Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat/Archives/2019-09

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning! Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 September 2019, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Report concerning User:107.242.121.1

107.242.121.1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: Creating nonsense translations DannyS712 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 94rain Talk 04:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/185.182.222.90

Hi. Please, delete his translations. Thanks, —Sgd. Hasley 14:32, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. – Ajraddatz (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: 94rain Talk 04:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Harmful" editing of my global CSS

I wanted to add those lines to my global CSS:

#siteNotice {

	display: none;
}

and it said:

Error: This action has been automatically identified as harmful, and therefore disallowed. If you believe your action was constructive, please inform an administrator of what you were trying to do. A brief description of the abuse rule which your action matched is: Antivandalism

I don't find that harmful.

Will someone here allow me to add those lines, please? --Markus Prokott (talk) 00:13, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Just found out that this has nothing to do with my code lines. The error still shows up, if I remove the new code completely. What is this??? I saved an almost identical CSS (one selector plus one comma added) in the WP:DE and it was ok. --Markus Prokott (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Will send you an email, just a minute. Regards --Schniggendiller (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
@Markus Prokott: Thanks for the notification about the false positive on the abusefilter. I have tweaked the filter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:Blatand sockpuppet

Blatand sockpuppet (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: LTA. Sgd. Hasley 14:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Black check.svg Already done  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: — xaosflux Talk 15:32, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:83.30.84.176

83.30.84.176 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: LTA. Sgd. Hasley 17:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done by Tegel --Alaa :)..! 18:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Alaa :)..! 18:38, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Report concerning User:49.199.148.21

49.199.148.21 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log • GUC)Reasons: creating problematic translations. Sgd. Hasley 13:02, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Mass deletion request

Please nuke the pages created by 49.199.148.21 as they are blatant vandalism. --WhitePhosphorus (talk) 13:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Steinsplitter (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Steinsplitter (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Abuse filter 110 - Adding emoji unicode characters

Hi. Can I suggest that Special:AbuseFilter/110 be expanded to include a larger range of emoji? See w:Special:AbuseFilter/680 for an example added by Galobtter - using [🄀-🇿🌀-🙏🚀-🛳☀-☄☇-☿♃-♬♰-✒✙-✯✱-➿🤍-🧿] instead of [🌀-🙏🚀-🛳☀-☄☇-♬♰-✒✙-➿☎]. This would likely increase the filter's effectiveness. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

You want to exclude ☎? Ruslik (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
☎ should be covered by the range 🤍-🧿, but if not then no, that was not my intention; 🄀-🇿🌀-🙏🚀-🛳☀-☄☇-☿♃-♬♰-✒✙-✯✱-➿🤍-🧿☎ would still include it --DannyS712 (talk) 09:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)