredit). The method/function/procedure userNotification needs to be replaced with:

		userNotification: function( self ) {
			var nowelcome = TwinkleConfig.welcomeUserOnSpeedyDeletionNotification.indexOf( self.params.normalized ) == -1;
			var form = self.responseXML.getElementById( 'editform' );
			var text = form.wpTextbox1.value;
 
			text += "\n\{\{subst:QD-notice|page=" + wgPageName + "|cat=" + self.params.normalized + "|reason=" + twinklespeedy.reasonHash[ self.params.value ] + "\}\} \~\~\~\~";
			var postData = {
				'wpMinoredit': (typeof form.wpMinoredit == "undefined") ? undefined : (form.wpMinoredit.checked ? '' : undefined), // or be consistent w/ http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AEhJJ%2Ftwinklewarn.js&action=historysubmit&diff=3136461&oldid=2847040 and use 1 instead of ''
				'wpWatchthis': form.wpWatchthis.checked ? '' : undefined,
				'wpStarttime': form.wpStarttime.value,
				'wpEdittime': form.wpEdittime.value,
				'wpAutoSummary': form.wpAutoSummary.value,
				'wpEditToken': form.wpEditToken.value,
 
				'wpSection': '',
				'wpSummary': 'Notification: Quick deletion nomination of \[\[' + wgPageName + '\]\].' + TwinkleConfig.summaryAd,
				'wpTextbox1': text
			};
			self.post( postData );
		}

... πr2 (talk • changes) 23:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a description of the change: when the page has not been created yet, the minor edit checkbox "wpMinoredit" will not exist. If we check to see if it is undefined first, we avoid errors arising from treating undefined as an object with methods, etc. And I would suggest replacing the line with "(typeof form.wpMinoredit == "undefined") ? undefined : (form.wpMinoredit.checked ? 1 : undefined)" Until this change is made, twinkle will not be able to warn (QD notice) users who do not have talk pages yet. This change has already been made to twinklewarn.js. πr2 (talk • changes) 04:36, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done by Chenzw. Grunny (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flood

Resolved.

Hello, can I please have the flood flag? I am working on replacing the to-be-deleted {{Iowa-stub}}s with {{us-geo-stub}}. I have flooded recent changes, so... –Orashmatash 21:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please get it removed once you are done with these changes...--Eptalon (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done for tonight, you can remove it now. Thanks Eptalon! –Orashmatash 22:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I please have it back? I'm flooding again. This should be the last time I need it, I'll be done by today. –Orashmatash 12:54, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, I'm done. All of the tags have been removed and replaced. By the way, {{Iowa-stub}} can now be deleted, along with Category:Iowa stubs. –Orashmatash 13:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were Racepacket's editing restrictions ever lifted?

In July, editing restrictions were placed on User:Racepacket at the end of this discussion Wikipedia:Simple_talk/Archive_93#Racepacket and Simple English.3F

"I have placed an editing restriction on this user. They are to simplify articles in their userspace, and only when they are ready for mainspace can they move them. Any violations and an admin is to block the account for a period. fr33kman 23:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)"

Since then, he continued to copy and paste articles into userspace and expected Barras to review them. There have been many discussions about deletion or moving complex chemistry articles fron namespace back into userspace. He has tended to look for ways to skirt any restrictions. Recently, rather than creating new pages as copies from En (restricted), he's been copying section from En into already existing articles. The most recent was Mormonism, which was a 100%, not one char changed, copy. Sometimes they are locations and therefore not too complex, but often they are not. See University of Virginia, Glucose, Nuclear proliferation and Oblate spheroid as just some examples.

Although strictly speaking copying and pasting just a section might be considered legalistically different from the above restrictions, I don't think it is in practice. His edits have followed a consistent pattern. He seems not to understand that copying and pasting is a problem. He seems to be encouraging/supporting others (Jonayo) to copy-paste from En as well. RP also shows essentially no interest in simplifying the long backlog of complex copied articles he has created.

I'd like to ask administrators to consider either enforcing the editing restrictions if they are still in place, or putting them back in place if they are not. This editor is disruptive, and just as a reminder, has already been banned on En. I'll leave this to the admins and try to remove myself from any further discussion at this point unless asked a direct question.

Regards, Gotanda (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he is making a good faith attempt to simplify we do allow copying and pasting of articles. That is how probably 95% of our articles are started. The key of course is that they must try to simplify them (unless they are already simple). Unfortunately we all have different opinions on what is simple so its not easy to quantify. I haven't taken the time to go through his articles yet so I can't say if he has made that attempt or not so I can't comment on whether he is in violation of any restrictions or not but I just mostly wanted to comment that maybe you need to step back form this situation. Not because you aren't doing it in good faith, but because you seem to be getting awfully worked up about it and taking it personally. -DJSasso (talk) 11:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Racepacket

(ec) I continue to welcome feedback from Gotanda or any other editor. I am sorry for the complexity of this response, but it looks as if Gotanda is asking for serious sanctions to be taken against me.
I am patrolling new changes, and I come across a variety of problems. In some cases, the changed article is incorrect. For example, Boxing gloves said that all boxing used gloves, when there is bare-knuckle boxing. So, I fixed it. In Mormonism an IP added this sentence, about Mormon's using the King James Bible. I moved the thought to a more appropriate place and took three sentences from En Wikipedia to clarify that although they use the King James Bible, they believe there are inaccuracies and lost truths. Because this is a controversial subject, I did not want to depart too much from the three-sentence consensus at En Wikipedia. I do not mind his editing the article further, but I believe that removing the King James Bible completely from the article is a step in the wrong direction.
On Glucose, I did go on to make a second simplifying edit after the one he referenced above. A second simplifying edit followed the Nuclear proliferation edit listed above as well. This diff shows how different my edit and En Wikipedia really are.
In Oblate spheroid, I thought it was a mistake to have an article that did not define "oblate spheroid" and did not explain how it differed from a plain spheroid. The edit was prompted by an IP adding a sentence saying the Earth was an ellipsoid and another editor removing the fact as untrue. I thought that Wikipedia should be clear that all oblate spheroids are ellipsoids.
I believe that Gotanda and I disagree on what "copy and paste" means. In recent deletion discussions, he tries to catalog how many changes I have made from the En Wikipedia text, but instead of comparing my changes to En Wikipedia, he compared them to the first simplified version I saved at Simple Wikipedia. (More recently, he has been conducting experiments in the Sandbox to check my edits more accurately against En Wikipedia. You can see the differences.)I want to be very careful to comply with the attribution and copyright requirements, so I include a permanent link to En Wikipedia whenever I use information from it. That does not mean that I just copy, paste and save in edits that contain such URLs in the edit summary.
User Barras and I spent a month working together on the articles that had been identified as causing concerns. Barras reviewed each one and I changed them until we both agreed that they were simple. This helped me to learn how to write Simple English. A month into the process, Gotanda began expressing concerns. Barras and I asked him to move articles that caused him problems back into my userspace and if possible to leave a review of each article he moved so that we could address his concerns. He moved seven articles, but did not list concerns explaining what problems he had with the seven articles. I left messages on his talk page asking for his concerns,[1][2][3] and he referred me to the talk page of each article. But those talk pages did not exist. (Discussion was not archived.) I welcome Gotanda's input and have asked for it, but it is not forthcoming.
At the same time, Gotanda asked User:Barras to stop me from creating new articles in my user space. Barras and I have agreed to halt the creation of new articles.
He then nominated two other articles for quick deletion rather than moving them to my user space. When that was declined, he nominated them for a deletion discussion. Those discussions have not be closed, but many editors have voted to keep them. He has suggested that even if they are kept, he will move articles to my user space.
I created Geek on July 22. On October 22, he nominated it for quick deletion rather than moving it to my user space. Again, it was kept, and Gotanda did not nominate it for a deletion discussion. Gotanda's diff.
As a final emotional argument, he asserts that I should be treated harshly because I am not allowed to edit En Wikipedia at this time. If any administrator has questions about the circumstances surrounding that controversy, I will be happy to answer them in a more private forum. I should point out that I have been a hard-working volunteer on WMF projects since 2006 and am currently on the Board of our local chapter. The overall tone of Gotanda's message above is that "this wiki is not big enough for both Gotanda and Racepacket." I disagree. There is no reason preventing Gotanda and I from working together in good faith to build and improve Simple English Wikipedia. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 12:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abitrary break

  • Comment - Before I weigh in on this issue, I would like to hear what Barras has to say (and I suggest all editors do so too). Chenzw  Talk  06:25, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that it really doesn't matter if he has or not. The guy creates content! That's what we're all supposed to do. And if he talks his time simplifying, so what? He's created more content then just about anybody in the time he's been here Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 13:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, haven't been very active recently due to real life work that needed and still needs to be done. Will try to look at the stuff now. -Barras (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now, I finally read some articles. As I stated before, it is absolutely no problem for me to understand the scientific stuff. It is at times hard for me to say whether something is complex or not. Anyway, RP did quite a lot of good work in the recent weeks. I'd not really say that there is a real breach of the editing restriction. The main problem here is, that many articles are full of red-links and therefore miss some explanation and makes it harder to understand for many people. We currently (last time I checked) over 1,000 articles marked as complex, and I bet that at least 500 are worse and way more complex in language and sentence structure than the ones by RP. It is often hard to say whether a scientific article is complex or not, because you need to use special scientific words which are not simple. Linking them helps, but they often lead to non-existing pages. I think that most articles in RP's user space are not really that complex and could be moved, however, I'd like to see a non-scientist to read them first. RP imo made great steps in improving "his simple language". I hope this comment helps here now a bit to clear things. Sorry that it took that long for me to write here, but I've been and still am busy in real life. Best, -Barras (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd agree with Barras here... I'm not really sure what the problem with RP is. As far as I can see he is simplifying the articles to an extent, and that's good faith, and enough for me. I'd think we can drop this witch-hunt against various users here, not specifically this discussion, but the complete poisonous atmosphere around this place right now... Normandy (talk) 22:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP: 207.235.163.2 vandalism

There appears to be a lot of vandalism from this IP:Special:Contributions/207.235.163.2 on the subject of children's TV (again), including the fictitious NBC Kids, which I can't find any evidence exists. When I try to rollback these edits two things happen - 1. Rollback will only go back one edit and 2. It then opens a page saying the undone edit was by "Special Contributions" but the page cannot be found. Any clues as to what is happening (or what I am doing wrong?)--Peterdownunder (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because you used Twinkle to do the revert and not the rollback feature. --Bsadowski1 22:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, TW rollback breaks all the time. The MediaWiki rollback feature is much better in my opinion, purely because it never breaks. --Orashmatash 20:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.

User has been advertising crosswiki. See here. Advertisng Microhard software solutions specifically. πr2 (t • c) 02:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Chenzw  Talk  03:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fix attribution

Resolved.

Is it okay to fix attribution on my article. Airblue Thanks --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're asking. Could you elaborate please? Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please grab all edit revisons from en.wiki and transfer them here. --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 17:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last double redirect

Resolved.

Hi. Could an admin please fix the last double redirect in the list? It's someone's personal JS page so I can't fix it. Thanks! --Orashmatash 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Peter. :P --Orashmatash 20:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respectful nudge

I've had a bot request outstanding for a week -- could someone take a look? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:44, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad usernames

Resolved.

According to WP:VIP using {{username|type=warning}} should only be a warning. However I've tested it here and it is still a block message. Could someone with expertise in templates take a look? Thanks Normandie 15:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That template does not have text for warnings. I believe that it might have been lost when we imported EN's warning templates over our old warning templates. The one that should be used is {{uw-username}}, which does not exist yet. Chenzw  Talk  15:38, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It appears that it is because Template:username was redirected. I have unredirected it for now.... -DJSasso (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thats done the trick. Thanks Normandie 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Resolved.

Does Poo123 (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) qualify as an inappropriate username? πr2 (talk • changes) 01:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. -Barras (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also obviously sockpuppeteering. Spidey665 23:50, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please add doc code to these protected templates

Resolved.

Please add <noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> to the end of these protected subtemplates:

I'm requesting this so I can add them into categories and other doc can be written for them if needed. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 22:12, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the hope that I didn't break too much! -Barras (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The categories have been added. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--> Urgent <--

Resolved.

Er, so this is... kind of urgent. I saw that six new user accounts (VandaIs win again, Addmins hate the truth, Kittens will be hurt, I never liked wikis, I vandaIized even as a baby and Now i raape them) were created very soon after each other and all have... hateful names. I recommend that all of these accounts be watched very, very closely because this does not look good... --Orashmatash 23:49, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard, users have been globally locked. --Orashmatash 23:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.

It seems we're having a lot of problems with the {{convert}} convert template. It is forcing everything after the template onto a new line and into a code box so that it continues straight across the screen. Check the transclusions and you'll see what I mean. I noticed that the template has some testing code in it. That might be what is causing the problem. Could an admin please remove it so that we can see if it's really the testing code that's causing it? Thanks in advance. --Orashmatash 13:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Has it been fixed now? I checked through the first few transclusions and can't find anything wrong anymore. Chenzw  Talk  14:51, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still not fixed yet. The problem seems to appear only when specific units are involved. Chenzw  Talk  15:36, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - The problem was in {{convert/LoffAonDbSoff}}. Chenzw  Talk  15:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I went through the first couple of transclusions and fixed them manually. Thanks for fixing it! --Orashmatash 17:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter false positives

Hello,

Absue filter 12 (only one case + spacing) gives false positives, eg. here. I think we want either:

  • (a number of lowercase letters, punctuation, and spaces)
  • (a number of uppercase letter, punctuation, and spaces)

but not both at the same time (because then the filter is useless).--Eptalon (talk) 22:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given that we have false positive, the filter's setting atm is to tag (one-case only), until the problems outlined above can be fixed.--Eptalon (talk) 23:34, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed and re-enabled the filter, which should now tag articles as advertised ('one-case only'). If you find an article wrongly tagged, please tell me; oltherwise, I propose to switch back to actual blocking once we made sure there are no false positives--Eptalon (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1981 Irish hunger strike

Resolved.

User:Xania has tried to move this article to an article with incorrect capitalization. I have tried to move it back but I could not do so because of the redirect. Could someone please fix the history of these two articles so that the article 1981 Irish hunger strike has the history from 1981 Irish Hunger Strike? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 23:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chenzw  Talk  14:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

E/C Message

Resolved.

Hi. I noticed earlier that when I had a change conflict with myself (*rolls eyes*), the message that is displayed has a small grammar error. It says, 'This is an change conflict', when it should really say, 'This is a change conflict'. Could an admin please fix it? Thanks in advance! -Orashmatash 17:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done in r318852. Jon@talk:~$ 18:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Changes update

Wikipedia:RecentChanges needs an admin to stop by and update it some. The Weekly translation is two weeks old (one completed, one not), most of the wanted pages are completed, and those few pages that are not completed are only showing 1-3 valid hits (ie. not from lists of wanted pages) when looked at from "What links here". 70.184.168.201 (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two different bots adding the same incorrect interwikis

Both ArthurBot and WikitanvirBot have added the same wrong interwikis to Swagg Team. They're adding interwikis for Jive Records. They both did this today. I'm reporting it here because I wasn't sure if there's a better place. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To fix stuff like this you have to go to each language wiki and fix them. It isn't the bots fault, it happens because a person on one wiki put the wrong interwiki. The bots just repeat it. -DJSasso (talk) 14:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And upon looking into it, those were actually correct interwikis because Swagg Team on en redirects to Jive Records so the correct interwiki would be Jive Records. However normally it would only do that for wikis that redirect to Jive Records instead of all Jive Records interwikis. I am thinking it did that cause we don't have an article on Jive Records. -DJSasso (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please prevent IPs from creating this page. πr2 (talk • changes) 22:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was  Done by PeterSymonds at the same time as this post. Only (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And its talk page (delete and protect from creation) please. Swagg Union Heroes has been deleted before and should be SALTed along with Cory Jude Washington. Also Jude Enemy (talk • contribs • CA • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) should be blocked. πr2 (talk • changes) 01:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please? πr2 (talk • changes) 01:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unwilling to block unless the user has been warned or educated and given an opportunity to improve the actions. Jon@talk:~$ 03:10, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, hardcor has been deleted multiple times before and is SALTED on enwiki. The pages don't pass the Google notability test. Maybe the user shouldn't be blocked, but the pages should be deleted. I wrote on (his|her) talk page. πr2 (talk • changes) 03:12, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps his talk page editing should be blocked too: repeatedly replacing talk page with Hardcor infobox πr2 (talk • changes) 23:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Peterdownunder (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swagg Movemet (sic) needs to be deleted too. πr2 (t • c) 03:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another one at BeastMode. πr2 (t • c) 16:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And WonderMan now... πr2 (t • c) 16:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All those have now been deleted. Cheers, Grunny (talk) 09:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's Swag Union Heroes. πr2 (t • c) 00:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Cory Stunna and Crunk Music Entertainment? πr2 (t • c) 02:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Good grief. sonia 02:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He made The Wonderman... can you block him? πr2 (t • c) 03:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Following the previous two-week block, I've upped it to a month. Open to amendment. sonia 03:08, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archival settings updated

I have updated the archival settings of this page , changing the "lifetime" of items from 30d to 21d. Even if this board is less active than for example simple talk, "old" threads need to be cleared periodically. My personal impression is that 21 days leaves enough time to follow, yet clears out "old" threads sooner. --Eptalon (talk) 21:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A month is standard on pages like this. It gives a full month to anyone to see the topics. And if the page doesn't get over 100k then there is no issue. -DJSasso (talk) 14:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to 21 since this page is getting used for alot of trivial stuff lately so it probably could help. -DJSasso (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AWB acess

Resolved. Access not granted. Only (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no request access on AWB on simple wiki. I need access for AWB because, for using automated edits to do. Thanks --Katarighe (talk) 23:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not done You have 102 edits to the mainspace. Looking at your talk page, you have a lot of judgment errors in your editing. Therefore, no, you are not going to be granted AWB access. Only (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks --Katarighe (talk) 01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And as an FYI. Access is requested on the AWB list talk page. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User Name Problem?

Does the User:Hitachi America comply with our username policy? I left a message on her talk page. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does, it has already blocked idenfitnely from editing by an admin because of that. --Katarighe (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So then you really mean that, no, it doesn't? --Auntof6 (talk) 22:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unapproved Bot

Can someone please block QDPatrolBot because, it is currently an unapproved bot. Please block this bot with autoblock disabled only. --Katarighe (talk) 15:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, aren't you the bot's owner? [4] Chenzw  Talk  15:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I had an unapproved bot (OrashmaBot (talk · contribs)) which I gave up on and it was decided that no administrative action was necessary. I was told to scramble my bot's password and that's what I did, so I suggest doing the same here. -Orashmatash- 15:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think I speedy closed it becuase it does not exist. --Katarighe (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No need to scramble the password. Just don't use the account. -DJSasso (talk) 12:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy vandalizing on Minecraft

Would the admins consider semi-protecting this page for a while? I've reported several IPs and one account for vandalizing it in the last few minutes. --Auntof6 (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like what I'd consider a small "attack". This is a massive burst of IP vandalism on a variety of articles. Not sure what prompted it, but keep an eye on the recent changes... -Orashmatash- 21:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved.

Hi! Can an admin please look at the deleted version of OPTICAL DATA RECORDING? It was deleted by RfD and has now been recreated. If it's the same, it can be deleted under G4 I believe. Thanks. -Orashmatash- 22:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin

Hi there! I just wanted to let you know that I removed Griffinofwales' admin rights upon his private request by mail. Best, -Barras (talk) 21:07, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I take it that any bureaucrat may restore these rights upon request of the editor? I also want to clarify there is no cloud here? Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 21:37, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
?
The answer is quite clearly in the rights log: (show/hide) 22:03, 9 December 2011 Barras (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Griffinofwales from administrator to rollbacker and patroller ‎ (per private request via mail, uncontroversial resignation). Best, -Barras (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I want to be sure that any functionary here on Simple may return this user's rights immediately and without delay upon request. I had to clarify with the functionary that removed them of the absence of a cloud. Thank you for your quick reply. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 21:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request to move article over duplicate title

Modern History and Modern history cover the same thing. The first article (Modern History, with both words capitalized) has more content, so I'd like to preserve that one, but I believe the second word should not be capitalized. Would an admin please move Modern History over Modern history? I don't believe anything from the shorter article needs to be preserved. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and think the idea should be more generally put into action. If the second word in a title is not a proper noun, why should it be capitalised? Some geography titles are a bit problematical, though. I'm thinking of titles like 'Atlas Mountains' vs 'Atlas mountains'. Really, the second word is just a common noun, yet it could be argued that 'Atlas Mountains' as a whole is a combined proper noun. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just merge it, then get an administrator to histmerge it? -Orashmatash- 13:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Chenzw  Talk  14:20, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Because I was unfamiliar with histmerging! :) Thanks to both! --Auntof6 (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User claiming to have various rights and experience, but looks fishy

Would someone look at User:Emre002? That's a brand new user page with claims of being an admin, bureaucrat, and checkuser, and of made various kinds of changes even though the only change under this account was to create the user page. I don't know if this is something to report or not. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, Eptalon is looking at it. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User has been blocked for 48 hrs, and told to fix this situation. In the case there is no fix, user will be lbocked for a longer period. --Eptalon (talk) 10:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, wait, you blocked this user because he simply copied TRM's userpage? You must be kidding me. Do we block people on sight, who copy articles from enwiki without attribution to here? -Barras (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you poropose I do? - i hate editing other users' user pages, but the information is wrong, so probably needs changing. How exactly would you define "impersonation" - trying to look like a different user? - Even if the user may not be aware of it, this is what was done here; so I'd rather have the user change his user page than doing it myself. Sorry if this looks bitey... --Eptalon (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Remove the whole content from the page and leave them a note. Being blocked means he can't even edit his own userpage. How should he remove this stuff then? -Barras (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You thought blocking was less bad than you editing the page yourself? Really? -DJSasso (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well looks like it was a sock puppeteer. -DJSasso (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, how was he abusing his multiple accounts? I don't see any evidence of abuse of multiple accounts in his contribs... (Sorry to butt in on a stale thread) cymru.lass (talk)(changes) 20:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sockpuppet of another user who had accounts each of which were impersonating admins. Making the same impersonating edits on multiple accounts would be abusing multiple accounts. -DJSasso (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved.

Forgive my brain fart? Why am I deleting Template:Uncategorized stub to make way for a move? Jon@talk:~$ 22:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

G6 is general housekeeping, not make way for a remove. However, the redirect currently in place is far more appropriate as it covers all the bases. Best, Goblin 23:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]

CRRaysHead90's twitter account

Protected edit request

Would someone please check the protected edit requests at Template talk:Enwp based#Request to edit protected template? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin preventing me from challenging unjust block

Resolved. Wrong wiki. Goblin 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

I logged into my account to edit a few grammar problems I found and discovered that I was [[6]] for "trolling", which is odd because I haven't edited in a month. Believing this was done in error, I tried to challenge it and discovered that even editing my own talk page was disabled. I then logged out and tried to dispute it only to have my edit reverted and my IP blocked.

User:Antandrus then added [[7]] rude comment to my IP's talk page.

I'd like a formal investigation into his conduct and to know why an admin is allowed to prevent me from even challenging a block that I obviously believe to be wrong. Thank you. 174.253.14.138 (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the Simple English Wikipedia, which is separate from the English Wikipedia. We have no jurisdiction over blocks that are made over there. Kansan (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Kansan is right, we have no jurisdiction over enWP blocks here, however, I have filed a request on AN for you block to be reviewed. No harm comes from making sure there was no error in the block. Head on over and you can watch what gets said. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 05:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And so, following the link, we discover he is a blocked sock. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It was only fair to find out the true story behind the block. CRRaysHead90 | We Believe! 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this, kids, is one of the many reasons why we leave en's business to en. Goblin 11:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Rdcheck

Resolved. Fixed by Chenzw. Goblin 03:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ The Rambling Man![reply]

When checking Special:WhatLinksHere, the rdcheck tool link is for the enwiki. For example, on Special:WhatLinksHere/Main Page, clicking the "Show redirects only" link brings up this instead of this. A lang=simple string needs to be added to the url—can someone fix that? Osiris (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Chenzw  Talk  05:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :) Osiris (talk) 05:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Disney Vandal

Resolved. Blocked 6 months by Chenzw. Calabe1992 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have been going though the contributions for 98.199.8.108 (talk · contribs) and noticing a lot of subtle vandalism in the form of seemingly correct information. Its mainly been adding certain companies to the distributor listings, movies to the wrong templates (straight to dvd templates getting movies with theatrical releases or tv movies later released to dvd). Two templates created by the user have been tossed up for RfD already. This IP may need to be monitored closely for continuing vandalism as well as all of its contributions rechecked for validity. (working on that last part myself and reverting almost everything as it all seems to be incorrect information.) These actions are very similar to the previous Disney vandal although the IP does not trace to the same geographic location (although a lot of time has passed, thing could have changed for him/her). 70.184.168.201 (talk) 00:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have moved to 98.197.46.95 (talk · contribs). Same articles, same location, same trademark edit. All changes have been repaired/removed. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 01:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP bot?

Resolved. Further discussion initiated at Wikipedia_talk:Bots#Policy_Discussion. Goblin 03:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Gordonrox24![reply]

Can an admin please check out this diff? An IP is an IW adding bot, or claims to be. --Orashmatash (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to worry about; bots occasionally get logged out from their accounts whilst editing, often when the Toolserver is experiencing issues. If a large number are being added it's normally worth mentioning it, but for one edit please ignore it and don't waste people's time. Goblin 16:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ PeterSymonds![reply]
Harsh, Gobby. Reasonable question, give a reasonable answer. It was a genuine question he asked in case no-one else noticed it and something had to be done. He wasted no-ones time. Normandy 17:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was not able to find a verify the IP as a TS address. That does not mean the bot could not be running from a home computer. Nevertheless, I would be unconcerned as long as the edits are not massive and the IWs are correct. From time to time, the bots get logged out and do not gracefully do a hook to check the logged in status until the operator checks. They however should do a check on themselves. But I digress. Jon@talk:~$ 17:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since we do not have any policy, I have deferred in the policy on our neighbor, enwiki. The WT:BOTPOL as a thoughtful discussion on the issue, and I have softblocked the TS, to prevent those bots from editing logged out. Each one should be logged in for accountability and attribution. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Just wow. I know you have a reputation for making silly admin actions, but just wow. I'll go and get all the instances of where this has never, ever been an issue nor resulted in blocking for one edit in the past. Jesus. Goblin 17:51, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]
Preventative. Per the thoughtful discussion I just read. Also attribution and accountability. That is really good rationale, actually! :) Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The contribution history revealed two edits, and if I check the entire range I bet I find more. Jon@talk:~$ 17:53, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Purely academic at this point in time, however, I was curious. I show 150 logged out edits from the TS range. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c like four times, try to get it all into one post eh?) Preventative of what exactly? 150 edits over what timescale? Normandy 17:55, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
At the most basic level, each logged out edit from TS, is not accountable to the bot, and unattributed to the bot. Basically fits the intent of Role Account. Jon@talk:~$ 17:57, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple e/c) I'm not buying it, either as a bot operator, editor or former admin. Not in the slightest. Diffs to follow. Goblin 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
With regards to the second comment, there are diffs that are over a year apart. I know that some of our users cannot comprehend timestamps and how the calendar works, but I didn't expect it from an administrator/bureaucrat. There will possibly be more than one edit purely by the fact of how bots operate - there's usually only one edit (that is made at the same time as logging in, due to how some scripts work) in any one time period once the TS comes back up. It really isn't any grounds for blocking an IP address. Goblin 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
See my point above for your third comment - that's also 150 instances that have not been blocked, only further adding to just how poor your judgement is once again.
Finally - and no doubt I'll get blocked for this. YOU DON'T NEED THREE EDITS TO MAKE WHAT IS REALLY ONLY ONE POINT. THINK, THINK AND THINK AGAIN AND POST JUST ONCE. IT IS NOT HELPFUL FOR THE REST OF US.</rant> Goblin 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]
QUIT WITH THE EDIT CONFLICTS. Goblin 17:59, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Over the past half hour or so, BG and I have been in realtime private discussion regarding the more technical aspects of the softblock. Whilst I'm still uncomfortable with the lact of attribution/accountability, for now I am going to unblock. Pending a more detailed discussion at WT:BOTS. Jon@talk:~$ 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was just a bit puzzled when I saw an IP claiming to be a bot. I don't know the standard procedure when it comes to things like this, so I posted this in case something had to be done. I didn't know that Toolserver bots could be logged out, so I thought it was running from a home computer. I didn't mean to waste anyone's time either. Sorry, Orashmatash (talk) 23:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move Americana article

Resolved. Done by Chenzw. Goblin 03:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Dendodge![reply]

Please move the Americana article to Americana (The Offspring album). See: Americana and Americana, the album. I wanted to create the article about the American cultural artifacts but couldn't because the current article is in the way. Thanks. AugustinMa (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Chenzw  Talk  03:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) AugustinMa (talk) 04:22, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Done by me. Goblin 03:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

These should be redirected instead of deleted if the cite reason is "proper" caps? Jon@talk:~$ 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we shouldn't have redirected categories, and furthermore the system doesn't take redirects into account. If people were to cat into this one it would stay in this one, and not appear in the one with the correct capitalisation. Best, Goblin 23:19, 28 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Barras![reply]
Delete per BG7.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  23:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Goblin. --Orashmatash (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't have redirected categories? We have a whole category devoted to them, Category:Category redirects, and a template to define them, {{Category redirect}}. Are these exceptions for some reason? --Auntof6 (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about Category:Rapid transit systems which should work with both American and British English? Racepacket (talk) 06:34, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Transit" and "transport" are words in both British and United States English. --Orashmatash (talk) 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If we're getting into a naming debate on this, I should probably pop my head up as it's kinda my "specialist subject" and (I think?) I'm the resident "expert" on transport stuff? Anyway - that's by-the-by. If we would like a generic name I would, personally, support the use of transit - it's what tends to get used in the UK and, from my understanding, is also widely used across most of the English speaking world - more so than 'transport', anyway. Support renaming. Goblin 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Chenzw![reply]
In the United States, the words to modify "systems" are "transit" and "transportation". "Transport" is only a verb meaning "to move" (something). "Transportation" is the noun. So, I agree with Bluegoblin7. I hope that this helps clear up the issue. Racepacket (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Auntof6, by "shouldn't redirect categories" we mean in general. Unless it is a likely search term, it shouldn't be a redirect. An example is Category:FilmCategory:Movies.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  02:32, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If there is consensus to use Category:Rapid transit systems, I would be willing to assist with the moving of individual articles under the new category name. Any comments? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 03:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - WP:BOLD. Goblin 03:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Tamara Toumanova

Resolved. Page semi-protected by Chenzw. Goblin 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots![reply]

Please semi-protect Tamara Toumanova. Ongoing IP POV pushing. Janitor Joe (talk) 13:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done by Chenzw here Normandy 13:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I specifically hadn't protected it since its only one user.... but whatever. -DJSasso (talk) 13:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Pages protected by Gordonrox24. Goblin 03:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Could someone please semi-protect User:Hazard-SJ/twinkle? Thanks in advance.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  23:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And the pages referred to from it please.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  23:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which pages exactly?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All from here excluding ".js" pages.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  00:10, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "British Israelism" Page

Resolved. Wrong wiki. Goblin 03:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Bsadowski1![reply]

I just wanted to bring the page titled "British Israelism" to the admins' attention. The page seems to be glowing with praise for this ideology, despite the fact that it has no basis in science or widespread acceptance. The "Support [for British Israelism]" section is both massive and indiscriminate, with one section simply listing supporting scholars with their affiliations. The corresponding section of detractors, which is merely titled "Reactions," is half the size, and includes several advocates of British Israelism alongside their opponents. The "Research" section is similarly brief, with the sub-section on Genetics at less than 100 words! At over 18,000 words, this article is a train-wreck. References to actual science are fleeting at best, and the page's content indicates that British Isrealism is a thriving, widespread, even reasonable belief. Please make the changes necessary to correct this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.14.34 (talkcontribs) 01:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That page does not exist here. You may be on the wrong wiki. Were you looking for this page? --Orashmatash (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I *AM* on the wrong wiki! So sorry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.14.34 (talkcontribs) 01:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, it happens sometimes. :) Orashmatash (talk) 01:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History merge needed.

The articles Modular arithmetic and Module arithmetic have been merged. They have been under proposals to move for over a year with no one arguing the point so I merged the information. All that is left is for the edit histories to be merged. Module arithmetic needs to be moved to Modular arithmetic. Time stamps on the articles should be fine (main article has a later timestamp than redirect article) so this should be a quick merge with no cleanup afterwards. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. This probably wasn't a history merge candidate but I took care of it anyways. All you need for a merge like this is a comment in the edit history that you merged from X article. -DJSasso (talk) 13:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove DJDunsie's flood flag

Resolved.

It's over and he is still flagged. Can someone remove it? πr2 01:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done by Albacore. πr2 03:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious sockpuppets

User:James Carlin and User:James Carling, created userpages with the exact same content, with not much time between their account creations.  Hazard-SJ  ㋡  01:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More likely this is a "Doh!" momment. The user has submitted a change of username request on the enwiki account due to misspelling (Carling is wrong). He likely copied his userpage, logged over here and pasted it without realizing name was misspelled , noticed the problem, created the correct spelling and created the page there where it should be then ran over to enwiki to request it be changed. A rename here as well would have been the better call, but what can you do.. 70.184.171.16 (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happened to WP:AGF? Particularly, as the IP mentions, there has been an enWP name change request? If no edits have been made then there is no issue with "sockpuppeting", and your title is certainly misleading and incorrect. Furthermore, legitimate sockpuppets are allowed (nay, encouraged for those with additional privileges who don't use the secure site), as are doppelgängers. No issue until edits overlap and the accounts are used for more illicit means. Please don't waste time. Goblin 04:19, 7 January 2012 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

Tamara Toumanova ...again

Resolved.

Please semi-protect Tamara Toumanova. Russian IP user has resumed its global POV-pushing. Janitor Joe (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. PeterSymonds (talk) 23:26, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Steward elections

Hey fellows! There are soon Steward elections on meta. If there is someone who always wanted to become a steward and fulfils the criteria then feel free to nominate yourself. Nominations can be submitted between 15st January and 28th January. We need more helping hands. If someone has questions what it means to be a steward, we have many people locally who can answer this question. Maybe someone from our community decides to run for this position. Best, -Barras (talk) 16:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, I may run this year. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the last set just ended lol. -DJSasso (talk) 17:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

abusive conduct by User:Whaledad

I wish to report abusive behaviour by User:Whaledad. In the edit here he writes "Kalsermar in Camera-style meat puppetry is now rehashing the Vandalism spree of Mr. Knowalles and his sock puppets (which are now locked globally)" in the edit summary and his latest contribution on the article's talk page (see here) could also be called abusive. I do not take kindly to the opening "OMFG" nor phraseology such as "Camera-style meat puppetry" or being linked to vandalism.

My question on the talk page ("I think it is clear that the onus is on Whaledad to explain why "his" picture (to which there are strong objections) is better than the other picture (which seems up to now to be without controversy") still goes unanswered in the meantime since Whaledad is merely stating what other projects are doing and not giving much or anything in the way of coherent argumentation. I'm always up for an honest debate about article related content but this is totally out of line and saps me of any will to discuss issues with this user.

It is interesting to note that on nl:Wikipedia, where both of them as well as I, normally operate, this picture was removed after consensus on the talk page concluded it should be. --Kalsermar (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's amazing how mister Kalsermar, who has been blocked numerous times on NL-Wiki for PAs, edit-warring and general disruptive behavior, always finds new ways to file complaints about his colleagues. Mr. Whaledad (talk) 02:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is equally amazing how, in all my time of dealing with you on various projects, I have yet to encounter a substantive reply that goes into the issues at hand. The only thing that you seem able to produce is ad hominim attacks. Here, I point out abusive behaviour on your part and you reply with another attack upon me. In the article where we have had a difference of opinion I make my case for my editing and instead of addressing the issues at hand you attack another editor pointing out his transgressions on other projects. Really Whaledad, this lack of actual argumentation on your part is wearing very thin. I would have expected more from you, like a rebuttal of my arguments on the talk page(s) and a defense of your views in the matter.
I let the facts of the matter on this project speak for themselves. Your lack of contrition regarding your comments directed at me coupled with yet another instance of an ad hominim attack illustrates the issue nicely thank you.--Kalsermar (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Talk about Ad Hominem attacks! Please! Everywhere we "meet" we start with real debate with real arguments. After the argumenting is done, you start rehashing and coming up with irrelevant examples. If I then address the irrelevancy of your examples or the fact that you are just rehashing arguments, you accuse me of not discussing the issue at hand, but discussing the discussion instead. The same is true in this case: the relevancy of the picture for the JDL article here on Simple-Wiki was discussed (and the picture removed several times without consent] in January of 2011 by both you and the Knowalles sock puppet SwedishSven. Ultimately the picture stayed. A year later first a new Knowalles sockpuppet (101 Luftballons) comes back to repeatedly remove the picture and when he is globally blocked, you come back to do the same. And you accuse me of abusive behavior? Please! Again: the high number of blocks handed out to you on NL-Wiki for abusive behavior should be a good signal both to yourself and to others that maybe, just maybe, there is something fundamentally wrong with your behavior on this project. Mr. Whaledad (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
QED, I rest my case since you have made it so eloquently for me.--Kalsermar (talk) 18:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If these users could leave the headers on this page alone and ignore each other instead of pushing stuff to the admins, that'd be awesome - TBloemink talk 18:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]