Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Current issues and requests archive 29

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

User talk:Christianrocker90

User talk:‎

Goblin RFA‎

My RfA

Yes check.svg Resolved.

No administrative action indicated in this case. Parties have received a third opinion via this discussion. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection errors

Fellow administrators... whilst I was reviewing logs last night, I noticed that we are making some simple errors. :) Please remember that "User request within on space" is not a valid reason for protecting a User:Talk page. There must be vandalism, or some other compelling reason to protect a talk page. Just a reminder... and very warmly, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Per this, the last protection to an user talk page was made by me. The TP was that of Katerenka, which if you see has a rather long history of vandalism. I remember unprotecting BG7's page because he requested it. I'm not sure which protection you're referring to, though. Pmlineditor  15:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not go naming names :) I just want to point it out, as a reminder. I was not going through "last nights logs" I was going through logs "last night" This means I covered many days in the logs. Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think the section is more for me, because I protected on 12 September Mythdon's talk page until January. I unprotected now. Barras (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
If the attacks and vandalism on my talk page recur, will it be re-protected? —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 19:59, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, but not as long as it was protected last time probably. -DJSasso (talk) 20:04, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. Hopefully, that won't become necessary. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The comment was fine. There is no issue here, there was vandalism. -DJSasso (talk) 18:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Need (...or would like) more crats...

Please consider nominating some. I'll volunteer... and I am sure there are other excellent candidates should I not suit the position. But we should probably find another one or two. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

If there's a significant need, I'll be happy to volunteer, but I'm not sure electing more 'crats is necessarily the right answer. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
To prevent the above from reoccuring... I believe this is a viable solution. NonvocalScream (talk) 00:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The above had nothing to do with how many crats we have. There were still uninvolved crats around, and involved crats can still close Rfas. Note, freekman voted and closed. -DJSasso (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Which he probably shoudln't have done, as there were still uninvolved crats. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 08:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I mailed both of them and they didn't reply... I'd be happy to have another crat. Pmlineditor  09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think this project needs anymore bureaucrats. The ones we have are doing a good enough job. Razorflame 09:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Make every admin a 'crat. Problem solved Soup Dish (talk) 09:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a problem in having an extra crat. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 10:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a problem if another admin decided to run for B, but its not direly needed that we should round up volunteers. Kennedy (talk • changes). 15:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This community needs to trust their bureaucrats

Hello all, I am starting a new thread here (as the one above is already getting lengthy). I am writing this without the recent closure (see above) in mind; these comments are just "general". They are not meant to favor certain users, or to accuse others. Some time ago, there were just two or three Bureaucrats, Vector, Creol and later me. Vector is still around, Creol has since left the project. At that time we had fewer users, and it was frequent that the bureaucrat who closed, also voted in the RfA. Later on, we "silently agreed" that if possible the person who votes does not close, if it can be avoided. This is however no "tight rule", I think all our bureaucrats are capable of judging an RfA, even if they voted in it - Voting is expressing one's opinion, closing involves judging what the community wants. It may well be that a bureaucrat has a certain opinion about a candidate, but as he sees what certain people wrote, he closes completely differently to his opinion.

All our bureaucrats -- me included --were hand-picked by the community, to take decisions in RfAs. They are legitimised by the election. It is not possible to elect someone to do a certain task, and then question them every time they exercise this task; this is counterproductive, as anyone can see. We are currently discussing a crat decision, but we should rather spend our time writing articles or improving this Wikipedia.

As a last note: If anyone thinks that some of our crats cannot be trusted in their decisions, please say so. This community can also have the crat flag (or any other flag) taken away. But otherwise, please stop arguing about a crat decision. It is unproductive, and only takes time we could otherwise spend improving this Wikipedia.--Eptalon (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Permissions proposal

Discussion at Wikipedia:Simple_talk#Proposal_re_Administrators_and_Crats. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Samlaptop85213

Resolved. User blocked.

Hello there!

The in February (?) indef banned Samlaptop85213 (talk · contribs) requests now an unblock. I left already a comment on his talk page, but more input from others would be nice. talk page link. Kind regards Barras (talk) 09:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to bring everyone's attention to this, in which an IP address (currently blocked) asks EhJJ to reduce the block to January 2010 and claims to be Samlaptop85213. Either this is Samlaptop85213 evading his/her block, or an impersonator pretending to be the user in question. The IP address was blocked by Mentifisto. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 02:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at the block log for that IP. -DJSasso (talk) 04:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I see that you modified the block to one year, and then reverted to 72 hours (which was the original duration by Mentifisto). I also see that the IP was blocked for sockpuppetry. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 04:20, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Then you see it was blocked already. Please stop pointing stuff out like this. You have been told before. -DJSasso (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Leave indefinitely blocked as this user caused quite a commotion earlier this year. Shorter blocks have had no effect on said user. Razorflame 04:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
You can't indef an IP. -DJSasso (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind I just realized you mean the actual user acount. -DJSasso (talk) 04:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
I would strongly recommend leaving this as an indefinite block. This user is creating havoc at en.wikipedia. He vandalizes under a dynamic IP almost daily. Take a look here if you'd like a more thorough reason not to extend any forgiveness to this unrepentant vandal. -Thibbs (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I reblocked the user and disabled mail and talk page function. Keeps indef blocked. Barras (talk) 20:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

World War I

World War I has been hard hit by anonymous editors removing portions of the content. Please semi-protect it. Thank you. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 15:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Six vandalisms in 14 days is being "hard hit"? It's under control I think. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
If the page continues to get hit, I will re-post my request. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 15:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Before you do, consider whether it's a waste of time. Three or four attacks a day would warrant a protection, but two or three a week? All of which were reverted virtually straight away? I don't think so. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, it's up to your discretion. It's not my right to direct you to protect the page, but my right to request protection. As I said before: If it continues, I'll re-post. Can someone please mark this as resolved since this has been declined?—Mythdon [talk] [changes] 15:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Bare in mind its also our right to block you for being disruptive when you continue to do things people have suggested is not correct. -DJSasso (talk) 15:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

User talk:

Resolved. Never mind. Fr33kman blocked the editor and disabled talk page editing. No action needed. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Despite reversions by various editors, the IP continues to tag its own talk page for deletion with the rationale "banned user". It needs protection now. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh..resolved. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I was basically going to say that, and even mark it as resolved. Have done so above. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Mythdon userspace

Resolved. Pages have been protected.

I ask that all of my userpages be semi-protected indefinitely (except for my talk).

These include:

My userpages have in the past been targeted by attacks and vandalism by proxies. Just as a precaution against further incidents, I ask for these indefinite protections. Thank you. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done, all mentioned pages are now semi protected as per your own request. Barras (talk) 20:24, 25 Oct

ober 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to both you and Juliancolton for granting my request. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 20:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition, User talk:Mythdon/Archive 2, a recently created archive. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done - as requested. Yotcmdr =talk to the commander= 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please review whether User talk:Mythdon needs protected? —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It's up to you. If you want your talkpage protected, request it. If you don't, don't. I think this is pretty obvious. The Rambling Man (talk) 01:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I do want it protected to prevent libelous attacks. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 01:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Protection isnt meant to be pro-active. As an admin I wouldn't protect your usepage with its distinct lack of vandalism on it. And any attacks that were going to be made against you would just move to another page if we protected it proactively. -DJSasso (talk) 13:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
So you're saying protection would be counterproductive? I can take the decline. Thanks anyway for your efforts. —Mythdon [talk] [changes] 00:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Move along. Now. It's marked "resolved" for a reason. Read up on the policies and then come back if you think your petty requests warrant an entire ANI thread. Oh, and see the latest thread presently. Goblin 00:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!


Hello all!

diff 1, diff 2, diff 3, diff 4, diff 5 (the edit summary), diff 5 diff 6

The behaviour of Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs) is completely inacceptable. Violation of WP:OWN and WP:NPA. I request a block for him by an uninvolved admin. He as a former admin should know it better. As he stated on his talk page here he is not willing to stop this.

Thanks --Barras (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I already plan to block him for atleast a month on his next insult/attack. I know a couple other admins intend on blocking him for another such incident. People have been far too leniant on him in the past. As a matter of fact the only reason he currently isn't blocked is I didn't want to overrule the warnings other admins have given him today. He has been warned by multiple admins in the last 24 hours. -DJSasso (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I have only been civil with him, and he insists on personal attacks. I might have blocked him for breaching WP:NPA, had I not been involved in the discussion myself.FSM Noodly? 17:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 Done 1 month block. This editor has been warned countless times, both on and off wiki. Enough is enough. fr33kman talk 17:21, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Would you be good enough to notify him personally that you've blocked him Fr33kman? Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I have done this onwiki a while ago, and on IRC within seconds/minutes of the block. fr33kman talk 06:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Block review

I do believe his behaviour isn't acceptable, and a block is the right thing. I do however also think the block is harsh seeing as PBP got away with a couple of weeks. I'd like to see the block reduced, as we can't deny he's a major asset to our mainspace editors. Yotcmdr =talk= 17:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Short blocks haven't been getting through to him. He has been blocked numerous times for the same thing. If anything the block should be longer. But I support a 1 month block. -DJSasso (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 (change conflict)  Bluegoblin7 is a long time editor, former admin here and knows the policies very well. He stated that he is not willing to stop this. A two days block or one week doesn't help with this user. He should know it better. Block is imo ok. Barras (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

An interesting exercise to carry out with BG7 is to look at his contribs and search for the edit summary :|. The following is from his last 1,000 contributions in all namespaces & works in back-chronological order (now → then). Along with the ones Barras mentioned, there's this one. Click along a few Newer edit → links, and you find this. The previous :| comes in a set of three; this one is iffy; this one involves inferred swearing; and this one is a thinly veiled attack on a couple of users. The first one I found, however, here, is lighthearted, and I have no problem with it. (Endorse block.) MC8 (b · t) 17:42, Monday November 2 2009 (UTC)

BG7 asked me in PM to extend it to indef. I think the edits he's been making are having a negative effect on both him and the wiki. I initially thought two weeks, but since he's been blocked and warned so often before, I feel a month is the minimum. fr33kman talk 17:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, some of his edits are indeed less than productive, but as a whole BG7 remains a useful and active editor. He's the only one clerking DYK, PGA, and PVGA, and writes many articles as well; I think it'd be quite a shame to lose his contributions. –Juliancolton | Talk 17:58, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Concur with JC. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Now I'm back I'm more than willing to clerk those things :) FSM Noodly? 18:04, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Good, but we need all the help we can get still! –Juliancolton | Talk 18:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I will also take up my former role in DYK, GA, VGA. One thing we must remember is that one of the five pillars of WMF is that we have a code of conduct. Absolutely no one is above the five pillars. I consider BG7 a friend and I know he considers me a friend also, but a line must be drawn. If we don't act, then we basically state that anyone can do what they like. That is not the case. We have to be prepared to take action against any one who breaks the rules, no matter who they are or how much they contribute to the project. fr33kman talk 18:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as I'm mentioned in this conversation, it's worth noting that I was blocked twice, whereas this is the sixth or seventh block for Goblin. Major difference Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

BG7 statement

Bluegoblin7 has, without prompting, issued a statement about recent events. Since he is unable to post it in a more public place, I offer it's location here(diff). It does not affect the block, however it is nice to hear. fr33kman talk 23:53, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

In light of and response to his statement, I'd like to officially propose reducing BG7's block. It's clear to me that he's learned his lesson, and whilst there are no excuses for incivility and failure to AGF, I don't think maintaining this block will prevent damage from the encyclopedia—indeed, I think the block itself is currently doing more harm that it's preventing. I think lowering the block to 48 hours on the condition that any further disruptive activity will result in an immediate re-instating of the previous block time is therefore appropriate. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. A block of at least three weeks is warranted here. Goblin has been blocked at least five other times before; such behavior usually gets a perm block or a month-plus block. Plus, I hideously disapprove of the fact that he name-dropped my name (in diff #3 above) to insult another editor. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why? It's understood that the sole purpose of a block is to reduce the damage to the encyclopedia by a particular user. Please explain how this block does so, considering BG7's recent statement. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I must say that that statement disturbed my greatly, and my heart goes out to BG7. I say we leave the block in place, and then let future events tell us if he has really learned his lesson. Regards.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Gordonrox24 has summed it up very well. I fully agree with him.--Peterdownunder (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not open to reducing the block at this time. Despite the statement above, I am unsure that pressures of wiki life would not resurface soon after a lifting. BG7's blocks have been lifted quickly time and again, and we have returned to this situation time and again. The project needs a break, as does Jack. This is not to say I won't be open to a reduction later on, but right now, no. Sorry! fr33kman talk 01:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I would have to agree with fr33k, he has made such pleas (maybe not quite as detailed) after being blocked before and the blocks are quickly overturned, and the problem comes back. I do think he needs to let this one run its course. -DJSasso (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I also have to agree with the both above me. I think the best for all to calm down is a break. One month isn't that long and after this he can reatart to be the great editor as he was (and still is) when I joined this wiki in February. Barras (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with JC. Yotcmdr =talk= 15:55, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Fully agree with JC. Pmlineditor  16:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm with JC too. Not sure what "the project needs a break" is all about. BG7's contributions to the mainspace are great and now we've been witness to his apology which is heartfelt and emotional, and now we (perhaps some of us more than others) can understand how difficult things can be in the circumstances BG7 has described, perhaps this could be one of the ultimate expressions of WP:AGF. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure you can guess my stance before I've even said it. BG7 is one of the most constructive users here, he continues to edit constructively, and a few little blips (okay, rather large blips) should not cloud this. I support reducing the block at the least. Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh and looksy Kennedy (talk • changes). 19:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Barras and Fr33kman. Rules are rules, even if the user in question is usually a good contributor. FSM Noodly? 21:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
"Rules are rules, even if the user in question is usually a good contributor." ← That is contradictory; if a user is a crucial member of the community, as BG7 is, and has understood the reasons for which they were blocked and apologized to involved parties then what's the point of blocking them? As I explained above, the purpose of a block is to prevent damage to the encyclopedia. In this case, a recent statement issued by the editor in question promises us that the poor behavior which prompted a block will not be repeated. While obviously we can't be sure of anything, it seems obvious to me that the only option is, in the spirit of WP:AGF, to assume that his apology is genuine and he seriously intends to improve upon his demeanor. Personally, I think the solution here is clear. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
From what other users have said, he has issued these kind of statements in the past and has continued to carry out the same actions regardless. It is my opinion that if he is allowed back too soon, then the same thing will happen again. But to be honest, having been away for quite a while, I can't really comment with real authority on this issue. FSM Noodly? 22:58, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately I don't feel he is as crucial as he seems to think he is, most of his edits are straight copies from en with a few words changed, while yes this is what alot of us do, I don't think we are losing much by blocking an editor who has caused more problems than done good on this wiki. How often must we go through all this circus around him before people realize he is not a net benifit to this wiki. AGF ran out on him after his 3rd or 4th block with the exact same excuse and sob story trying to explain them away. I am sorry but if the short blocks and promises in the past didn't work then it won't work this time. As he mentions below that blocks are not meant to be punitive they are meant to be preventative, and this one is. Its meant to prevent him from contining to be a disruption to this project. His disruption has by light years out paced his constructiveness. -DJSasso (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
DJ, I have a huge amount of respect for you, but saying he "has caused more problems than done good on this wiki" is simply wrong. BG7 has his issues, yes, but in no way do they outweigh the tremendous amount of useful stuff he has done. I spend most of my time here working with content, so I can attest to the fact that BG is indeed a key member of the encyclopedia who's written numerous VGAs and keeps processes such as DYK thriving. I'm not saying he shouldn't have to follow the same standards as everyone else, but I feel quite strongly on this matter. Regards, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
We are on AN almost monthly discussing yet another set of NPA and CIVIL violations among others of his. At what point do we step back from being his friend and treat him like we would any other editor who has been blocked 5 times. We waste tremendous amounts of time on his actions and behaviour. Yes, he does alot of work, no doubt. But there comes a point where we have to do something or we give license to everyone else to do the same thing he does. We can't play favourites because we like his other contributions. He should be a man and own up to what he did and serve out the month then come back and proove he is reformed. His continued pleas are only strengthening my belief that he is no different than any other time. -DJSasso (talk) 00:35, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocking of

Resolved. User blocked.

The IP has been constantly vandalising Wikipedia. He has been given a final warning, but vandalised the page 'Bushfire'. I am proposing a temporary block to stop him vandalising even more. Liverpoolfan567 (talk) 09:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Take this to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress next time. :) --Bsadowski1 09:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Brian beat me to it.--   CR90  09:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
  •  Done - but see above. --Barras (talk) 09:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Hey guys. I was just looking at a user talk page archive and I found an admin that I have never seen before. User:Barliner. Per the edit counter he has made one edit in the last year, coming in December of 2008, and has not used his bit since April of 2008 well over a year ago. I think this all correct, let me know if I am wrong. I was wondering since it has been over a year since his last logged action, should we be putting him up for de-syops?--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I would think so.--   CR90  00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
You can ask for a desysop on WP:RFA. fr33kman talk 00:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I would of course try to make contact with him to see if he has any plans on returning. Yeah I know I can, but the rules on de-syops are so vague that I wasn't sure. "A long time" can mean different things, although I think one year is standard at SEWP.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Well over a year shows a lack of current knowledge of the project in-and-of-itself. fr33kman talk 00:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I can vouch for that. I've been gone for three months tops, and I'm already out of the loop as to what is happening. I will look into adding something at RFA.--Gordonrox24 | Talk 00:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I've always been one to support removing inactive administrators. There is also one other that has been inactive for over a year. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 00:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


Since we now have a policy for desysoping inactive admins, Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Barliner is useless now it would seem. The definition in the policy says that he is not inactive. This should probably be closed since it goes against our policy and process as set out in Wikipedia:Inactive administrators. Either way (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

While I am not against the policy. How did we move from suggesting it to it being implemented in less than 24 hours. That is not good at all. In fact it was only about 14 hours. Which is the overnight period in North America. -DJSasso (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just my opinion, seeing as that was started before the policy was enacted, maybe it should have the old rules?--   CR90  05:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Not really. A policy is a policy; I don't think there's a reason to desysop Barliner against it. Pmlineditor  16:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Work for us

We haven't yet completed the Convert template imports. Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert has ~900 while on en, it has 3032. Lots of work to do. :) Pmlineditor  13:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you link it here, where we can find a list which needs to be imported? --Barras (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
en:Category:Subtemplates of Template Convert. Some have been done, some not. The first 250 have been done; so I suggest you start from here. Regards, Pmlineditor  13:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Alot of them may be redirects. Which is why I stopped important and was waiting to see actualy missing something on a page. -DJSasso (talk) 14:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
They are not - redirects are italicized. Only few are redirects. Pmlineditor  14:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
They are redirects in another sense. Some of their code is changed to point to another subpage. -DJSasso (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
That's not to say others shouldn't do it. I just personally find it a waste of time until you find an error with one missing. -DJSasso (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, User:Juliancolton/Convert subtemplates is a list of all of enwiki's convert sub-templates. There are quite a few redlinks. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)