Steward requests/Miscellaneous
- If the wiki does have active administrators, file the request with one of them.
- If the wiki has an active editor community, any potentially controversial action (deletion of actual content, edit to a protected page, renaming of a protected page, etc.) should receive consensus from the wiki community before being requested here, and a link should be provided to that consensus in the request.
- For global lock/block requests, file a request at Steward requests/Global.
- For non-controversial deletion requests such as empty page, simple spam or vandalism, and non-controversial or emergency requests to block vandals, spammers or other malicious users, you may use global sysop requests instead.
- If a consensus is considered required to act, similar principles apply as expressed at Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements, and can be used for guidance to how and what should be done at small and medium communities to gain a consensus.
To add a new request, create a new section header at the bottom of the "Manual requests" section using the format below:
=== Very brief description of request here === {{Status|In progress}} Give details about your request here. --~~~~
It is helpful if you can provide a link to the wiki (or the specific page on the wiki) in question, either in the header or in the body of your request.
When reporting cross-wiki vandalism, the following template calls can be used to link to a user's contributions across all Wikimedia content wikis (these are for logged in users and non-logged-in users, respectively):
* {{sultool|Username}}
* {{luxotool|IP.address}}
Template {{LockHide}} can also be used in appropriate cases.
To request approval of OAuth consumers please use {{oauthapprequest}}
(see the documentation before using).
Old requests are archived by the date of their last comment.
Cross-wiki requests |
---|
Meta-Wiki requests |
Manual requests
Please see a list of pages nominated for speedy deletion via {{Delete}} and/or the local equivalent. You can also filter by wikis whose admins are less than X or have not delete since Y.
Copyrighted works on the Esperanto Wikisource
The works of Kazimierz Bein (Kabe) are not yet in public domain. The author died in 1959. The pages should be deleted now and undeleted in 10 years. There is no active community on this wiki and there are no admins.
Pages containing copyrighted material:
- wikisource:eo:Parolado de Kabe ĉe la unua Universala Kongreso
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm
- wikisource:eo:La sep kapridoj
- wikisource:eo:Reĝo rano aŭ fera Henriko
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj Fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Feliĉa Joĉjo
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Haĉjo kaj Grenjo
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj Fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Neĝulino
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/La ora birdo
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Fiŝkaptisto kaj lia edzino
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Tablo kovru vin, la orazeno kaj bastono el sako
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Fabelo pri iu, kiu migris por ekkoni timon
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Du fratoj
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj Fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Cindrulino
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Fidela Johano
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/La kuraĝa tajloreto
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/La maljunulino Holle
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/La bremenaj muzikistoj
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj Fabeloj de Fratoj Grimm/Tri oraj haroj de la diablo
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Fingreto
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Sesope oni trairas la tutan mondon
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Maljuna avo kaj nepo
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Kamarado Gaja
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Doktoro Ĉioscia
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Ursa felo
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Tri fratoj
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Steloj talaroj
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Neĝulino kaj Rozulino
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/La vivolongo
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/La senditoj de la morto
- wikisource:eo:Elektitaj fabeloj de la Fratoj Grimm/Paŝtistino de anseroj apud puto
- wikisource:eo:Legendo
- wikisource:eo:Ĉu ŝi amas aŭ ne amas?!
- wikisource:eo:Nia itala gvidisto
- wikisource:eo:Patroj kaj filoj/Ĉapitro 1
Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Robin van der Vliet: As these works have been there for years (2012), they should at least have the semblance of a deletion discussion with whatever community may be there, and for at least a month so allowing suitable opportunity for comment. Though it will be a forlorn hope, please ping the contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I informed the creator of most of those pages here, but I don't really see what we should discuss. The pages constitute a clear copyright violation. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- They have been there six years, waiting through a discussion is not problematic. The community should be given the right to have that discussion. It allows a local record to exist for others to see, it educates, it informs and allows a community to be a community. It allows a local permalink to be used on any deletion, and a clear authority for people to act to delete. What is so urgent or imperative that a discussion cannot be held. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also noting that some of the works have been added by Frglz (talk · contribs), so please ping them in the discussion. Thanks.. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I also pinged them in the discussion. For me personally it's not a problem to wait, I am just accustomed to how copyvios work on Commons. When I nominate something there, it gets deleted in an instant without any discussion, that's why I was surprised when you said "at least a month". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- I moved the discussion to this page, because there are a lot more copyrighted works stored on the Esperanto Wikisource than I first noticed. I linked all I could find in that new page. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks. Wikisources work differently to Commons, especially in sporadic editing. I am also unsure exactly the copyright rules they apply, it may not be Commons rules. Being pre-1923 works, if eoWS are working only to US copyright alone, they will not be copyright violations. This is why the community conversation should be taking place by those who know the local rules, rather than applying another wiki's rules. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- If they require the texts to be PD also in the first publication country, the texts should be moved do Multilingual Wikisource before deletion. Ankry (talk) 14:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I moved the discussion to this page, because there are a lot more copyrighted works stored on the Esperanto Wikisource than I first noticed. I linked all I could find in that new page. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 13:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
- I also pinged them in the discussion. For me personally it's not a problem to wait, I am just accustomed to how copyvios work on Commons. When I nominate something there, it gets deleted in an instant without any discussion, that's why I was surprised when you said "at least a month". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- Also noting that some of the works have been added by Frglz (talk · contribs), so please ping them in the discussion. Thanks.. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- They have been there six years, waiting through a discussion is not problematic. The community should be given the right to have that discussion. It allows a local record to exist for others to see, it educates, it informs and allows a community to be a community. It allows a local permalink to be used on any deletion, and a clear authority for people to act to delete. What is so urgent or imperative that a discussion cannot be held. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:10, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- I informed the creator of most of those pages here, but I don't really see what we should discuss. The pages constitute a clear copyright violation. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 15:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- What is the status of this request? I am ready to import files to oldwikisource, but I will not do that if their deletion is not due or if it is not to be performed soon (to avoid duplication). Ankry (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
@User:George Ho has done a lot of work looking at this, as you will see below. Because of the possibility that some content from here will be incorporated into a different Wikinews project, we are looking to finish cleaning up policy problems before making the content available, and before otherwise (effectively) deleting the wiki. By all means delete the pages that George describes that you think should be deleted. If you think some of the pages should be templated as "possible copyvios" instead, we will make a template available for that purpose. Thank you. StevenJ81 (talk) 13:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is difficult to check if they are copyvios or not. It is better to have sentence to sentence comparisons. Ruslik (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Post the comparisons on-wiki or off-wiki? George Ho (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- On wiki. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- How many sentences per article may I sample without risking copyright infringement? –George Ho (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sampling for this purpose is not a copyvio, especially since you are directly comparing to original source. But I'm thinking this ought to go on a subpage, because it's really going to clutter this page up. @Ruslik0, what do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenJ81 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, subpage is better. Ruslik (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sampling for this purpose is not a copyvio, especially since you are directly comparing to original source. But I'm thinking this ought to go on a subpage, because it's really going to clutter this page up. @Ruslik0, what do you think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StevenJ81 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- How many sentences per article may I sample without risking copyright infringement? –George Ho (talk) 20:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- On wiki. Ruslik (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Post the comparisons on-wiki or off-wiki? George Ho (talk) 18:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Sampling the first bundle... George Ho (talk) 06:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Currently, I'm getting busy with my college work, so I may have to compare other articles at very later time. Seriously, if the stewards won't be able to detect copyvio, why not delete the whole project itself and its content? George Ho (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinews
Now that bg.WN is closed/locked and that there are no admins as of date, before transferring remaining content to ru.Wikinews, I would like you to draw attention to the below list of articles that I think are likely copied from third-party sources, like BBC and CNN. The ones that I'm unsure about would be mentioned in separate subsection.
Copied from one of my subpages:
List of articles mentioned in Proposals for closing projects/Deletion of Bulgarian Wikinews:
Most likely
- n:bg:Google и Mozilla вземат мерки, за да предотвратят следенето на употребата на Интернет — copied/translated from "Google and Mozilla move to stop Kazakhstan 'snooping'" (BBC)
- — Originally addressed at n:bg:Уикиновини:Разговори#Copyright violation?, where comparison table is made (from history: oldid 23418 to oldid 24555
- n:bg:Учени откриха по-стари версии на картина на Леонардо да Винчи — from "Leonardo da Vinci's abandoned and hidden artwork reveals its secrets" (BBC)
- n:bg:Индия демонстрира космически апарат за втората си лунна мисия — from "Chandrayaan-2: India unveils spacecraft for second Moon mission" (BBC)
More likely
List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:
Definitely / Most likely
More likely
- n:bg:Протести във Великобритания срещу решението на Борис Джонсън да суспендира парламента — consisting mostly of (partial?) content from "Parliament suspension: Thousands protest across the UK" (BBC) and one paragraph citing CNN's article Boris Johnson's suspension of Parliament sparks Brexit protests
- n:bg:Станции в Русия за ядрено наблюдение мистериозно спират да работят след инцидента от 8 август 2019 г. — translated from (partial?) content of "Nuclear monitoring stations went mysteriously quiet after Russian missile facility explosion" (CNN)
- n:bg:Над милион пръстови отпечатъци и други лични данни са изложени на онлайн достъпност от софтуер за сигурност — portions copied/translated from "Biostar security software 'leaked a million fingerprints'" (BBC)
- n:bg:Учени твърдят, че скоростта и степента на глобалното затопляне са ненадминати за последните 2000 години — portions copied/translated and/or derived from mostly "Climate change: Current warming 'unparalleled' in 2,000 years" (BBC). The Nature article is cited just to identify scientists' nationalities, but it's not mostly used as much as the BBC one.
- n:bg:Facebook премахна 500 страници, разпространяващи фалшиви новини (17 януари 2019 г.) — First three paragraphs were copied and translated from portions of "Facebook tackles Russians making fake news stories" (BBC). The fourth (last) paragraph has tiny info derived from "w:en:Internet Research Agency" (Wikipedia), which the article cites as a source
Likely
- n:bg:Изследвания на спектъра на втория обект с междузвезден произход в Слънчевата система — probably derived from "First measurements of 'interstellar comet'" (BBC)
- n:bg:Британският парламент се опитва да поеме контрол над хода на Брексит — probably combining four below BBC articles (and citing no other sources, unfortunately):
- n:bg:Генетично модифицирана гъбичка убива 99% от комари, пренасящи малария — more likely derived from "GM fungus rapidly kills 99% of malaria mosquitoes, study suggests" (BBC)
- n:bg:Марсианската мисия InSight на НАСА завърши инсталирането на сеизмометричния сензор — portions of "Nasa's InSight mission: Mars sensor gets its protective 'hat'" (BBC) copied and translated; regardless of whether the whole article is copied or not, I'm certain that the original article was infringed.
- n:bg:Apple взема мерки срещу нарушаване на правата за работа с iPhone от големи компании — portions of "Apple punishes Google over app rules" (BBC) copied and translated; same as above with this one
- n:bg:Десети полет за ракетната система „Ню Шепърд“ (23 януари 2019 г.) — portions of "Jeff Bezos' New Shepard rocket system flies for 10th time" copied and translated; same rationale as above
- n:bg:CERN планира строеж на още по-голям ускорител (15 януари 2019 г.) — translates more likely portions of "Cern plans even larger hadron collider for physics search" (BBC). bg.WN version's fourth paragraph is tougher to verify and compare, but I see some sentences taken/derived from the original source.
Slightly likely
- n:bg:ЕС преговарящ - Висок риск от твърд Брексит — some, if not few or several, portions of "Brexit: High risk of UK crashing out - EU negotiator" (BBC) copied and translated. To one, using slim portions of the original source isn't highly an infringement. However, even using those portions from the same original source would still be more likely an infringement.
- n:bg:Пръстените на Сатурн са не по-стари от 100 милиона години (17 януари 2019 г.) — likely copied and translated from some portions of "Saturn's spectacular rings are 'very young'" (BBC), which is larger, longer, and more detailed than the bg.Wn version.
- n:bg:SpaceX изстреля десет спътника от системата Иридиум (11 януари 2019 г.) — the article is very small, but I think small or some portions of "SpaceX launch completes Iridium satellite refresh" (BBC) were copied, derived, and translated
--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
More articles seen in another revision:
Definitely / Most likely
- n:bg:В „Пролетен фестивал на науката“ ще бъдат представени „Технологии ВОДОРОД и ГОРИВНИ КЛЕТКИ“ — detector has 93.1% confidence that the article was copied from one of bas.bg articles, published on 8 April 2019, four days before the bg.wn article was created.
- n:bg:Полицаите протестират за достойно заплащане на нощния труд, подкрепят ги от БЛС и БАПЗГ — detector found the article to have copied most of БАПЗГ's (BAPZG's) open letter to СФСМВР (SFSMVR), seen at nursing-bg.com article, which is strangely undated.
- n:bg:И управляващи и опозиция номинираха за СЕМ особи с недоказан журналистически опит — detector found similarities with the bnr.bg article. Both were published on the same date, 20 June 2019. However, bng.bg was published on 16:53 local time (13:53 UTC); then the bg.wn version was created on 15:37 UTC, almost two hours later.
- n:bg:Антикорупционният фонд изпрати сигнали срещу Ахмед Доган — the detector found the article to have been copied from other sources, such as dariknews.bg, which was published at 15:43 local time (12:43 UTC), two hours before the bg.wn version was created.
More likely
- n:bg:Американски музикални награди 2012 — the detector's default tools could not at first find anything suspicious. However, I re-used the detector to compare the article with a btv.bg article, published on the same date as the other. Both matched. No exact time is made, but the article apparently promoted a Bulgarian TV broadcast of the en:American Music Awards of 2012. More * n:bg:Американски музикални награди 2012 — the detector's default tools could not at first find anything suspicious. However, I re-used the detector to compare the article with a btv.bg article, published on the same date as the other. Both matched. No exact time is made, but the article apparently promoted a Bulgarian TV broadcast of the en:American Music Awards of 2012. More likely a press release
- — This is the last remaining article created by Grigor's bot Ботчо. The rest of the bot's creations are just redirects to categories.
Likely
- n:bg:Замърсяването на околната среда е пагубно за хората (27 Aug 2019) — the detector seems to found similar with other sources. First half looks similar to portions of investor.bg (21 Aug 2019) and dnes.bg (21 Aug) articles. Second half looks similar to portions of another dnes.bg (1 Aug) and Graziaonline (26 Aug) articles. The detector has less confidence (technically) that the article copied from just one source, but even combining content from four sources doesn't make the copyvio less likely.
Slightly likely
- n:bg:Шествие на толерантността в Деня на спасението на българските евреи (detector) — one half possibly copied from marginalia.bg/vesti.bg; other half possibly from DW
- n:bg:Полоний 210 в цигарите — by translating Bulgarian → French via Google Translate, seems to resemble some portions of Le Figaro article. More evaluation may be needed if in doubt.
- n:bg:Руанда затвори границата си с ДР Конго поради риск от ебола — detector is 18% confident that the article may have been taken from bloombergtv.bg article (1 August). bg.wn version used "1 August" (in Bulgarian) as the date, but it was created on 26 August. The first two paragraphs and one sentence of the third paragraph are highlighted. I can spot percentages, even when they're not highlighted. Even when the detector is not that confident, I can think that the portions that are not proper nouns would make copyvio kinda likely.
--George Ho (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
More articles taken from another revision:
Most likely
- n:bg:Астероид със силата на 5-килотонна бомба падна в южната част на Пуерто Рико (dated 27 June 2019, but was created on 13 Aug 2019) — (detector) — most of content copied from or have similarities with vesti.bg (pub. 27 June), nova.bg (27 June), and/or dariknews.bg (27 June)
More likely
- n:bg:Китай изстреля в орбита първата си комерсиална ракета Smart Dragon-1 (dated 17 Aug, but was actually created two days ahead, i.e. 19 Aug) — (detector) — Most of the content was copied (and probably partially derived) from class.bg article (pub. 18 Aug). Some other parts of the bg.wn article were copied/translated from xinhuanet article (pub. 17 Aug)
- n:bg:Борис Джонсън ще оглави новото британско правителство — despite detector's insufficient confidence, I'm more confident that the bg.wn article was copied/translated from partial content of the BBC article. Both were created on the same date, 23 July 2019. However, earliest comments on the BBC article were made on 11:08 London time (12:08 UTC?), while the bg.wn version was created on 16:39 UTC, four hours later.
- n:bg:Майкрософт придоби Skype — by analysis, despite the detector's lack of confidence, the bg.wn, created on 11 May 2011, appears to have translated from Russian or near-similarities with the chaskor.ru article (past revision), published one day prior.
Likely
- n:bg:България загуби от Бразилия в пет гейма след изпуснат мачбол (created on 13 August, contradicting claimed date 11 August) — (detector) — the last two paragraphs of the article are copied from or have similarities with news.bg article (12 Aug), topsport.bg article (12 Aug), and/or novini 24/7 article (12 Aug). First paragraph derived/copied from another topsport.bg (11 August)
- n:bg:Делфинче на девет дена почина във варненския делфинариум по време на представление (created on 12 Aug, yet the article's date says 11 August) — the detector found content similarities with causes.com page and facebook post. However, the causes.com page is undated, and the date of the page's earliest response was 13 August. Also, the Facebook post was published on 13 Aug. It was close to being "false positive". However, strangely, the detector matched three paragraphs with partial content from lapa.bg page, which was published 74 months ago, i.e. circa July 2013. It also matched two other paragraphs from dnevnik.bg article, published in May 2018. Sources being old doesn't make themselves excluded from this case.
- n:bg:Франки Запата прекоси Ламанша с ховърборд, created on 5 Aug (story date was one day prior) — (detector) — portions of bg.wn article, especially first two paragraphs, seem to be taken from news.bg article (4 Aug). One of sentences partially matches one from moreto.net article (14 July), which sourced another news.bg article w/o specifying which article. Still, copyvio is likely.
- n:bg:Холдинг Варна ще строи на варненсия плаж в нарушение на закона (created: 5 Aug; claimed: 1 Aug) — (detector) — most of the bg.wn content was copied from dnevnik.bg article (1 August).
Slightly likely
- n:bg:Тръмп ще направи опит да купи Гренландия — (detector) most of content looks similar to portions of either mediapool.bg or dnes.bg. The articles were posted on the same day, 19 August 2019. However, bg.wn article was created on 16:47 UTC; the mediapool.bg one was published on 07:28 local time (04:28 UTC), twelve hours prior; dnes.bg one, on 07:40 local time (04:40 UTC). Also, the article summarizes Danish PM's response characterizing Trump's idea of buying Greenland as "шега" (joke). The article didn't say that Danish PM used "joke" or "шега" in quotes; I think the paraphrase was POV, wasn't it?
George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Almost forgot: the revisions from oldid 23418 to oldid 24555 should be deleted or suppressed from public view because, as noted earlier, there is the comparison table comparing one bg.wn with a BBC article. George Ho (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm, wouldn't it be sufficient to just delete/blank the table? I'd really prefer to have the history of the village pump readily available if the closing of this project is ever discussed again. I don't think anyone is going to sue WMF (well, at least not anyone reasonable enough) for content that is available only from the edit history and then clearly without an intent to infringe the copyright (in fact, exactly with the intent to stop infringing the copyright).
— Luchesar • T/C 07:00, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
Other bg.wn content (undetermined)
Other articles mentioned at #Possible copyvio content at bg.wikinews I'm certain are likely copyvios. The ones below I'm very unsure about, so I figure that further evaluation is needed. If any one of them is copyvio, it should be deleted. One of previous requests was rejected because, at the time, bg language wasn't understood. I wonder whether the lack of understanding the language would impact this request.
Copied from one of my user subpages:
List of Григор Гачев's (Grigor Gachev's) remaining created articles:
- n:bg:Разногласия по повод изкуствения интелект между Илон Мъск и Джак Ма — maybe copied or derived from "Elon Musk and Jack Ma disagree about AI's threat" (BBC); other copied quotes were taken from primary subjects of the conference, Elon Musk and Jack Ma, leaving me uncertain whether differences between those facts and expressions of those quotes are high or very minimal
- n:bg:В Слънчевата система е открит предполагаем втори обект с междузвезден произход — one BBC article and one CNN article are used as sources; I don't know whether the expressions of those sources were infringed.
- n:bg:Изгубена е връзката със спускаемия апарат на индийската лунна мисия Чандраяан-2 — sources: "Chandrayaan-2: Modi proud despite Moon landing setback" (BBC) and "India is trying to reconnect with lost lunar lander on the surface of the moon" (CNN); I also can't figure this one out either
- n:bg:Експлозия при изпитания на ракетен двигател край Северодвинск — synthesizing two CNN articles, one BBC article, and DW article. One paragraph cites 29.ru, but the article isn't specified yet. The synthesized article doesn't seem to infringe the third-party sources, but I'm not confident.
Other articles seen at list of bg.WN articles
--George Ho (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
More articles seen in another revision:
- n:bg:Нощ на музеите, 2019, в Трявна — detector finds one paragraph of the article to be taken from gotryavna.bg article, but I'm not confident that such a tiny match rises to the level of serious copyvio. I'm still uncertain; the portion may need some rewrite or something else.
- n:bg:Срутване на комин в ТЕЦ „Марица-изток 2“ вследствие на пожар — the detector found tiny parts of the article to be taken from two or more third-party sources, but whether to deem this as likely copyvio is very unclear. I'm unsure whether the level is serious enough for deletion or rewrite, but I could be wrong.
George Ho (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
More articles taken from another revision:
- n:bg:Рекордни пожари в Амазония — (detector) Most of one paragraph's content looks similar to some portions of either nova.bg article or the clubz.bg one. Some other areas of the bg.wn article look similar to portions of the news.bg article. Just one paragraph of the detailed bg.wn article wouldn't reach to the level of huge copyvio, but it needs rewrite. I couldn't determine whether the rest of the article infringes other sources.
- In my view this content is OK (no copyvio) --Ket (talk) 11:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
- n:bg:Иран задържа британски танкер (created 21 July) — the detector partially matched one paragraph and another sentence with partial content of the news.bg article (published 20 July). However, I'm not confident that just one paragraph would make the case big enough to be copyvio, but I could be wrong.
- n:bg:Почина Фидел Кастро (created 27 Nov 2016) — I can't tell whether the any of the first three paragraphs of the article were taken from the BBC article (pub. 26 Nov). However, the expression looks to brief to tell. The second paragraph erroneously claimed that Fidel Castro died at 19:00 unspecified time zone (02:00 EET / 00:00 UTC). However, according to BBC article, Fidel's brother Raul verified that Fidel's time of death was 22:29 local time (03:29 GMT/UTC). I don't know where the last paragraph originated. However, more importantly, would ru.wn accept the article containing such error about Fidel's time of death? Should it be transferred there?
- n:bg:Цунами по крайбрежието на Япония: огромни разрушения — (detector) — looks to be translated from article by VOA Russian (old revision). VOA content has been released into public domain right away. If that's okay, then I guess my copyvio concerns would be invalid. However, VOA's content has been questioned, and VOA is deemed by some as "propaganda". If the bg.wn article didn't translate from VOA Russian, then where else?
- I agree that there is text translated from Russian based on mistakes in the text like "нефтепрерабатващия" and "източното крайбережие на Японии" - it should be "нефтопреработвателния" and "източното крайбрежие на Япония" respectively --Ket (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Copied from this revision. --George Ho (talk) 00:21, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
George Ho (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
License compatibility of one bg.wn article
The article n:bg:Научен пробив: земни скали от най-древната епоха могат да се намерят на Луната! was copied from cosmos.1.bg article, which is licensed under CC-BY-SA 2.5, though somehow the link directs to the CC-BY 2.5 license. As of now, the link to the original source is down, but I hope it works again later as it did hours ago. Just in case, here's the archive link from Wayback Machine. The CC-BY-SA wouldn't be one-way compatible with CC-BY, especially per n:en:Wikinews:Copyright. If importing the CC-BY-SA into Wikinews is not legitimate, then the bg.wn copy should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 06:36, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
- First of all, IANAL. But bgwn is not unique in having content with different license than the default CC BY-SA 2.5. For instance there is such content on ruwn and having that in mind we had such content created on ukwn too (I am a part of the latter community thus "we"). In my opinion it should be fine as long as the license is explicitly mentioned. That is done by explicit "additional terms may apply" in the footer and a license template in the article. That being said, again, IANAL. --Base (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- @Base, George Ho, and Iliev: IANAL either. But if what you say is true, then all we need to do is to change the license template at the bottom of that page to reflect CC-BY-SA 2.5. (Original is back up here, and I can confirm it says CC-BY-SA 2.5, but that the link points to CC-BY 2.5 [BG].) Iliev, please confirm what I am copy-pasting from Creative Commons's website:
- Bulgarian-language text for template changes to „Криейтив Комънс - Признание-Споделяне на споделеното“, версия 2.5
- Link becomes: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/bg/
- StevenJ81 (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Base, George Ho, and Iliev: IANAL either. But if what you say is true, then all we need to do is to change the license template at the bottom of that page to reflect CC-BY-SA 2.5. (Original is back up here, and I can confirm it says CC-BY-SA 2.5, but that the link points to CC-BY 2.5 [BG].) Iliev, please confirm what I am copy-pasting from Creative Commons's website:
- StevenJ81, probably „Криейтив Комънс – Признание-Споделяне на споделеното 2.5 България“ to be more precise—but I'm concerned exactly about this confusion between the text and the link. There are two CC BY-SA 2.5 licenses relevant to Bulgaria: an unported and a localized one. The link in cosmos.1.bg is to the localized license (but, indeed, to CC BY 2.5 BG, not to BY-SA as expected), while the text of the link itself seems to refer to the unported “CC BY-SA 2.5” (otherwise it should've been “CC BY-SA 2.5 BG”). So, if we decide that the text has precedence over the link (it makes sense to me, though, yeah, IANAL as well), we should probably change the template this way:
- Bulgarian-language text for template changes to „Криейтив Комънс - Признание-Споделяне на споделеното 2.5 Неадаптиран
- Link becomes: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/deed.bg
- — Luchesar • T/C 14:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- So long as the source is CCBY or CCBYSA it should be acceptable on wiki projects, isn't it?13019891ahs (talk) 13:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- StevenJ81, probably „Криейтив Комънс – Признание-Споделяне на споделеното 2.5 България“ to be more precise—but I'm concerned exactly about this confusion between the text and the link. There are two CC BY-SA 2.5 licenses relevant to Bulgaria: an unported and a localized one. The link in cosmos.1.bg is to the localized license (but, indeed, to CC BY 2.5 BG, not to BY-SA as expected), while the text of the link itself seems to refer to the unported “CC BY-SA 2.5” (otherwise it should've been “CC BY-SA 2.5 BG”). So, if we decide that the text has precedence over the link (it makes sense to me, though, yeah, IANAL as well), we should probably change the template this way:
Other bg.wn articles not having copyvio issues
The article n:bg:Коментари:Почина архитектът Сезар Пели has just one line, lacking value in any way, especially quality-wise. I think it should be deleted. George Ho (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Same with n:bg:Раул Кастро (created Dec 2016), which looks like some stub Bulgarian encyclopedic article about Raul Castro. It doesn't tell news or explain something that is newsworthy.
n:bg:Празници appears to be a Bulgarian definition of wikt:en:holiday, so it should belong, i.e. be transferred, to Bulgarian Wiktionary. Doesn't look newsworthy, especially for ru.wn.
I don't know whether some article about an open letter to a local government (n:bg:Варненски НПО разпространиха отворено писмо до институциите) is up to journalistic standards, and I don't know whether ru.wn would accept it. George Ho (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Closing discussion on ro.wp
Since we have no bureaucrats, I would like to request the help of a steward who is willing to read through 2 discussions @ ro.wp and decide if consensus has been reached in either of them:
Please comment directly in the respective sections, so the community can see the conclusion.Thank you! --Strainu (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Not done, Strainu, closing local discussions is not what stewards are for, sorry. Stewards act upon local community consensus, not define what that consensus is. While you do not have local bureaucrats you can find an uninvolved administrator or even a trusted non-administrator from the local community to do the job. --Base (talk) 22:52, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, local closure is not going to happen. Such important decisions will be contested if done by a sysop. I understand that this is not what stewards are normally for, but I was hoping that one of you could act as a trusted, independent party that could play the role of a bureaucrat.--Strainu (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
- I see this as a request for an opinion from stewards on whether a consensus has been reached, and the community is asking a steward to put on that independent 'crat hat. Seems that an opinion from an outside, considered party can add value. If it is guiding to a community, rather than determinative, that sounds reasonable to me. @Strainu: Might be worthwhile having this request seconded by another admin or any existing 'crat at roWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- There is no bureaucrat active at ro.wp. I have asked for another sysop to support this request.--Strainu (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- What Strainu says is true, our community is small and any decision taken by any administrator would be contested, that's why our local Wiki bureaucrats had to resign in the first place. There are some people that will oppose any admin decision, so that's why we really need the help for these discussions. The first case is one of the few where broad consensus has been achieved, but any other admin is afraid to close them to avoid starting long time-consuming discussions (and the ostracization for the admin who close it) that would deviate from the matters proposed.Ionutzmovie (talk) 14:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- There is no bureaucrat active at ro.wp. I have asked for another sysop to support this request.--Strainu (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I see this as a request for an opinion from stewards on whether a consensus has been reached, and the community is asking a steward to put on that independent 'crat hat. Seems that an opinion from an outside, considered party can add value. If it is guiding to a community, rather than determinative, that sounds reasonable to me. @Strainu: Might be worthwhile having this request seconded by another admin or any existing 'crat at roWP. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, local closure is not going to happen. Such important decisions will be contested if done by a sysop. I understand that this is not what stewards are normally for, but I was hoping that one of you could act as a trusted, independent party that could play the role of a bureaucrat.--Strainu (talk) 23:01, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Hijacked domain and predatory spam
blackwell-synergy.com
gaylesbiantimes.com
I came across repeated additions of blackwell-synergy.com on a small wiki only to find out that this domain has more than 5000 occurrences x-wiki. It was at one point in time a reputable journal which I believe merged with en:Wiley (publisher), however the domain was sniped and it is now a host of predatory supplement spam/scams. I don't know a reasonable way to solve this problem aside from someone creating a bot task xwiki to replace the url with an archived version (if possible) or remove it entirely. I'm not sure what protocol is here because I've never seen a domain with this heavy use hijacked. Apologies if this isn't the appropriate place to ask this, I honestly am not even sure where to begin. --Praxidicae (talk) 16:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
- Cyberpower678, could you tell us if perhaps InternetArchiveBot can be of any help here? --Base (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Isn't there some sort of way you can use w:en:WP:AWB to do this? --Rschen7754 05:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've been unable to find a way to use AWB on more than one project simultaneously, but I suppose we could do runs on individual projects. Vermont (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- In the meanwhile, it's fine to blacklist this domain globally: the publisher never needs to be linked. On the English Wikipedia, if you use citation bot, the redundant URL is automatically removed; elsewhere, where the URL is not in a template or the bot is not available, using Citoid/VisualEditor with the DOI will usually produce the correct result. InternetArchiveBot is probably the most global of the relevant bots but may need some manual tweaking for the URLs outside templates perhaps. Nemo 06:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Started cleaning el.wiki. I'll prefer to do some by hand as in many cases I think it would be prefered to recreate the link (almost certainly in a cite template) using doi and a refgenerator as http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py but this doesn't mean I think a bot solution won't be a good solution for our wikis.—Ah3kal (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Another problem is that the xwiki link tool is limited to 40 projects (top projects) and many of the smaller wikis that won't appear there and COIBot link report maxes out. Beetstra is there a way we can get a full report for all projects? Praxidicae (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Praxidicae: Full report is not really going to help you, you just have to find all existing links. Running a query on it is going to take way to much time on the server and is going to be unreadable (you would get the addition diffs .. but you don't know if it is still there). --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 16:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I've gone ahead and created this for now so we can mark off what has been fixed. I'm hitting some of the smaller wikis just by searching alphabetically through the list of projects. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Did anybody raise a blacklist request? Putting a stop to more additions would be a good idea. QuiteUnusual (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Since I was pinged, the domain has been blacklisted in IABot and I ran it on the wikis it is approved to run on. They should either have an archive URL attached to it now, or they should be marked as dead.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Sadly that doesn't do much, for instance in [1] the archived version is itself broken. I know it's not IABot's main aim and strength, but the URL should just be removed outright from the "cite journal"-like templates where the DOI is already filled. Nemo 19:46, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Interestingly, some links to this domain were being marked as dead already in 2017. Maybe the squatting happened later. Nemo 20:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nemo bis It happened on 10/20. Also relevant. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks! Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- Nemo bis It happened on 10/20. Also relevant. Praxidicae (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- I cleaned up manually on the Italian Wikipedia. Nemo 20:52, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
- FYI, I am also manually fixing and noting at User:Praxidicae/DOI fix. Kind regards, — Tulsi Bhagat (contribs | talk) 06:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- We've now got a second hijacked domain, gaylesbiantimes.com Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Too many edits
en:talk:list of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming needs a steward to delete it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:31, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Unneeded files on guwiktionary
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:80px-Wiki-meta.png
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:80px-Wikibooks.png
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:80px-Wikiquote.png
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:80px-Wikisource.jpg
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:Arabic numerals.png
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:Commons.png
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:Guj-engdictionary.pdf
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:Indian numerals 100AD.gif
- wiktionary:gu:ચિત્ર:Wikipedia-Gujarati.png
Please delete. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- What is the reason? Ruslik (talk) 20:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- @CptViraj:I have delete "Indian numerals 100AD.gif". The other Files are not on commons and i see no reason or content to delete--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 23:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Old logos of Wikimedia projects, We don't need these files locally. -- CptViraj (📧) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that the images are not currently being used is not a sufficient reason to delete them.--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 08:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why? I'm sorry if I sound rude but I'm very disappointed. Only 2 editors (including me) are active there and we are doing cleanup on the wiki, deleting bad pages. But you guys don't want it. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @CptViraj:A special feature of Wikimedia projects is that nothing is deleted and also older versions, pictures etc. are visible. A deletion of these files would be against the basic principles of Wikimedia projects.--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 12:11, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Why? I'm sorry if I sound rude but I'm very disappointed. Only 2 editors (including me) are active there and we are doing cleanup on the wiki, deleting bad pages. But you guys don't want it. -- CptViraj (📧) 11:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- The fact that the images are not currently being used is not a sufficient reason to delete them.--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 08:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Old logos of Wikimedia projects, We don't need these files locally. -- CptViraj (📧) 00:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @CptViraj:I have delete "Indian numerals 100AD.gif". The other Files are not on commons and i see no reason or content to delete--𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 23:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Delete Gujarati wiktionary need complete overhaul and these files are of none of the use right now. Also, on Gujarati Wiki community we don't allow any files to be posted on wikiprojects. --Harshil169 (talk) 12:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harshil169: Give a discussion in the community for this? -𐐎ℹ𝕜ⅈ𝕭𝒂𝕪ⅇ𝕣 👤💬 12:53, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @WikiBayer: There are only two members active in last 30 days and they gave opinion here. If you want as formal process then we will start it there. Harshil169 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- then get consensus and make a new request. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- I think it make sense to delete these ones as we have better versions of these on commons. I tried to find this and this one on commons, but haven't found any, still make more sense to move them on commons instead keeping locally. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:08, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Also Upload file on that wiki redirects one to commons, so it's obvious they don't allow local uploads. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- Started a local discussion at wiktionary:gu:વિકિકોશ:સમુદાય મુખપૃષ્ઠ#meta:SRM#Unneeded files on guwiktionary, I request to place this request on hold. -- CptViraj (📧) 14:43, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- On hold until 28 November.--Turkmen talk 15:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
- then get consensus and make a new request. Praxidicae (talk) 13:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
- @WikiBayer: There are only two members active in last 30 days and they gave opinion here. If you want as formal process then we will start it there. Harshil169 (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Update whois script on iswiki
Requires javascript rights. There are no interface admins on iswiki.
Update IP-whois gadget by replacing the code at is:Melding:Gadget-IP-whois.js with sv:MediaWiki:Gadget-IP-whois.js and adding "mediawiki.util" to the dependancies of the gadget at is:Melding:Gadgets-definition (since mediawiki has not loaded mw.util by default since 1.27, per mw:Manual:$wgPreloadJavaScriptMwUtil). This gadget works at Special:Contributions pages. Since the messages have changed since the gadget was last updated, more than the IP itself gets copied from the message, making the whois link unusable without fixing it manually. As such, the gadget needs to be updated.. --Snaevar (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
wiktionary:gu:સભ્ય:Pankaj
Created by IP, please delete. -- CptViraj (📧) 16:23, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
OAuth permissions
Preferably permission requests should be submitted using the form from Special:OAuthConsumerRegistration.
After submitting this form, you will receive a token that your application will use to identify itself to MediaWiki. An OAuth administrator will need to approve your application before it can be authorized by other users. It is possible to request approval using {{oauthapprequest}}, please create a sub-section to this part. A few recommendations and remarks:
|
See also
- Global sysops
- Steward handbook
- Archives:
- 2013: 2013.
- 2014: 01-10, 11-12
- 2015: 01-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2016: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2017: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2018: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2019: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2020: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2021: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2022: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2023: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
- 2024: 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12
General requests for: help from a Meta sysop or bureaucrat · deletion (speedy deletions: local · multilingual) · URL blacklisting · new languages · interwiki map
Personal requests for: username changes · permissions (global) · bot status · adminship on Meta · CheckUser information (local) · local administrator help
Cooperation requests for: comments (local) (global) · translation