User talk:Billinghurst/2015

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


What is an RFC's purpose?

I'm just wondering what outcome if any comes from opening a request for comment discussion. I started a discussion several months ago hoping that it would draw the attention of administration and the matter would be resolved with a decision one way or anotherbut in actuality its been noticed by hardly anyone.

Requests_for_comment/redundant-nudity-controversy

David Condrey (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a request for comment to gauge opinion, and the weight of opinion determines whether the issue should progress and in which directions. Who drives it, how it is driven, where it is promoted and whether it is promoted through relevant communities, and the impact all are pertinent for broader opinion. Some go nowhere, some get decisions quickly, some plod along. It is an inexact science.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #139

Wikidata weekly summary #140

Links about compatibility and NFC Tags Specs

I put those links because they are really up-to-date (more than nfc-phones.org, for example) and are very useful for users, because those info are hard to find, especially in Italian. Let me know what you think. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 79.59.60.176 (talk)

Non-authoritative link, without sources. Not sure that it is needed, however, if you believe that it is a valid link then the talk page of the article is the means to progress the addition. You should also declare whether you do or do not have any association with the site to which you are adding the link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #141

see meta update regarding admin abuse for Ymblanter and HJ Mitchell

These admins are not following policy rules and block without talk engagement including range blocks. The discussions re RedPenofDoom is just a example of conflict of interest with HJ Mitchell, YmBlanter refuses to engage as well. wiki oversight is constantly having to overrule YmBlanter and HJ Mitchell — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.202.164 (talk)

It is an issue for the wiki and needs to be sorted out by the wiki. Stewards are not a global arbitration committee. English Wikpedia has w:WP:UTRS and w:WP:ArbCom, if you believe that you have a case then use them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

we cant use arbcom or utrs since get blocked when try to use, the block from posting the original block then causes a block to arbcom/utrs. Oversight is seeing problems with the en wiki admins and they seem a law unto themselves and when people point this out with evidence you get blocked with no talk engagement. This is why arbcom is failing as fails to address users which are blocked.

That is their accountable decision-making process, stewards have no right to intervene with a democratically elected ArbCom.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're bored!

Could you undelete my user page (from my deletion - couple of junk ones since I see which are not required). While I'll need to remove some of the garbage it will probably be easier to start from a known point. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Herbythyme: lazily brought it all back bar the suppressed content. If some stuff needs to be shot again, please do some diffs. Delighted to see you back from your sabbatical, and maybe with some of the enthusiasm returned. Face-smile.svg  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'preciated - as to enthusiasm... we'll see ;)--Herby talk thyme 09:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know I should know the answer but...

Is local rollback available? My memory is sketchy not having had to rely on such things :) --Herby talk thyme 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Special:ListGroupRights it would appear that it is admins only. To me, I would think that the local 'crats would look favourably on your retrieving those rights.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh... --Herby talk thyme 12:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
{{spin}} {{twirl}} {{party}} Herbythyme Welcome back to the collective.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Simply proof I'm mad maybe... --Herby talk thyme 08:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or "further proof that you are still crazy".  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #142

You've got mail

@Elockid: replied.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help request from Marathi Wikipedia

Hi,

In July 2014 after a discussion with User:Nemo_bis Marathi Wikipedia local file upload was made sysop only and other users are directed to commons. since Jan to June period there are lot of Marathi language and Marathi Wikipedia celebrations and to get a emotional connect photothon events are arranged so Marathi Wikipedia wants to make it flexible for a specific time span Jan to June and allow local file upload from Jan to June. I want your support in filining a relevant bug at Phabricator (I have not been able to log in there at learning phabricator related aspects for me will take longer time . Actually I made the same request to User:Nemo_bis on his meta talk page he seems to be active but not responding may be he is busy in some other activities). Local discussion page on Marathi Wikipedia for your ref

Looking forward to your kind support

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are desiring is nothing to do with stewards, either in design or implementation, so my support or otherwise is moot. If your community desires to have uploads, that would be a decision by consensus, followed by a phabricator request, nothing more, nothing less. I would suggest that your licensing templates would be worthwhile getting right ahead of that time. There is currently a project running on meta that can give you assistance if you need it. Good luck with your deliberations.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you now realize

who the real disruptor is. ~ DanielTom (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is nasty and unworthy. You didn't like it when others made such comments about you, so you should know to not make them about others. While you are entitled to your opinion, that doesn't mean that it should be shared, and especially not on my talk page.
The community debates don't get degenerate due to one person. The community needs to try consensus, not make their community project a debating forum, where an individual is a winner.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? I've never asked that any account be globally locked. Maybe you missed Cirt manipulating checkusers on Wikipedia to block Miszatomic there, based on behavior on wikis other than Wikipedia. Maybe you also missed Cirt blocking him on all wikis where he (Cirt) is an admin. Doesn't this abuse of power make you sick? Maybe not... ~ DanielTom (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't said you did. You appeared here with a snarky comment, and I responded.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to take your advice

Billinghurst, I am trying to take your advice.

I've taken direct actions based on your advice.

You've asked me to provide evidence.

I've provided evidence and DIFF links.

You've asked me to use community processes.

I've voluntarily taken the initiative to start those community processes.

Please understand that I do wish to listen to you and hear your advice.

But I do also think that these accounts are related, and since the former is stale (last edit from 2007), we need to use behavioral evidence and DIFF links to compare it to the latter.

-- Cirt (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You see the words, but you don't actually listen. Take a moment and stop, read, listen, and think. You are running around trying to get someone globally locked contra to the policy. You have not allowed this person to make their case, or to dispute your commentary. You simply have blocked them out and are making accusations based on circumstance. I try to give you guidance, and ask you to be more gentle and think of the community, and progress this matter fairly. I don't see it. Let people talk, let people comment. That everyone wishes to debate point by point, is completely unhelpful. At this point of time, I see rush, and with righteousness. Please put your fairness hat on, and think how you would like to be treated, or you would like a friend to be treated in such a case.
You know that I do not like vandalism. You know that I don't like abuse of the system. You know that I try to be fair. There is investigative process and data analysis under way. The community is safe, just let process flow.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"You know that I do not like vandalism. You know that I don't like abuse of the system. You know that I try to be fair. There is investigative process and data analysis under way." Thank you, Billinghurst, I'm glad to hear you say these things. I agree with you. I'll try to take your advice. Thank you and good luck with the investigative process and data analysis under way, -- Cirt (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Two more data points for your investigative process and data analysis = one and two. Hope that's helpful information, -- Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

password

It should be easy to find the first edit where the vandal claimed his password was "Zarbon", if you can see deleted pages. I'm almost sure he said it when creating a user page for one of his socks, which was then deleted. Unfortunately I can't see deleted edits, but if you can, just look at the edits from the vandals blocked around 15–16 January and I believe you will find it. ~ DanielTom (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me do my job my way, if that is okay.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was looking at your comments on Wikipedia, and just saw this. Is "Salvidrim!" a checkuser, or is he just very incompetent? How did he know it was "block evasion" and not a troll pretending to be M? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will deal with the crosswiki implications as I have time. Those communities are self-managing and accountable for their actions. People can make whatever statements they like respective, or irrespective, of the facts and the circumstances. An evidence base, not jumping to conclusions, and acting mindfully usually bring the best results in my experience.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work clearing this up. I'll just insist once more, that I don't believe User:Mizsatomic (blocked for alleged "block evasion") is the actual Miszatomic. The account was not checked (and apparently "Salvidrim!" didn't get your point). ~ DanielTom (talk) 03:37, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
enWP is not a stewards' territory, and as an admin there it is of no consequence to me if a sock is blocked. If it is our little treasure, then it will show up among other searches. At this stage it is noise and seems unimportant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, it was just unblocked. It may cause Miszatomic to be blocked again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which bit of "enWP is not part of steward's territory" is unclear? People are blocked and unblocked at enWP all the time, and there exists a process to appeal a block. I do not see that this case is now different. Previously, I had data gathered as part of an investigation that gave me a different view of that case, and that view I expressed, nothing more, nothing less. Take off your cape, and put your undies on under your clothes. 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Block request

Hello Dear, Please block user Jagroto net [1] spamming.Regards Grind24 (talk) 07:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Please put all future requests at SRG.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:44, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) --Grind24 (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Locations all over the place?

How is this user able to hop all around the world like this?

Is this related?

May I file a different, separate Checkuser request for this activity?

-- Cirt (talk) 17:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that a checkuser request is going to help? Those are the respective IP addresses of anonymous user(s), there is no further secret information. Never completely trust IP reverse DNS, or IP data information sources to be accurate for geo-location.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just thought it was a worthwhile idea, is all. Worthy of looking into for further investigation. But those above IP addresses and the behavior pattern involved show they are all controlled by the same individual, quite likely. It'd be nice to have more active Checkuser investigation at Wikiquote to cut down on this sort of vandalism and disruption and socking, which we unfortunately have quite a bit of at Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have undertaken a review of the vandalism at enWQ, and commented as such, and at this point the investigation is continuing. You know quite well from your time as a checkuser that it just converts usernames to IP addresses, and it is not a magic bullet. As said, the investigation is continuing, and jumping to conclusions and rushing to decisions is not helpful.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't. But if you look at the contributions from the above listed links, we at the Wikiquote community are certainly getting weary of that sort of vandalism, whoever it's coming from. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Understand, and from my initial investigation, we would be hitting a large ranges of a mobile telephone provider, that is dynamic ranges, and also a different large broadband provider over several ranges, and uncertain on whether static or dynamic. I haven't run collateral damage checks, nor conversed specifically with other CU to see how they are managing this vandal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you. It is most confusing how they are able to appear from those locations all over the globe linked, above. -- Cirt (talk) 13:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure of your data set and not sure that I need to be. This is irrelevant to the analysis that I have undertaken, and I don't need to explain single IP contributions, nor need to. On their own they are symptomatic, not necessarily diagnostic.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Example of one of our ongoing problems on Wikiquote = please see here, please, thank you! -- Cirt (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant socking at this user talk page, disrupting the page, and driving that user talk page to need to be semi-protected. We need help investigating stuff like that. It could indeed be separate from other recent socking investigations, or not. But it'd certainly be helpful perhaps to get a few blocks of those folks, and IPs, and sock accounts, and perhaps even rangeblocks. -- Cirt (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If a community has ongoing vandal issues and account blocking alone is insufficient, then IP range blocks can be investigated. The place for that is SRUC and stewards look for ranges, and any collateral damage. Situation normal. I have data for enWQ about the vandal, we have the technology to make that data available to stewards, and in this case, I need to check for collateral damage if blocks are imposed. There also needs to be a process for enWQ to handle cases of collateral damage.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That linked to Steward requests/Username changes, do you mean a different page? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tyslop. You know the page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cirt: You have at least two different xwiki vandals at the moment. I think that you need a change of approach. Just quietly stomp them with no fuss. Don't name them, just use LTA and move on. I think that the process of use like enWP is just giving them a scorecard approach. Every time you all jump up and run around they get their jollies. Have a general discussion in your admin channels that allows all administrators to be able to refer your known vandals to stewards with a standing permission, and a permalink to the discussion. Most of these xwiki vandals we can stomp pretty quickly once we see them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've used rangeblocks in the past quite effectively, and perhaps combined with key phrases from AbuseFilter, but the rangeblocks in a targeted fashion were able to quiet everything down for up to a year I think I recall. -- Cirt (talk) 04:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For example, with this set of IP addresses listed here, there's quite a few that are correlated in a tight area, going back a significant period of time on Wikiquote. -- Cirt (talk) 04:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have undertaken CU checks based on the data that I have seen from the Miszatomic case, and applied some local blocks. It is going to take a while to weed out the whole sockfarm that he has built over the years. Some is going to get through but we can just keep hitting it quietly, slowing it down and paring out the data. I will think about whether addressing his ISP or telco will be of value.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you very very much. Any rangeblocks would be most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 17:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #143

Wikidata weekly summary #144

Salting

Good morning! Thanks for warning us about crosswiki spamming on "Τζαουάντ Ραμαζανιού". Article is now locked, as proposed. Thanks again! --Ttzavaras (talk) 09:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for everything. --Ttzavaras (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any thoughts

On why the bot seems to be ignoring me? --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, maybe helpful, though not resolutionary in itself ...

[22:24] <sDrewth> rights Herbythyme
[22:25] <COIBot> Herbythyme is not found in any of the trusted groups: sysop, bot, bureaucrat, rollbacker, founder, steward, checkuser, editor, reviewer, staff
[22:25] <sDrewth> rights Billinghurst

[22:25] <COIBot> Billinghurst is sysop on w:en, s:en, meta; steward on meta; checkuser on s:en, meta; reviewer on s:la

Need to talk to Beetstra about why it isn't identifying your rights. I will add you to the settings file.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Herbythyme:Edited the file, try again.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weird - I'd been through the mental process that I was a sysop and therefore didn't need to be "added". Appreciated --Herby talk thyme 11:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should have come here earlier, I could have told you were mental. Re rights, that is reality versus design and time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mental - pot - kettle. Anyhow there is nothing to suggest any great activity in the reports however at a quick look through there is some evidence of collusion/planning in that a number of domains resolve to the same IPs. It is certainly possible (...) that a hosting IP had been used to create the accounts. Worth keeping an eye on I think. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mental - at best you are not losing distance on my lead. The IPs are trackable through COIBot's work (reverse links), and the community could also look to the logic that is in place for enWP's revertlist which allows a rollback based on base IP.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #145

Lwi932

Hi! Back in July 2012, you have globally locked this user. The only edit of theirs I can find is a single live edit on enwiki, creating w:en:American Standard International School of Dhaka (although they may have deleted edits on projects where I am not admin). Now, they have sent UTRS appeal #13196 (which you should have access to), and it seems mostly reasonable (COI edits can be dealt with locally if need be), and I was wondering if there were circumstances I am not aware of that led to the global block? Otherwise, what do you think about a potential unlocking of the account? Thanks in advance! Salvidrim! 05:53, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim: July 2012? <shrug> I don't remember last week. I have unlocked the account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello, You can protect my personal and talk pages[2] in perpetuity?--6AND5 (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 6AND5, Usually we wont act if there are active local admins. If you want i can forward this request to a local admin.--Shanmugamp7 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #146

Masking changes

Hello Billinghurst, I need your assistance. Could you please mask 3 earliest edits on my talk page on EN Wiki. It's for privacy reasons. Since probably I won't be unblocked yet, I have nobody to ask for help. Thanks in advance. --Munja (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Munjanes: I don't have authority to undertake standard oversight at English Wikipedia. Please see the request process and the email request address at w:Wikipedia:Oversight.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #147

Wikidata weekly summary #148

checker

Restarted the webservice, set up big brother to hopefully auto-restart the webservice, and added you to the tool. Legoktm (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Brilliant.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hi Billinghurst, Vitruvian@tr.wikiquote there is a problem with this sysop. He will not contribute to wiki projects. That's why he blocked indefinitely. Can you unblock? Good wikis. --Uğurkenttalk 15:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is not something for just a single steward, nor something that can be handled with that scant amount of information. If this is an important issue then please raise it at Stewards' noticeboard and please provide further background to the situation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #149

Updated scripts

Hi Billinghurst. I updated your scripts in User:Billinghurst/global.js, most notably to update force ltr and to replace the obsolete regex menu framework with the newer TemplateScript. I tested the use cases to make sure nothing broke, but I might have missed something. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 02:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

You are a gentleman Pathoschild. I will check.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #150

About that emergency...

Hi Billinghurst, Apologies for the random ping earlier; PiRSquared17 took care of it. It was regarding an unregistered user you recently blocked that created a disturbing page. DivineAlpha (talk) 06:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please exterminate

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikimedia_Australa_in_2012 - thank you in advance. sats (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Appreciated sats (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MassMessage

Hello, plaase look: Talk:MassMessage#Blocked svwp Obelix (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tegel: Probably something that someone with local rights at svWP may wish to review.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Averater have unblocked. Thank you. Obelix (talk) 13:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, local action and local discussion regarding the action. Svwiki is so large so this can be handled locally. -- Tegel (Talk) 15:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request

Billinghurst sir It has been 5 days that I have asked for the global IP block exempt right on Steward requests/Global permissions‎ but the result has not been shown yet I request you to think for the right.बेनुपराज पौडेल (talk) 13:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Patience please.. We are dealing with something like 10k global rename requests, etc. We all are busy volunteers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@बेनुपराज पौडेल: you have been asked questions, you haven't answered.  — billinghurst sDrewth 19:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
yes,I did.बेनुपराज पौडेल (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave it to the conversations on that page to resolve this issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #151

username change

Hi Billinghurst

İ edited my request --Hacitalha (talk) 10:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #152

Requesting help

At mr-wikipedia undersigned is trying to take small steps one by one, on improving copyright understanding and sorting out copyright related various issues. As of now I am looking for following help.

1) w:mr:Template:अविन्याविकासजग is designed to be part of copyright awareness campaign on mr-wikipedia. In Initial stage campaign is being conducted through MediaWiki:Sitenotice for getting maximum exposure. I need your technical help in tweaking (correcting syntax) w:mr:Template:अविन्याविकासजग this template so as I can include the same in a site notice.
2) Importing following templates from wikimedia commons to mr-wikipedia.
Thanks and warm regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 02:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bit hard to work out the purpose of the first, though I can see that it is missing an opening {| though I am not sure where it is mean to go. If this a template from another wiki then it would be useful to have either a redirect from the original name version. I will have a look at these other templates and import there where I can to your site.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahitgar: I went and have a look and mrWP is not set up for transwiki import, and I think that the community should be discussing that should be a feature for your wiki. If you look at http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/highlight.php?file=InitialiseSettings.php and search for wgImportSources you will see that mrwiki has nothing, and I think that your community needs to have an RFC that discussion that you have a configuration to allow transwiki for 'en' 'commons' 'm' as a minimum. Have the discussion for a week, and if the community is in favour we will lodge a phabricator: ticket to have that implemented, then any admin will be able to import pages/template/... from those three wikis without the intervention of others.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt reply and view. About first I suppose I made mistake in hurry, after your hint I could sort it out myself. Your second suggession also is good one and we will go with the same. Thanks and Regards.

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your lock of User:世良田二郎三郎

User:李登輝 may be another incarnation, judging from actions at Commons. --Denniss (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #153

how could an admin block an admin!? is there any rule for doing this!?

hi Billinghurst!

as an admin my IP is blocked by an irresponsible admin Mr Khangul just for the reason i have allowed and unblocked a user who is hard working, keen to develop, contribute in pashto wiki. see this for his countributions: Usman khan's contributions

plz have a look to his work. if you think that he (Usmankhan) deserved to be blocked by Khangul. and for restoring (Usmankhan) was that against the rule of wiki, or i have done something wrong for which Khangul (an admin like me) blocked me from wiki and deleted my pages where i have requested for bureaucrat.

plz take this matter serious and solve the prob which khangul create day by day to new users, and now for admins as well.

you will note that pashto wiki contribution is zero now a day due to khangul's behaviors with users.

best regards

note: my nomination page is also deleted by him. khangul deleted my nomination page for bureaucratship. its against wiki norms and laws.

--عثمان منصور انصاري (talk) 08:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, please don't take me for a fool, however you are not independent of the user UsmanKhan, so please do not pretend otherwise.

If my proposal meets with the approval of the community of stewards, I would think that we would be reviewing blocks on the wiki, and we would be able to review deletions of user pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:18, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Special:GlobalRenameRequest

Hi Billinghurst, some week ago I was asked to change my name on scn.wiki. I put the request and you told me to use Special:GlobalRenameRequest, but I have to merge the accounts, not to require a new name. Actually, in the it.wiki it says (correctly) that 2diPikke is already taken (and the same will be on scn.wiki). Can you explain me better what to do? Thanks. --Squattaturi (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Squattaturi: If you have mergers or changes that are not straight renames that need discussion, then please add them to Steward requests/Username changes  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bot

will you mind confirming some of bot request?-Mr wikilover (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bot requests are not something that I do. If you feel that stewards are not covering that page suitably then please leave a message at Stewards' noticeboard.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SUL rename question

Hi Billinghurst. Would you be able to answer a question I have about a rename you carried out in relation to the SUL finalisation? The rename in question is here. That user (previously 'Carcharoth' on fr-wiki) may (I am not 100% certain) have a Commons account of the same name (Commons talk page). I am asking because the fr-wiki name and the commons username were the two unattached accounts listed here before the SUL finalisation started. The fr-wiki name is no longer unattached (I think this is because of the rename you did), but the commons name is still unattached. I was wondering if a rename request had: (a) not been made; (b) been made but is waiting in a queue somewhere; or (c) the user doesn't realise that a rename request is needed. I don't speak or write very good French, so I thought it best to ask you (and in any case, the user doesn't seem active, though presumably the fr-wiki rename request was made somewhere, somehow). Carcharoth (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth: Local accounts at different wikis cannot be directly associated, we can only surmise. If there were email addresses associated with these accounts, then email address(es) for both accounts will have received the notification requesting moves. [All renames are up to date, I did an absolute truckload of them]

I am going to make an assumption that you are looking at the usurption issue, my advice would be along the lines of that we leave it until the globalisation takes effect and that Commons account will be moved, and then we can merge any other account that you have (for what was a local Commons account) to your SUL account. If that is the case, then put a merge request to SRUC and we will put it on hold for when the tools and the account are available.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The one remaining unattached account was moved and the other account automatically created (see here). I'll go to SURC and figure out now how to request a merge (though I'm guessing it may be a long wait). Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mehran

I have a similar issue too, my Commons account is currently unattached. When can I have it then? Do I need to put a request to SRUC or it will be attached automatically soon? ● Mehran Debate 15:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your Commons account is unattached it can be moved whenever you please, the following notes apply. 1) You will need to confirm on the account that it is yours, and to where it is being moved (point to the diff here as the reverse confirmaion; 2) if you have Commons edits on this account and want them merged, you are best to wait until unification takes place; 3) if you have no Commons account on this account, then align the accounts details now, and put in a request; 4) if you have a Commons account on this account and it can be blown away, then put that instruction into the rename request for the move-in.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mehran@Commons is not mine, it belongs to someone else who was not willing to rename it before. Currently I use MehranVB@Commons that is attached to another global account. Now I have no idea if it is possible to move MehranVB@Commons to Mehran@Commons since MehranVB is a attached itself. If it cannot be done, the best thing for me is to usurp Mehran@Commons and attach it to my SUL. If I am allowed to do so, could you please consider it as a request and move the account or it is necessary to put the request in SRUC? ● Mehran Debate 07:47, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If your Commons account is attached to another, it is better to lodge a merge request at SRUC and when we get into the next stage (globalisation of all unattached accounts) we can then merge the two accounts.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so for now can I usurp Mehran@Commons (which does not belong to me)? (I will lodge a merge request later) ● Mehran Debate 12:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this late stage the preference would be to leave it as it is. Then m@c account will be renamed as per the message, and you will then be able to get the account name, and we will merge your other account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted my complaint

Dear Billinghurst you deleted my comment, I have a sincere grievance. Also I am being bullied by the other account of Khangul: https://ps.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D8%AE%D8%A8%D8%B1%DB%90_%D8%A7%D8%AA%D8%B1%DB%90:%D8%A7%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%BE%D9%8A%D8%B1_%D9%86%D9%86%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%84%D9%88%D8%A8%D9%87 Seendgay (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment to the linked RFC as it was pertinent to the RFC, and in itself not pertinent to the stewards' noticeboard.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Btw i need your help in this, this user: "FreeatlastChitchat" keeps on reverting critical info of Muhammad Ali Jinnah. What can I do about this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah&action=history Seendgay (talk) 10:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Address the issue on the talk page of the article (the purpose of the talk page).  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #154

Headless ducks

They seem to be running around like a flock of headless ducks, not knowing what to make of the CU result! So that is good ... Stho002 (talk) 21:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Stho002: I rather thought that the whole concept of a Wiki community was that it should be egalitarian and therefore "headless". It is largely because you want to be the "head" that you have been excommunicated. Accassidy (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pashto Wikipedia Proposal

Billinghurst we are very thankful to you for your help and resolving the Pashto Wikipedia's issues.Once again Thanks.--UsmanKhan (talk) 05:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@UsmanKhan: I have the hope that there will be the use of the talk pages extensively for contentious issues. You may even consider the development of a template for contentious issues. Similarly, where there is contention that an article tries to cover the area of contention itself.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tools.wmflabs.org/checker: No webservice

Hi,

The transclusion checker tool for book digitizations on Wikisources is down and you, MZMcBride and Legoktm are listed as maintainers. Could please any of you check what have happened? Many thanks, Lugusto 17:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When I next can get shell access I will do what I can.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that this was done by the service itself which has some restart parameters.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this was fixed by running "webservice2 uwsgi-python restart" basically. Labs keeps changing things. :-( --MZMcBride (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I recorded the command into a text file within checker for future use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:20, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your close of that discussion

I appreciate that was not the right venue but your close comment made it clear that not only was it not the right venue but you have no respect for me nor do you really care about the impact of functionary conduct on projects. You say that wasn't a venue for "blackening reputations" and in the process all you did was taint mine with that rather lousy statement. I'm sorry if I consider the conduct of functionaries to be a serious nature and that I thought the Stewards on meta might as well. I am seriously disappointed that you found it necessary to leave that kind of a closing statement and would suggest that perhaps you should change it to something less of a spit in my face for trying to do something about problematic behavior. Maybe soething like, not the right venue would be sufficient!Reguyla (talk) 12:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I changed it to Wrong Venue. Matter closed. There is no need to say more than that and again I am disappointed in you for that blatantly disrespectful comment towards me. Reguyla (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You bring a matter to stewards, knowing that the matter is not for stewards, about an individual when you are aware of the processes to resolve the matter is completely internal to that wiki. You use commentary that makes personal opinion that reflects poorly on the person. You were told exactly that it was not for stewards, and you continued the conversation, and debated the matter. If you don't like the closing statement, then maybe you should look at why the statement was made in your statements. On that page there is no ability for any stewards to make any commentary apart from "not our issue". I am disappointed that you thought that you could parade along that page with that matter more like a show pony rather than engaging with the target wiki in a meaningful attempt to resolution.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I knew that you would not be able to simply take action yes. I did however feel that the Stewards could discuss the matter and present it to the Arbcom and felt confident that if you bothered to take the time to look at it, you would see that Floquenbeam is a problematic functionary worthy of review. You made that statement because you do not like ME and you never took the submission seriously in the first place. I am blocked on ENWP because I think admins and functionaries should have to follow the rules and many of them feel otherwise. If I could discuss it on the target wiki I would, but I cant because a couple of admins won't let anyone unblock my account so I can even edit. But it wasn't even my personal issue that was the point here. It was Floquenbeams conduct that apparently is completley acceptable conduct for an admin/functionary to have as is leaving derogatory statements when closing good faith submissions by editors whom you personally do not like. Reguyla (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and just FYI my change to your poorly worded close was reverted because its better for an admin to make an extremely poorly worded closing statement in a discussion that for someone to change it to be unbiased. Also for what its worth, any time someone complains about anothers conduct there are going to be "commentary that makes personal opinion that reflects poorly on the person". Otherwise its not a complaint, its a compliment. Reguyla (talk) 13:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No we couldn't discuss it, and it is wrong of you to think that we sit as some arbitrary body to make public judgements on individuals at other wikis. Our personal opinions are exactly that, personal.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please, there is a discussion on that very page right now about the conduct of functionaries and admins on the Pashto wiki so clearly you are capable of talking about serious problems when you want too. There are routinely discussions about problems there that have been actionable for far less than when I presented. The mere fact that the Stewards won't address concerns to the WMF or the Arbcom about conduct on ENWP is exactly why the conduct of its admins and functionaries have gotten so bad. They know they can get away with it and you enable that behavior by degrading editors who bring up concerns in a venue that is related and that they have access too. Anyway, I am going to send an email to the Arbcom about Floq's conduct but it'll take some time to draft because the Arbcom requires a detailed legal package to even discuss the matter to ensure that nearly no one will even take the time to do it. That's assuming their spam filter doesn't delete it or they don't ignore the issue because it pertains to one of their own. Its a completely broken and non transparent process that is rife with abuse itself. But since you have no interests in doing the right thing and have essentially scuttled my attempts to fix the degrading situation I have no choice. Reguyla (talk) 13:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty disappointed that at this point its clear you have no intention of changing your insulting and inflammatory closing statement that's directed at me. If something would not be tolerated or acceptable conduct for an editor or IP to do, then an Admin shouldn't do it either and that includes leaving obviously unacceptable statements when closing discussions. Its clear that you do not feel that way unfortunately. Reguyla (talk) 13:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not try to equate the issue of psWP community, with your issue with one user of advanced rights. psWP is a different case and different circumstances. I have already pointed you to the information page about stewards and the powers that we have, pWP qualified, and your matter does not.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course the circumstances are different but they are also very similar in many ways. The difference is, in one case you are choosing to act and the other you are choosing not too. The circumstances of every case is different. And just for the record, yes I do have an issue with one or two admins on ENWP because those admins are problematic and nee to be addressed in order to allow the success of the project and the abusive conduct those admins exert on the project. I also have a larger issue of the choke hold that the admin culture has on that community and the communities inability to address the problem because the admins running those boards won't allow themselves to be removed...including current and former members of the Arbcom. That is part of the reason I addresed the issue to the Stewards and yes again I knew you couldn't simply take action. But, you could absolutely have allowed discussion about the problem rather than close it with insulting comments that are clearly biased. Reguyla (talk) 14:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
psWP has a large amount of history including a RFC, and many other factors that differentiate this matter. There is no similarity in my mind, and that you equate your matter just demonstrates your lack of understanding. Plus, if you want a discussion, then do a RFC (C = Comment = Discussion), do not bring your issue to the stewards. You are barking up the wrong tree.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no point in an RFC, it will just be met by the same cynicism and contempt as you are showing here and in your closing statements. Had you simply stated Wrong venue and closed it I wouldn't have thought anything of it and moved on. The fact that you decided it was appropriate to close it with a derogatory statement directed at me only shows that you have no interest in RFC's or discussions about the conduct of ENWP admins. That's their problem apparently and not yours and that attitude is precisely why the problem has gotten so far out of hand on ENWP. Reguyla (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An RFC is a traditional means to progress and that you don't wish to do so is your choice. that said, it is no reason to continue discussion that was unable to be actioned by stewards, and you had been told that. If you call people liars, etc. and don't wish to follow the process for a resolution, it will of course be seen as an attempt to poorly represent someone's reputation. Don't be surprised if the spade is called a spade. Your conclusions about my views on RFCs are just baseless.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we are "calling a spade a spade" as you put it, my decision to call them a lier was based on facts and if you had bothered to actually read my ban review, which clearly you did not, and the verbiage used by them you would have see that too, its quite clearly visible and there is a big difference between not editing and no disruption. Additionally, my irritation is not in that you closed it, because I knew that you couldn't just run over and block them even if it was taken seriously, but that you chose to directly attack me in your closing statement for bringing a very serious problem to the Stewards for action thinking that you cared about abusive admin conduct on Wikipedia. It certainly gives the appearance that the close was personal rather than professional. The mere fact that Floquenbeam is allowed to use lies and false statements to support a block that isn't supported by the community and that you would apparently not care about it just makes my statements that Admins on ENWP don't feel like they have to follow the rules and certainly not Floq, all the more true. I would again ask you to please rephrase your closing statement. Reguyla (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Geeze you spout rubbish and draw conclusions from nothing. enWP has a process to deal with abuse, use it if you have a complaint. That I don't get my knickers in a not about enWP is an allowable response and should not be drawn as a conclusion about a block, about which stewards cannot have any impact. For the record it is an accurate statement that I made at SN, and to me it seems that all you demonstate here is a hypocrisy. You give free criticism but will not take it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I call an ugly baby ugly rather than lie and say it isn't doesn't mean I am spouting rubbish. Sure there is a sense of hypocrisy to my statements but no more than admins and functionaries on ENWP that defy policy and do whatever they want while blocking non admins for far less. I also have no problem taking fair and accurate criticism but the criticism you offered in that closing statement wasn't any of that. It wasn't even criticism, it was a blatant personal attack. All I am asking for is for you to simply rephrase it so it isn't a personal attack, is that really so much to ask? Reguyla (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the factual error? Where is the personal attack?  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re bracket matching

Hi! Many thanks for your scripting solution posted here. I'm doing a lot of template work, and such visual aid is of great value. Now I'm trying to get the script to work. I tried to copy the js code into my global js depository = not working? I notice you have the code at en:user:Billinghurst/bracketmatch.js and then loads it at Wikisource by using // bracket matcher mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ais523/bracketmatch.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');. So why the special js depository? Now I have put the code here. Will that work? And is a special set of user preferences needed to get this to work? So far I've only worked with special css code, so js may be a different beast to tame… Face-smile.svg--Paracel63 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Paracel63: That methodology calls the code from that enWP user's page of code, rather than having to maintain itself yourself. [Note that is how we pull gadgets from other wikis to maintain one set of code] To get it to work, after you have a preview of the text you will see the hypertext link "Parse" which toggles the bracket view. I am happy to review and set it up for you if necessary, just tell me where, I have the rights to do it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh you did link it, yes that is fine if you copied it all fine. That is the hard way and you have to maintain it yourself. Have a poke at my global.js to see how lazy you can be.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Many thanks for your input. I see the "parse" link, and it seems to work as expected. Only problem now, it only colours pairs of double brackets, not triple brackets (like in templates). I copied all your code, but maybe there was something else I forgot? You're free to fix my code here, if there is an easy solution. Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Best that you approach the author of the script w:User talk:Ais523 and ask him/her. I just use the code as is.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again! Now I get it to work in templates too! Face-smile.svg The specific colour coding makes it easy to spot the specific pairs while working. But is there a way (w:User talk:Ais523) of pointing out with colour code (for example white against a black block or something similar), when the pair doesn't match up? Now you have to inspect each pair to see if they are the right amount of brackets in each pair. An "alarm marking" would find your attention much quicker. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<shrug> I just use it as is. Apologies for not knowing more.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Ais523 got back to me and explained here the problems involved. :-)--Paracel63 (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pashto Wikipedia Block

Dear user:Billinghurst I was blocked on Pashto wikipedia for persistence to write about homosexuality. I just saw on the stewards board that other have been unblocked. Is it possible if i can also be unblocked. Adjutor101 (talk) 07:41, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked the sock PashtoLover that I believe is one of yours. Can you access that?  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked the user to disclose all socks and to choose an account, on Requests for comment/Support collaboration on Pashto Wikipedia/Requests/Adjutor101. That request was filed 08:21, 24 April 2015, after your reply above, so I'm treating it as separate, though this may resolve quickly. As you know, we cannot at this point be sure about socks, the use of shared access may be common. All that will come out in the wash. Thanks, Billinghurst. --Abd (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what it has to do with you. Last that I saw you were not a member of psWP. Stewards are elected representatives of the broader community with the authority to resolve matters. You are not. Your nose goes in where it is not needed, nor especially welcomed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I've edited that project, though very little. I have no "authority." You have the authority to make decisions about rights and blocking and the like, to close. The community has the right to advise. Do we have that right, Billinghurst? If not, I need to know. --Abd (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PashtoLover used my internet and computer [we are members a community the Pashto society.] He now uses the official PC at are office, I do not. My IP and Username are still blocked:
But now I am working on wikitionary to advance Pashto. I also take back my request as I am working now independently from the Pashto society due to personal differences with the head. Adjutor101 (talk) 10:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Billinghurst Adjutor101 (talk) 10:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I will let @Vituzzu: look after this as he is doing some checks through the community. Thanks for letting us know about the matter.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #155

Page move

Hey, I see you've been editing here recently, so I'm hoping to catch you soon with this request. I've moved the previous (3-year-old) contents of Article counts revisited, which I am almost entirely responsible for (and its talk page), into my userspace to make way for more relevant, current, and voluminous information on the same topic, which I would like to move from my userspace to the same title as I used before. As a normal user, I can't finish this "swap". So could you please move User:Dcljr/Article count changes (with its associated talk page) to Article counts revisited for me (over the redirect now there)? Thanks in advance... - dcljr (talk) 07:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:37, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops… no, you accidentally just undid my original page move. I wanted "User:Dcljr/Article count changes" moved to "Article counts revisited". So now I need you to:
(Both with their accompanying talk pages.) Sorry about the confusing mix of titles. - dcljr (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes check.svg Done Noting that there was a subpage that was not moved User:Dcljr/Article count changes/All affected wikis. @Dcljr: let me know if that needs moving. I was operating off the mobile site yesterday and that just was/is butt ugly for what was needed with the redirects, etc. (mental note: do not use mobile site for anything but plain vanilla)  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I still have subpages that need moving, but I can do that myself because it won't conflict with any existing titles. Thanks for doing this for me. - dcljr (talk) 02:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Once again a help request

Hi,

After your suggession on this talk page at mr wikipedia we got import page facility activated, I imported commons:Template:Self and commons:Module:Fallback along with subtemplates there of; but :

  • First still mr:Template:Self shows some errors, at first glance I do not understand the reason for error. Please do have a look at mr:w:Template:Self and guide me how do we sort out the errors.
  • Secondly from plain reading of mr:Module:Fallback it seems we need to mention default language for mr wikipedia some where, but I could not understand exactly where and how ?
  • Third where one is supposed to look for base and/or root pages of templates and modules.

Waiting for your kind help,

with warm regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Commons's fallback appears to need c:Module:Fallbacklist though it is only the resultant code that you actually need. However, the bulk of those errors seem to be in the documentation template, not the actual template, which suggests just ditch the doc layer, and copy what you need to document in your native language. The template seems to work fine mr:चित्र:Wireless_mouse_img.jpg  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #156

Wikidata weekly summary #157

Make laos wikipedia

I think current laos wikipedia is very botched and be abundant with ridiculous article and troll users, i want you appoint me as bureaucrats of laos wikipedia for manager it, i'll be creating new wikipedia, thank you--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no local policy about the appointment of admins for loWP, then please follow the process expressed at SRP. I doubt that we would appoint bureaucrats for loWP at this point of time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not have local policy about the appointment of admins in Laos wikipedia--Laomonarchrestore (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think so, so please follow the processes for the small wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why am i blocked?

Can you tell me why my ip is blocked on all wikis? I never wrote anything on this page. But on the german Site about the Term "apriori" is a mistake!

greetz — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.162.203.234 (talk) 2015-05-12 20:19:48 (UTC)

I cannot tell you the exact reason for the original range block, as I didn't make it. It is a soft block on the /17, so you should be able to edit if you are logged into a wikimedia account. If you don't have an account, you can create one at this link.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:34, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

a persistent old spam issue

Hi,

Please refer Wikidata:Wikidata:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive/2015/03 discussion and Vandalism_reports/Archive_7#Javad_Ramezani an old global spamming issue seems to be still around as late as today en wikipedians are discussing the same issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iran man once more, en wikipedians seem not aware of the fact that this is a global issue discussed earlier at wikidata and meta.

I was under impression that soon you might put a global filter from meta for this issue. If global filter is not possible do we go ahead with local filters for this spam issue (I am talking about mr-wikis).

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a global filter for this gentleman in place, and it does cover mrWP. enWP is not covered by global filters, that is small/medium/opt-in wikis.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where do I post link?

Hi Billinghurst,

You left me a ping recently, telling me to make an edit on my user page that is to be merged, and then to leave a link to the edit on the stewardship page. However, the section I posted about getting my name back is missing, so I'm not sure where to post the diff. Can you please clarify? (Sorry, I'm not to computer savvy.) Zaereth (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for suggessions

Hi,

On meta, I have created a new page for cross wiki collaboration, Edit filters benefiting to various local Wikiprojects. Your suggessions about article or in the article, are most welcome wherever whenever possible to your goodselves.

Frankly I need support in correction of my english used in the article. Since one of the main complaits about my righting is about my broken english :)


Thanks and warm regards.

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #158

Names of Wikimedia Languages

Dear Billinghurst,

we are initiating a long needed action - we would like to translate names of all Wikimedia languages to all Wikimedia languages in the next two months. We have noticed that you are active on Abkhaz Wikipedia and that is the reason why we are taking liberty to contact you.

We hope that you would be interesting to help us in our endeavor - To make this action easier we have already prepared the list of all Wikimedia languages, and for each language we have already prepared the page with existing and missing translations. So when you go to the page for your language you would have two tasks - to check whether existing translations are OK and to fill in the missing one. The more detailed instruction are on the language page.

What are the benefits of this work?

  • We believe it is about time to have all Wikimedia languages translated to all Wikimedia languages :)
  • Translated languages will be parsed into Wiktionary and the resulting number of Wiktionary entries will be significant for each language. That could significantly increase the number of entries for less developed Wiktionaries, and improve the quality of entries in general. We are aware that there is no Wiktionary in your language, (yet ;)) but your contribution would influence other Wiktionaries.
  • Wikidata - this would be great contribution to Wikidata.
  • All other projects could benefit from this list (Wiki Travel :)), as we believe that certain amount of terms has to be properly translated to all languages.

We are gathered around the project Wiktionary Meets Matica Srpska and we hope that you would be interesting in working with us! If you have any questions you can ask them on the Names of Wikimedia languages discussion page or via personal emails.

Important notice: The data are licensed under CC0, as they should be incorporated into Wikidata at the end of the process.

If you don’t want to receive future announcement about the project, please leave a note on discussion page.

Thank you and looking forward to hear from you!

Interglider.org team

Godzzzilica (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Please my Username

Hello I have been blocked , because my name is advertising, Pleaserename my username Thank you , i will be wait news from you

Best Regards — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Valters.Germanis.Evelatus (talk)

Please place your request at Special:GlobalRenameRequest and someone will undertake it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No need to rename my user name!

Thanks for your message that there is no need dot rename my unser-name 'Reidy'. So I leave it like it is.

Kind regards — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reidy (talk)

Face-smile.svg  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:40, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Global locking

Hi billinghurst, how much activity is required to be suitable for a global lock? The user [of the edit I reverted, which you thanked me] got blocked on en wiki. Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Communities will manage it, cluelessness isn't a reason for locking. We will let the communities sort him out.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thank you for that info. I'll keep that in mind so I don't end up asking that question again. Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Compte bloqué

Cher correspondant,

J'ai lu que vous aviez bloqué mon compte parce que vous avez suspecté que mes interventions ressemblaient à celles d'une intervention "robotisée". Il n'en est rien, mon IP change régulièrement en effet car je me connecte par le système IP Vanish je pense que vous connaissez. Je vous remercie de bien vouloir me répondre ou de faire en sorte que je ne sois plus bloqué.

Salutations, Frédéric. Fredericknetwork (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Fredericknetwork: I have softened the block. You should now be able to edit when you are logged into your wikimedia account.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #159

Ҷовид Рамазонӣ

Good evening. Why do you delete pages tg:Ҷовид Рамазонӣ and left erroneous in terms of grammar Tajik language name tg:Ҷавод Рамазон? What kind of conflict you write? thank you.--AryanSogd 16:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AryanSogd: This one of a few crosswiki spammers who repeatedly create articles about themselves through many sock puppets or IP addresses. Wherever they creates their articles, we delete them and protect the page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, sorry to trouble you. Thank you.--AryanSogd 12:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AryanSogd: Very happy for you to come here and ask for an explanation. All replies provide information and understanding (hopefully).  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome message from Wikivoyage

Hi, Billinghurst. I'm Ikan Kekek, an admin at Wikivoyage. You have a distinguished record of service to Wikimedia, but I still think you could benefit from the Wikivoyage welcome message, which includes links you may want to look at at your leisure. You'll find that some of these aren't relevant to you, but there are some that are.

Hello! Welcome to Wikivoyage.

To help get you started contributing, we've created a tips for new contributors page, full of helpful links about policies and guidelines and style, as well as some important information on copyleft and basic stuff like how to edit a page.

If you need help, check out Help, or post a message in the travellers' pub.

If you are a Wikipedian, or have previously used Wikipedia, then you may notice some differences in the style of our articles. These include:

  • "External links" → We do not use a separate external links section, but incorporate primary links only into the text itself.

If you have any questions, please post to my user talk page on Wikivoyage, as I don't check Meta too often.

Thanks for contributing! -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikan Kekek: Please feel comfortable putting a welcome message on my pertinent user talk page at which Wikivoyage. The redirects were often set up early on in the days of the creation of the wikis, prior to their welcome messages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No need, now that I've put it here - the links all work. However, if you would like people to feel free to use your user talk page on Wikivoyage, you might want to clarify that on your WV user talk page. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help for a nation-wide issue. You may not , of course, but if you dont help, viki of a whole country will be opressed ever by scoundrels

PLEASE HELP US. Just examine the issue, I trust you will decide rightly. I am afraid, RFC may not be useful to explain the real situtation. Becuse, there is a probability that the people which mistread, will be judgers again, for the same issue. But if you dont make something, viki of a country of 70 million people, wil never be developed.

Pages in Turkish viki are considered as a space of power struggle and of political propaganda, by the members who must be responsible for protecting our wiki ideals.

The issue is general, which is valid for all Turkish members with some authorization, to erase, to edit or to ban. So, you should revise their personal situations as a whole. The authorized active members in Turkish viki are few in number, and they aim to maintain this situation, so, to stay as an elite ruling Turkish viki.

The charged users of Turkish viki, who gained eligibility over other users and content, systematically apply cencorship, opression and harrassment over the regular users and contributed contents from regular users. They systemically impede corrections and editing approaches, especially for protecting articles which they constructed for propaganda purposes. However, obstraction and cencorship are general rules, to protect their power-positions, to protect their biased policy and to conceal their unfaithfulness against wiki criterias. Also, they systematically hinder the opening of new pages. So, there is a serious barrier, against newcomers for collecting points and gaining access for eligibilities.

The opression is unbearable especially in case of the pages about the ciritical-Islamist philosophers and writers. However, in general, this negative attribute is against all Turkish academicians and university members. Turkish viki seems declared a war against Turkish universities and scientists.

The abuse of authority and abuse of delegation rights, among Turkish users-in-charge or gate-keepers, are hard to be explained. However, international stewarts and wiki bureaucrats can assess the situtation very clearly, if they examine two recent examples which I give below. Okurogluselo (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, the case about Prof.Dr Celalettin Vatandas. Vatandas is a sociologist and the writer of twelve books about the early-history of Islam, the historical problems of Muslim communities, post-colonial studies, and problems caused by modernity processes in eastern nations.Also, he has books about multi-culturalism and late-modernity problems in all nations of the world. All of the books are still in circulation and publication reports say, these are good sellers in their own category. His massive study about the world-cognition of Turkish youth ( The youth in Turkey) gives way to national-wide argumentations in Turkey. His books are in Turkish, but he has also articles in English. Moreover, he is the first council in very credible official foundation of Republic in Turkey, Ataturk Highest Institution of Culture,Language and History, called AYK in abbreviation. He is the vice-president of Gumushane University and the dean of the faculty of Communication Sciences there.

I wrote an article about him including all points above,(the ones proper for viki), gave bibliography and sources in proper format, even I added links of internet news from credible sites about his populer studies. But the members of abusement, our viki "elites", erased the page, with the code of M6. They said, the professor is not worth of being in wikipedia. I tried to tell the truth in discussion page, also I sent messages to all the active users in charge. But instead of concerning the article in a proper way, they voted for it quickly in their narrow community, and erased it without reading or considering my last corrections. Everything was happened in period less than 36 hours. Not five days. Now, they erased even my polite objections to defense the value of the article. This is basically, the clearing of the proofs about their guilty-crime against wiki criterias.

Second case is the Şafak Yayla. Yayal was a member of DHKP-C, an absolutely terrorist organization, which is in terror list of US, UK, EU and Turkey. Yayla was an "armed" activist, and the murderer of the public prosecuter who was first hostaged by Yayla, with armed thread. Criminal reports said that the primer cause killed the prosecuter were the bullets from the pistol of Yayla and his partner in the action.

Can you think that such an activist, who was a member of a terrorist organization, was a terrorist? If not, who can be called as terrorist on earth? Do you say Baghdadi was not terrorist but president of his self-declared state? But our Turkish elite members doesnt allow to call Yayla as terrorist. In fact, I didnt attempt to call him terrorist, bu only objected to call him, as "proleteriat revolutuanist" and "activist". In case of it, I edited the article with saying that, DHKP-C is an internationally and officially recognized terrorist organization and Yayla was the member of it, still without calling him directly as terrorist. Within my statements, I gave a link to DHKP-C vikipedia article, which declares the organization's official terrorist situation -an old article, wrote before these self-evident elites-. However, they erased my corrections. And clearly I explained the reasons and benefits of my attempt, both in community dashboard of the case and in explanations of my writings.

Still the article, nor erased neither corrected. They struggled to keep it in the way they made. They erased all the points I collected from my contributions. And they attacked, with the accusation of not abiding the wiki rules. However, clearly I abide the rules, but they dont. The ones who are expected to protect, abuses and violating wiki criterias, to gain power, and to use this power.

Please make a judgement, and save us from these people.

Please help for a nation-wide issue. You may not , of course, but if you dont help, viki of a whole country will be opressed ever by scoundrels

PLEASE HELP US. Just examine the issue, I trust you will decide rightly. I am afraid, RFC may not be useful to explain the real situtation. Becuse, there is a probability that the people which mistread, will be judgers again, for the same issue. But if you dont make something, viki of a country of 70 million people, wil never be developed.

Pages in Turkish viki are considered as a space of power struggle and of political propaganda, by the members who must be responsible for protecting our wiki ideals.

The issue is general, which is valid for all Turkish members with some authorization, to erase, to edit or to ban. So, you should revise their personal situations as a whole. The authorized active members in Turkish viki are few in number, and they aim to maintain this situation, so, to stay as an elite ruling Turkish viki.

The charged users of Turkish viki, who gained eligibility over other users and content, systematically apply cencorship, opression and harrassment over the regular users and contributed contents from regular users. They systemically impede corrections and editing approaches, especially for protecting articles which they constructed for propaganda purposes. However, obstraction and cencorship are general rules, to protect their power-positions, to protect their biased policy and to conceal their unfaithfulness against wiki criterias. Also, they systematically hinder the opening of new pages. So, there is a serious barrier, against newcomers for collecting points and gaining access for eligibilities.

The opression is unbearable especially in case of the pages about the ciritical-Islamist philosophers and writers. However, in general, this negative attribute is against all Turkish academicians and university members. Turkish viki seems declared a war against Turkish universities and scientists.

The abuse of authority and abuse of delegation rights, among Turkish users-in-charge or gate-keepers, are hard to be explained. However, international stewarts and wiki bureaucrats can assess the situtation very clearly, if they examine two recent examples which I give below.

First, the case about Prof.Dr Celalettin Vatandas. Vatandas is a sociologist and the writer of twelve books about the early-history of Islam, the historical problems of Muslim communities, post-colonial studies, and problems caused by modernity processes in eastern nations.Also, he has books about multi-culturalism and late-modernity problems in all nations of the world. All of the books are still in circulation and publication reports say, these are good sellers in their own category. His massive study about the world-cognition of Turkish youth ( The youth in Turkey) gives way to national-wide argumentations in Turkey. His books are in Turkish, but he has also articles in English. Moreover, he is the first council in very credible official foundation of Republic in Turkey, Ataturk Highest Institution of Culture,Language and History, called AYK in abbreviation. He is the vice-president of Gumushane University and the dean of the faculty of Communication Sciences there.

I wrote an article about him including all points above,(the ones proper for viki), gave bibliography and sources in proper format, even I added links of internet news from credible sites about his populer studies. But the members of abusement, our viki "elites", erased the page, with the code of M6. They said, the professor is not worth of being in wikipedia. I tried to tell the truth in discussion page, also I sent messages to all the active users in charge. But instead of concerning the article in a proper way, they voted for it quickly in their narrow community, and erased it without reading or considering my last corrections. Everything was happened in period less than 36 hours. Not five days. Now, they erased even my polite objections to defense the value of the article. This is basically, the clearing of the proofs about their guilty-crime against wiki criterias.

Second case is the Şafak Yayla. Yayal was a member of DHKP-C, an absolutely terrorist organization, which is in terror list of US, UK, EU and Turkey. Yayla was an "armed" activist, and the murderer of the public prosecuter who was first hostaged by Yayla, with armed thread. Criminal reports said that the primer cause killed the prosecuter were the bullets from the pistol of Yayla and his partner in the action.

Can you think that such an activist, who was a member of a terrorist organization, was a terrorist? If not, who can be called as terrorist on earth? Do you say Baghdadi was not terrorist but president of his self-declared state? But our Turkish elite members doesnt allow to call Yayla as terrorist. In fact, I didnt attempt to call him terrorist, bu only objected to call him, as "proleteriat revolutuanist" and "activist". In case of it, I edited the article with saying that, DHKP-C is an internationally and officially recognized terrorist organization and Yayla was the member of it, still without calling him directly as terrorist. Within my statements, I gave a link to DHKP-C vikipedia article, which declares the organization's official terrorist situation -an old article, wrote before these self-evident elites-. However, they erased my corrections. And clearly I explained the reasons and benefits of my attempt, both in community dashboard of the case and in explanations of my writings.

Still the article, nor erased neither corrected. They struggled to keep it in the way they made. They erased all the points I collected from my contributions. And they attacked, with the accusation of not abiding the wiki rules. However, clearly I abide the rules, but they dont. The ones who are expected to protect, abuses and violating wiki criterias, to gain power, and to use this power.

Please make a judgement, and save us from these people. Okurogluselo (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help us, You may not of course, but if you dont help, whole viki of a country will be forever opressed, by scoundrels

PLEASE HELP US. Just examine the issue, I trust you will decide rightly. I am afraid, RFC may not be useful to explain the real situtation. Becuse, there is a probability that the people which mistread, will be judgers again, for the same issue. But if you dont make something, viki of a country of 70 million people, wil never be developed.

Pages in Turkish viki are considered as a space of power struggle and of political propaganda, by the members who must be responsible for protecting our wiki ideals.

The issue is general, which is valid for all Turkish members with some authorization, to erase, to edit or to ban. So, you should revise their personal situations as a whole. The authorized active members in Turkish viki are few in number, and they aim to maintain this situation, so, to stay as an elite ruling Turkish viki.

The charged users of Turkish viki, who gained eligibility over other users and content, systematically apply cencorship, opression and harrassment over the regular users and contributed contents from regular users. They systemically impede corrections and editing approaches, especially for protecting articles which they constructed for propaganda purposes. However, obstraction and cencorship are general rules, to protect their power-positions, to protect their biased policy and to conceal their unfaithfulness against wiki criterias. Also, they systematically hinder the opening of new pages. So, there is a serious barrier, against newcomers for collecting points and gaining access for eligibilities.

The opression is unbearable especially in case of the pages about the ciritical-Islamist philosophers and writers. However, in general, this negative attribute is against all Turkish academicians and university members. Turkish viki seems declared a war against Turkish universities and scientists.

The abuse of authority and abuse of delegation rights, among Turkish users-in-charge or gate-keepers, are hard to be explained. However, international stewarts and wiki bureaucrats can assess the situtation very clearly, if they examine two recent examples which I give below.

First, the case about Prof.Dr Celalettin Vatandas. Vatandas is a sociologist and the writer of twelve books about the early-history of Islam, the historical problems of Muslim communities, post-colonial studies, and problems caused by modernity processes in eastern nations.Also, he has books about multi-culturalism and late-modernity problems in all nations of the world. All of the books are still in circulation and publication reports say, these are good sellers in their own category. His massive study about the world-cognition of Turkish youth ( The youth in Turkey) gives way to national-wide argumentations in Turkey. His books are in Turkish, but he has also articles in English. Moreover, he is the first council in very credible official foundation of Republic in Turkey, Ataturk Highest Institution of Culture,Language and History, called AYK in abbreviation. He is the vice-president of Gumushane University and the dean of the faculty of Communication Sciences there.

I wrote an article about him including all points above,(the ones proper for viki), gave bibliography and sources in proper format, even I added links of internet news from credible sites about his populer studies. But the members of abusement, our viki "elites", erased the page, with the code of M6. They said, the professor is not worth of being in wikipedia. I tried to tell the truth in discussion page, also I sent messages to all the active users in charge. But instead of concerning the article in a proper way, they voted for it quickly in their narrow community, and erased it without reading or considering my last corrections. Everything was happened in period less than 36 hours. Not five days. Now, they erased even my polite objections to defense the value of the article. This is basically, the clearing of the proofs about their guilty-crime against wiki criterias.

Second case is the Şafak Yayla. Yayal was a member of DHKP-C, an absolutely terrorist organization, which is in terror list of US, UK, EU and Turkey. Yayla was an "armed" activist, and the murderer of the public prosecuter who was first hostaged by Yayla, with armed thread. Criminal reports said that the primer cause killed the prosecuter were the bullets from the pistol of Yayla and his partner in the action.

Can you think that such an activist, who was a member of a terrorist organization, was a terrorist? If not, who can be called as terrorist on earth? Do you say Baghdadi was not terrorist but president of his self-declared state? But our Turkish elite members doesnt allow to call Yayla as terrorist. In fact, I didnt attempt to call him terrorist, bu only objected to call him, as "proleteriat revolutuanist" and "activist". In case of it, I edited the article with saying that, DHKP-C is an internationally and officially recognized terrorist organization and Yayla was the member of it, still without calling him directly as terrorist. Within my statements, I gave a link to DHKP-C vikipedia article, which declares the organization's official terrorist situation -an old article, wrote before these self-evident elites-. However, they erased my corrections. And clearly I explained the reasons and benefits of my attempt, both in community dashboard of the case and in explanations of my writings.

Still the article, nor erased neither corrected. They struggled to keep it in the way they made. They erased all the points I collected from my contributions. And they attacked, with the accusation of not abiding the wiki rules. However, clearly I abide the rules, but they dont. The ones who are expected to protect, abuses and violating wiki criterias, to gain power, and to use this power.

Please make a judgement, and save us from these people. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Okurogluselo (talk)


As a steward I have little or no authority to make any decisions about Turkish Wikipedia more than a general user. So making comment on my talk page is not that productive.

Turkish Wikipedia is a self-determining community. Ideally all feedback about Turkish Wikipedia would be requested to take place on that wiki, though there will be some circumstances where it needs to take place on meta. If on Meta, it should either be in the form of an RFC or though Wikimedia Forum, both avenues for general subject matters. If you are looking for larger scale discussion, then an RFC is most definitely preferred, and a pointer from the Forum to an RFC would be encouraged.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocage

Bonjour, Je suis bloqué depuis quelques jours (et non depuis le 24 mars 2014, comme on me le dit) pour une raison que je ne comprends pas. Je ne passe par aucun proxy, je n'utilise pas Tor, je n'héberge personne, je suis un utilisateur lambda, qui se borne le plus souvent à corriger une coquille ou une faute d'orthographe, à préciser une information. Pouvez-vous me débloquer, svp? Merci. Mon adresse IP: 178.162.216.37 début du blocage: 24 mars 2014 fin du blocage: 22 octobre 2017. Cordialement, J. Dr. Désolé de passer par vous directement: je ne comprends strictement rien à la page officielle de déblocage.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.162.216.37 (talk)

This is an IP range that was hard blocked by another steward due to the spam that was coming from it. I lessened the severity of the block to it requiring user to be logged into wikimedia accounts to be able to edit. If you do not have a wikimedia account, then you can create one via Special:CreateAccount.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #160

Hi

special:contributions/46.242.34.83 IP, you can delete this user's translations. --Uğurkenttalk 10:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managed by Tegel  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look

Why did you change page of sultan ahmet? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haruneme (talk)

To which edit are you referring?  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am blocked at Urdu Wikipedia, please unblock me

Hello Billinghurst, Today I tried to add articles in Urdu wikipedia but they blocked me without explaining any reason. There is a user known as USMANKHAN who repeatedly reverted my edits and then another user Obaid Raza blocked me from editing articles. He also deleted my added articles without any discussion or any pre-warnings. Kindly help me get unblocked and to be able to add articles. Here you can see that he has blocked me without explaining anything. --Khangul (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr billinghurst it has been the second time that I am being blocked by the admins of urdu wikipedia without any explaination. I am trying to translate articles and publish the articles in Urdu wikipedia but they dont let me do that. Kindly help me with this issue.--Khangul (talk) 22:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khangul: I have left a message on your urWP user talk page asking for the blocking administrator to address this issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi billinghurst, thanks for asking the actual reason behind blocking. In fact user:Khangul does not know Urdu language, but he tried to write articles in urdu using pushto alphabets and wordings. some admins noticed this vandalism and asked the user to stop creating articles, but the subjected user did not notice this message. Eventually I blocked him explaining reasons in urdu language, and that's why user:usmankhan reverted his edits and user:Obaid Raza blocked him for 2 hours before me. Hope you understand our problems and issues, thanks. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 11:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khangul and محمد شعیب: I just want to see an end to the squabbling, and would like to see a plan to how to cooperatively edit. I know that having to talk to users takes time, and can sometimes can be painful and infuriating, but that is truly one of the responsibilities of an admin. I also see nothing on the user's talk page about stopping, and would hope that urWP community could look to ensure that you do communicate on user talk pages AND that they do not block user talk page access unless totally necessary. Blocks are the lazy and dismissive way to handle things, and should be used as a last resort, where people can be editing in good faith.

I looking forward to seeing who can be more mature in their approach.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Billinghurst and محمد شعیب: Mr. Muhammad Shuaib the information you have posted here about me is totally wrong. I can speak, read and write Urdu. Most of the Afghanis can speak and read and write Urdu langauge since they have lived many years in Pakistan as refugees. Vandalism is not defined as adding articles in wikis. It is a process of spreading misinformation or deleting content of articles. I to add to the information regarding Afghan writers, but every article I have added was deleted for unknown reason. They also blocked the access to my talk page or their talk page so that I could discuss and refer to the problem locally. I had to come here to meta and write here to billinghurst. Mr. Shuaib you claim that i didnt notice the message, kindly put a link of the message that you have posted to me before imposing a ban on me. If you dont show the proof then it means that its just a lie. Mr Usman khan reverted every message and its content because he is doing rivalry without any reason. He has already come up with false claims about me to billinghurst and other stewards and they removed mine and other admins rights from Pashto wiki. Even in Pashto wiki whenever I write something he show up for no reason and try to oppose any suggestion i give him.--Khangul (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I am still blocked in urWiki. Please unblock me--Khangul (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khangul: Local administrators act on urWP, it is not for me to individually override their actions. Your place for conversation is w:ur:User talk:Khangul. As I understand it, you were blocked for three days, and by my calculation that block will now have expired, and you should be able to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: I do not understand the two standards here among the Stewards. When it was Pashto Wikipedia local issue, you were actively involved. And I think it was you who made the decision to remove all the admins from their rights but when its again the same blocking case in some other wiki, you have written me that Local administrators act on urWP, it is not for me to individually override their actions. I dont understand this. Please elaborate. --Khangul (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

emoji filter

It looks like the emoji filter is pretty much 100% vandalism at this point. Do you think it would make sense to switch it to actually prevent the edits (instead of just warning and logging)? Kaldari (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't 100% vandalism, there has been appropriate use on some wikis, especially Wikidata. Communities have been doing a great job following up. Now if we could identify the addition of emojis from mobile apps, that might be a great fork to follow for blocking, though again WD would be an interest to monitor first.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for staying on top of it. BTW, it looks like the phone symbol ☎ (U+260E) is commonly used on English Wikivoyage (see the 'Do' template for example), so we may need to make that character an exception as well. Kaldari (talk) 23:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The light dawns, I see that the emoji declaration is a regex, I have made that exclusion emoji := "[🌀-🙏🚀-🛳☀-☄☇-♬♰-✒✙-➿☎]". Thanks to the pointers Kaldari.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:09, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AbuseFilter change

Hey Billinghurst, as an AbuseFilter power-user I was wondering if you have any thoughts or concerns about a patch I wrote to fix the long-standing AntiSpoof/AbuseFilter bug T29987. I know most of the AbuseFilter users are used to this bug and it will take some adjustment if the fix is merged. Do you think it would be super disruptive or do you think users would be able to adjust to it without too much difficulty? Kaldari (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would hardly call myself a power user, just a persistent copier with global access and tenacity to lessen the crap and the abuse of system. I will presume that you have seen my comment on the bug, and I think that if we are correcting errors and making things easier to write quality filters that we can all put up with fixing workarounds. Thanks for your efforts and the pointer.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #161

Userpage renaming

Hello Billinghurst, my name is Sarvaturi, my Global account is Sarvaturi, and my Home wiki is scn.wiktionary.org (Sicilian Wiktionary). I wrote a message here because a maintenance bot changed my Meta userpage from Sarvaturi to Sarvaturi~metawiki but I don't like this. Please I would like to have the userpage Sarvaturi~metawiki (with my corresponding contributions) renamed into Sarvaturi (or moved to my Sarvaturi userpage). Best regards and I hope you have a good day. --Sarvaturi (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarvaturi: Please place a merge request at SRUC and sign that with both of the involved accounts. When we have the tool available we will get the merge done.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you already have the request. :-) We will get to it.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:55, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I thank you for your answer. Yes I have done a renaming request (merge request) too in the page SRUC you have shown me. Good day. :) --Sarvaturi (talk) 07:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An apology from Willy on Wheels to WMF stewards

I would like to apologise to the stewards and wikipedia admins for my page-moves that was seen 2005-2008. I can tell you though, there were a lot of impostors, particularly some user called Sunholm, who is not me, but a wannabe (and a role account per their own confession on en.wiki)!).

Either way, I want to edit constructively on WMF projects. I've been doing so on non-WMF projects as it is; in any case, a mirror of Wikipedia with copies of articles like en:w:Mexican Canadian etc.

Willy on Wheels

--WoW1b (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

not up to me, as an individual, but to the community. You have no global ban so I don't see that you are necessarily restricted.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Meta would like to open a Request for comment on me, Willy on Wheels (who has been blocked numerous times, but not every on wheels account was mine), then please, feel free, open this to the wider community. It makes no sense for me to open an RfC on myself, does it?
I would do page moves here, but only requested moves, and certainly not moving pages "on wheels" again.
--WoW1b (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To expect anyone to lift a finger for you seems an interesting concept. I am sure others will see this conversation and work out if they want to do anything, I cannot say that it is where I am wishing to put my efforts at this time. Best of luck. You may consider whether you wish to email emWP's ArbCom and prostrate yourself before them with a humble apology.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for help

Hi,


I am requesting your view and guidance at at :mediawiki:Thread:Project:Support_desk/Whether_edit_filters_do_count_preview_actions.

What I am trying to find out In brief:
Edit action hits which are only flagged or tagged by a filter (but without warn or disallow) are usually (technically) are supposed to get saved. But prima facia we are coming across instances where in few such edits are not getting saved.
Why I am trying to find out :
If the 'edit filter extension' counts, 'user edit actions preceding of pressing save buttons (actions like preview action), then there remains a chance of Edit filters based on number of user edit actions or filters with rate limit may malfunction ocasionally.(nl wikipedia and mr wikipedia have reported some bugs as some edit filters may not be functioning as expected in this respect)
At en wikipedia:
I have listed few such likely instance at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#Study_of_hits_and_false_positives. I need your support in administrative preview of listed instances to confirm that if any blacklisting or any other action might have stopped those edit actions from getting saved. If not then those can be usefull for further technical/bug study

If I can get your support then I can dig further to list more such instances at en wikipedia, and bring doubtfull hits to technical discussion and report at respective bugs wherever necessary. Secondly, I would likely to know, If you are aware of any discussion has already taken place at en wikipedia about above mentioned aspects.

Thanks and Regards

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 03:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is known to me "off the top of my head" and would involve me having to research, for which I don't currently have the availability. You maybe able to get answers from Glaisher or Hoo man who are more aware of the code.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Badges

Extended content

Link GA has 73 entries, Link FA has 107 entries, Link FL has 9 entries. Many of them have been tagged for speedy deletion for more than a week. Me and Ladsgroup left messages to talk page offering to orphan the templates if asked. ptwiki wasnt to keep it for a long more. Two more wikis kept the templates for "historical reasons". I wonder what else to be done to reduce the numbers even more. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Small wikis we know that it is due to not watching, big wikis can be due to process or their choice. For big wikis you will probably be best to ping local WD users active at those wikis to prosecute the case.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete su:Citakan:Link GA the same way you delete Link FA in the same wiki so that we finish the task. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Make a further check in Link GA list for more templates that could be deleted or tagged for deletion if you have some spare time. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted the file, and numbers of wikis reverted the requests. Their choice.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete tk:Şablon:Link GA the same way you deleted Link FA in the same wiki. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete wo:Royuwaay:Link FA, wo:Royuwaay:Link GA and wo:Royuwaay:Lien BA the same way you deleted Lien AdQ in the same wiki. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 12:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sah:Халыып:Link GA can also be deleted the same way Link FA was deleted in this Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nds:Vörlaag:Link FA, sd:سانچو:Link_GA and wo:Royuwaay:Link BA can also be deleted the same way Link GA was deleted in those Wikipedias. Sorry, for giving them to you ike that. These should be the last of today's check. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

iu:Template:Link GA found another where the Link FA was deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the last one. I meant the other way around. Link GA was deleted, iu:Template:Link FA is the one to delete. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect that needs to be deleted too: oc:Modèl:Link FA. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can delete pap:Template:Link FA. The admin has not edited since December 2014. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

4 wikis restored the deleted templates because there were some more transclusions left out. Check [3]. I removed most of the links and asked Ladsgroup to do the fy.wiki part. Can you please investigate further and judge if can re-delete them? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ext::Prantilla:Link FA can be deleted link the same way ext:Prantilla:AD was deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:10, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete those 8 too. We have not seen them before because they were never connected with interwikis. [4]. And those 3 with Link GA [5]. I 've taken care of everything as it comes to links. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done 10, X mark.svg Not done fy:Berjocht:Link GA as in use.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. fy.wiki will be done by Dexbot soon. I'll come back to you when the bot is done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

jv:Cithakan:Link GA. The same way you deleted Link FL. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:19, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done, I have permission to use GS bits on jv.wp, so I can delete it, it's already deleted now.--AldNonymousBicara? 15:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
AldNonymous thank you very much. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fy:Berjocht:Link GA now can be deleted. It has 0 transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:27, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fur:Model:Leam VdC and fur:Model:Link FA can be deleted too. They have 0 transclusions. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:39, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mt:Mudell:Link FA can be deleted the same way Link GA was deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

fj:Template:Link FA, kw:Skantlyn:Link FA, kbd:Шаблон:Link FA, kbd:Шаблон:Link GA, ig:Àtụ:Link FA, bjn:Citakan:Link FA, hif:Template:Link GA, ee:Template:Link GA, pms:Stamp:Link FA orphaned and part of small wikis that are rarely edited. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cr:Template:Link FA, ceb:Plantilya:Link FA, dv:ފަންވަތް:Link FA, hif:Template:Link FA, jbo:Template:Link FA. mdf:Шаблон:Link GA, na:Template:Link FA, mn:Загвар:Link GA, bjn:Citakan:Link GA orphaned and part of small wikis that are rarely edited. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the exception of mn:Загвар:Link GA which has plenty of links, the remainder have been done

A little bit more: ee:Template:Link FA, cy:Nodyn:Erthygl dda. lad:Xablón:Link FA has no links and it is tagged for deletion for almost2 months. It can be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mn:Загвар:Link GA is now orphan and the deletion can be completed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

kg:Template:Link FA is orphan too and tagged for 2 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

gv:Clowan:Kiangley AM, gv:Clowan:Kiangley AR, gv:Clowan:Link FA (redirect), lmo:Mudel:Link FA, av:Шаблон:Link FA, lo:ແມ່ແບບ:Link FA, lo:ແມ່ແບບ:Link FA. All orphan and tagged for 2 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

mwl:Modelo:Lhink FA (obviously created by accident), mwl:Modelo:Link FA and the redirect you missed above gv:Clowan:Link FA. Less than 20 templates left altogether and in most cases their projects want to keep them. I expect no more than 5 to be deleted in the short future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

av:Шаблон:Link GA the same way Link FA was deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

da:Skabelon:Link LA the same way all other badges were deleted for this wikipedia. Wikidata confirmed it also stores Link LA. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

tagged for deletion by the local community  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link FA contains 7 entries in Wikibooks and 1 in Wikiquote. Link GA contains 1 entry in Wikiquote Can you do anything about them? -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:05, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

presuming that the functionality has been migrated to WD, then they can go through the standard deletion request cycle. My quick look shows small wikis that presumably have just copied the WPs.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I work with Ladsgroup to find all the unattached Wikipedias and those that delete the template without removing the tranclusions. There are quite a lot. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please check those we added today in Link FA and Link GA and see which of them could be deleted? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added where? Where did you want me to be checking?  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the item of Link Fa template in Wikidata Amir (talk) 13:09, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
presuming Template:Link FA and Template:Link GA  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, there is a bit to dig through. I can delete nominated templates, but not unnominated as some communities wish to retain, for whatever reasons. I have done a couple, but need them otherwise nominated to give communities their opportunities.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also delete redirects: an:Plantilla:Link FA, an:Plantilla:Destacau. -- Magioladitis (talk)

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


mwl:Modelo:Buono anterwiki can be deleted the same way Link FA was deleted in the same Wikipedia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time2wait.svg will let the community review for some days  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Magioladitis:Yes check.svg Done; plus I have assisted cyWP to clean out their linking, and have asked for them to put the template through their deletion process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

cy:Nodyn:Link FA and its redirects cy:Nodyn:Dolen ED, cy:Nodyn:Cyswllt erthygl ddethol are all orphan and tagged for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hr:Predložak:Link FA, hr:Predložak:Link GA, hr:Predložak:Link FL (last one is a redirect!) are orphan now and tagged for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nn:Mal:Link FA and its redirect nn:Mal:Link UA can also be deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

X mark.svg Not done the community has already deleted and restored it. It is within their control, though I have asked the community what is currently happening.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted again. It was restored due to the number of transclusions. Now problem is fixed. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Aldnonymous: is idWP still using {{Link FA}} series? WD still shows the template.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we no longer using it, you may nom it for deletion on Wikidata.--AldNonymousBicara? 02:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wikibooks:bg:Шаблон:Link FA was deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:09, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete the redirect nn:Mal:Link UA too. The target has already been deleted. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Magioladitis: Njardarlogar and Gautehuus have both been working on that file in April, let us see if one of them can help out for nnWP. I removed the template at plWB.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged wikibooks:pl:Szablon:Link FA for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We wait at least a week and review.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 9 days since it was tagged for speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
4 active admins, so I have pinged the most recently active.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I discovered nn:Mal:Link AA and no:Mal:Link AA. What should be done with these? -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nominated the first, and leave the second.

Note on actions I took in WP space on Ladino Wikipedia

Hi, @Billinghurst:

None of the administrators there seems active right now, so I thought I'd contact you and mention a couple of things that I did, so you can make sure I did them correctly. (I'm contacting you because you appeared active there recently on some administrative actions.)

  1. At lad:Vikipedya:Administradores, the page hadn't been edited in nearly two years. The current list of administrators I got from SpecialPages was down to 3 (4, actually, but two seem to belong to the same account). So I moved all others to the section of former Administrators. I also renamed one administrator on the page, because he has long used the new name, and the old name is now just a redirect.
  2. I archived two very ancient candidacies for Administrator from lad:Vikipedya:Kandidaturas a Administrador to lad:Vikipedya:Kandidaturas antiguas a administrador. Since there was no closure recorded, I said so on the archive page. StevenJ81 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@StevenJ81: Hmm activity of admins shows at https://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/stewardry/ladwiki?sysop=1&bureaucrat=1 and it does show quiescence, though not enough to trigger stewards taking action. There is no wrong action to take in that regard if nobody else has done it and it needs doing, so wouldn't fuss it particularly.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. (Wasn't happy to write the explanatory notes in English, but I don't speak Ladino [I read it a little] and had no other choice.) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #162

Wikidata weekly summary #163

Shortcuts (regarding edit summaries)

Hi Billinghurst (and perhaps others). I'm not sure what the special diff of the single edit displayed in full view is? Tropicalkitty (talk) 00:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried "Special:Diff/xxxxx"? (mw:Extension:Diff and mw:Help:Diff) Otherwise if you are just after the text change you would be looking for the long url with Special:Permanentlink and look to append it with diffonly=yes (see mw:Manual:Parameters to index.php)  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Steward attention needed

INeverCry 04:28, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the "Tatarnikòv Alexander" vandalism

hi dear administrator, I found the page cdo:Tatarnikòv Alexander is created in‎ cdo wiki again. can you delete it?--122.90.107.133 14:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done thanks for the note.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #164

ladwiki redux

Dear Billinghurst:

As I mentioned above, I am trying to contribute to the Ladino (Djudeo-Espanyol) Wikipedia. As you saw when I was here before, it's a pretty quiet wiki. Over the course of the last month or so, I have tried to reach two out of the three administrators there. I have had no responses whatsoever. I have also tried to get some attention in the local lad:Vikipedya:Kafe. Unfortunately, that page is broken up into several subpages, and none of them really seem active. So I don't really even know where to go to try to get consensus, whatever that may mean in a small wiki like that.

Accordingly, I wanted to get your feedback about doing a few things. A couple of them actually require administrator rights. Other changes I am thinking of can be accomplished without that, but normally I would want to gain consensus first.

Requiring administrator rights

There are several different ways to spell Ladino, and each at least has a template that appears on the home page. Simply put, I would like to add the date on the Hebrew calendar to the secular date on these templates. I consider that to be appropriate, in that (a) Ladino is a Jewish language, and (b) both Hebrew Wikipedia and Yiddish Wikipedia refer to the Hebrew calendar date and the secular date on their home pages. I copy-pasted two of the five templates at lad:Usador:StevenJ81/sandbox so you can see my intention.

  • I do intend to change the hyperlinks, because I just don't expect "day" articles, or even "month" articles, to be written very soon there (concerning either calendar). I thought I would simply link to "Gregorian calendar" and "Hebrew calendar" respectively.
  • The question of how I would spell the months in each place is addressed below.

These require administrator rights because as main-page templates, they are protected. If you went and unprotected (or semi-protected) them for a day, I could take care of this. I would inform you as soon as I finish.

Not requiring administrator rights, just consensus

Separately, I hoped to import a Gregorian-Hebrew calendar template I have been working on elsewhere. (See en:Template:Today/CE/AM and its interwiki links. I didn't create it myself, but I have ported it from enwiki to simplewiki, hewiki, yiwiki, lawiki and frwiki.) One problem was that as I found things a few days ago, the transliterations for the Hebrew months had not been localized for ladwiki. I boldly made a couple of obvious changes (at translatewiki), and the transliterations there now are reasonable. See my sandbox for where things are now.

The truth is that I am not sure myself where to find absolutely definitive spellings for these (or Gregorian months) according to all four Latin-alphabet spelling schemes; in any event, though, I doubt they would vary all that greatly. I got the idea, though, to look at the Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia to see how they handled a dual-alphabet situation. I saw there that they simply put them both together, side by side with a slash in between. So I'd like to do that at the Ladino Wikipedia. I'd be very surprised if it breaks anything, and it would provide both a Latin alphabet version (more common these days) and a Hebrew alphabet version (more definitive, actually). I know how to do that at translatewiki, but just wanted to make sure you didn't think that was rash.

Sidebar: I have to go back to Serbo-Croatian and change the Hebrew months to dual-alphabet, consistent with the secular months and days of the week. I can use what is there—Latin alphabet—and what is on the Serbian Wikipedia—Cyrillic alphabet—as definitive guides. I'm willing to be bold about that.

Two other things, possibly requiring phabricator tickets?

There are two other things I'd ask your advice on, but wonder if they actually need to go to the coders:

  1. If you set your language preference on any site to he or yi, then go to the place where you can choose a default time-and-date style, you are actually given a choice of the Hebrew calendar date as one of the options. If you set your language preference to lad, not only do you not get that, but you get none of the other, standard choices? Why?
  2. There are pages in ladwiki in the Latin alphabet, and pages in the Hebrew alphabet. But if you look at the pages in the Hebrew alphabet (like lad:אלזס), you'll see that most of them nevertheless left-align, rather than right-align. Is there a way for pages in the Hebrew alphabet to right-align automatically? (I could do subst:-able templates to do what someone did on lad:אסטרונומייה, but better if the server can do it automatically.)

In any event, thank you for hearing me out. I'd appreciate any feedback you have. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@StevenJ81: I know zero about the specifics about ladWP and the language lad, so I feel really uncomfortable having an opinion about specific matters. @MF-Warburg: who is more language astute and better in these areas.

If there are matters that require immediate admin changes, then the place to request those is Steward requests/Miscellaneous and the GS/Stewards will handle it there. For discussion of admin rights, if there is no specific page at ladWP, then utilise lad:Vikipedya:Kafe for any conversation, and in the end consensus in small wikis means that no one says "no" for a reasonable reason.

I will have a look at the remainder of the questions when I have time to pose reasoned answers.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #165

Edit filter

Request help or forward me to someone who could help in creating an edit filter that disallows repeated characters and other vandalism on edit summaries for Ilokano Wikipedia. Thanks. --Lam-ang (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

enWP is probably the biggest writer of filters and most likely already have something close to usable for you. I suggest that you look at w:en:Wikipedia:Edit filter and it's talk page.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at the edit filters at enWP (and other big Wikipedias) but the ones that disallows vandalism for edit summary are mostly private so I have no access. I did implement a filter for repeated characters but does not seem to work on summaries. --Lam-ang (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Lam-ang: On the big wikis, just ask. They are private filters to hide them from the spammers/abusers, I would expect that they will be freely shared. If you see some that you like by name, please let me know which and I will export them from whichever wiki to iloWP. Re edit summaries, it should work the same as "added_lines", etc., just use the parameter "summary".  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you export en:Special:AbuseFilter/51 and en:Special:AbuseFilter/52 to iloWP and I'll try to review/modify it for use @ iloWP. Thanks.--Lam-ang (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One sneaked in

Just to let you know that 46.246.43.188 managed to sneak in an edit, despite the block you carried out last month. Nothing major but thought you might want to know. Green Giant (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. We had a global block, and meta is excluded from global blocks. I have placed a local block now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syriadirect

Dear Bilinghurst, I've seen you responded to a request about removing syria direct.org from the blacklist. Or to be more precise. You said, syria direct will be allowed. Could you please help me, because I would like to use sources from this site in various Hungarian articles. Could you please answer in my Talk page in English Wikipedia? Ksanyi (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #166

User page on huwikibooks

Hi! I found your user page on the Hungarian Wikibooks, which contains only a soft redirect here (to user page). Shall I delete it, so that your Meta user page appears directly there? --Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tacsipacsi: If you wish, I have been disposing of them as I pass through wikis on anti-spam or steward tasks. Obviously you have no issues that bring me over. :-)

Link AA

nn:Mal:Link AA is subject to speedy deletion for more than a month. Should you delete it? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:09, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prod their local admins, there are plenty [6]  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

luri lrc main page and other page protect

Hello
I'm test admin of luri lrc wikipedia and I can't protect the main page and other page of this wiki please help me.lrc lori (talk) 09:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
so thanks
please protect these templates [7] and [8] sorry for this request thise page and templates are in first page and other edite them we need to protect them agaist the unsuitable edites. lrc lori (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

could you please protect these pages and templates that only test admin of luri lrc can edite them? please I'm so sorry.lrc lori (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
could you please protect this template[9] even luri useres as like as I can't edite that? and no one even luri wikipedia useres can't edite that template please some useres that they are'nt lur edite this template and they are from fa.wikipedia.org please help us please protect this template for always I and other luri wikipea useres ask you please.lrc lori (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mogoeilor: I cannot do anything for about half a day, if you need something done earlier, then probably better to place a request at Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Actually that is a better and more timely place for requests as either stewards or global sysops can assist you.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your information he keeps putting "Central Luri" on the main page, while the wiki meant for "Northern Luri" and he need to stop this behavior. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 08:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you take this up with the contributor, and/or within the community. I know not, the content.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did, I'm asking you to don't do actions beyond your scope. Mjbmr (discussioncontribs) 12:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't and you weren't.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #167

OVH

Hi Billinghurst. You removed the block on 2001:41D0::/40 per request of OVH and one of its consumers, but sort of reinstated it by blocking the /32 range. Could you look at it please whether this was your intention? And shouldn't we remove more OVH blocks? (I wouldn't be surprised if there were more.) Trijnsteltalk 22:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or am I wrong and does this 2001:41D0:70::/32 block only affects the 2001:41D0:70::/44 range and not the 2001:41D0::/40 range? Trijnsteltalk 22:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Trijnstel: I was simply softening a hard block that Vito had added and it would appear that the softening resets the base IP from the one that was originally assigned (this really screws up the clarity of the block history and makes them hard to find when the base IP is not specified.) Anyway, I have just removed it as there is a hotchpotch of blocks through that range and it is not worth wasting more time on the issue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... well, I just didn't get what had happened. Thanks for looking at it though. :-) Trijnsteltalk 15:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #168

About spam

hi Billinghurst i prepared the basilica cistern page in wikipedi simple english and i wrote my reference. please don't delete it and remove my blog from spam list. the website is newplacetravel.blogspot.com. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haruneme‎ (talk)

@Haruneme: I have a better idea, STOP ADDING YOUR BLOG. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, your links do not equate to authoritative information, and links to your site will be removed. If you continue to add your links, your site will be blacklisted. This has been explained, and this is the last time that I will convey this message.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]


i will add topics on Wikipedia about places why don't i add links? Okay i read the rules of adding links please don't delete them okay? — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 92.44.210.90 (talk)

You are not listening. The Wikipedias are encyclopaedias, not directories of links. Your blogs are not, and will not be, authoritative, and the links to them WILL be removed. Stop adding them.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

look the pages was prepared by me why do you change them? i am writing a things i share them on wikipedi and i add links. I understand you but don't touch pages that added by me?— The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haruneme‎ (talk)

I don't change the text that you add, I remove links that you add that point to your site that is unauthorative, unreferenced, and a conflict of interest. I will continue to remove the links to your site if you add them again.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

why do you remove the links? i prepared the page according to the blog. at that time i will delete the informations that i added to Wikipedi

I have explained why I remove the links. If you delete the information so be it, though that would make it clear that you are not here to build an encyclopaedia with no conflict of interest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for support

Hi,

We need your kind support in importing pages included in w:mr::category:Transferable to Marathi Wikisource catgory to marathi language wikisource. While I requested access at this phab bug but still we have not received support on this front. So we request your kind support. Thanks Rgds

Mahitgar (He who knows ,wants to know and and loves to keep others informed) (talk) 15:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article

Wikipedia article on St. Joseph's school, Darjeeling reads like an advert, usage of over the top grandiloquent language. Revise is necessary.— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.94.198.249 (talk) 06:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure which language wiki to which you are referring, though please feel free to edit it to make it suitable for that wiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #169

Major foulup regarding socks on ENWP

I know that this particular site is not well liked among some people on the projects and for good reason but every once in a while they do hit the nail on the head. This topic outlines precisely why we should be skeptical of decisions on Wikipedia from Checkusers who base their decisions not on evidence but solely on their "experience" and gut instincts when there is no actual proof. This topic is particularly striking given the recent discussion about EChastain who was also banned on ENWP and accused not once but twice of being a sock of a banned editor and then had that ban extended to commons. Aside from that, given that you spoke up on the EChastain issue, I thought you would be interested in seeing this incident on ENWP. It also helps to clarify why I am so untrusting of the admins and checkuser's non data based decisions. Reguyla (talk) 17:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Reguyla: We have systems and review, and people operating in public view. A mistake was made and being rectified, with acknowledgement … I think that what happens at enWP is sometimes less than perfect (users/admins/checkusers/arbcom), however, in the combative environment where people avoid blocks, and we have suspicions, accusations, and demands for actions, that sometimes these things will happen. I am more impressed that mistakes were admitted and rectified and hopefully lessons learnt.

I keep myself well outside of the politics of that place, and out of "MyShitDdoesntStink"ocracy, I have a preference to edit and achieve, not to piss around on the games that some wish to play, that isn't why I am here … I will give all people a fair chance, but I hope that they don't expect two or more fair chances. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, that's really not why I edit either I just see how lousy of a job some do as admins on ENWP and are allowed to manipulate the system and cause the editing environment to be so bad through their bullying and abusive behavior and I feel compelled to do something. Since I wasn't an admin when doing it, I was perceived as a threat and banned. If the processes for dealing with the admin abuse and bullying editors was better then I wouldn't have been banned and a whole lot more people would be editing that project still that have been run off. So I disagree with your sentiments somewhat that there are working processes there. Sure sometimes they get one right, but before they do, as can be seen by the case in point, a lot goes wrong first. I bring that case up because I feel that the EChastain failure was very similar in nature. It was never actually proven that EChastain was Matisse (it may be but there was no proof). It was a couple admins guessing and obviously their guesses aren't always right. I find it absurd that Commons would block an editor with 50, 000 edits based on an decision from ENWP that was done without any proof. I am even more appalled that so many admins and editors on commons simply lined up to agree without even bothering to look at any of the details or evidence of the case. And we wonder why people don't like editing the WMF projects? That is why! Reguyla (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Reguyla:, outside of emergency actions, I find it unusual that a person with 50k edits can be blocked by one admin without any due process, as that sits roughly with my principles around natural justice and a 'fair go'. So philosophically you will not find me in disagreement, without touching on the specifics of any case. To me the opinion of the community should always be predominant, and be sought, whether it aligns with my own point of view or not. Justice needs to be seen to be done to be accepted, and barring exceptional circumstances, it should be the demonstrated norm. In the end all advanced rights holders only represent the community, and only have rights to do something, it is an election to role of leadership, not an election of a leader. Anyway, my 20c viewpoint is possibly of little value, compared with how I try to implement my beliefs of a 'fair go'.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and it certainly appeared as though you were not in the ban them without evidence camp either. Unfortunately, the reason why many of the projects are in the state that they are, which is that a few very vocal and abusive admins rule over all, is because no one is willing to stand up to them and those that do are banned like I was to silence their dissent and win the disagreement. MY fear is that until the WMF starts to step in and reign in some of those problematic individuals with the same enthusiasm they have for usurping the community in other ways, the problems are only going to get worse. Anyway, no need to beat a deceased equine, the damage has already been done. Reguyla (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A steward was elected to the WMF board, so why not chat to him about positive solutions.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:07, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask who that was? I'm not really in the know on who is on the board. Reguyla (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read the edit summary, I just didn't want to ping.  — billinghurst sDrewth 15:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ok thanks, didnt see that. Reguyla (talk) 16:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SBL handler?

Not working for me today - am I the only one? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Herbythyme: Mediawiki update! I have updated the gadgets to all be ResourceLoader and SBL seems to be working.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - working again - appreciated :) --Herby talk thyme 12:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Dear Billinghurst, please look this. --Vadgt (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please again look the page. --Vadgt (talk) 13:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #170

One question

Dear Mardetanha, I have a question: can be such a thing, that in other project, for example Armenian Wikibooks, admin elects without voting, for "clean up" this project. --Vadgt (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Mardetanha: ^^^  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archive

Could you archive this page?. I dont know how to do it. Thanks in advance. --LadyInGrey (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

block

hmm, so the fact that the timeframe is same, and the new block is for unlogged only does not resolve this? I've assumed it would... Pundit (talk) 12:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Pundit: nope, they both apply, and yours is the softer, so will fail. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The wider block was rendering some bots inoperational though... Pundit (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pundit: I wasn't commenting on the purpose of the wider block, I was just saying that it was still in place, so still in effect, and therefore overriding and nullifying your smaller, lighter block.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood you. @Masti: - can can you comment on how are your bots behaving now? Pundit (talk) 16:15, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bots are working OK only forcing to relog again once. But no problems now @Pundit: masti <dyskusja> 14:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

global (meta) user page

Is it possible to opt-out of this global userpage nonsense? What would happen if, say, my Meta user page were deleted? ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At a local wiki if you do not have a local user page, then your meta page will be transcluded. So just <noinclude> your meta page, or portions of it, if you want to keep your meta page but not have it xwiki.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you are bored...

Run the link search on the top 40 wikis from my latest COI bot/poke will you (peakware.com)... I'd appreciate your opinion. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a citation template on en.wp that is legit. MER-C (talk) 04:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Dear Billinghurst, please look this. --Vadgt (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #171

Consulta

Necesito saber el autor del texto publicado en este enlace https://es.wikisource.org/wiki/P%C3%A1gina:Lopez_La_seniorita_Raquel.djvu/141 Podras ayudarme?

I have moved the question to s:es:Wikisource:Café#Consulta  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated scripts

Hi Billinghurst. I edited your global.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. The main change you'll notice is that writing scripts is much easier thanks to a context argument passed in by TemplateScript, which encapsulates a pile of common actions. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 02:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #172

Wikidata weekly summary #173

Interwiki map

Please fix this edit, in which you accidentally used "|=" instead of "|-". Thanks. - dcljr (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #174

Paul Easter blacklist

Thanks for adding this, but I've belatedly realised that .*Paul [A-Za-z\.\(\)\"\' ]{0,20} Easter.* is always looking for two full spaces, so wouldn't catch simple cases of "Paul Easter" with a single space! (Socks just created Paul T.T.Easters and T.T. Paul Easter (filmmaker/Producer) without a problem.) Maybe .*Paul\b[A-Za-z\.\(\)\"\' ]{0,20}\bEaster.*? --McGeddon (talk) 17:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes check.svg Done I will think upon it generally. This would all be better as an abuse filter, tied in with some Checkuser stuff. I will see if I can rouse someone who has more local time than me.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. There's apparently at least one edit filter already covering it, for what it's worth. --McGeddon (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata weekly summary #175

Ccby-sa 3.0

Gfdl Anthanhtuan (talk) 05:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign new Wikimedia confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information by 15 December

This is a message from the Wikimedia Foundation. Translations are available.

Wikimedia Foundation logo - vertical (2012-2016).svg

As you may know, the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees approved a new "Access to nonpublic information policy" on 25 April 2014 after a community consultation. The former policy has remained in place until the new policy could be implemented. That implementation work is now being done, and we are beginning the transition to the new policy.

An important part of that transition is helping volunteers like you sign the required confidentiality agreement. All Wikimedia volunteers with access to nonpublic information are required to sign this new agreement, and we have prepared some documentation to help you do so.

The Wikimedia Foundation is requiring that anyone with access to nonpublic information sign the new confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain their access. You are receiving this email because you have access to nonpublic information and are required to sign the confidentiality agreement under the new policy.

Signing the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information is conducted and tracked using Legalpad on Phabricator. The general confidentiality agreement is now ready, and the OTRS agreement will be ready after 22 September 2015. We have prepared a guide on Meta-Wiki to help you create your Phabricator account and sign the new agreement: Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information/How to sign

If you have any questions or experience any problems while signing the new agreement, please visit this talk page or email me (gvarnum(_AT_)wikimedia.org). Again, please sign this confidentiality agreement by 15 December 2015 (OTRS users have until 22 December 2015) to retain your access to nonpublic information. If you do not wish to retain this access, please let me know and we will forward your request to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you,
Gregory Varnum (User:GVarnum-WMF), Wikimedia Foundation

Posted by the MediaWiki message delivery 23:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC) • TranslateGet help

My block

My ip address is 178.62.64.106. I was blocked until twenty-twenty, but then I assume my block will continue. Who do think you are blocking me on all wikis everywhere? I demand that this be sorted out ASAP — The preceding unsigned comment was added by 178.62.64.106 (talk)

Please discuss this at Steward requests/Global, as mentioned by the above notice. Tropicalkitty (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Demand? Interesting choice of works. I think that you will find that I have softened the block, not added it. It is a problematic range for Wikimedia due to its nature. Please create an account Special:CreateAccount and you should be able to edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:55, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tag AWB edits

Hi. As AWB developers we would like to tag AWB edits. Do you know what we need to do to achieve this? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[