User talk:WJBscribe/Archive 1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Do not speedy "Translation requests/WMF/Home/De" and others

They should be moved to there but the links spread outside. We need to keep those links, please do not speedy them. Thanks. --Aphaia 17:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for being so comprehensive. I regret if you got a bad impression about meta. Be sure that your help is welcome here. guillom 19:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

My steward election

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%.--Jusjih 23:42, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

My successful request for adminship

Thank you for supporting my request for adminship with 28 supports unopposed.--Jusjih 01:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, you're a Meta-Wiki sysop!

Congratulations! I have promoted you to sysop status on Meta-Wiki as a result of your successful RfA. Please familiarize yourself with the adminship-related policies here and add yourself to Template:List of administrators. Best, Nishkid64 (talk) 18:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello WJBscribe, congratulations! I would like to ask You kindly to familiarize Yourself with the bugs around SUL before deleting global accounts at Steward requests/SUL requests‎ (could cause users to loose their accounts forever), helping users there is welcomed, please feel free to ask if You have any questions. Best regards, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 18:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yayy!! Congratulations, Will! Well done indeed. Now ... get to work!! :) - Alison 21:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to all those who participated. WjBscribe 10:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


Hello WJBscribe,

This is not an implausible redirect, because a search for "M:TG" or a link written as w:M:TG (or w:M: TG) erroneously points to this page. Since it might be useful, would you please restore it? Thanks, Korg 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that people on enwiki are going to look for an article on Magic: The Gathering by inputing M:TG into the search box. Anyone familiar enough with Wikipedia to think that might work would realise that M: is a shortcut to meta. I don't think this is a sensible redirect for meta, as it is a fairly crude hack for the way mediawiki deals with interwiki links. I worry about the precedent this sets - if someone on a project would like a redirect from a page that starts W: like W:TG, must enwiki create a cross-wiki redirect at TG to accomodate this? Or Wikinews provide N: crosswiki redirects if those are needed? If I have missed a discussion which determined that we should provide such redirects, I would be interested to read it. Otherwise, I find myself agreeing with Aphaia's previous deletion of the page. That said, if you still think the page is appropriate feel free to recreate the redirect - I won't speedy it again, though I may take it to RFD. WjBscribe 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
The majority of readers are not aware that M: is a shortcut for Meta, and this soft redirect was probably intended to them in the first place. If it is appropriate, a project could perfectly allow such a redirect (even though such cases would be pretty rare). As long as it is harmless and useful, I don't really see something wrong with it... Korg 11:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't the majority of readers will be typing abbreviations for the article they are looking for - they will type it's name. I really don't like the idea of such redirects but I you want to recreate it, go ahead. Personally I think it would be better to file a bug report to allow redirects to be created at the same name as interwiki shortcuts and that the software gives those precedence over the interwiki redirection. So if enwiki has a redirect entitled M:TG, that redirect takes effect rather than someone being send to meta. WjBscribe 12:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, it would be better if MediaWiki directly handles that, though this redirect would be a simple temporary workaround. I've filed a bug report: bugzilla:14448. I won't recreate it for now, but I wouldn't be surprised if it get recreated later. Thanks for your comments. Korg 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I will go and vote for it. WjBscribe 19:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to check how much taffic that page has had? WjBscribe 12:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There is the tool that gives a few hits per month for that page. Korg 19:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was aware of that tool, but it doesn't seem to cover meta. WjBscribe 19:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Then I don't know if a tool covering Meta exists yet, sorry. Korg 20:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Meta Page Hits toplist --- Best regards, Melancholie 21:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

MY SUL is deleted

You said you would handle the renaming...well my SUL is deleted and you can now rename on enWP.--   ChristianMan16  19:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* .. And thanks, Will, for sorting out the enwiki renames. You're the best :) - Alison 06:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Got to say it :)

You have no idea how refreshing it is to find someone who has become an admin here is actually doing some work - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally :) lots of people say they will help here and there and then run away (we must have ugly noses or something) Thanks, --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to third that. You presence here has been every bit as helpful as it is on en. Cheers, --Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You have deleted! my EN.WP account

I don't know what you did exactly on my main account on EN.WP (Verdy_P), but now it's simply impossible to access it. In addition you have attempted to use some admin tools to delete verdy_p2004 (I did not ask you that...) along with its basic user page, after trying to merge it into Verdy_P, but you failed and in fact it it the account Verdy_P that you deleted (but not its pages or history that are still there, but inacessible: I get an error connecting to it "no such account exist").

You have also incorrectly marked the account "verdy_p" to "speedy deletion" (that was not requested!!!) instead of renaming it to verdy_p2008. I can still access it but this account is the wrong one. Stop this speedy deletion request (I can't do that myself).

You have caused havoc on ALL my accounts on EN.WP. I can no longer access my histories or even reconnect (and also SUL is still not for me).

  • I want you to cancel the speedy deletion of "verdy_p" : instead rename it imediately to "verdy_p2008" as I demanded. In fact this should be the first thing to do to avoid further conflicts.
  • I don't know what you have tried to do with "verdy_p2004": please restore it as it was. You had not to delete it (even if in the past it was previously named "verdy_p", it had been correctly renamed before your action, you did not need to touch it).
  • Then I am asking you to reconnect "Verdy_P" (its pages and long history) to an accessible account (I don't know how you did that, probably not suing the traditional admin tools but performing some incorrect SQL directly in the database). It was previously validated even before SUL and after SUL disunification, like all other accounts (I had made this check yesterday before confirming to you the action to perform by email). If you don't know my password, and it was accidentaly deleted please generate one and send it to me by email so that I can register it again (anyway it xas the same as the one used on all accounts, except the old verdy_p2004)

I have taught to other meta admins but really they can't help me on EN.WP where you performed various unrelated things that were not asked. If you have problems reverting what you did, please ask for help to other meta admins with admin access to EN.WP...

If this was caused by a bug in the admin tools please report this bug and ask for help to developers.

I want an access back to the Verdy_P account that has the longest history in En.WP and that you made completely inacessible under any login name. All the demanded changes were documented in the user home page of each account. Verdy p 05:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to say I am tiring of your aggressive tone. I did exactly what you wanted - though I only renamed the accounts, I did not move any userpages. I assumed (it seems wrongly) that you would want to do that yourself. Your password for Verdy p on the English Wikipedia will be the password you used for Verdy P. I renamed the account Verdy p to Verdy p2008 and Verdy P to Verdy p. I did nothing to Verdy p2004. If you want help moving pages, do ask me but please try and do so in a more polite manner. WjBscribe 11:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Note that the speedy deletion tag was added not be me but by another editor [1] who was presumably trying to understand your previous edit to that page. WjBscribe 11:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


Just wanted to say thanks for your spirited defense regarding my adminship reconfirmation -- I can live it with it, but I appreciated reading your comments. Andre (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"unblocked #6804"?

Generally speaking (or specifically if possible), to what does "unblocked #6804" refer? Thank you. EmeseeTalk 00:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It was the autoblock of user, who was just unblocked. Majorly talk 00:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

When a use is blocked, it is possible to automatically block their IP address as well so they can't avoid the block by logging out or using a different account. Because IP data is generally private, the blocks are identified only by a number (e.g. #6804) so as not to reveal the IP of the block user. When a user is unblocked, it is necessary to separately lift this automatic block on their IP address for them (and any other users who may share the same IP address) to be able to edit. WJBscribe (talk) 16:03, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Admin confirm

Thanks for reminding me. Thunderhead 00:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: October admin confirmations

Thanks for the heads-up. Can't believe I hadn't been watching the page already. :^) – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 04:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


I think it was late because we decided to hold it every six months instead of 3... nevermind though! :P Majorly talk 20:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Well no one updated Meta:Admins, and none of the meta crats I spoke to on IRC thought there'd been a consensus to change the system. It might be worth having an express "let's just do this every 6 months" section for people to endorse? WJBscribe (talk) 20:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: Legal department

The main point I would like to stress here is that there isn't any constitution or policy of Wikimedia Foundation that mention about departments. It is also not mention anywhere that one would have to obtain an agreement or consultation from the foundation itself to form any departments.

It seems to me that you are a little prejudice towards me as a student. I might not have any legal background but I am willing to work on this. One doesn’t need any background to learn about anything. Age and experience shouldn’t be a measure to determine a person’s ability. In actually fact, there are quite a number of WP admins that are below the age of 18.

I do admit it is my mistake to declare myself as a coordinator. There is no mention of any formal proposal to reactive any groups in any of the foundation policy. Besides, at the current moment there is only one person authorised to deal with legal matter (it is wrong to use those). At times, Wikipedians are told to deal with legal issue themselves if they are in a hurry to resolve them. I admit that I am in no position to criticize anyone or give comments about their work.

If everyone is told by ORTS and IRC to refer to the same person to resolve all legal issues, I think he will get fed up with his work at times.

Correct me if I am wrong. I do hope to hear from you. Diagramma Della Verita 06:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I will post a message and write a proposal regarding this issue by this weekend. I do believe that that a community under a different entity with the foundation (but cooperate with the foundation) is necessary to resolve legal issues. Diagramma Della Verita 08:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


Good to see you around and well, even if it is only shortlived. :-) --Deskana 00:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Steward confirmation


I don't see how the political conflicts on the French Wikipedia relate to stewardship. Yann 21:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, this now rather an academic point as the election is over (sorry I didn't read your comment sooner). The fact that you view the incident as purely a political conflict bothers me. I see the position rather differently - you were assigned rights by the frwiki community on the basis that you would use them according to that project's rules and the body appointed by frwiki to rule on admin misconduct found that you had used those rights outside those rules. Frankly, politics should not have been a factor in how you used your admin rights and, if you mean that the removal of your tools was politically motivated, you should not have created a situation where those rights could validly be removed from you. There are plenty of stewards and so I think we could afford to be selective. It seems to me prudent for stewards not to include those who have previously had rights removed for misuse. I therefore opposed - and would continue to oppose in future - your retaining steward rights. WJBscribe (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello, WJBscribe. You have new messages at Talk:Interwiki_map#Google. -- IRP 01:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)