Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2020-07

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Manual requests

Rename global group 'ombudsman' to 'ombuds'

Status:    Done

See Talk:Ombuds commission#Naming and phab:T256299. Messages for the name 'ombuds' are now available in all wikis so the group can be safely renamed. --Majavah talk/contribs/sul 06:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Please let me know if have any problems somewhere. --Sotiale (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Big restore request: List of sex symbols

Status:    Done

Following the deletion right above, someone requested restoration of en:List of sex symbols so it can be draftified. Daft as I am, I at first completely forgot that the reason why the software only let me restore chunks of it was because of the restrictions placed on deletions that also apply to restorations. I'll slap myself but in the mean time, could someone please restore the rest please? Regards SoWhy 09:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Please wait a while, as there are technical issues. --Sotiale (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Undeleted in batches. --Martin Urbanec (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
So it was not just me having a problem? Regards SoWhy 13:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Indeed. Stewards can perform bigdelete, because MediaWiki can perform it in a batched way for really big pages. However, the same thing was not implemented for undeletion as well, so I had to do it in batches. We filled phab:T257298, to expand this feature to undeletion as well, when it would be similar to big deletions. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request at Pampanga and Pangasinan Wikipedias

Status:    Done

Copy pasted English articles by IPs.

Thanks. --Lam-ang (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. Sgd. —Hasley 23:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Bigdelete request: List of sex symbols

Status:    Done

en:List of sex symbols should be deleted per en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (4th nomination), but this must be done by a steward because of the number of revisions. Sandstein (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Sotiale (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete my talk page on German Wikipedia

Status:    Not done

I have been banned for several months on German Wikipedia for reasons that have primarily to do with the unique, and abnormal, power structure on that Wiki, on which I will not dwell now (formally, the accusation was of "sexism", which I reject completely). I requested a deletion of my talk page but this request was turned down: [1] I had previously written to three different de.wiki administrators (Grand-Duc, Felistoria, and Wahrerwattwurm), among them the banning one, through their Wikimedia Commons talk page, but have received no reply. I have the most excellent reasons to wish that my talk page on German Wikipedia was deleted. It is a testimony of many things and of a long existence which I want to shed now. If a steward would be so kind, I would in turn be so grateful. --Edelseider (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done This is a sole responsibility of local administrators. Ruslik (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: And they refuse, which is punishment on top of another punishment. And that is not allowed, not here and not in real life. Who shall I turn to? --Edelseider (talk) 18:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
@Edelseider: it looks like you can request arbitration by email, using the directions at w:de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht. — xaosflux Talk 23:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Grant "Opsigter" rights to user on the Afrikaans Wikipedia

Status:    Not done

The Afrikaans Wikipedia has a number of administrators (list). However, adminstrators do not have the right to remove admin rights - this requires the "opsigter" right. The community has nominated user Spesbona to be granted these rights, and reached consensus on doing so (see here). Please therefore grant Spesbona the "opsigter" privileges. Greenman (talk) 21:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Greenman: This should be requested at SRP. Esteban16 (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Greenman: By the way, "Opsigter" means steward, which isn't granted locally, but globally after Stewards/Elections. As said in the thread, communities can't elect stewards locally. Bureaucrats can't remove the sysop flag on your wiki. The community should reach consensus to change that, and then request it on Phabricator. But considering the size of the wiki, it isn't that useful. Esteban16 (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Why do you say it isn't that useful? Greenman (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Esteban16 Is the only way to remove Afrikaans admin rights by becoming a global steward, or requesting it from a steward each time? That doesn't seem feasible. In other projects, I see the bureaucrat can remove admin rights, but this right is not granted to Afrikaans Wikipedia bureaucrats. I don't know why this is. Would that be a feasible alternative (I will need to get consensus for this option on Afrikaans if it is, so this is not a request). Greenman (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This is my two cents, but I personally think that there is a clear consenses on afwiki on granting people the right to remove administrator access from accounts. As steward is obviously not possible, bureaucrat should be the group which should be able to. Espescially considering SpesBona is already a bureaucrat and the local community is okay with him being able to remove it. I would like to hear other peoples' opinions on this too. --Wiki13 talk 21:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Local desysop is also restricted and unavailable to most wikis. See limits to configuration changes. The wiki should be large—with multiple active bureaucrats—and be able to demonstrate a real need for the change. Considering the size of afwiki admin and bureaucrat pool <https://meta.toolforge.org/stewardry/afwiki?sysop=1&bureaucrat=1> even if afwiki voted to remove all of them at once it'd take us a blink of an eye to deal with it. Moreover, I was not able to find recent requests in the SRP archives concerning afwiki (the most recent one seems to be this one from 2013 so it's unlikely there's a real need for this to be granted. That being said, I am not a Wikimedia sysadmin that decides which features or software gets installed. In the meanwhile you can use SRP for any requests to add/remove permissions on afwiki that cannot be handled locally. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 23:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
Local steward rights are not granted except to stewards, and only temporarily when they can't do something from Meta - not to mention the serious problems as this user would have full access to CU/OS. As far as allowing bureaucrats to desysop - this is generally not granted except to very large wikis considering that this often leads to infighting among admins (not even Commons or German Wikipedia have this ability). I would certainly expect more than 6 people in support before this was granted, and would consider sysadmins who fulfilled such a request to be, quite frankly, negligent. --Rschen7754 00:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
THIS ^^^ YesY. It is a reasonably easy task to enter a request at SRP and it happens quickly. There are only 17 admins at afWP so it is hardly a highly needed task. The really large wikis have it as they would put an unreasonable burden on stewards.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for the explanations, I've communicated this to the Afrikaans community. Greenman (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Globally lock my account

Status:    Not done

Please globally lock my account. --Windowsfan (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Here false. Please use for requests for Global blocks/locks SRG. @Windowsfan Global locks are not carried out on your own request.--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Do something (again) about azwiki

Status:    Locally handled

See Requests for comment/Do something about azwiki and Steward requests/Miscellaneous/2019-06#Move azwiki Armenian Genocide page to non-denial name, and undo block of users who tried to move it for context. It seems that local editors have reverted the actions taken in June 2019 and the page is now back at az:Qondarma Erməni soyqırımı ("false Armenian genocide"). We may need to move-protect it at the new title and warn that any admin who undos the action is subject to desysop. -- King of ♥ 15:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

User:Verman1 has this page 2x move to the "bad name". He is not an Admin. I have reverted the abuse and contact a local sysop. I leave this request open for further observation. I think we should only intervene when local sysops don't do it--𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 16:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Hello I applied protection to the article. According to the consensus here, the name of the article was determined. I gave the user a warning.--Turkmen talk 14:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Common.js, Common.css update at te.wikibooks

Status:    Done

Common.js and common.css at http://te.wikibooks.org were last updated in 2012. As we have more editors getting involved shortly, these need to be updated to the latest ones either from te.wikipedia.org or from en.wikibooks.org. Without this change, the search box of wikipedia is taking input only in Telugu and the startup editor is using the old typing script custom for Telugu. With Wikimedia Input tools developed and being used on Telugu Wikipedia for several years, the scripts need to be updated. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 10:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

The following change: deletion of transliteration script (as done on tewiki longback) needs to be done. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Alternately, please grant me interface admin for a month, as I am an admin with 2FA now and have some experience in updating common.js common.css. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 07:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Arjunaraoc, you can get the IA flag. You need to have a 1 week long vote locally and come back to SRP with the results. It is okay if no one votes. We can do the changes requested if you want, but I think it would be better if you manage to do them yourself (and can tweak the scripts better). --Base (talk) 07:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Base , Thanks. If I need it next time, I will follow your suggestion. --Arjunaraoc (talk) 09:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Done. Checked with Arjunaraoc on IRC. Seems working now. Feel free to update here if anything goes wrong. ~ Nahid Talk 07:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyrighted works on the Esperanto Wikisource

Status:    Not done

The works of Kazimierz Bein (Kabe) are not yet in public domain. The author died in 1959. The pages should be deleted now and undeleted in 10 years. There is no active community on this wiki and there are no admins.

Pages containing copyrighted material:

Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Robin van der Vliet: As these works have been there for years (2012), they should at least have the semblance of a deletion discussion with whatever community may be there, and for at least a month so allowing suitable opportunity for comment. Though it will be a forlorn hope, please ping the contributor.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I informed the creator of most of those pages here, but I don't really see what we should discuss. The pages constitute a clear copyright violation. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
They have been there six years, waiting through a discussion is not problematic. The community should be given the right to have that discussion. It allows a local record to exist for others to see, it educates, it informs and allows a community to be a community. It allows a local permalink to be used on any deletion, and a clear authority for people to act to delete. What is so urgent or imperative that a discussion cannot be held.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Also noting that some of the works have been added by Frglz (talk · contribs), so please ping them in the discussion. Thanks..  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I also pinged them in the discussion. For me personally it's not a problem to wait, I am just accustomed to how copyvios work on Commons. When I nominate something there, it gets deleted in an instant without any discussion, that's why I was surprised when you said "at least a month". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I moved the discussion to this page, because there are a lot more copyrighted works stored on the Esperanto Wikisource than I first noticed. I linked all I could find in that new page. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Wikisources work differently to Commons, especially in sporadic editing. I am also unsure exactly the copyright rules they apply, it may not be Commons rules. Being pre-1923 works, if eoWS are working only to US copyright alone, they will not be copyright violations. This is why the community conversation should be taking place by those who know the local rules, rather than applying another wiki's rules.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
If they require the texts to be PD also in the first publication country, the texts should be moved do Multilingual Wikisource before deletion. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What is the status of this request? I am ready to import files to oldwikisource, but I will not do that if their deletion is not due or if it is not to be performed soon (to avoid duplication). Ankry (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Esperanto does not have any native country. They will not be copyright violations. --Sharouser (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
That's not how copyright works. Vermont (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Because Esperanto does not have any native country, they only require the texts to be PD in the United States --Sharouser (talk) 04:01, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
What language it's in has literally zero effect on whether it's a copyright violation. I could make my own language (or even creative random characters), write something, and if you copy it and put it onwiki it's still a copyright violation. Vermont (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Because this problem happened in a Wikimedia project, It follows Wikimedian policy. --Sharouser (talk) 09:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
It is evident that you don't know Wikimedia policy or the legal rules around copyright that we abide by. The three statements you have insofar written are all false, and not based in fact. If your hope was to contribute copyright advice to this discussion, it is unnecessary for you to do so. Vermont (talk) 10:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Would you mind explaining what Wikimedia policy and the legal rules around copyright that we abide by are? Because the rules the English Wikisource and English Wikipedia abide by are that any work PD in the United States is fair game, and I see no reason why the Esperanto Wikisource should be any different.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
+1 AFAIK, any extra copyright related requirements are based on local community decision, not on WMF decision. The ToU states that the content declared as PD should be Public Domain under the law of the United States of America as well as the laws of any other countries as required by the specific Project edition. So it is up to the project to establish extra copyright rules. If I am wrong, please point me where the default copyright rules are defined. Ankry (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I propose to close this as "not done". The WMF only requires copyright to US law, and these are pre-1923 and thus out of copyright in the US. There is no indication of the country of publication of the works, and at eoWS there is no indication that they require any country of publication co-copyright.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree with Ankry and billinghurst. If the project doesn't have a policy that requires content to be in the public domain in countries other than the US, there's no problem. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Vermont: While you are right and Sharouser seems confused, there is some grain of truth. If a website is clearly targeted at Dutch citizens and operated by Dutch citizens, it may have to comply with some Dutch laws despite being hosted in the US. It is largely theoretical though, but for an example, see w:AllOfMP3 where the legal status is stated as "Russia, legal status in other locations is questionable". — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 22:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done as there is no consensus that they are copyright violations. Ruslik (talk) 06:55, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Common@diqwikipedia

Status:    Not done

Hi, We have some problem w:diq:MediaWiki:Common.css and w:diq:MediaWiki:Common.js. They are not work correct. Can you changes copy to en.wikipedia.org, and paste to diq.wikipedia.org?n Xorasan talkcontribs 12:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Xorasan: Do you want the whole code to be copied? Will that be useful? Esteban16 (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
yes exactly, because another code doesn't work on pagê and template. We need try. Xorasan talkcontribs 03:48, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Copying any code into other projects can cause even more problems. If you have the current script problem you have to describe it so that someone can fix it.-𝐖𝐢𝐤𝐢𝐁𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐫 👤💬 11:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Xorasan: --Esteban16 (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Esteban16 and WikiBayer: we have common.css talk page example code and common.js talk page example code, you can paste and fix it. Xorasan (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems that there are a lot of scripts that are turned on. I wonder whether they would be better as gadgets, and on by default, rather than forced common javascript. Definitely makes problem solving issues a lot easier.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done No follow up. Ruslik (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Potential cross-wiki hoax

Status:    Done

This is not regular vandalism, but there is potential of a long running con, based on external information. I am asking for several pages and user accounts to be investigated as part of a potential coordinated hoax inside and outside Wikipedia. I may need a Spanish speaker and admins on several wikis (meta, commons, enwiki) for background info.

I was alerted of the following news articles, which I am going to consider as reliable:

This led me to this page en:Helen Mukoro Idisi (Wikidata), which may have to be deleted(?) as potentially being part of the hoax perpetrated by this person. Note that normally criminals (specially alleged ones) should be able to edit Wikipedia with no problems, but there is potential not only of editing articles about oneself, but also being used as part of a con with criminal intent. IMPORTANT: I am not saying this definitely happened, but I need someone to help me research if there is a hoax going on on Commons, meta and enwiki (maybe eswiki too?). From that page I found 2 suspicious accounts (please check global contribs): Aeccspain and HELEN MUKORO, the last one assumes to be the person mentioned in the article above, and has a user bio with data that has been accused by the police as false. The 2 accounts should be checked, as well as potential other editors of en:Helen Mukoro Idisi, en:Unión de Todos and other related articles which could be puppet accounts or meatpuppets of the same person. There could be lots of legitimate users there too, doing helpful edits, but it is difficult to separate them without check user tools and a deeper research, which hopefully someone here can help with. It is also difficult to separate fact from fiction (some facts, like election data, seem correct). --Jynus (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Jynus: I will suggest to go to the relevant village pump or start deletion discussions or quick deletion requests. Stewards and Global sysops are not involve in determining hoaxes. I suggest this to be locally handled. For sock-puppetry, it will be best to file an SPI or follow local procedures, more detail on Checkuser policy. --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 10:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I considerably shortened this article and may nominate it for deletion later. Ruslik (talk) 07:18, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Further cleanup issues related to the closure and deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews

  • Status:    Not done

@User:George Ho has done a lot of work looking at this, as you will see below. Because of the possibility that some content from here will be incorporated into a different Wikinews project, we are looking to finish cleaning up policy problems before making the content available, and before otherwise (effectively) deleting the wiki. By all means delete the pages that George describes that you think should be deleted. If you think some of the pages should be templated as "possible copyvios" instead, we will make a template available for that purpose. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It is difficult to check if they are copyvios or not. It is better to have sentence to sentence comparisons. Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Post the comparisons on-wiki or off-wiki? George Ho (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
On wiki. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
How many sentences per article may I sample without risking copyright infringement? –George Ho (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sampling for this purpose is not a copyvio, especially since you are directly comparing to original source. But I'm thinking this ought to go on a subpage, because it's really going to clutter this page up. @Ruslik0, what do you think? The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenJ81 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 October 2019‎ (UTC)
Yes, subpage is better. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
It's been months, Ruslik. Must I still make sentence comparisons? Also, deleting the project was discussed. George Ho (talk) 06:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
These requests are moot now, I think. It is better to close them. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
What about the likely or most likely cases? George Ho (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sampling the first bundle... George Ho (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Currently, I'm getting busy with my college work, so I may have to compare other articles at very later time. Seriously, if the stewards won't be able to detect copyvio, why not delete the whole project itself and its content? George Ho (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinews

Status:    In progress

Now that bg.WN is closed/locked and that there are no admins as of date, before transferring remaining content to ru.Wikinews, I would like you to draw attention to the below list of articles that I think are likely copied from third-party sources, like BBC and CNN. The ones that I'm unsure about would be mentioned in separate subsection.

Copied from one of my subpages:

List of articles mentioned in Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews:

Most likely

More likely

List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:

Definitely / Most likely

More likely

Likely

Slightly likely

--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles seen in another revision:

Definitely / Most likely

More likely

Likely

Slightly likely

--George Ho (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles taken from another revision:

Most likely

More likely

Likely

Slightly likely

  • n:bg:Тръмп ще направи опит да купи Гренландия — (detector) most of content looks similar to portions of either mediapool.bg or dnes.bg. The articles were posted on the same day, 19 August 2019. However, bg.wn article was created on 16:47 UTC; the mediapool.bg one was published on 07:28 local time (04:28 UTC), twelve hours prior; dnes.bg one, on 07:40 local time (04:40 UTC). Also, the article summarizes Danish PM's response characterizing Trump's idea of buying Greenland as "шега" (joke). The article didn't say that Danish PM used "joke" or "шега" in quotes; I think the paraphrase was POV, wasn't it?

George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Almost forgot: the revisions from oldid 23418 to oldid 24555 should be deleted or suppressed from public view because, as noted earlier, there is the comparison table comparing one bg.wn with a BBC article. George Ho (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, wouldn't it be sufficient to just delete/blank the table? I'd really prefer to have the history of the village pump readily available if the closing of this project is ever discussed again. I don't think anyone is going to sue WMF (well, at least not anyone reasonable enough) for content that is available only from the edit history and then clearly without an intent to infringe the copyright (in fact, exactly with the intent to stop infringing the copyright).
— Luchesar • T/C 07:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Other bg.wn content (undetermined)

Status:    In progress

Other articles mentioned at #Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinews I'm certain are likely copyvios. The ones below I'm very unsure about, so I figure that further evaluation is needed. If any one of them is copyvio, it should be deleted. One of previous requests was rejected because, at the time, bg language wasn't understood. I wonder whether the lack of understanding the language would impact this request.

Copied from one of my user subpages:

List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:

Other articles seen at list of bg.WN articles

--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles seen in another revision:

George Ho (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More articles taken from another revision:

  • n:bg:Рекордни пожари в Амазония — (detector) Most of one paragraph's content looks similar to some portions of either nova.bg article or the clubz.bg one. Some other areas of the bg.wn article look similar to portions of the news.bg article. Just one paragraph of the detailed bg.wn article wouldn't reach to the level of huge copyvio, but it needs rewrite. I couldn't determine whether the rest of the article infringes other sources.
    In my view this content is OK (no copyvio) --Ket (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • n:bg:Иран задържа британски танкер (created 21 July) — the detector partially matched one paragraph and another sentence with partial content of the news.bg article (published 20 July). However, I'm not confident that just one paragraph would make the case big enough to be copyvio, but I could be wrong.
    IMHO this isn't indeed problematic in terms of copyright. That being said, I also see the typical Stanqo's style of presenting such events in a biased way—the article covers almost exclusively the Iranian POV. — Luchesar • T/C 14:33, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • n:bg:Почина Фидел Кастро (created 27 Nov 2016) — I can't tell whether the any of the first three paragraphs of the article were taken from the BBC article (pub. 26 Nov). However, the expression looks to brief to tell. The second paragraph erroneously claimed that Fidel Castro died at 19:00 unspecified time zone (02:00 EET / 00:00 UTC). However, according to BBC article, Fidel's brother Raul verified that Fidel's time of death was 22:29 local time (03:29 GMT/UTC). I don't know where the last paragraph originated. However, more importantly, would ru.wn accept the article containing such error about Fidel's time of death? Should it be transferred there?
  • n:bg:Цунами по крайбрежието на Япония: огромни разрушения — (detector) — looks to be translated from article by VOA Russian (old revision). VOA content has been released into public domain right away. If that's okay, then I guess my copyvio concerns would be invalid. However, VOA's content has been questioned, and VOA is deemed by some as "propaganda". If the bg.wn article didn't translate from VOA Russian, then where else?
    I agree that there is text translated from Russian based on mistakes in the text like "нефтепрерабатващия" and "източното крайбережие на Японии" - it should be "нефтопреработвателния" and "източното крайбрежие на Япония" respectively --Ket (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

License compatibility of one bg.wn article

Status:    In progress

The article n:bg:Научен пробив: земни скали от най-древната епоха могат да се намерят на Луната! was copied from cosmos.1.bg article, which is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.5, though somehow the link directs to the CC-BY 2.5 license. As of now, the link to the original source is down, but I hope it works again later as it did hours ago. Just in case, here's the archive link from Wayback Machine. The CC-BY-SA wouldn't be one-way compatible with CC-BY, especially per n:en:Wikinews:Copyright. If importing the CC-BY-SA into Wikinews is not legitimate, then the bg.wn copy should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

First of all, IANAL. But bgwn is not unique in having content with different license than the default CC BY-SA 2.5. For instance there is such content on ruwn and having that in mind we had such content created on ukwn too (I am a part of the latter community thus "we"). In my opinion it should be fine as long as the license is explicitly mentioned. That is done by explicit "additional terms may apply" in the footer and a license template in the article. That being said, again, IANAL. --Base (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@Base, George Ho, and Iliev: IANAL either. But if what you say is true, then all we need to do is to change the license template at the bottom of that page to reflect CC-BY-SA 2.5. (Original is back up here, and I can confirm it says CC-BY-SA 2.5, but that the link points to CC-BY 2.5 [BG].) Iliev, please confirm what I am copy-pasting from Creative Commons's website:
StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
StevenJ81, probably „Криейтив Комънс – Признание-Споделяне на споделеното 2.5 България“ to be more precise—but I'm concerned exactly about this confusion between the text and the link. There are two CC BY-SA 2.5 licenses relevant to Bulgaria: an unported and a localized one. The link in cosmos.1.bg is to the localized license (but, indeed, to CC BY 2.5 BG, not to BY-SA as expected), while the text of the link itself seems to refer to the unported “CC BY-SA 2.5” (otherwise it should've been “CC BY-SA 2.5 BG”). So, if we decide that the text has precedence over the link (it makes sense to me, though, yeah, IANAL as well), we should probably change the template this way:
— Luchesar • T/C 14:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
So long as the source is CCBY or CCBYSA it should be acceptable on wiki projects, isn't it?13019891ahs (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done No follow up. Ruslik (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

OAuth permissions

OAuth approval request for suggestor local dev

Status:    Done

This app is just for my local development testing. Thanks --Legoktm (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Approved by BDavis --Martin Urbanec (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)