User:L293D/Archives/2018-9

Administrators' newsletter – September 2018

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2018).

Administrator changes

None

Asterion • Crisco 1492 • KF • Kudpung • Liz • Randykitty • Spartaz

Optimist on the run → Voice of Clam

Interface administrator changes

Amorymeltzer • Mr. Stradivarius • MusikAnimal • MSGJ • TheDJ • Xaosflux

Guideline and policy news

Following a "stop-gap" discussion, six users have temporarily been made interface administrators while discussion is ongoing for a more permanent process for assigning the permission. Interface administrators are now the only editors allowed to edit sitewide CSS and JavaScript pages, as well as CSS/JS pages in another user's userspace. Previously, all administrators had this ability. The right can be granted and revoked by bureaucrats.

Technical news

Because of a data centre test you will be able to read but not edit the wikis for up to an hour on 12 September and 10 October. This will start at 14:00 (UTC). You might lose edits if you try to save during this time. The time when you can't edit might be shorter than an hour.
Some abuse filter variables have changed. They are now easier to understand for non-experts. The old variables will still work but filter editors are encouraged to replace them with the new ones. You can find the list of changed variables on mediawiki.org. They have a note which says Deprecated. Use ... instead. An example is article_text which is now page_title.
Abuse filters can now use how old a page is. The variable is page_age.

Arbitration

The Arbitration Committee has resolved to perform a round of Checkuser and Oversight appointments. The usernames of all applicants will be shared with the Functionaries team, and they will be requested to assist in the vetting process. The deadline to submit an application is 23:59 UTC, 12 September, and the candidates that move forward will be published on-wiki for community comments on 18 September.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

"A language is a dialect wih a navy" -> A language is a dialect with a navy

Hi L293D,
I must admit I still find this somewhat - oh, look, I just pressed Publish changes by mistake while I hadn't yet finished typing "don't worry, anyone can make mistake" (sic)
I didn't do that to prove the point, honest. Where was I?
Oh yes: I must admit I still find this a somewhat implausible redirect, but it's a famous quotation and an eminently plausible "search term" for it. Pete "don't worry, anyone can make mistake" AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:34, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for fixing this typo for me. L293D (☎ • ✎) 22:24, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Your AWB edits

Are you paying attention to what you are editing when using AWB? These edits concern me: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. These are from just looking at your last 50 edits. Please familiarize yourself with WP:COSMETICBOT and slow down so that you can pay attention to what you are actually changing. Thanks. Nihlus 03:31, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right I wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing. I'll have to change a couple settings. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:41, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

bot treatment of French guillemets

I suggest that you modify your bot so that, at least, when converting guillemets («, ») into quote marks ("), it remove the space (ideally a hard space) that comes after an opening « and before a closing ».

However, I do believe that a quotation of a French text that uses guillemets should be transcribed faithfully and not be converted to what is for the text a foreign usage. If you disagree with me, I will not argue with you, but will let you continue undisturbed to do what I think is wrong. Bealtainemí (talk) 07:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks a lot for searching for the publication information of a newspaper article used in the Delaware Public Library article. While my search for the article’s publication information will continue, I’m grateful for the thoroughness of your search and your help in ruling out newspapers.com as a possible source. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Page moves

Thank you for closing the RM discussion at Talk:Bukovac, Novi Sad. Just a note that in situations that require a series of moves (like A -> B and then C -> A), it's usually best if all are performed at the same time. When Bukovac was moved to the new title and the leftover redirect was tagged for deletion, then – until an admin comes around to delete the redirect and perform the second move – there will be a disruption for readers who land on that page: the link to the moved article is difficult to access because of the enormous deletion tag, and the dab page is not accessible at all. And in the meantime, it's likely that the bots that patroll for double redirects might "fix" the incoming redirects, sometimes with undesirable results (as here). In these situations, it's probably a good idea to only close the discussion and then request both moves at WP:RM/T. Or alternatively – and that's probably better – you can request the page mover user right and then you'll be able to perform these moves yourself. – Uanfala (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You're right that I shouldn't have made the partial move. I'm puzzled, though, because my moving A to B worked, and then I couldn't move C to A. Normally, you can move pages over a redirect if the redirect has only one revision, which it did (unless of course if one of the pages is move-protected). When I moved A -> B, A was a one-revision redirect I had just created, so I don't understand why my C -> A move didn't work. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:51, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see – so you were probably already aware of everything I wrote above. To answer your questino, a move over a redirect will only work if the redirect has no more than one revision (as you said) and it is targeted to the page being moved. So, if A is a redirect to C, then you can move C over A, but you can't make that move if A redirects anywhere else. – Uanfala (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for this information. And I've requested the Page Mover right. L293D (☎ • ✎) 17:07, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft help request by Bobowikiedit on 05 Sep 2018

Hi L293D,

I received the message that you had declined my article due to it reading more like an advertisement. I've made some basic edits, but I'm confused of what else I should do. I tried to make the article as neutral as possible and sourced most references from outside sources like financial sites and news sites. I did use some links to company websites, but that was mainly just to reference current career info. i'm new to Wikipedia and just trying to get some articles started so really appreciate any help and guidance.

Bobowikiedit (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I see you have significantly improved your draft, but there is still some rewording needed. For example, "Coleman has nearly 25 years of enterprise software, virtualization, computer networking and information security expertise. He currently leads a team of developers in the Silicon Valley who are building the next generation of software-defined space systems" is promotional. It should be re-written more like this: "Coleman currently leads a project to develop software-defined space systems". Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks L293D (☎ • ✎), I've made the change you mentioned above as well as a couple of other edits based on your feedback. Is there anything else I need to change to get this approved? Really appreciate the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobowikiedit (talk • contribs) 19:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi L293D - just wanted to check if you'd had a chance to look at my edits to this page and if there is anything else I can do to get this submission approved. Thanks for your help! Bobowikiedit (talk) 16:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Looks good - I've asked for a third opinion about your draft, but I think it will be accepted. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Bobowikiedit (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello

I remember when I saw that you had edited an article for my school and since then I have been following your progress. Back in November this was a pretty empty acc and now this is full of info. Keep Going! TVMexeno TVMexeno (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Meow!!!

Qwerty number1 has given you a kitten! Kittens promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your kitten must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a kitten, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of kittens by adding {{subst:Kitten}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or kittynap their kitten with {{subst:Kittynap}}

Qwerty number1 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

It later became a cat and is now ignoring you and killing all natural birds within a four mile radius of your house. MPS1992 (talk) 21:20, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Need to speak to you

You rejected my article about the artist Martial Roumain because it did did not have independent references. However, at that time it already had two independent references from a newspaper and a web site. Since then I added two new independent references from the IBDB database and Playbill. Many Wikipedia entries have less references but are published (I may provide you with many links if you wish). Furthermore, all the pictures I submitted seem to have been taken away with no explanation whatsoever. They are not copyrighted material and I can prove that I can use them. Could you please take a new look at the article, restore the pictures, and approve it for publication if there are no other problem.

Respectfully: Ti Leyon Ti Leyon (talk) 01:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Permission to use talk notice

Hey L293D! Can I use an adaptation of your talk notice on my talk page?
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 04:03, 14 September 2018 (UTC); edited 13:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC).

Yes, of course! However, you'll see that it uses a lot of subpages for its operation, so you might have to create subpages of your own if you want to modify it. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

@SshibumXZ: You might want to create a subpage like User:L293D/article deletion and link to it on the pagedel editnotice. L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:33, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

L293D Thanks a ton! As I don't have the technical expertise in scripts that you possess, I simply almost verbatim copied your subpages to new user subpages for me, and that seems to have done the trick. Again, thanks for allowing me to use your talk notice, I am much obliged.
Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 13:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

Gulf RM

Don't close RMs as moved when the page wasn't moved (and you can't do so). Also, take the current RM tag off if you close them. Thanks —innotata 02:56, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It is common practice for non-page movers to close technical RMs and then post at WP:RM/TR for the request to be done. As for removing the RM tag, you're probably right. L293D (☎ • ✎) 14:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be more careful

Please don't do this again. I don't doubt your good faith, but you really should put more thought into fulfilling the requests of blocked editors. Neither the block log nor the notice you left on their userpage specified the recommended minimum unblock condition, so you really should have left it to the requested user -- the blocking admin -- to assess the request. Your own earlier opposition to the block casts this in a possibly negative light, and while I don't think it was a deliberate attempt to undo the editing restriction on your part, I suspect the majority of Wikipedians would not see it this way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you saying a blocked user is not allowed to have his user page blanked on request? Could you kindly link to a policy please? L293D (☎ • ✎) 13:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read my message again, carefully. You either did not understand, or are deliberately pretending to to have understood it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:11, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I just re-read it. Here's your main sentence: "Neither the block log nor the notice you left on their userpage specified the recommended minimum unblock condition". I'm really sorry, but I don't understand. Unless you're saying that a blocked user is not allowed to have his user page blanked on request, but you just said that wasn't it. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:18, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

The blocked user was actively wikilawyering about how he shouldn't be TBANned from food topics. There was a strong consensus they needed to be blocked for violating the ban they were already subject to, and he was arguing that he couldn't be blocked as it would look like he was blocked for the food stuff. There was a weaker consensus for a TBAN from food. He was then blocked, and the blocking admin set a recommended minimum unblock condition, but did not include this in the block log, probably assuming that it would be obvious from the block notice. The blocked user then pinged the admin and requested their page be blanked. The blocking admin probably would have considered the request in light of the nature of the block notice and the block log (the latter of which only admins can modify), but before that happened you jumped in and fulfilled the blocked user's unreasonable request to the letter, removing the recommended unblock condition from view. This is inappropriate, as you are not able to edit the user's block log to make the unblock condition visible anywhere else.

And, perhaps most importantly, you did not, apparently, stop and ask yourself why the editor was asking for their user talk page to be blanked, something they could have done themselves. Blocked editors are not allowed blank failed unblock requests, and, in the same spirit, it seems like a reasonable extrapolation that they are not allowed blank recommended unblock conditions set by the blocking admin. By jumping in and doing it for him, you helped him circumvent this, and even if you were an admin with the theoretical ability to compensate for this by modifying the block log, you would be WP:INVOLVED because you opposed the block to begin with, with a counter-policy argument that essentially amounted to saying that making some unspecified good edits is a justification for ignoring editing restrictions, an assertion that is pretty offensive to WP:HERE editors who have been subjected to editing restrictions and have diligently abode (abidden?) by them while making thousands of indisputably good edits.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello - Need help - Naming conventions and images usage policy - Politicoindian

Moved to User talk:SshibumXZ

L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Page move of Helminths to Parasitic worm

I see that you have moved the page Helminths to Parasitic worm yet the discussion and the banner on the page was about moving from Helminths to Helminth. Had the template suggested a move to Parasitic worm, there may have been more involvement and the outcome may not have been as you have decided. I think that we should stick to the topic discussion rather than deciding a different solution mid-discussion. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:03, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Velella: This is not the way it works. Participants in an RM are always free to propose alternative titles other than the one listed in the nomination, and if the closer feels that such an alternative title has gained consensus then they are free to close it as moved to that other title. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

There was absolutely no consensus for this move one support (twice) and two against.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:36, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I felt the proposers of the move to parasitic worm had good arguments, and some consensus, so I closed the RM as moved and moved the page. If you feel it was a terrible idea and a gross error, just undo my move and re-open the RM. L293D (☎ • ✎) 12:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

No, it is not for WP:INVOLVED users to reverse the RM or move the article back. If they're really unhappy with the close they should take it to WP:Move review. — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello L293D - I have just been to the the page move review page as suggested by Amakuru - and the page says to try to deal with the matter with the page move closer which is yourself. As you suggested your move could just be undone but this was 'outlawed' by Amakuru who was not the closer - could you in fact undo the move. I would like the page move proposal to go back to as it was - helminths to helminth and if somebody else wants to suggest a page move from helminth to parasitic worm then they could do this. As it is there was no discussion whatsoever on a page move to parasitic worm. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. L293D (☎ • ✎) 11:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks from NPP

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Thanks for your recent work reviewing redirects, dab pages, and articles. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Karn Sangini

Hi, all I did was add reliable sources and remove incorrect content. There were social media links added to the page as well. My edit was constructive so please check it once and revert it back. Thank you :)

Page move

Hello, just to point out that you moved a page Helminth - which was not the move proposed. The proposed move was to singular helminth. Instead the page has been moved unfairly to Parasitic worm. This needs to be relisted for discussion. As it is the page is in need of quite a bit of work if it has to accommodate this move.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

This was added before reading earlier similar note.--Iztwoz (talk) 12:11, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

my edit was contributing it is the best story ever

you undid my edit is was the best story ever you meanie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob1bob2bob3 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but writing that The Long Rain is the best story ever is not encyclopedic. Too Bad. L293D (☎ • ✎) 15:22, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Religion categories

Hi. I see you've already reverted the addition of Category:Irish Roman Catholics to Leo Varadkar, but please note it shouldn't have been added per WP:BLPCAT - religion should be both self-identified by the person and the person should be notable for their religion. It it not enough to just be a member of that religion (which, as you've noted, didn't apply in any case to Leo Varadkar). Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: Featured Picure proposal for IP user

Hi L293D, you suggested on IRC that this was a suitable way for me to get that painting nominated without having to get a WP account. Here is a permalink to a sandbox version of the filled out form. You might want to change the reason field, as you will be the nominator. Thanks for your help. 2.247.240.90 (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Done L293D (☎ • ✎) 03:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)