User talk:Amalthea/Archive 5

Better Luck Tomorrow

Hi Tariqabjotu,
could you revisit the Better Luck Tomorrow section at WP:RFPP. Talkbacking you since replies there tend to get missed. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 11:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw what you did there when I attempted to address the RPP request regarding the template, and I have to say it's a really tough call. Based on what I saw at the Better Luck Tomorrow article, there was no basis at all for the addition of the template, and the IP gave no reason for doing so. However, based on what he (very recently) said on the talk page, there appears to at least be some remotely understandable reason why that should be put in the article. Still, I just felt no pressing reason to upgrade the article to full protection. But, if you want I could change it. -- tariqabjotu 13:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it would have helped if the IP had mentioned that in one of the early edit summaries.
I'll just keep both pages watchlisted and see what happens. I'll expect that article to get one more reversion, but seeing that I already protected the wrong version of the template that's only fair. ;)
Cheers, Amalthea 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

S Banack AIV

Why did you remove User:S Banack from AIV? Your comment said "will talk to them". What do you plan to do? --Biker Biker (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a slow typist when I try to explain things to new users. Wait for it, please. :) From his comment I think he's a good-faithed user, not a spammer, and I'm hoping that if he gets a second opinion backing you up he won't add it again. Amalthea 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. --Biker Biker (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that you warned both editors. :) I noticed that the reports hadn't been handled by anyone for quite some time, and I didn't think the users were acting maliciously either, so I decided to just leave them comments and see how it goes. I'll try to keep an eye on the respective articles.
It's nice that you didn't jump to warnings right away, by the way, but left them handcrafted messages first. I would recommend to leave good-faithed users a welcome template as well, and escalate the warnings a bit more slowly. The level 3 and 4 templates are designed to be used once you no longer assume good faith/noobishness. Different story with clear-cut vandals of course.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Congrats

=) –xeno^talk 04:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, weird result. I kinda expected none of the candidates to meet the requirements due to the SecurePoll effect. Makes some sense that it was harder in the oversighters group to get enough focus on one candidate though.
No need for congratulations, though. Amalthea 09:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Condolences, then. Seems like a thankless job that will generate more abuse than praise. –xeno^talk 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm torn between congratz and the sheer lulz of the whole thing - a bit of an epic fail. Regardless, you do deserve some congratulations for everyone thinking you are, quite clearly, the best. ;) Ale_Jrb^talk 17:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done from me too, unfortunately, you don't even get a t-shirt for passing a CU election. Hope to see you around SPI as a CU soon. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Will take a bit before I get up to speed (in particular with all the holidays), but I'll do my best. Amalthea 19:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NCIS (TV series)

Is there a reason I can't see NCIS (TV series)? I can see Talk:NCIS (TV series) but not the main page. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what happened here. There was some page move vandalism earlier today that affected this page. I know I didn't manually G6 the page, only as part of the move reversion, which shouldn't have done anything since it was already reverted. It looks like a kind of revert conflict, but the timing doesn't really make sense.
Anyway, I've restored the page, thanks for the note! Cheers, Amalthea 12:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

In case you haven't seen it already: WP:ANI#Oversight required —DoRD (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't, thanks for the notice. Amalthea 13:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning

Thanks for clearing that situation, I didn't know anything of it. I thought it was strange that this union didn't have a flag. Again, thank you! Tibullus (talk) 19:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't a warning, just an explanation. :) Cheers, Amalthea 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

MOTD

MAY you be of service please? Simply south (talk) 22:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, cleverly DONE. Amalthea 00:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to the team

Hi Amalthea -

You may notice some changes on some of your page views. That is because your CheckUser permissions have now been activated. In the next few hours, you will receive invitations to the Checkuser-L and Functionaries-L mailing lists, as well. Please feel free to ask any questions you may have; I think you will find your fellow CheckUsers are most supportive. Congratulations on your strong showing in the election, and thank you for your willingness to take on this new responsibility. Risker (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Woot! Woot! annon IPs everywhere congratulate you! 76.212.9.111 (talk) 04:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Congrats from me too. —fetch·comms 20:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

SUCKER!!! Ur, I mean, uh congrats! ;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 22:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, Amalthea, I always knew you are popular with the cabal ;-) Regards SoWhy 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha, right, that must be it.
It's a non-accomplishment, but thank you for the sentiment, everyone – I appreciate it.
Cheers, Amalthea 19:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Useful scripts

Pathoschild's AJAX sysop script (imported from Meta) and User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js. Both should be highly useful for your new checkuser bit. Best, NW (Talk) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. I've already looked around what others are using, but hadn't checked yours yet. :) Thanks, Amalthea 20:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I like that Russian script already. :) Amalthea 21:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My user page

No worries on the accidental deletion. We all get turned around with the mop from time to time! :-) Hiberniantears (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle opening SPI cases

Hi Amalthea. When Twinkle opens SPI cases, it apparently adds suspected sockpuppet and suspected sockpuppeteer tags to the userpages of those under investigation. That really doesn't help the SPI team out that much, and is not a pleasant experience for those wrongly tagged as well. Is there any chance that you could disable that part of Twinkle? Thanks, NW (Talk) 16:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, done. Will take a but until every user gets the updated script. I believe tagging used to be mandatory at one point, which is why Twinkle was still doing it.
It will still place user talk page notifications. Should probably ask before doing that, too. Amalthea 21:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

The talk page messages are fine, though they aren't obligatory. Thanks for the fix! NW (Talk) 23:52, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Justin Bieber

Where are all the admins on this site so I can discuss this block? - FutureMrsBieber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.197.207 (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Which block? Amalthea 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably means the full-protection, see User talk:GlassCobra#ze bieber fever. –xeno^talk 01:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair that such a popular page is protected until the end of July - FutureMrsBieber —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.197.207 (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

You're already talking to xeno and GlassCobra, they are the ones to talk to in this case. You could find a wider forum at WP:RFPP, but after a look at the last unprotection experiment I don't think it can be unprotected during the next weeks. As xeno said on his page you can still propose changes. Amalthea 13:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Andy593

Thank you for clarifying things on my talk page :). Janfrie1988 (talk) 11:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure, you're welcome. Amalthea 13:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Not going so well ...

My block finger is getting itchy. If I see another unsourced change go in without any response, I'll hit with a short block to get his attention. It's a shame. I like people that use {{singlechart}}.—Kww(talk) 15:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I left him essentially the same warning you did 10 seconds later, with the same intent. Hmpf. Amalthea 15:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Had an errand to run. Concur fully with the reblock. BTW, I don't even bother to monitor UK chart positions on Sundays. Leads to brain aneurisms.—Kww(talk) 16:31, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll probably regret it, but he's unblocked again. New requirement is that he has to stop editing immediately when asked a question on his talk page until he has answered the question.—Kww(talk) 17:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

11 minutes. We're done here.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well, I'm not surprised, after the difficulties to get him to actually reply to any points made. Amalthea 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to say...

Thanks for speaking up and standing firm. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well. Hardly worth the fight, but this discussion bugs me. I don't like it if people so blatantly ignore or discard opposing opinions or try to push through a change of a long-standing status quo without a consensus, and there is no clear consensus here while the longstanding practice (over a year) seems very obvious to me.
I get their points, and agree with them to some degree. I agree that if five editors on an obscure Wikiproject decide something for all pages of their project, it doesn't mean squat if the larger community disagrees. I agree that color just for the sake of colorfulness should be avoided, in general. However, I don't agree that those points apply here.
Amalthea 09:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Timmy Polo

Hi, can you please review my new evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Timmy Polo? Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, will review it later. I generally keep pages I edit watchlisted, so I'll notice if you reply there. Amalthea 09:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Script change

Hi Amalthea - I had started using this script but it appears that on certain pages (like my own user / talk pages) that it causes the [user] and [page] tabs to disappear (at least I think I've narrowed it down that it is the script causing the issue). Have you heard of or noticed this before? Thanks, as always,  7  04:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, no. Which tab exactly, the one titled "user page" in this screenshot? Or all tabs? On what other pages does this happen? 100% reproducible? What browser, browser version, operating system, and operating system version? Any errors in your javascript console?
Amalthea 08:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The user and page tabs are two separate tabs (thought they were standard install - but it looks like it's a gadget on the prefs menu -- docs here). See an image here. It happens on firefox and chrome and is repeatable. Those tabs show on most pages, but not on my own user talk page or other user talk pages - but ONLY when I have easyblock.js installed. Weird.  7  11:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Those two tabs don't work for me on my own talk page either: I still see the tabs, but the drop down doesn't work anymore. But that's not what you're seeing, right? Have you checked your error console for any messages? See WP:TW/DOC#Trouble for how to do that. Amalthea 12:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I tried... In fact I spent the first 90 min in the office trying. No errors in the java console. Installed a java debugger and stepped into the code and everything seems fine. Right now those are the only two scripts I have running. It all works fine if I just have cactions installed - but once I add easyblock it breaks. In any case, I left the two authors a note as well. Otherwise I may have to make the tough choice of which one to live without. Thanks for trying.  7  00:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Medifast

Hi Amalthea, I have concerns about a Wikipedia article and don't know where to go with them. The article is on Medifast, which is a company selling diet products. It is written like an ad and makes many unsubstantiated claims. I fear that this article may help legitimize a diet program that could be dangerous to some people. You have been helpful to me in the past so I am writing to see what you would suggest. Thank you. Debbie (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree the article was overly promotional. Part of the problem as I see it was that this is an article about the company (fine for NYSE listed companies to have articles) but the article was overly detailed about the diet plan which is synonymous with the company name. In late 2008 the separate article on the diet plan was merged into the main Medifast article, but had been dramatically expanded and turned into a promo piece since that time. I tried to make the section about the diet plan less promotional, but came to the conclusion that the best solution is to leave the article primarily about the company with only a paragraph or two on their main product (the diet). I suspect that this may draw some criticism from those who have been building up the diet part of the article.  7  04:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that removal. Those three sections were added by one single-purpose account, presumably with a conflict of interest.
Does that alleviate your concerns, Debbie? Amalthea 11:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is much better. If I run across an objective assessment of the company's diet program, I will add it (that's actually what I was looking for when I found the Wikipedia article) Thank you! Debbie (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Blah substing hates me

Template:Xsign (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the similar subst'ing issue that you helped me with before, unfortunately it appears that I seem to have forgot (or never fully understood, to be precise) the fundamentals that made it work, or something.

{{xsign|1=14:30, 23 April 2010 Amalthea }}, result: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amalthea (talk • contribs) 14:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

{{subst:xsign|1=14:30, 23 April 2010 Amalthea }}, result: (nil)

Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You'll need to make all the string manipulation templates used in xsign safesubstable as well. Otherwise they aren't being evaluated during substitution, the switch gets some very weird input (some unevaluated parser function code from inside Str left), and defaults to nothingness. Amalthea 15:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought you might've already taken care of it since I saw you safesubsting the Str left, but I guess my assumption has made an ass of me (and umption, fwiw). –xeno^talk 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, when did I do that? I might well have made the same mistake? Amalthea 16:27, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

[1]. Still doesn't seem to be working... Maybe I missed one... –xeno^talk 16:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Yes. But {{Str len}}, {{Str len/core}}, {{Str right}}, {{Str sub long}} are still lacking it, I think. :) Amalthea 16:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear gods. I wonder if this is worth it, to save having to put a pipe in between a string =) –xeno^talk 16:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, maybe not, but sooner or later I think someone will want to have them substable anyway. But yeah, I'm not particularly eager to do it either. :)
If you do, remember to throw out all the comments or place them in <noinclude> blocks, otherwise they get substed into the page.
FWIW, I use User:Amalthea/History hidden UTC.js to add the pipe for me. Amalthea 16:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

ugh. Yeah, maybe I'll just do that. Should I rollback all those changes...? They made things awful complicated in the wikitext view... –xeno^talk 16:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

If they work then leave them in. I'm afraid Str len for one doesn't quite subst cleanly yet, though. Amalthea 16:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

HA ! That's it. There was one straggler. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeno (talk • contribs) 17:06, 8 June 2010

Heh. That's a pretty nifty approach to find that splitting point, by the way! Amalthea 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I have my moments ;> –xeno^talk 17:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Script to email from the revision deletion screen a request for oversight

See Wikipedia talk:Revision deletion#"Flag revision for oversight review". Do you have the time to write something like this (the script MZMcBride suggested towards the bottom)? I can post at WP:VPT if not, but figured this might be up your alley. –xeno^talk 16:48, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

If you can find someone else to do it I'm all for it.:D If not then feel free to ping me, should not be that hard to do. Annoying though, probably, to figure out what information needs to be sent, probably is different for log entries, live revisions, deleted revisions, and what not. Amalthea 17:30, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Harumph.... –xeno^talk 17:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

{{User:Mr.Z-man/lazy}}

This user is very lazy. Please feel free to do his work for him.

HighKing

Please see my comment at the HighKing SPI. If you want the confidental information, which amounts to significantly more than the contents of the email I sent to HighKing, then please email me. Mister Flash, currently on 86.31.240.65 (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Sent you a mail. Amalthea 22:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EunSoo

Hey dude, I could be wrong here, but I found the timing of User:Urgenine and User:DePiep's contributions suspisous. See this comment. NickCT (talk) 23:09, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Replied on the SPI page, let's keep it there. As you said there, the far more likely reason for Urgenie to go through those requested moves is that EunSoo started two of them. Amalthea 00:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

replied NickCT (talk) 00:08, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks

Hello. Thank you for welcoming to Wikipedia. I'll continue editing here, when I have time. 213.164.110.161 (talk) 12:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/EunSoo

Thought you might be interested to know that I've just reported another suspected sock. Dpmuk (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

And again! Dpmuk (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I generally keep pages I edit on my watchlist, as well as WP:SPI, so there's not really a need to notify me. :)
Commented there. Amalthea 18:50, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I generally do the same with pages I edit but I thought I'd let you know on your talk page in case that got your attention quicker. Not saying I expected you to act but just that as you were dealing with this sockmaster you may carry on wanting to. I won't bother in future. Dpmuk (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

As for the InkHeart comment, although I know nothing about that case, I have wondered whether EunSoo was the reincarnation of someone given some of what they had knowledge of nearly as soon as they started editing. Due to their lack of knowledge in other areas I initially put this down to them doing some background and/or previously editing as an IP. Now I'm not so sure. Dpmuk (talk) 23:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if there is a connection, not at all. Just that one of the socks was previously brought up in another case. Not that it matters that much, really, but maybe it helps for future behavioral comparisons. Amalthea 23:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I was aware that your comment was just speculation. You'll also right that it doesn't really matter. I was just letting you know my thoughts and wasn't expecting it to go any further. Dpmuk (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, alright. Cheers, Amalthea 23:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Inniverse

I'm not sure if these request falls within the checkusers honor code or not. If I could be assured that User:Inniverse wasn't socking around his current block, that would go a long way towards convincing me the match with Azviz was a coincidence.—Kww(talk) 18:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

We have an honor code? Nobody told me.
I can't give you such assurance. I'm an outsider to this case, but I had it watchlisted at the time since it took a bit to develop, and I've happened to pick up on the AN discussion as well.
A user comes to SPI with an alleged sock of unknown master, MuZeMike says "I know that MO, sounds like Azviz to me", and a CU puts him in the range of known Azviz IPs, then to me it's quacking loud enough. It's not conclusive, to be sure, but it would be a huge coincidence.
Aren't there further behavioral similarities in the AfDs Inniverse and Azviz were part of?
Amalthea 18:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It quacks pretty loudly to me as well, and the quality of AFD contributions parallels pretty well. The only discordant note is Inniverse's loud protestations. Most puppeteers just create a new sock, and don't whine so loudly for so long. There's exceptions, certainly, but that's the pattern. If this is truly an innocent trapped by coincidence, waiting out the unblock is what I'd expect. If it's truly Azviz, then I would expect that he's trying to get this sock reinstated because an account that has "beaten a checkuser" is harder to block in the future. If the latter case was true, I'd expect that he is also socking and laughing at us in parallel.—Kww(talk) 18:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank spam!

Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at User:TFOWR/Thankspam.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks not just for your support, but all the SPI help you've given me over the years. I'd like to volunteer for any newbie-type jobs, if SPI needs any newbies? (Or, more importantly, can you point me at easy-to-understand tasks!) TFOWR 21:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Secret support, I don't think I put my name down (or have I been sleep-editing again?). And as usual, turns out my concerns were unfounded.
SPI needs admins, absolutely! I have only been there for a week or so myself, but as it turns out, it needs additional admins more than it needs Checkusers!
Other than that, looking at WP:AIV from time to time doesn't hurt. WP:Admin backlog always has things that need attention. But basically, just carry on as before, you don't need to change your activities at all. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 21:39, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Blame it on this! Thanks, AIV is one area I'll be going shortly. WP:Admin backlog? Never knew it existed, kind of frightened about what I'll find there, but I guess that's also a "next destination"! TFOWR 21:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see you make one block, and already there's an AN thread about you, tsk tsk. ;)
Oh, by the way, go and plunder some admin scripts. User:SoWhy/monobook.js, User:Xeno/monobook.js, User:NuclearWarfare/monobook.js. You'll almost certainly want easyblock. Amalthea 23:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, remembered why I associated you with SPI - it's Nimbley6, I think - we both dealt with the little sock at some point. Apologies for that! monobook scripts - I'm on it! TFOWR 18:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

pending

Thanks for you comments and effort to improve the wiki. I have trust in your understanding of the issue and your willingness to develop it as required, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll try to keep an eye on it. I hope I can, my biggest worry is that admins will be to happy and add pages to PCP without any control or minding the review queue, which will make it difficult to judge the quality of the reviewed edits we get.
But please speak up if you notice it used on pages where it isn't warranted, or where it is more work than it's worth! Farther down the line, with 2000 pages under the protection (or maybe more), we'll all be only able to spot-check I assume.
Thanks for your comments! Amalthea 20:38, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries, I will review usage as I can. I am especially interested in BLP protection and through this I am interested in assisting this tools birth in any way I can. Off2riorob (talk) 20:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a new message

You know where to look for it, right? :) (to think that you asked me to reply here... what a douche am i? :)

Vito Genovese 12:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparent Jagged 85 sock-puppet

Many thanks for spotting the apparent sock-puppet edits by Jagged 85 (talk · contribs), as you noted on Athenean's page, and for blocking that IP.
In case this escalates, I just wanted to ask whether you had run checkuser on this? I'm assuming you have, though the range and style of edits is pretty conclusive in itself.
All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt the edits are made by the same person. But if it's being denied, I can look for details. I'll keep Athenean's page watchlisted for a while, so I should be able to follow where this is going, but just ping me otherwise. Thanks, Amalthea 20:47, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just had more of a look at it and there is no doubt at all, as you say. No-one's denying it so far as I know, but this behaviour makes me think that further action might well be needed against that editor at some point, so I just wanted to know exactly what steps had been taken, in case I needed to refer to this incident in future.

All the best and many thanks again. –Syncategoremata (talk) 22:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Nothing you don't already know of, I pretty much dropped this on you doorstep. Which is why I'm really not to be thanked, y'all will have do the hard part. :)
So thank you, in advance, and let me know if I can do something. Amalthea 23:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I have now finished my draft of a sockpuppet case which I will hold off lodging for a few more hours. Please feel free to provide feedback on my talk page.

David Wilson (talk · cont) 08:28, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are probably aware of it in any case but this is just a quick note to let you know that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jagged 85 is now live.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Right when I went offline for the weekend. :) I've commented there now, but it's largely moot now. As indicate there, it will need to be cleaned up by someone else, as I initially said on Athenean's talk page. Amalthea 08:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's all in the timing :) I fully agree with your comment that there is "see no evidence that Jagged 85 ever meant what he conceded in the RfC/U" but since I lost my temper rather badly with him (and on his talk page), I'm thinking calm thoughts elsewhere in the project for a few days. As for what happens now, work continues and will continue in various ways for some time (and there is some new discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#Cleaning up the problem for example).

Many thanks again for your efforts and I hope all the work involved in the new pending changes system isn't driving you nuts.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Left a short comment there.
And no, not driving me nuts, worst part for me was actually the days before the trial. It'll probably be crazy again once we try to evaluate the usefulness of the trial approach. Amalthea 11:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Batches

So, it's probably time I started doing something with this pending changes project, as if I have one admin area of expertise, it's page protection. Are these batches for today all waiting to go, or is there some time batch on them? I still need to get a feel for whether they should or shouldn't be PCed, but I can work on that. Any advice gratefully received (I'll watch here). GedUK  12:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The idea (at the moment, can change at any time if someone has a better idea) is to convert a batch of articles every 6 hours, so batch 4 should be switched at 18:00 UTC.
Nobody has a feel for which pages are good candidates, really. Obvious idea is to look for semi-protected articles where the non-autoconfirmed edits that are locked out supposedly have a high signal-to-noise ratio. That is, articles with lots of IP POV pushing / edit warring are probably not good candidates.
I say "probably" because nobody knows whether that POV pushing would still be as prevalent if an article is under PCP. Maybe if the IPs realize that their preferred version won't be publicly viewable they won't do it as much. On the other hand, it makes the job of Reviewers much harder.
So yeah, I don't know either. :) My current goal is to get the number of articles under PCP up, while being mindful of a backlog of unreviewed changes, so that this trial can deliver some meaningful insights. The articles I used so far were all indef semi protected pages. One thing I'd like to try is focus more on semi-protected BLPs.
Feel free to completely reorder the upcoming batches, if you want.
Amalthea 12:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just poking my nose in here: I think as a rule that any page protected due to socking is a bad candidate. Anything that helps a puppeteer use throwaway accounts that don't edit to autoconfirmed level (which helps a lot in establishing either an editing pattern or a clear indication of malicious intent) is a bad thing. It was bad enough that Brexx discovered "editsemiprotected", I don't need to have others accidentally approving his changes.—Kww(talk) 14:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Amalthea, that's helpful. And Kww, that's certainly something worth bearing in mind as well, and I think I'm inclined to agree with you, though I guess the only way to be sure is to try PCP on a few socking candidates and see what happens. GedUK  06:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elgiazar Farashyan‏

Even with the sockpuppets involved, there was still no consensus for a deletion since at least one non-blocked account supported the article. I would not object for a new AFD discussion if it is clearly not notable - though he won two international competitions (although the info is unsourced). JForget 16:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Your call, I'm just the messenger. Amalthea 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Upload Photos

Hello , I wanna know how I can upload photos to an article. Cause when I try it says "Error that only confirmed users may upload photos". And also what photos can I upload if they can not be Copyright pics. Thank You :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovyGabrielEd15 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia!
That is a quite complex topic, I'm afraid. Wikipedia only accepts "free" pictures, that is pictures that were released under a set of free licenses (like CC-by-SA) or that are in the public domain (see WP:License#Guidelines for images and other media files). That excludes the great majority of pictures you can find on the web. You can, as far as licensing goes, upload most pictures you take yourself, and release them under whatever free license you choose. There are some exceptions on the English Wikipedia like album cover images that may be uploaded and used on very specific articles (see WP:NFC).
It's probably easier to turn the question around: What image do you want to upload?
Cheers, Amalthea 17:59, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

well, I wanna upload a photo for the Selena Gomez Article . I found it on Google Images, but i dont think I can upload it right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GiovyGabrielEd15 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Most probably not, no. Can you give me the link? Amalthea 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability issues

Hi, Amalthea. In an attempt to clean things up, I've been redirecting a few One Tree Hill TV character articles that have not established independent notability in all the time they've been here. TRBP is attempting to counteract this, but has cited no policies for their actions. This person has also removed simple template messages requesting clean-up. I was wondering if you could intervene with regards to what should be done, or if you could speak to the user. This is a similar case to a previous matter you intervened in. Based on WP:INDISCRIMINATE and other policies, these character articles seem better suited to Wikia, or another fan wiki IMO. -- James26 (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

After a look at some of those articles I agree that this kind of articles are almost always merged into one character article list with brief descriptions.
I would suggest that if your redirects are undone you start a mass-AfD of all the One Tree Hill character articles that do not show real-world notability, similar to the Ethan Ward AfD you referred to.
I can leave the editor a brief message, but if I'm ignored then that would be the next step to show him the community's view, and to make your redirects backed up by explicit consensus.
Cheers, Amalthea 08:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for your help. -- James26 (talk) 09:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer script

Is there any chance the script you wrote to flag reviewers can be rewritten so it only leaves the template on the user talk page if it actually flips the bit? Thanks.--Courcelles is travelling (talk) 07:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. Xeno found it preferable this way, for some reason, but it could get a config switch. Amalthea 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Amalthea 09:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It was preferable for the first few days (as I used it to go back over those who I had granted the bit out of the blue to notify them). Now, probably not so much. Thanks for the note! –xeno^talk 14:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Now we can complete the database reports without worrying about leaving someone their second or third message. Courcelles (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you reviewing the individual users at all? Amalthea 20:26, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Random additions to pending

Hi. I see you appear to be now adding batches of semi protected articles to pending protection. [2] is this correct that you are simply adding random pools of semi protected articles and pending protecting them? I don't see much value to that unless pending is a replacement for semi protection. Moving an article to pending without either a request or a check of the article to see if it will benefit from pending could disrupt some articles for no benefit. Off2riorob (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. The batch from your link came from the pool of articles that were previously selected for the queue. But you're right that they were all pretty much chosen randomly from the list of semi-protected articles (and I think over 80% by me).
I think everyone who actually switches an article checks the protection log to see why the article is currently semi-protected, and leaves protection unchanged if it seems detrimental. However, since we have very little knowledge about which pages can benefit the most from PCP, and which pages will only get vandalism and noise, I for one have a hard time deciding that without trying it – that's one aspect of the trial, after all. Personally I've not flipped known sock targets and some obvious bad ideas like Suicide or The Game. I hope that people will re-request semi-protection on an article if it turns out that PC-protection doesn't work, like on Selena Gomez. After the trial all articles will be reset to semi-protection (at least that's the current plan, as far as I know).
If you have any criteria for article selection that you want to try, then feel very free to add them. You have my blessing to remove all those I added. I'm very open to try it on whichever articles you think are good, I only listed some so that the queues can be filled and we can continue to ramp it up to a decent amount of articles.
An idea I had was to try it on, say, the thousand most-edited BLPs that are on fewer than 30 watchlists. Needs consensus to do that, though (and someone to do the database report).
Was that your question? Amalthea 14:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

My question was just a what is going on request. Thanks for the explanation, I didn't know that we were just swapping semi protection for pending, is there a link to where that discussion was supported? I realize this is a trial and there is a need to get a feel for it. I am like you I only know about articles on my watchlist (which I need to trim as it is getting massive). One of the football articles was put on pending after I had it semi protected until after the world cup, it was nice and stable on semi protection and I liked it that way, users are also accepting edits that are not vandalism but that are detrimental to the content which I don't like. Presently as the trial is going so far I am a bit disappointed but there is still time. Off2riorob (talk) 14:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you there: I too think that only constructive edits should be accepted. If a reviewer doesn't know enough to decide whether an edit is beneficial or not, he should just leave it unreviewed. As it turns out no all agree on this very basic issue, though, some people say that everything but blatant vandalism should be accepted, and that the goal is to get closer to "the free encyclopedia anyone can edit".
But yeah, thus far I'm not convinced of the feature either. It may well be that we're using it on exactly the wrong articles: Those semi-protected articles were protected for a reason. My current train of thought leads me to one of two extremes: Do it like the Germans do with Level 2 PCP throughout for the best quality control, or scrap it and only use Patrolled Revisions for anti-vandalism work. Trade-off between free editing and quality.
I wasn't very involved with the whole thing until a few weeks ago, so I *think* I picked up on using semi-protected articles at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pending changes trial, but I'm actually not at all sure. You should probably ask Cenarium. Nobody has complained so far so I don't think I just invented it. :)
Amalthea 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Pending changes only works if there are beneficial additions from unconfirmed accounts. Off2riorob (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but even Selena Gomez had one or two constructive IP edits. Amalthea 14:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Chiming in, I think it fixes the wrong problem. If I could build an edit filter that basically said "Article is about Lindsay Lohan, Lady Gaga, or Robin Thicke and the edit is coming from the UAE", I could unprotect about 300 articles. Our insistence on not letting the edit filter operate on the underlying IP address and not supporting per-article protection rules is what gets us into this mess. We tend to know where the problematic editors are for most articles, but then refuse to use the information because of privacy concerns that are, in my view, overstated.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

200.63.165.19

Hi, I saw you placed a 1-year block on this IP. I don’t see the editor has edited any pages for the last four days. Just curious if the IP is a sock or what prompted the block? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an open proxy, and yes, it was used to evade a block. Amalthea 15:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblock review

Thanks for the review. I understand your point that I should not have made that block, and I would not have made it had the 4th revert been against me. Since he was edit warring against 3 independent editors at that point, I didn't see the need to bring another admin in just to say "yup, bright-line violation, standard block imposed".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I can relate to that of course. As I see it the more problematic part is that you have certified the RfCU and that you've played an apparently important part in the discussion about that authorship dispute. It's not easy to draw the line between uninvolved and involved so that every side agrees, but I've seen so many COI accusations after a block, it's almost always easier to drop a quick note at ANI simply to avoid the discussion.
Cheers, Amalthea 17:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Unblocking and re-blocking for the remaining duration would probably be a good thing at this point, yes.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Saw that too late. Since he agrees to find consensus and thus not edit the fact anymore the reason for the block is gone, so I've unblocked him. I keep my fingers crossed, as I said on his page he really needs to work on his editing, the next block for whichever reason is almost certainly going to be indef, enough being enough. Amalthea 18:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem. It was a reasonable condition that he agreed to, so the unblock was reasonable. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Amalthea, for keeping your word. Honest admins are a priceless commodity around here. Adding you to the list, I still don't have to use my other hand to count the ones I've found.Mk5384 (talk) 18:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

SPA user and the "Zeitgeist" article

Hi Amalthea, a single-purpose account Falcon2112 has extensively revised the article on Zeitgeist: the Movie. I tried to revert individual edits that were especially overreaching, and asked that the user go to the talk page, but he/she immediately reverted my reverts. I don't know what you would normally do in this case, but I restored the original version for now (until Falcon2112 reverts that edit). Thanks a million! -Jordgette (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I've left the editor a short notice and encouraged discussing the changes. If there is explicit consensus against some of the edits you should point that out on the talk page and give him a chance to respond (if possible without the sarcasm, that doesn't help). I've only glanced at his changes but they don't seem to be completely unreasonable by themselves. In particular, the external links that were previously in the article seem a bit excessive to me, too, I'm not sure they are needed and policy-compliant.
There are though enough experienced editors watching that page that I don't need to get involved there, I think?
Amalthea 13:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Moved your comment at Talk:Falcon2112...

...to User talk:Falcon2112. I assume that is was you intended. :) Syrthiss (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that's new. :)
See the section above, where the supposed link to the user goes into article space instead, which I blindly followed.
Thanks, Amalthea 13:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thx

Hi Amalthea, thanks for this. Let's hope it helps. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 18:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm hopeful, he wasn't really vandalizing, seems he's just not familiar with how he should approach such differences of opinion.
To be sure, he should have stopped editing and engaged in discussion when he got all those warnings anyway. Amalthea 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder whether anonymous newbees actually see the messages on their talk pages. I never tried this, but does an anon somehow get a notification when they go into edit mode and when they have unread messages on their talk page? Or do they have to (1) happen to go to the history of the page, then (2) happen to notice that there is a blue talk page link attached to their IP, and finally (3) happen to click on that link? If this is how it goes, then I can imagine that many, if not most, shortliving newbee vandals play around a bit and suddenly find themselves blocked without having seen any warning on their talk page. DVdm (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no, they get the same orange bar. I got #Thanks after leaving a welcome notice for an anon, for example. :) Cheers, Amalthea 21:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Huh. All this time I have been thinking that only logged on (and therefore registered) users got the orange bar. This is good to know. Thanks and cheers! DVdm (talk) 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, they went back to anon and continued with [3] and [4], resulting in [5]. Not very responsive on talk page :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 10:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"effectively" banned user edits

RE: [6] Are you sure that all of these sources were introduced by the sock of a blocked/banned user? It seems that multiple editors were working to source the awards claims. It would be a shame to throw out their work just because it had been readded to the article by a bad actor. Active Banana (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Seems that most of the content was removed by BiCloud (talk · contribs), for whatever reason, I didn't realize that when undoing that one edit.
In any case, go right ahead and do what's best for the article! As you say, going to that extreme would be absurd, and I wouldn't have undone the edit if I had realized it. Thanks, Amalthea 19:32, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Active Banana (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Busy watching...

Thanks for the "root for" mod! It's excellent. Do you think some whizzkid with template parsing may want to build in a "he/she" switch because we don't want to come across as sexist. :D – B.hotep •talk• 22:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, I solved that by using "they". Good luck in the next match, and I really hope not to see your team until the final, OK? ;) – B.hotep •talk• 22:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If that means both teams making it into the final I'm all for it (and for the inevitable penalty shootout, hehe). :) Amalthea 09:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I have it all worked out (with the help of an Excel spreadsheet). Germany will beat USA, Argentina, then Spain in the semi; England will beat Ghana, France and Brazil in the semi (don't laugh!). Then after 120 minutes of thrilling football and endless penalties, both sides show the spirit of world unification by declaring the first draw in a World Cup ever and share the spoils as an example for world peace... it might happen. :) – B.hotep •talk• 10:47, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Brazil wasn't so great, in the first game. I'm much more worried whether Germany can get past Argentina … Amalthea 17:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've heard someone say that the world cup was invented for the England vs. Germany matches. :)
Happens earlier than you predicted. Not sure I'm looking forward to that match, England is getting better with every match, while Germany is getting worse.
Cheers, Amalthea 12:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was saying to someone after the results were in that Germany would probably, given the choice, want to avoid England in the round of 16, and vice versa. USA and Ghana can probably enjoy their match without any pressure, whereas we will be on the edge of our seats for 90 minutes trying to avoid red cards and... penalties!! Oh, and I still haven't spoken to an Englishman who thinks we can actually win on Sunday. However, this World Cup is definitely shaping up a bit oddly so far so who knows. I will be the first to shake your cyber-hand if you beat us, but please be aware I reserve the rights to gloat if it's round the other way. :) – B.hotep •talk• 20:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh … Penalties! :D
And that's for sure, I wouldn't have minded if Germany came out second in that group, much easier way into the semi finals. Now it's first England, and the winner gets to meet Argentina … yikes.
Amalthea 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Erm... well done and good luck against Argentina. I will most certainly be rooting for Germany and hope you give them a lesson in football as you did to us! It will be all the more sweeter because they have the Hand of God as their coach now. :) – B.hotep •talk• 07:15, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, Maradonna, that guy is like a cartoon. :) I look forward to seeing him jump around at the sideline. 50:50 who's going to have the upper hand in that game, IMHO, my (virtual) money is actually going to be on Argentina. Amalthea 10:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

TZM members are rallying members to remove factual opposition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:The_Zeitgeist_Movement#Criticisms

Please see user Falcon2112 editing the above page to remove any factual and credible criticisms from 3rd party website from the wikipedia article. Evidence in that discussion shows the zeitgeist movement are making a concerted effort to target the removal of the factual evidence against them. Their members are being actively encouraged to remove and join in to have said material removed, as well using emotional arguments instead of observing the information presented against them to get information removed. To me this is unethical and damaging to wikipedias credibility.

Sincerely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails (talk • contribs) 17:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I've asked someone who appears to know more about the topic than me, but I can't say yet if or when he gets around to it. Amalthea 11:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether "COI" is the right word for it, but people who post on the Zeitgeist Movement messageboard regularly chat about coordinating to bowdlerize Wikipedia articles. See, e.g., [7], [8]. I wouldn't know whether this user participates over there (does not appear to be one of the editors who coordinated on "Resource-based economy"), and even if I did know, I'm not sure that posting there gives one a COI with regards to the Zeitgeist Movement. This is just s routine banning situation, in my opinion, where an editor fails to abide by Wikipedia's norms. Cool Hand Luke 16:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

-- φ OnePt618Talk φ has given you a pie! Pies promote the kind of hearty eating that puts a smile on your face and a sustaining meal in your stomach. Hopefully this pie has made your day better. Spread the goodness by giving someone else a pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating! Spread the goodness of pie by adding {{subst:Wikipie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you very much for fixing Friendly's auto mode =)-- φ OnePt618^Talk φ 04:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Sig/Friendly

No, thank you. Good job! Cheers DBaK (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Jagged 85 SPI

As you say, no reason to keep that SPI open. Right now Jagged is hardly following the "clear up behind yourself" agreement from the RfC/U but he is editing video game articles, which is not something I will be complaining about. (And he clearly has much to contribute, in that and many other areas.)

As it happens I've just raised another SPI for an entirely separate incident, but having done that I will now be getting back to the "oh no it's not a depressing list of edits at all" to continue with all the Ns and the occasional Y. Thanks for your work there.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk)

What do you mean, depressing, I'm guessing that 0.5% of all edits were already checked, in only one week, so we'll be done in only another … four years. Amalthea 10:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And I'm being very slow at ticking off any of the more substantial ones as I have trouble getting access to all the relevant sources; I've taken to emailing authors to check on details if I can't get access any other way. And if I'm not sure about the reliability of a source or about whether it is a widely accepted position, it can take me a day or two (or more) to find other material to check it against. So yes, it's an engrossing hobby for the next few years, no doubt about that.

I was wondering also if I might take this opportunity to ask for some advice on an SPI case I've raised, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ksweith: would it be a good idea (or even appropriate) to ask for a checkuser for this? I'm unclear whether the vandalism would be considered severe enough to warrant it, tho' I have the feeling that if these were to be a single user and they had done all these edits from a single account, they might have been liable to some sanction for vandalism.

All the best. –Syncategoremata (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying, zero time ATM. Hope to get around to reading it up on the weekend. Cheers, Amalthea 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Much the same state here, so well understood. All the best and hope all is well. –Syncategoremata (talk) 07:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Launched

The RfC we've been discussing on color and consensus is launched and located at Wikipedia talk:Consensus/RfC. I am in the process of publicizing. (Hi. :)) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi Moon,
thanks, will hopefully get around to it on the weekend.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Twinkle edit summary question

Hiya Amalthea, do you know why using Twinkle to post a vandalism warning gives the edit summary "General note: Unintentional vandalism/test on..."? I'm pretty sure that for the last two vandalism warnings I've left, I chose uw-vandalism and not uw-tests. I expected to see "General note: Vandalism on..." Is it me? Thanks, Maedin\^talk 18:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Maedin,
it was recently requested to change it since {{uw-vandalism1}} doesn't actually mention "vandalism", so the old "Caution: Vandalism" was a bit harsh. See WT:TW#first warning test/vandalism, but I'm always open for better suggestions. Cheers, Amalthea 14:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Hallo, sorry for not responding sooner. May I suggest "inappropriate" as a much better wording for the summary than "unintentional"? It makes us look a bit like fools when someone replaces, say, "owl" with "penis" or "wassup?" and then we call it unintentional! I don't think it's in our favour to appear so naïve, :) Maedin\^talk 06:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps "General note: Nonconstructive editing on..."? That would more closely parallel the actual words of the warning. PleaseStand ^(talk) 16:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Updated it to "Nonconstructive editing", for now.
Maedin, I myself don't leave any warnings for first-time poop&penis vandalism (to not encourage the vandal), and start with level 2+ warnings for any subsequent vandalism to avoid looking like a fool myself. :) Amalthea 16:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's great, thank you! Just right, :) Maedin\^talk 18:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI and Twinkle

Hey there Amalthea. SPI was recently updated to use a new template, {{SPI case status}}. More information about it can be found at AN. Could you update Twinkle so that it adds that template? Currently, [9] and [10] are still using the old templates. Thanks, NW (Talk) 22:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Örks. Will do as soon as possible, subzero time ATM. Thanks, Amalthea 16:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Friendly

You seem to be the expert on Friendly, how to I make it so it doesn't add pages I tag to my watchlist? That is the only part of Friendly I have installed. CTJF83 chat 04:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• From Wikipedia:FRIENDLY#Configuration

if( typeof( FriendlyConfig ) == 'undefined' ) FriendlyConfig = {};
FriendlyConfig.watchTaggedPages			=	false;

–xeno^talk 16:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, xeno, that's exactly how. Ctjf83, remember to bypass your browser cache after the change to your skin script file. Amalthea 16:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you both. CTJF83 chat 18:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Proxies

Is there any set process for checking whether an IP is a proxy? I'm very suspicious that 216.66.59.41 (talk · contribs) is Brexx editing through a proxy, but don't know how to go about checking.—Kww(talk) 16:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no one method, no. It's a non-trivial question: there are many types of proxies, some good, some bad, some easy to detect, some hard. Often the outgoing IP is different then the IP you connect to so portscans aren't always revealing either, and you'll have to rely on secondary information.
For quick checks, I usually start by googling the IP or visiting whatismyipaddress.com which, for most open proxies, gives you a strong hint.
The IP you mention was used by Brexx, yes, I blocked it for a short while. Short because I don't know what exactly what kind of server is behind the IP.
Amalthea 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Probed around some more. There's a set of 8 proxy IP addresses there (not aligned on a /29, for some odd reason). Many had Brexx-like edits, so I blocked the set for two weeks to match the block you had installed.—Kww(talk) 21:10, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah. The anonymizer he uses here is hotspotshield.com. I'll try to look into what other IPs that uses tomorrow, and how stable they appear to be. From a glance a longer block might be appropriate, has been used by other socks before as well, but of course by legitimate users as well. Amalthea 21:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

My security software won't even let me visit that site.—Kww(talk) 21:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

MOTD deletion

We could be June for another one. Simply south (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Amalthea 14:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Sudafedfiend8

Thanks for doing the check on the above. You are right to say that most of their contributions are positive. This is fine when they just get on with things. Unfortunately, they do get into disputes on occasion, and in those situations their use of socks does get disruptive (e.g. edit warring, voting more than once at AfD). I am pretty sure that if I look at the articles they edit again in a month or so there will probably be another dozen socks, and it seems a bit pointless just playing whack-a-mole with what look like throwaway accounts anyway. Do you think it is worth just letting them get on with it, and just checking now and again to make sure they are not being disruptive? Quantpole (talk) 09:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I sometimes write that if I see beneficial or potentially beneficial editing in the hope that a socker might just stick to one account. I try to encourage those editors to become a welcomed community member again, I for one am happy to welcome anyone back if I see a genuine willingness to change. Not that this has ever worked so far, and most won't even read it, but I remain optimistic.
The last batch of socks has strong article overlap, and undos other edits while representing himself as multiple people. That's quite clear abuse of multiple accounts and damaging to our editing process. As long as that doesn't change you should keep reporting them so that they are at least recognizable as socks.
Cheers, and sorry for the late reply, Amalthea 14:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Brexx proxies (probably)

Not worth a formal checkuser, but Brexx seems so adamant on User talk:Tiredofbeingsorry that a checkuser will exonerate him that it's probably worth a few seconds to see what kind of anonymizer he used for future reference.—Kww(talk) 22:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI case for you

Hi Amalthea, when you get a minute can you check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking and e-mail me what you think? Once you dive in, it should be fairly obvious why I've asked for a second opinion. You can either mail me directly or send it to Functionaries, whichever you'd prefer. Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, if you could check this one out for me too, I'd appreciate it. I'm pretty sure they're unrelated, but I'd like a second opinion. --Deskana (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, that just took ages to work through. Sent mail to you, but feel free of course to forward it to func-en if it needs further input. Can I push the second one till tomorrow? It's past my bed time. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for the help. --Deskana (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea. Just a note that I changed the template of the sockpuppet investigation. I hope I have not overreached. BigK HeX (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, sorry for my going AWOL right in the middle of that, and thanks to Deskana for commenting in my stead. Amalthea 07:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot 19 tasks (FFD, PUI, Speedy Images)

They're now moved to the new framework, and are working again. (X! · talk)  · @854  ·  19:30, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, X! Amalthea 07:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

More friendly

Hello Amalthea. I went to see why friendly talkback ignores the preference to not insert a heading and saw that you were recently tinkering with User:Ioeth/friendlytalkback.js. It looks like it isn't checking FriendlyConfig.insertHeadings like User:Ioeth/friendlywelcome.js does, but since I've forgotten the majority of my programming skills (and never did learn js anyway), I thought it might be better (safer?) to ask if you wouldn't mind having a go at it. Thanks in advance! —DoRD (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Pending Changes, Batch Protect and Twinkle

Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at AzaToth's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For whenever you have the time. NW (Talk) 01:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Grey eclipse

Hi, a vague block message ("Please don't") with nothing on the talk page could use a little explanation. On that talk page would be fine with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that you haven't been editing for a little while, I don't consider this urgent but I brought it at WP:ANI instead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Email got my attention, replied at ANI. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 07:30, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Not this shit again!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fridae'sDoom (talk • contribs) 02:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

vs.

{{subst:xsign|02:27, 13 July 2010 Fridae'sDoom}} = —Preceding unsigned comment added by an unknown user

eh??? –xeno^talk 22:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be because in Template:Xsign/month , the substed form is stripping the string to {{s , but I could've sworn this was working before??? –xeno^talk 22:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

How dare you be busy in real life when I need your help. I'm calling my congressman. –xeno^talk 17:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out {{Str sub long}} which was changed to use {{str index any}} a couple days ago, which isn't safesubstable.
Cheers, Amalthea 07:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

AH! Serves me right for not doing my own leg-work. Now, please - no more wikibreaks - you're kind of essential personnel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xeno (talk • contribs) 14:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC) <-- it works. thanks =) –xeno^talk 14:26, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Can promise no such thing, I'm afraid, the next two or three weeks will likely keep me just as busy. But as it turns out, Wikipedia didn't grind to a halt in the week I was absent, so I'm hopeful it will survive a few more.
And your congressman called, he says unless you want him to conquer my homeland there's not much he can do. Amalthea 16:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I need some help...

...And Ale jrb told me to come here. Basically I'm trying to figure out a way to fix the English flag on HJ Mitchell's userpage so that it shows up in both Monobook and Vector correctly. Currently the flag is in the right spot in one skin and wrong in the other (depending on what skin the talk page stalker who most recently tried to help is using). I think that the best solution would be to write a piece of code that would read which skin (and browser) you are using. Currently it is working for Monobook and not working for Vector. I noticed that in the HTML of this page there's this bit of code: <!--[if lt IE 7]><style type="text/css">body{behavior:url("/w/skins-1.5/vector/csshover.htc")}</style><![endif]-->

Umm... Would something like {{REVISIONUSER}} work? Mr. R00t ^Talk 19:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no such magic word, and there can't be since it'd break the parser cache (would require frequent re-parsings or duplication). You also can't include stylesheets from user page wikicode.
One approach would be to add support for some user styling into the site-wide javascript to try and fix this, either by allowing users to inject generic "safe" styles (which is difficult) or by allowing specialized things like page-absolute positioning or logo-overrides. You will not get consensus for this though (WP:MYSPACE and all).
Thus the only real solution (and thereby the best solution) is to avoid using such hacks. FWIW, the version you link to that supposedly works for monobook doesn't actually work for me, since the font-size I use here is different from the norm, which affects my page layout, which in turn defeats any such absolute positioning hacks. The supposed vector-version didn't work for me at all since I had the Wikipedia logo hidden in that skin, so the flag overlapped the navigation links. It's impossible to anticipate all this, so as I said the only real solution is to keep one's user page content inside the defined content area.
Sorry, I know that's not really the help you were looking for. :)
Amalthea 16:39, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. Mr. R00t ^Talk 17:24, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Archive box collapsible#Sandbox sync

Ping. Would you be okay with the sync if manual style overriding was incorporated? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:51, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks for the reminder. Cheers, Amalthea 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Image

Hello Amalthea!! I would like ask you one thing, i made my contribution in 2 images in the Resident Evil 5 article, but one person just put out these 2 images. The first image is this one, every game have a soundtrack and in Wikipedia is no exception to have one image in his article... :-/ the second one, is this, to identify other cover designe of the game... He said "too may non-free images not necessary for identification"... i saw in some articles five or more pisctures with non-free rational... What is the problem for these one to identify the subject..?! :-/ Really, i don´t like to make "edit wars", so I wanted to consult an administrator for the occasion... Thanks!! All the best!! Light Warrior^{Conspiracy?!?} 17:06, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

You know, you could just ask me. I'm not the boogey-man. ;) Firstly, I can only edit a limited amount of articles. It's not possible for me to monitor each and every article for their amount of non-free images, even though I am aware there are many articles out there that use images in violation of WP:FU. That doesn't mean it's alright for the Resident Evil 5 to be the same. In the case of RE5, it already has cover art as the lead image and I don't feel adding the Gold Edition cover is fair use, as the game is already identified. It's also a duplicate image btw, already uploaded by User:Bloodios. Perhaps it could replace the lead image, but I would discuss that on the article's talk page first. I felt the soundtrack image was redundant, as it supports very little critical commentary. I don't feel that strongly about that one though.--Atlan (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It appears you two have worked it out. In general, you can discuss non-free image usages at WP:Non-free content review. Amalthea 22:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Template Footer Movies

Hello Amalthea i just visited this article Ajith kumar and i felt this [Blockbuster and Hit movies of Thala] just does not make any sence. no other actor has even tom cruise or will smith. i think it should be removed,it is one sided violating fundamental policies on writing from a neutral point of view.Sunnu308 (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I for one wouldn't add a filmography navbox to any article about an actor or a director, but it's not unheard of. Many directors have those, Template:Steven Spielberg, and a couple of actors as well, like Template:Bruce Lee. With the POV heading removed it's a bit better. If you want it deleted though, you'll have to go through WP:TfD, or better yet ask for opinions at the respective wikiproject.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

More Jagged edits?

Hello, Amalthea. I just noticed this string of eight edits from the IP editor 83.188.214.189 (talk · contribs). Both the content and edit summaries seem characteristic of Jagged, so I think the possibility should be considered that this is User:Jagged 85 operating from yet another anonymous IP address, as in previous cases. Spacepotato (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi.
Hmm, IP from Sweden, no indication that it's a proxy, doesn't appear to be him.
Amalthea 22:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleted

Hi, how can I obtain a copy of my deleted article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xsoymilkmonkeyx (talk • contribs) 23:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can send it to you by mail if you setup & confirm your user e-mail address.
Kind regards, Amalthea 00:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

MOTD Barnstar

		The MOTD Barnstar
		This award is given to you for helping out Motto of the day. Thanks to your effort, MOTD has brilliantly and successfully passed the most difficult period of the year. In fact, there are mottoes scheduled until the end of the summer. For this reason MOTD would like to express heartfelt thanks to you for your support. We appreciate your efforts in further helping the project! – delivered by Simply south on behalf of Wikipedia:Motto of the day 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Bug

Do you know what was changed to cause this? Marcus Qwertyus 17:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Today's changes to Template:Db-notice, I presume. Thanks for the notice, Amalthea 18:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Good catch! Works now. Marcus Qwertyus 18:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Spartancourage/Asgardian question

I see that you extended Asgaurdian's ban and blocked Spartancourage as a sock based on a CU.

Can you point to the SPI/CU so that Asgardian's ArbComm case can have the enforcement section updated?

Thanks,

- J Greb (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was just trying to read up on where I need to register this, but I'll gladly leave it to you. There's no SPI case, it came up in an unrelated investigation. Will have to remain vague. Thanks, Amalthea 17:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

It would need to be noted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Asgardian#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions. And it really should be noted by the admin making the extension, especially if it relates to an unrelated SPI/CU case. Especially since, understandably, there would need to be a degree of vagueness in the notes. - J Greb (talk) 17:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep, done. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 18:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain this [11]? As you can see, these are very public (and numerous) terminals [12]. Did I get caught up in the mess here [13]? The public account got blocked just last week on account of someone else's behaviour.

125.7.71.6 (talk) 05:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Feedback#Confusion_on_Narendra_Modi

Thanks for your clarification. I have few more queries. Please take a look. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Laurent Koscielny

Any idea why all the edits made on that page are under review, I mean I've worked on pages for a couple years and this is the first time I've had an edit reviewed. – Michael (talk) 19:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a trial for a new page protection mode: Wikipedia:Pending changes, see there for more info. There's no particular reason for Laurent Koscielny to be in the trial: I think it was part of a list of semi-protected BLPs that had a reasonable amount of traffic to be useful enough in the trial.
Hope that helps, and sorry for the very belated reply. Amalthea 00:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy note

You are receiving this message because of your participation in this discussion, now continued at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Microformats. –xeno^talk 13:42, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Yikes, not again. I find it quite tiring to discuss this topic, in large parts due to the discussion style of some of the discussants, not sure I'll show up there this time. Thanks for the note though.
Amalthea 10:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Can't say I blame you. Cheers, –xeno^talk 13:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

With new school year, seeing how Utilitarianism works off auto-confirm?

Esp. with the new college year, it might be worth it seeing how Utilitarianism works without auto-confirm. I emphasize 'might.' It definitely would be an experiment. FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I only converted the protection to use the pending changes trial and did not originally flag it as protected, so I don't really have an opinion on it. From a glance it looks like most IP edits still get reverted, so it may be a very good use for that protection level. If you want to try it out feel free to ask for unprotection at WP:RFPP.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

July MOTD deletions

July July give me your answer too. I'm half crazy all for the disappearence of you.

Btw, a very bad alteration of Daisy Daisy. Simply south (talk) 00:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

July's gone (in more than one way). Half crazy myself after the last weeks, but the end of the tunnel should be around the next bend … Amalthea 09:06, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Ta. Posting from my phone apologies if it screws something up.→ROUX ₪ 21:53, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problemo. Amalthea 16:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

ACC Tool

Thank you for applying to access the account creation tool. I have approved your request. You may now access the tool here. Before you do so, please read the tool's guide to familiarize yourself with the process. You may also want to join #wikipedia-en-accounts on irc and the mailing list. Keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse may result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. FunPika 10:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

FunPika forgot to modify his somewhat standard message to say that he also gave you admin access pending Stwalkerster upgrading you CU access (which is pretty much a certainty :P ). There are not too many requests that get deferred to CU though it is nice to know there are now 3 who can review them when they do come in. Feel free to join in on the standard requests if you want to. Welcome :D delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 12:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I figured, thanks. :) Will try to monitor the CU queue, that's why I registered with the tool. Cheers, Amalthea 13:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Chin Ho Kelly

I see you blocked this user--I'm guessing as a sock. Another new user has restored some of User:Chin Ho Kelly's edits here. I'm wondering if it's the same editor? freshacconci talktalk 15:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right, thank you. Amalthea 15:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about this. I guess I wasn't paying enough attention. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

No reason to be, I found it rather amusing. :) Cheers, Amalthea 18:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian again

Hi. Another editor left the following message on my Talk Page:

Hello there, I am new to Wikipedia and just edited my first article. I added an "original plot" section to God of War III, as I think that the vision of the series creator is relevant information. I am not a native speaker, but I think my English isn't too bad. A fellow editor from Sydney (IP 125.xx) keeps deleting my section instead of improving it due to "poor grammar and weak, colloquial language". The user's history shows that he regularly uses the same comment when changing other edits. His wording is similar to that of user "Spartancourage", who was blocked for being the new account of user "Asgardian", who was banned. Can you please have a look into this? I would also appreciate your feedback on the quality of my "original plot" section, which I have posted on the talk page of God of War III. Many thanks in advance. 84.56.59.199 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking over that article's edit history, it appears that our newbie IP editor is referring to editor 125.63.185.218, which is indeed a Syndey IP, where Asgardian lives. His emphasis on "colloquial" language" and reverting edits do to poor "grammar" ([14][15]) is indeed a habit of Asgardian's, as is his blanking of an entire talk page, with the rationalization that it's "not illegal". Though this is true for registered users, I don't think anonymous IP's are supposed to do this, since IP pages are not necessarily the sole domain of one user. Blanking the page also has the effect of concealing past warnings for disruptive editing.

In addition, it also appears that 125.7.71.6 is Asgardian as well, as that is also an Australian IP from which he cites "weak colloquial language when making the same reverts as 125.63.185.218, and who also blanks the talk page, concealing past warnings and blocks for disruptive editing.

Since you were the one who reset Asgardian's block when he was found to be evading his ban, I thought it would be a good idea for you to investigate this, perhaps in order to make his ban indefinite. Can you look into it? Please let me know. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, will look into it as soon as possible, hopefully today. Amalthea 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

PhanuelB

Hi Amalthea. I am letting you know as a courtesy at another user's suggestion (because I see you were involved in the sock investigation) that I blocked this user indef. To be clear, I did not refer to sockpuppetry in my block but regard them as having exhausted the community's patience at this point. I have raised the block at AN/I if you want to respond there; otherwise here would also be fine. Best wishes, --John (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I had left a comment at ANI a few minutes earlier. :)
Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 15:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Expanding MoMK

Hi. Wikid77 here. I am returning from a 3-month topic ban about Talk:Murder of Meredith Kercher (MoMK) and the deleted article "Amanda Knox" which I created. I would like to expand the MoMK article, but have met much resistance from a few editors at the talk-page. Should this be a new issue at ANI or should we try a mediation, etc.? Some editors have reduced the article to 1 phrase about each issue, but other editors removed some of those sparse phrases, and now, the article has become hollow. As you might know, Kercher and Knox, as exchange students, moved to a cottage in Perugia in September 2007, paying rent to the lead roommate Filomena (1 of 2 Italian women in their late 20s). However, the MoMK article fails to mention these issues. Knox, an honors student from Seattle, arrived after Kercher, who showed her around Perugia, walked to classes with her, went to clubs with her, as they became fast friends. After 5 weeks (25 October), they attended a classical music concert at the University for Foreigners, and when Meredith left at intermission, Knox met student Raffaele Sollecito, who looked like Harry Potter to her. They immediately started staying overnight at his house a few blocks away. On Halloween, Knox and Kercher phoned each other several times, talking about their costumes. The next day, Kercher left around 4pm for dinner with British friends, and Knox/Sollecito went to his house. The next morning, Knox went home, but found Meredith missing, but several blood drops in various rooms of the house. At 12:07pm, Knox called Kercher's phone for 16 seconds (it "rang and rang"), then at 12:08 called lead roommate Filomena to say there was some blood, and Filomena replied she was returning from the city's Festival of the Dead to the house ASAP. Knox then called Kercher's other phone, which went straight to voicemail. Postal police soon arrived, after a neighbor returned one of those discarded mobile phones into the station. At the house, a buddy of Filomena's boyfriend forced the door to Meredith's room, and they found the body wearing only T-shirts under a duvet on the floor, stabbed in the neck, with blood all around. A police search reported 300 euros (~$420) and 2 credit cards missing, and Kercher's house keys were never found. However, the MoMK article contains few of these crucial details: a search of MoMK will not match: "rent" or "September 2007" or "Potter" or "Festival" or "keys" etc. How should this be contested? Reply when you have time, no rush. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you have a look

I came across the Louise Nippierd article and it has mostly been edited by one editor. I tagged the article for a review and the editor removed it with a snarky comment (see dif). While they state it was dealt with in 2009 a look at the articles edit history shows the the subject of the article was working on it and was warned on October 4, 2009. After that they no longer worked on the article directly. For the rest of 2009 the primary editor was User:Sharkli. I see that on October 4, 2009 there were {{NPOV}} and {{COI}} tags placed on it and on October 17, 2009 User:Sharkli stated on Talk:Louise Nippierd they knew the subject and were the main editor on the article. On June 26, 2010, all tags (At that point including an {{Orphan}} and {{Like resume}} tag) were removed by User:Andrew@artoslo.com, whose only edits at Wikipedia were to the article and to the article talk page giving the URL of their website, or I should say the subject of the articles page on their website. Since that date the editor has been User:Sharkli, outside on one other edits by User:Andrew@artoslo.com, a bot clean up for "links syntax and spacing" and my tagging for {{pov-check}} and {{COI}}. Over the life of this article I can't see where anybody other than someone close to the subject has removed tags, the few other editors who have come to the page seem to add the tags. To the best of my understanding these tags should not be removed by the subject of the article, a website owner who hosts the subject of the articles web page, or the main author of the article who admits they know the subject of the article. While there may not be a hard policy about these tags being removed it seems that any of the aforementioned removing a COI tag defeats the whole point of requesting neutrality, pov, and coi checks. I thought you could offer advice into what the next step should be. I think a SPA concern, along with the admitted COI issue, is very valid at this point. I also think with the removal of my tags and their comment we have some WP:OWN going on. Their edit history shows that approximately 95% of their edits have been to mainspace, and all but 4 edits of that 95% have been to the Louise Nippierd article or talk page. I am open to suggestions, or if you see something as an admin that needs acting on right away feel free. Thanks. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The TW RFPP issue

Hi! Was the TW RFPP issue this? If it's true, then it was a very simple issue. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

If you know where to look … Amalthea 17:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

No problem with RFPP directly after your TW RFPP fix. However, regarding the speedy deletion U1 issue, my attempts without rationale were still aborted. I am using Firefox, and I was forced to clear my cookies and/or restart my browser and/or log out and log in again for your fix to take effect. The main thing is that it works now, so no problem at the moment. Also, feel free to remove the U1 rationale window box, because I agree with you, U1's are non-controversial, except for cases when other users tag other user's user- or user talk pages for U1 deletion. Maybe it could be possible to write a script which checks if it's the real user who requests U1? It would (technically) be possible to do so by checking {{REVISIONUSER}}. If the revisionuser value does not match with the username of the user's user- and/or user talk page, the action should be aborted. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Hidden (UTC)

Hi Amalthea. I saw the discussion at Template talk:Unsigned#Seamless version. It points to your script User:Amalthea/History hidden UTC.js, which I tried using. What do you actually *do* to get access to the 'hidden (UTC)?' I imagined you could cut and paste from the page history, and feed the arguments into {{unsigned2}}. Maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I never get the (UTC). I'm wondering why they didn't put a *real* (UTC) into unsigned2 in the first place. Thanks for any advice, EdJohnston (talk) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I just select, copy & paste it from the history page. What browser are you using? I just tried with FF & IE8 without problems, but seem to remember that I had a version that didn't copy any "display: none" text.
Merely adding the " (UTC)" wouldn't be enough since you'd still need to fill in the pipe, but such an alternative could of course be created at {{unsigned2u}} or some such. Two other possibilities:

1. The hidden " (UTC)|" text could be made visible for any browsers that have a problem with it, which is ugly, but would work
2. You could also use xeno's smart {{xsign}}, which takes the history string as is and works some magic on it to split it properly ({{xsign|02:14, 16 September 2010 EdJohnston}} → — Preceding unsigned comment added by EdJohnsto (talk • contribs) 02:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)).

Cheers, Amalthea 11:48, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have Safari on a Mac. Anyway, that 'xsign' template seems to work great, and I will probably switch to using it instead of 'unsigned2' in the future. The code for 'xsign' appears large (~2K bytes), since I assume everyone will use 'subst:xsign', the size of the template shouldn't be a problem. I noticed the discussion at User talk:Amalthea/Archive 5#Blah substing hates me. Maybe it's time for a new template language! EdJohnston (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

All unsigned templates are supposed to be substituted. And yes please, a new template language defined by a proper grammar would be a huge step forward. Another idea that is tossed around from time to time is adding support for a programming language (php, lua, python, javascript, …) in addition to the existing template system. Amalthea 10:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

← I'm going to tuck this in here because I gather it would be a similar script - how hard would it be to have any instance of "oocities" emit as "geocities" ? (User talk:Xeno#Bot question) –xeno^talk 12:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Greenock125/Andy593

Is there anything interesting in Heymid's fascination with Andy593? User talk:Andy593.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. He's involving himself in lots of issues, and anything else would quite certainly have come up at the time. Cheers, Amalthea 09:58, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Kww, you may want to consider removing User talk:Andy593 from your own watchlist. I simply reverted those edits, because I believed my message didn't provide anything good, mainly because he was already blocked (and from editing his own talk page). HeyMid (contributions) 13:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Oi!

Thanks! Still getting used to using the secure server for everything. Despite my claims to be not that technical, I do have an ongoing plan to create a userscript that dumps an oldid string into the copy/paste buffer or something similar. I don't think I've encountered oldid2 before, so I may just use that instead...

In other news, not seen you around? I thought you'd be more active at the great PC debates? TFOWR 10:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad timing for the "not seen you around" comment: you've just posted on my talkpage... Sorry, still catching up... TFOWR 10:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm short on time, pretty indifferent about the issue, and annoyed by the style of "discussion", so I'm just staying out of it completely. :\ Amalthea 10:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough! You mean the votes, in which both sides focus on drama? I loves it! Aye, it's a lot more heat than light. I've tried to restrict myself to stating my view and moving on. TFOWR 10:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, I don't think an actual discussion would have been much more fruitful. The costs and benefits of the concept are hard to define, and we have two very entrenched crowds – there is no argument you can make to persuade a significant number in those crowds. A straight vote or decision by fiat might ultimately be the only way forward. But I loathe that from the looks of it the premise of the trial is now reversed by just letting PC continue – that's too much of a bait and switch, and it will hurt our decision making process down the road, and the communities willingness to try out any fundamental new feature. Amalthea 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Have unwatched your page again, by the way, way to busy for me ATM. :) Amalthea 14:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Way too busy for me right now ;-) I'm flitting between 2 and 3 days for archiving - not that long ago I'm sure it was at 90 days... TFOWR 14:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

That template saves bytes! Making it faster for users to load the page! HeyMid (contributions) 10:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You won't notice that, and in return any template makes page rendering slower. Main advantage of the template I see is that it properly generates secure and non-secure links no matter which server you are on, that the page source looks neater, and that it's not as unwieldy as {{oldid}}. Amalthea 11:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Why does it take longer to load if there are templates instead of raw code? HeyMid (contributions) 12:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Because they have to be parsed. –xeno^talk 13:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Once it's rendered it won't be slower, but templates are the number one cause for slow page rendering. E.g., the Barack Obama page can be served in a fraction of a second if it's coming from the cache, but if you ask it to be re-rendered by it slows down to around 50 seconds (depends on which Apache you get). Throw out all templates and you're at about five seconds. MediaWiki doesn't work well with huge numbers of templates. Amalthea 13:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

If I try purging the Barack Obama article using the secure server, it fails for me (502 Proxy Error; no proxy), because it takes too long time to load. HeyMid (contributions) 13:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Block

FYI. Feel free to change it as necessary. T. Canens (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Amalthea 15:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

please make it

please make it for me--125.25.34.128 (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I asked for a policy-based rationale, one that hadn't been discussed in the last AfD, placed on the article's talk page. Without that I can't do anything. Amalthea 20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

List of Cambodian singers

Hi. Just to let you know that User:125.25.34.128 is one of a small number of dynamic IP editors based in Bangkok who have been causing all sorts of trouble for a good while, by continuing to blatantly act in defiance of Wikipedia policies - unsourced additions, adding clear nonsense to articles, blatant vandalism, using Talk pages for chat, making "fun" edits to User talk pages, taking part in page move vandalism (with the help of one registered editor who is now banned), and now attempting to re-AfD an article that has only just survived. Their actions and writing style are almost identical, so I'm really not sure whether the are the 3 or 4 of them that they claim, or how many are the same person. Anyway, my approach to them now is to no longer try to engage with them in discussion, to delete anything they add to my Talk page that is not appropriate there, revert any improper additions they make to articles that I encounter, and ask for page protection for articles when it gets too bad - just thought I'd let you know. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. Thanks, Amalthea 20:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a whole load of weirdness happening around there, I was involved earlier and am happy to help out if you need me :) GedUK  20:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Then should I move away to another country? I can't help this. As I can remember, I didn't using talk pages for chat, and in April, Paul_012 is trying to say that I'm 2 other Thailand editors. And only TODAY that I did "fun" edits to talk page, but that wasn't fun. I was just adding the timestamp to Boing's comment as the signature must have time and date. And why should List of Cambodian singers stay without deleted. And if it should stay, then we must change to the alphabet style like List of Afghan singers, or maybe spliting male and female like List of Mexican singers, but not sorting by the year and split by both gender and time period. Some singers like So Saveun works both before and after the Khmer Rouge. She moved to France but still singing. And sorting by names are better and used by many lists on Wikipedia--125.25.34.128 (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

&wpWatch=0

On the (0) button shown on WP:USURP requests (the move pages magic), do you have any idea why this isn't properly unchecking the "watch source and target pages" box? Are my prefs overriding it? –xeno^talk 14:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes and no:

• As long as your preference is set to watch pages you move, there's no way to get MediaWiki leave that checkbox unticked. That's stupid, but MediaWiki is at least consistent that way: Those watchlist settings are always that aggressive.
• SpecialMovepage doesn't check for "0" or "1" in wpWatch, it checks for existance. Why I don't know, but it means that even if you change your preferences to not watchlist pages you move, a "wpWatch=0" will tick the ckechbox since the parameter exists. It needs to be removed completely.

No idea whether there are bugzilla issues for any of this. FWIW, you can of course use javascript:

if (wgNamespaceNumber==-1 && wgCanonicalSpecialPageName=="Movepage") addOnloadHook(function() {
  if (getURLParamValue("reason")!="WP:USURP") return;
  var node = document.getElementById("watch");
  if (node && node.checked) node.checked = false;
});

Amalthea 14:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier just to untick the box, or does that javascript do something special to know that I'm in the middle of a usurp request and don't want those pages watched (meanwhile if I am moving a page for other reasons, I do)? –xeno^talk 14:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Now it does (bit hackish). And err, yes, it doesn't do more than untick the box. :) Yes, you could do with a document.getElementById("watch").checked = false in your user script, more or less, but the code above is a bit more robust. Amalthea 15:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Works great =) Thanks! Isn't it silly we have to do so much just to get the software to do something intuitive? =] –xeno^talk 15:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Template:Diff2

Why is this needed? HeyMid (contributions) 15:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's noted in the history of the template: WP:NAVPOP doesn't work if the link doesn't have a title. Amalthea 15:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Timmy Polo regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Amalthea. You have new messages at Template talk:Talkback#Edit request.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Also, has TW been fully merged with Friendly yet? I tried disabling Friendly and the opposite way, but the buttons disappeared for the specific tools. HeyMid (contributions) 10:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to talk to SchuminWeb about the plans there. Amalthea 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense

Looking in my talk archive I find a reply I wrote to you didn't get posted (maybe ec, maybe when WP went down). Lest you think I me discourteous I replicate it here as well as I can remember. Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

One option might be to pick a number here (eg. five). As soon as this number of threads are open and not yet archived, then hold off the edits until one of the threads gets auto-archived. This would ensure that all threads got the attention deserved, ensure that all bug reports were seen and not missed, and ensure that the edits being done really were of an above-average quality and truly uncontroversial nature. —Sladen (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea, I've actually dumped auto-archiving by date anyway as there are too many problems, albeit minor. Many thanks to Mizabot and WerdnaBot and the others for years of service. Rich Farmbrough, 06:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Sorry, but that's nonsense.

What is? Rich Farmbrough, 10:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC).

Sladen: "If a issue point is controversial [...] then it should not be being altered en-masse by automated means [...] One option might be to pick a number here (eg. five). As soon as this number of threads are open and not yet archived, then hold off the edits [...]" – You: "That's a good idea, [...]". Amalthea 12:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is nonsense, I meant the bit about "ensure that all threads got the attention deserved, ensure that all bug reports were seen and not missed". RF ,whatever date and time it was.>

- and indeed my new archiving regime is a vast improvement over the old one. Rich Farmbrough, 16:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Heh, not quite sure what that means (I've unwatched your page a while ago), but alright. Here's a stupid question though, somewhat related: why can't you just use your watchlist? It can't be /that/ broken. If it's so full that you can't clear it through the web interface anymore, you should still be able to clear it one page at a time via API, and start from scratch? Amalthea 17:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I got it down from about 36,000 to 20,000 - but there was stuff I did actually want to watch - but I will loose track of if I wipe it. So it's really just a question of finding time. And I might copy it off-line and watch stuff using a different mechanism. But basically it just grewed when I was starting out and I never got it back under control. And hence I never really used it, so I don't miss it. Rich Farmbrough, 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Too big to be of any use, yet too useful to discard? Catch 22. :)
But I think you do miss it if you have to build elaborate thread copying mechanisms to stay on top of conversations. ;)
Cheers, Amalthea 20:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ha! Yes true. But I like the mechanism of the orange bar for timely stuff - though sometimes it gets that "oh no, what now?" quality about it. As you say once I get watch-list working I'll probably wonder how I managed without it. Rich Farmbrough, 21:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Thanks …

Hello. You have a new message at Riick's talk page.

[16] Freudian slip, no doubt. –xeno^talk 14:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Problem with my signature template

Hello again, Amalthea … A few months ago, you gave me a hand cleaning up the subst: with #if statements in {{Flag-article}} and {{Flag-editor}} … could you please give me a hand with User:The Bipolar Anon-IP Gnome/Anon sig? If you edit this message, you will see how the #if is embedded in the signature. <Sigh!>

To be honest, I'm just not up to the challenge of learning another syntax/language at the moment, but seeing how much useless text is left behind with each use of this template seems enough of a waste of bandwidth that I'm annoyed enough to want to do something about it. :-) Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk · contribs) _{01:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)}

 Done - Never mind … I figured it out. ;-} Happy Editing! — 71.166.157.40 (talk) _{02:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)}

List of Cambodian singers

Per a request at WP:RFPP, I've just semi'd this article for one week. There have been a series of "odd" edits by an IP - 125.25.15.166 (talk), which seems very similar to an IP previously involved with the article and its AFD. It looks to me like WP:OWN on the aprt of the IP, but since you've been involved with this before could you sanity-check my protection? I've really no objection to reducing/lifting/extending protection as needed. Thanks! TFOWR 16:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 editors with same range of dynamic IP involved with this articles. Please make sure. Ask me if it was me or not.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not a WP:OWN article. There is another editor with same range IP. Probably 2 editors.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've investigated. It seems like I was editing with 2 more IP editor with same range, in the latest mission, his IPs seems to be 180.180.109.229. In the past month only 2 editors was edited. Me and another Thai editor. There seems to be another editor.--125.25.15.166 (talk) 16:34, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

That's quite a sorry article for that much trouble. I note two things:

1. I agree that the person who started restructuring the article today (and eventually redirected it) appears to be the same as the person who tried to speedy and renominate the article for deletion a while ago.
2. There was however a recent AfD discussion on the article and it was decided that the topic should in principle be included in Wikipedia. Unless there are new arguments or there is strong reason to believe that that consensus is not longer valid, it shouldn't be redirected to the category, or deleted. See WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates about why the community wants both kinds.

I've left a comment at Talk:List of Cambodian singers about a possible way forward. I'm not really sure what problems 125.25.* sees with the article, but if the underlying issue is resolved I assume that protection is no longer necessary. Amalthea 17:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The 125.25 IP did try and redirect earlier, but then seemed to be more productive - and I note that they are now engaged on the talkpage. I'll hope for the best! Thanks again, TFOWR 17:20, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU!! YOU'VE DONE RECOVER!! MOVE IT TO MAIN!!--125.25.15.166 (talk) 17:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've simply moved it to talk space, no worries. Amalthea 17:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

GrussGott

Hey, Amathea, could you take a look at this edit of mine. An IP claimed that the link was to a site that was really anti Horst, not the official site as claimed. I went to the site, and using what little German I have, decided that he was probably telling the truth. But my German isn't strong enough for me to 100% certain of my read. Could you look at it and confirm it for me.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 12:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yeah, the IP is correct. It's a satire page, it says so at the bottom. Regards SoWhy 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Woulda made my life a lot easier if I had seen that... My German wasn't strong enough to fully understand what was being said, but with the perspective that it might have been a satire, it was strong enough that I suspected the IP to be telling the truth and decided on caution.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Purge tab

Hi!

Wouldn't be better to put that if before addOnloadHook? Helder (talk) 19:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're right, for some reason I thought that those variables were defined after the gadget script tags, not before.
Thanks, Amalthea 10:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

new sock

new sock puppet of DavidYork71 --->User talk:Reingelt again same edits.Moxy (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Opened up at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/DavidYork71. It's generally better to go through WP:SPI with suspected socks, not least because you will usually get a faster response there. Thanks, Amalthea 18:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Suggested changes at MOTD

Hello fellow motto contributor. Discussions arer still open on Wikipedia talk:Motto of the day/Nominations#Suggested changes and still require further input especially on ideas 10-17. Please could you voice your opinion as this is going to be closed in early November. Please help out or even make any new idea suggestions.

On a separate but related note, both August and September need deleting. Simply south (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

help

Dear Amalthea,

Can you help me to learn German language please??

regards

ashfaq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.10.17.27 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I can help by giving you a link: wikiversity:Topic:Learning German. Amalthea 22:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

ACC inactivity

Hallo Amalthea, your name has come up for ACC tool suspension due to inactivity. I thought I'd ping you first and see if you wanted to log in, before I click the suspend button, :) Maedin\^talk 12:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Geez, 45 days already? Thanks for the ping, I'd like to stay active so that I can at least react if the CU list gets chastised again for ignoring its queue. :) Thanks, Amalthea 12:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I figured you were still interested in having tool access, as one of our few checkusers. Maedin\^talk 12:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

re:SPI

Hey thanks for the heads-up - I only did it cuz it's been so wonky in the past and I got used to doing it manually. - eo (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Multibox

Hi, I'm just wondering what this template is? I'm only seeing two actual uses of it, and it's not at all clear what the advantage is over using {{editnotice}} or {{fmbox}}. PC78 (talk) 22:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The goal was to use the same text both in an editnotice and in a talk page banner (specifically Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia talk:Contact us and Wikipedia talk:Contact us/header), without having to maintain it in two places, while showing them in the customary styles of each context (most notably 80% width on talk page, 100% width in editnotice). There are a couple of ways to do that, like extracting the text into a third template and transcluding from there, or passing a fixed width in the talk page transclusion. I think the cleanest and easiest way is to pass in the box type on the talk page header transclusion, so that all the styles and features of either box are automatically used, and all future template changes are automatically applied. That's what multibox does.
That's also pretty much the only place I can think of where it is useful: In editnotices, if you want to use the same text in another context.
Amalthea 22:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That may be useful for keeping {{BLP}} and {{BLP editintro}} in sync. But could this flexibility not be added to {{mbox}}? PC78 (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice, but from the top off my head I can't think of a way to figure out whether a template is currently displayed in an editnotice, let alone arbitrary header message. Mbox only switches on namespace, at the moment, and I don't think we want to allow passing in a box template variable there. Amalthea 00:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I've had a crack at using this template at {{BLP/sandbox2}}. Do you think you could add support for {{tmbox}}? This would be preferable to using {{mbox}} in this case. PC78 (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I've kept the text in {{BLP editintro/sandbox}}, which is then pulled into {{BLP/sandbox2}}. Texts need to be consolidated, they have minor differences in the live versions of the templates.
Cheers, Amalthea 09:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no opinion on the variations in wording, though the wording in the editnotice is perhaps better; I will of course be starting a discussion for this in due course. However, I'm not sure what you're doing with {{BLP editintro/sandbox}}. {{BLP}} is the primary template here, so the idea would be to deprecate {{BLP editintro}} in favour of {{BLP|boxtype=editnotice}}. Unless you have a better idea? PC78 (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You can't deprecate the edit intro template, MediaWiki displays an edit intro page as is, meaning you can't pass any parameters into it. And I wouldn't deprecate {{BLP}} either but turn it into a meta template transcluding the intro, it's simpler to maintain the talk check and categorization that way, and much easier to use, with the advantage that the same text is used both times. Amalthea 08:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, ok. But in that case, why not replace the content of {{BLP editintro}} with {{BLP|boxtype=editnotice}} instead? PC78 (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a tiny bit simpler. For example, {{BLP}} currently transcludes {{check talk}}, which displays a big warning if ever rendered in a namespace other than Talk. That warning would have to be suppressed in the edit intro, i.e. wrapped in some odd {{#ifeq:{{{boxtype}}}|editnotice||{{ckeck talk}}}}. The same goes for the categorization, the __NOINDEX__, the {{documentantion}}.
Certainly possible, but it's just simpler and more readable the other way around. :)
Amalthea 14:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Okey-doke. :) PC78 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Discussion here. PC78 (talk) 20:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More..."pledge"

Hey, just noticed this "pledge" made by Greenock125 and your response [17]. Wanted to make sure you saw that this person was given pledges and deals many many other times: [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] (you may have already been aware, but just in case you were not). People have tried repeatedly with this guy, to no avail. - eo (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

I didn't actually realise it was a talk page, I usually see when they are, sorry minor mistake I'll try to be more careful. EarthCom1000 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. :) Amalthea 19:27, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Template

Hello Amalthea. Months ago the Template:Countries of Central America was blocked for what it then seemed like an edit war from one party with an anonimous IP that wanted to include Mexico there. So an edit war started and the template got protected. Other related template with Central America was recently unblocked by request (Template:Central America topic) and now there is a consensus so I'm asking that the template is unprotected or semi protected so we can edit it again and reflect the changes. Gracias. Guate-man (talk) 23:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected now. Thanks, Amalthea 16:54, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Guate-man (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and have a Barnstar.

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For speedy enhancements to Twinkle. (I expected a long list of barnstars on your User page, but it seems you don't collect them!) Trafford09 (talk) 11:14, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Brexx/Bellsouth ADSL modems

I've blocked a few IPs in the Bellsouth range for behaviour that screams "Brexx!". Still, they are too snugly packed for me to think they are random proxies, so either I've screwed up, we have an impersonator, Brexx moved to Atlanta, or something mysterious is going on. It's 74.240.31.157, 74.240.2.73, and 74.240.31.155. Perhaps with your magical powers you can make more sense of it than I can.—Kww(talk) 02:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

An odd one. Has a fake UA, certainly some kind of foul play. I can't really trace it anywhere though. Matches two accounts you recently blocked as Brexx-socks, one of those accounts also had a few stray edits from apparently Wisconsin, Ohio, California, New York, Norway, and Slovakia, I still need to look into all those.
Note though that {{blocked proxy}} is only for open proxies, and I find no evidence at all that any of these are open proxies. In general, a proxy block over many month only makes sense if the IP is largely static. In this case I've replaced them by range blocks to stop the block evasion, whether it's Brexx or not. Ip contribs you may want to look at are:

• 74.240.16.156 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.16.211 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.16.28 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.16.98 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.31.112 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.31.13 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.31.152 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.31.181 (talk · contribs)
• 74.240.31.232 (talk · contribs)

Amalthea 19:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How does 212.194.46.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) look for being a candidate for fitting into this access pattern?—Kww(talk) 22:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Further edits confirmed it, so I blocked. Expanding it into a range might be appropriate, but you can judge better than I.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

81.225.0.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as well.—Kww(talk) 22:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• 66.229.195.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 76.110.249.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm just letting him expose as many of these as he is willing to.—Kww(talk) 22:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Kick

Just making sure you had noticed my updates to our previous conversation a few paragraphs above.—Kww(talk) 15:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Noticed yes, forgotten … yes. Can't really make anything of it, with the little additional information I see, besides that the edits appear to have been made by the same person, but you knew that already. Aren't looking like your typical open proxy, but I am asking around. Amalthea 16:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know anything new, sorry. Zzuuzz thinks that it might be an anonymizing service. Dynamic IPs though, which would be somewhat annoying. Amalthea 13:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

From behaviour, that's my best bet too: an anonymizer with a botnet. Is the fake user agent unique enough that we could request a Wikimedia patch against it?—Kww(talk) 14:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's breaking it, and it's not 100% consistent. But that's all so odd. How convinced are you with Teenagebrand (talk · contribs) (I see the one edit summary, but …)? And what do you make of the edits from 98.95.103.0/24 (rangecontribs)? Or Antonellicollege (note antonellicollege.edu, which is also in Jackson, Mississippi)?
Maybe he really has moved, or he's found his soulmate. Amalthea 15:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The 98.85.x.x IPs, not so much. TeenageBrand/Onlygirlintheworld is a behavioural match on the Ne-Yo articles, where he has been extremely annoyed at people refusing to honor his editsemiprotected requests. As always, there aren't retinal scanners, so it is possible that he has a disciple. Given that he was using hotspotshield.com earlier and has always had a mix of proxy abuse in his edits, a new anonymizer (or even just a smarter hotspotshield.com anonymizer) seems very plausible. Another alternative is the Brexx himself is gone, and I am chasing ghosts. That would surprise me. He's had a dedication to getting his edits in that I associate with our Asperger Syndrome editors, and I don't expect him to give up before I do. Despite rumors to the contrary, I do have a life, and I do get bored with this.—Kww(talk) 15:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

This diff from 98.95.103.13 stands out, obviously. Have you seen him editing from home the UAE lately? Amalthea 16:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't know how I missed that one. Yes, that's pretty likely. His regular 86.96 range seems quiet for him, ever since the hotspotshield original problems.—Kww(talk) 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

File:Flag of the African Union 2010.svg

I certainly don't remember it but I'll do a search and see if I can find it. Lexicon (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The press release can be found at the African Union website, in Word format, here. Lexicon (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks! I had searched their page, but only found a document noting that a new flag was approved and the designer was awarded IIRC $10.000 for it, but nothing on the actual flag to properly source the image (and it was odd since they still use the old flag on their website).
Cheers, Amalthea 20:07, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI for dpeedy deletion?

See CAT:UCSD. I'm not sure why Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and these other pages are appearing in the "speedy-deletion requested by user" list. There seem to be bot operations going on - I don't know if that has confused something? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Webfan29 was transcluded on some other SPI page. I've deleted the case page, should be good now.
Thanks, Amalthea 20:02, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Election RFC courtesy notice

A request for comment that may interest you is currently in progress at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure. If you have already participated, then please disregard this notice and my apologies. A Horse called Man 19:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
You received this message because you participated in the earlier ArbCom voting system RFC.

SPI

[24] No, because of the cocky it's me attitude, the similar interests, and the fact that it was active at the same time he was yesterday using a new IP. Perhaps it came up unrelated because it was a range he hasn't used before? Grsz¹¹ 19:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi,
I heard about the new range, but it still isn't Grundle, as certain as I can be.
Cheers, Amalthea 19:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Xeno archives his talk page really fast, but I wanted to say thanks for the suggestion you gave me there yesterday; I did see it. I found another set of css/js code somewhere else and spent a few hours goofing around with it (trying to learn by osmosis), to the point where it does about 80% of what I want; if I ever get another few free hours, I may fiddle with Ioeth's code, just to see what the differences are. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of Cambodian singers

Hi. I see you restored content to Talk:List of Cambodian singers with the comment "restoring discussion, no reason to throw it out." The IP editor had archived it, at Talk:List of Cambodian singers/Archive1, and hadn't actually thrown it out. I did think it was perhaps a bit premature to archive, but I left it. What do you think - revert the Talk and keep the archive, or empty the archive? (I'd favour the latter, as the Talk isn't too long) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't care. :)
In general archival was certainly unnecessary, but in this particular case I'm just as happy to leave it be.
Have added a talk header now and renamed the archive so that it is at least easily accessible, but feel very free to undo.
Cheers, Amalthea 10:09, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect

Can you please unprotect SEPTA Route 15 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and SEPTA Subway–Surface Trolley Lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? There has not been much "action" since you put Pending Changes on the articles in June. — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 21:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick! Thanks! — Gfoley4 Wanna chat? 21:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. :) Amalthea 21:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Hijacked Article

Hi there could you please help with my article Jatt its been hijacked by a user i have requested him on many occasions to stop butg he is persistent --Qaleechpuri (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC)i started the article with accurate historical references and now if i revert the changes by the vandal the bot tells me i am the vandal. any help would be appreciated. thx--Qaleechpuri (talk) 10:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I've only looked at one revision there, but that looked like a racist POV fork to me. But in any case there's discussion at Talk:Jatt, I'm watching there now. Amalthea 22:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Stemcellbaby

Hi, I'm User:Stemcellbaby - you blocked me recently as a sock puppet. I'm not a sock puppet, what can I do to sort this out because I'd like my account back! Stemcellbaby2 (talk) 11:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

You quite certainly were evading a block, and are again with this account. If you are requesting an unblock, do so with your original account. Keep up the usurpation nonsense, and you'll continue to get blocked. Amalthea 21:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Make reviewer script

Hi, is there any chance you could set something up similar to User:Amalthea/MakeReviewer.js (which is incredibly useful) for granting rollback when you have the time? Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Easy peasy. What texts should be used for rights change log and, if you want that there, user page section header & body?
Should probably be integrated into WP:PERM, but I'd need a free weekend, and I don't really see that coming in the near future. :) Amalthea 21:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, just "trusted editor" would be sufficient for the rights log and {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/Rollback}} under a heading of "Rollback" would be great for the message. Integration with PERM/R would be brilliant, but I (and I'm sure many other admins) would be very happy to be able to grant it from there in 2 clicks. Cheers, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, here's User:Amalthea/MakeRollbacker.js. Gross copy&paste job, but I figure you rather have something ugly now than something fancy in a year. :) Cheers, Amalthea 22:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks! :) I don't know if it't the script or me (the latter's more likely) but I can't find a "make rollbacker" button. Does it appear on the tabs at the top of the page (the monobook ones, I can't stand vector) like the reviewer script? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:00, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Did you remember to bypass your browser cache after adding the line? Amalthea 23:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I did, but it's evidently just being slow. It works in Explorer, so I'm sure Chrome will catch up! Thanks a lot! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hug bug

Hiya. Last month you did a great Twinkle fix, to add (talk) - in red or blue - when TW was used to revert an edit.

(You fixed it with this TW edit.)

Well, I was wondering if your silky skills extended to Huggle as well?

Note that Huggle reverts don't show the (talk) suffix.

Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Huggle doesn't because the talk link was removed from its config a couple of days ago.
Can't tell you why, I don't find the discussion hinted at in the edit summary. Feel free to initiate one at WP:Huggle/Config. Amalthea 10:53, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that info. - I'll pursue it, using your leads. (Twinkle 1, Huggle 0!) Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI: I thought I'd start by asking the editor, at here - in case you wanted to track any developments. Trafford09 (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Was reverted now anyway. Amalthea 22:48, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Ooh yes - ta for pointing that out. I'll sit tight for now, in that case. Trafford09 (talk) 00:15, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

OK then - next up: GLOO. It doesn't show the (talk) currently e.g. here. Any ideas? Ta, Trafford09 (talk) 10:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Ale jrb/Scripts/iglooSettings.js. Talk to Ale jrb. Amalthea 12:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Right - will do - ta. Trafford09 (talk) 16:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Easyblock

Hi Amalthea - I see you've been the most recent updater of Easyblock.js. Do you know if the original author has stopped adding to it, or just busy IRL? I left a note requesting an enhancement (removal of categories like username concern when blocking) which went unanswered. Now I was going to go back with nother suggestion (to add causeblock to the username blocking reasons) but I see that Animum doesn't edit much any more. Should I take a stab at it myself? Are you versed enough in the script that you could add either of them? Should I just shut up and do causeblocks manually (as I do now)? All suggestions appreciated. Thanks.  7  07:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What's a causeblock? Usename blocks are by and large unnecessary and/or excessive, in my opinion, so I don't know the first thing about it.
Animum would certainly not mind any extensions to the script if such extensions are generally useful, so if you want just go for it. I can try as well, but I can't promise having time for it before Christmas. :\
Amalthea 11:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I made the change myself. Seems to work fine, but feel free to revert if you see any problems. Thanks.  7  08:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks great. And now people will come to you if they want further additions. :) Amalthea 09:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

 7  23:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

If you have a look at it, could you check the syntax as well? The new Firefox JS engine (JägerMonkey) does not seem to like it and I cannot get it to work properly. The error console says

Error: UrlParameters is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Animum/easyblock.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 491

but I have no idea as to why that is. Regards SoWhy 12:46, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Try it now (after bypassing your browser cache). Amalthea 11:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, no error messages anymore and it seems to work! Thanks! :-)

Btw, on a similar problem, I get the following error in the error console:

Error: QueryString is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ioeth/friendlytag.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 46

Since you are also familiar with Twinkle/Friendly, could you have a look at this as well? Regards SoWhy 11:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you try now, again bypassing your browser cache first? Only touched friendlytag, the others might need the same treatment. And sorry for offloading testing to you, most of the extensions I use don't work with Firefox 4.0 yet. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 15:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The welcoming seems to work [25] but I still get the following errors in the console:

Error: twAddPortletLink is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ioeth/friendlytalkback.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 48
Error: QueryString is not defined
Source File: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ioeth/friendlytag.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript
Line: 46

Don't worry about offloading though, I'm more than happy to help with that :-) Regards SoWhy 09:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

September done, now october

Thanks for doing September. I have just archived October so when you have the time could you do October? Cheers. Simply south (talk) 14:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Amalthea 16:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about our weather, especially as it started in November. Here come's the snow again, falling on my head like a memory, falling on my head like a new emotion.... Simply south (talk)

Twinkle misfire

Hello, I apologize for mistakenly using Twinkle to undo your edits to Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc. I was looking at the Twinkle functions and clicked by accident. I think I have rectified the problem and restored your edits to the page, but could you double check? Sorry once again. TehGrauniad (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, happens. :) Amalthea 09:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Skoojal SPI

You worked on a recent SPI that turned out to be Skoojal.[26] I've just posted a new SPI for Skoojal himself. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skoojal, in case you have any insight or recollection of the details.   Will Beback  talk  07:37, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Never mind. I contacted the user and am satisfied that it is a different person.   Will Beback  talk  09:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Alright. :) Amalthea 09:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Better Luck Tomorrow

The IP is at it again, slow moving this time.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Protected, and left a comment at the talk page. Amalthea 10:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma2

I have reblocked this account for harassment. Please contact me via email if you have any questions about this. Jehochman ^Talk 12:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

No questions, harassment is a different issue, one that I deliberately left open. Abuse of multiple accounts I still don't see (despite his insinuations/threats). Amalthea 13:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

He has clearly stated himself that he has created a sockpuppet after his main account was blocked [27]. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Loads of folks make such boasts without coming through, and with multiple CUs having looked into it it's a rather useless tag, but suit yourself. Just make sure you never claim that he actually has abused multiple accounts since that might be a libelous claim (depending on where you live, probably, but IANAL). Amalthea 18:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Burpleson, the user has been indeffed. There is nothing else to do here. Jehochman ^Talk 18:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

hello

hellooooooooooooo, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.106.192.63 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

theserialcomma

i scrambled the passwords long ago so i am posting under this account because i have no other option. it's not like i'd post under my real IP, and I can't access my old account, so the only way to defend myself is to make a new account. i'm not posting to wikipedia articles or anything, just doing this to defend myself. if this is technically abusive sockpuppetry or block evading, so be it, but i did this because i object to jehochman's latest block of me without providing any evidence. i never socked, and i didnt return to harass anyone. whether i am unblocked or kept indef'd is not important to me at this point, but i would hope that you ask jehochman for his evidence of my 'continued' harassment. there is none. i would request some diffs or evidence because there isnt any. the sockpuppetry block was incorrect, and the continued harassment block was incorrect. this has led me to making a new account since i scrambled the passwords, leaving me in this situation where now i've technically evaded a block. nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsc04 (talk • contribs) 10:22, December 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked this account as a self-confessed sockpuppet and reverted the changes it made to User talk:Theserialcomma, as these deleted/modified other editors' comments and talk page access had at any rate been revoked. Feel free to revert my actions if you deem them to harsh. Favonian (talk) 10:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

TSC, if you'd like to edit again, you have to completely avoid any interaction or mention of a certain editor you've been in long term conflict with. You must not make edits that need to be revision deleted, as you did on November 27. Finally, you must not make any derogatory remarks relating to any user's sexual orientation. If you agree to these terms, contact me or Amalthea, or the Arbitration Committee and you might be authorized to create a fresh account. These are the terms I suggest for discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Theserialcomma, I think Jehochman is being very generous given the personal attack you made towards him on your talk page. (Note that he doesn't even use IRC.) After seeing his offer here, I feel I should offer an olive branch myself. It should be possible for you to recover your User:Theserialcomma account, and I suspect either Jehochman or Amalthea can advise you on how to go about it.

I am willing to forgive and forget both the on-wiki and off-wiki stuff related to our conflict. There are however a few things I would like to see from you in order to help put the past behind us and minimise the chance of any further conflicts.

First, I would like to see you acknowledge and offer an on-wiki apology for you role and actions related to the events that have transpired thus far. You don't need to go into the details of each event, I would just like to see you acknowledge your role in the larger conflict. I'm not asking you to take responsibility for the actions of the other two individuals who later became involved, but just your own role.

Second, I would like for you to voluntarily agree to avoid editing in the subject areas that I normally edit in as you didn't previously edit in those subject areas anyway (technology/computing/online communications, including IRC, etc). In exchange, I'll cull my own watchlist and remove articles in the subject areas you tended to edit in.

I want you to understand that I don't really have any say-so over any actions resulting from any discussion on the functionaries list. Whatever they decide to do with the material I submitted is pretty much out of my hands at this point. If other editors also decide a community discussion is necessary regarding your past actions before unblocking you, that is also out of my hands.

I also reserve the right to at some point create a subpage in my userspace (as other editors have done when they've been involved in past conflicts) which details our conflict, including the good, the bad, and and ugly, so that the community can both learn from and better understand what happened.

It has become quite apparent in the last month or so that you've made a lot of enemies here on Wikipedia who really don't like you. Going forward, I would really like to avoid us being enemies.

I also wish to apologise for my actions in this diff. As frustrated as I was, [28] that still isn't an excuse. It was inappropriate for me to respond to you in that manner and I shouldn't have done it. --Tothwolf (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Asgardian sock investigation

Hi. I started an investigation into Asgardian's socks. I don't know why the ones from September and the one from last month closed without any apparent resolution or finding, but one of the IPs named during that one is one of the three I've named in this newest one. Someone on that page mentioned that a CU could look that investigation over and forward it to arbcom, but I don't know exactly what that means, whether it was done, and what, if any effect that had. Can you advise on how this works? One of the IPs in this newest investigation is one of the IPs mentioned in those earlier investigations. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Sent you a mail. Cheers, Amalthea 15:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

If a user has been banned, than any and all IPs he uses to edit from should be blocked, regardless of any assessments of "harm" caused by his edits. He is continuing his WP:OWN-type behavior, and his uncivil remarks to others. That others may edit from those IPs is irrelevant; others can simply sign in for their own accounts. The attitude that there's nothing that can be done to stop him is what allowed him to violate the site's policies for three years before he was banned and now, the same fatalistic resignation is allowing him to continue. Nightscream (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? No, IPs used by banned users should not be blocked regardless of circumstances; bans are still means to improve the encyclopedia, and if a block trying to enforce a ban would do more harm then good then it will not be made. There is nothing fatalistic about it: I explicitly asked you whether his edits are still harmful, if they are then as I said there are other ways to prevent those edits, e.g. protections or the abuse filter or ISP complaints.
Amalthea 20:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Contributions

Hello,

I've posted some information that has been reverted, and I'd like the contribution history to be deleted. I was wondering if it would be possible for you to help with this. I regret what I wrote, as I was disgruntled, and the former employer has asked for the information to be removed from the history. I'd appreciate your help.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trustingsidekick (talk • contribs) 13:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Has already been taken care of. Cheers, Amalthea 14:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Divebomb

Did you specifically compare Divebomb to editor editor XXV or is there a way for Checkusers to compare somebody against every known sockpuppeteer? I'm wondering since Divebomb isn't mentioned anywhere here. NotARealWord (talk) 17:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I looked into another suspected Editor XXV sock and the Divebomb account popped up; I was not aware of the Divebomb account before that. Amalthea 20:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the suspected account? The sockpuppet investigations page doesn't seem to have any recent reports. NotARealWord (talk) 06:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Commander KNI (talk · contribs). Amalthea 09:14, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention

Sorry if my old fashioned HTML broke anything (BTW what problem did it cause?) - I've always done a break like <br> for years which always worked with simple HTML pages, (and it's probably not helped by me now using Dreamweaver for web pages, which tends to auto correct without warning). There's nothing on Wikipedia:Editnotice which emphasises any importance of good coding - maybe a section needs to be added?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries, it shouldn't be necessary to keep it valid XHTML, but not doing so will prevent Twinkle/Friendly from processing those pages (see WP:TW/BUG#422 in this case). It's a combination of Twinkle not using the API for editing the page and MediaWiki not using HTMLTidy on system messages.
Wouldn't hurt to mention it on WP:Editnotice, you're right. I should probably also create edit notices for those edit notices that cause Twinkle failures from time to time (mostly UAA and RFPP, I think).
Cheers, Amalthea 03:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've put a small piece on WP:Editnotice  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Amalthea 22:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays!

Dear Amalthea, Best wishes to you and your family this holiday season, whether you are celebrating Christmas or a different holiday. It's a special time of the year for almost everyone, and there's always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! ;) Love, --Meaghan [talk] ≈ 14:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Friendly tags

Hello, I noticed you've been updating User:Ioeth/friendlytag.js recently. I just recently started using it and noticed that it is missing one of the tags that I often apply to articles, {{cleanup-link rot}}. It seems to me that it would make sense for the checkbox for "Cleanup" to expand when checked (like how the "Notability" one does) and offer a choice of which cleanup template to use. There's quite a few: {{Cleanup}}, {{Cleanup-importance}}, {{Cleanup-verify}}, {{Cleanup-laundry}}, {{Cleanup-IPA}}, {{Cleanup-tone}}, {{Cleanup-list}}, {{Cleanup-link rot}}, {{Cleanup-advertising}}, {{Cleanup-buzzwords}}, {{Cleanup-copyedit}}, and many others. They may not all be widely used enough to warrant inclusion in the script, but I think some of them definitely should be there. Any chance that the script could be updated to include them? I'd be happy to write the code and have you insert it, since the script is protected. Or is there a more appropriate place to suggest this (like a village pump for changes to Friendly/Twinkle features)? Thanks. SnottyWong ^spout 20:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I see someone has already made this request at WT:TW, I'll add my support there and see where it goes. If you end up responding here, send me a talkback. Thanks. SnottyWong ^chatter 21:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hogmanay greeting

Thank you very much for working with me in 2010 to make the encyclopedia a better place. Regardless of any disagreements we may have had, I want to wish you all the very best for 2011. I look forward to working with you, and I hope for health and happiness to you and your family in the year to come. I therefore send you this glass of the cratur, so you can celebrate, whether it is Hogmanay or New Year's Day where you are. Warmest regards, --John (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

List of mass murderers by number of victims

You may excuse if I disagree with your objection to naming Jared Loughner as the perpetrator of the attack. First, I don't see any violation to WP:BLP, as he is identified by reliable sources as the gunman. True, many damp it by using words like "alleged" or "suspected", but there are others which are less sensitive and don't lose themselves in semantics, blantantly stating that he was the shooter:

Lone gunman Jared Loughner, who was overpowered by heroic bystanders, will appear in a federal court in the state capital Phoenix at 3:00 pm (2300 GMT) charged with five counts, including murder and attempted murder. AFP

Family friend Susan Hileman knew about her interest in politics and took her along to Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' meet-and-greet, where gunman Jared Lee Loughner went on a bloody rampage. New York Post

Lone gunman Jared Lee Loughner (age 22) shot Giffords in the head and continued the rampage by shooting a total of 19 people, murdering at least 6. The Washington Times

Second, there is no controversy, if he actually committed the shooting. It's not as if he was arrested hours or days later due to circumstancial evidence, as happened in the case of Guy Heinze, meaning there is little reason to doubt the reliability of these sources when they call Loughner the one who shot those people.

Third, as the perpetrator of a mass shooting that left six people dead, he is, by the definition of the term, a mass murderer. It doesn't even matter, if he will be found insane, guilty of manslaughter or murder, or acquitted due to some formality. Mass murder is used in this case as a technical term, and not a legal one, therefore being only descriptive and in no way judgemental. (Lord Gøn (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC))

Well, I don't agree with any of those arguments, pretty much. :)
Verifiability doesn't mean that there needs to be at least one reliable source confirming a fact. The few sources that call him the perpetrator are countered by lots that don't, which in my view makes those few sources wrong (and not all of those you list are reliable in the first place). To remain verifiable we must judge those sources, and ignoring that is a BLP violation. There is a difference between calling him a suspect and a mass murderer, and an exceptional claim like that needs impeccable sourcing; That's not losing oneself in semantics, it's being precise (even though I am personally convinced that, in a few month, he will be convicted as a murderer).
I also don't agree that "mass murder" should be treated as an informal term; "mass murder" requires "murder", which by definition requires a certain motivation from the murderer. If you want to be precise you can only call a killing "murder" if that motivation has been judged, be it by a court or by legal or historical reliable sources.
I acknowledge that opinions differ here, so I'm of course very open to discussions in a larger forum. Until we have that though I am of the strong opinion that we need to be conservative, at the very least until we can show that a majority of reliable sources calls it "murder", too. Amalthea 11:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested unprotection of template

Hi Amalthea. An editor has requested that a template that you created and fully protected be unprotected; see here. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. After some deliberation I found that I myself wouldn't even use it anymore, so I've deleted it. Amalthea 11:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:Selfsubst/ language/js

Just wondering what the purpose of {{Selfsubst/ language/js}} is. There isn't any documentation on the page about it. -- WOSlinker (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. There's some documentation on the main template at {{selfsubst}}, and it's used in MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js. The strings that are used to start or end a comment in javascript and thus hide the selfsubsting magic are defined in language helper templates like {{Selfsubst/ language/js}} (I used /*/ for some distinct reason, but I can't remember it), to allow using the selfsubst template in other languages, too. Not that anyone is likely to do so, of course. :) Amalthea 20:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Br tag

Hello. Regarding the <br /> tag, is the forward slash part inevitable? I know many users who don't put a forward slash in br tags in articles. As far as I know, br tags can't technically be *ended*. HeyMid (contribs) 17:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Short answer: No.

Long answer needs some context. If you are writing an XHTML document you must close all tags. MediaWiki wants to produce valid XHTML. HTMLTidy is activated on all WMF MediaWiki installations to clean up the page output (more or less, it has bugs), and it's an essential part since the MediaWiki page renderer does not create valid XHTML itself. Therefore it makes no difference to the rendered page whether you close your BR tag or not. There is no standard defining the MediaWiki markup language. All we have is how it works. MediaWiki accepted both closed and unclosed BR tags since forever.
My conclusion from all of the above is that both forms are equally valid.

Comments/Caveats:

• <br/> is an empty BR tag, not a closing tag. In an XHTML browser it's equivalent to <br></br>.
• HTMLTidy is not cleaning the full document, only the rendered page. That means that system messages and, by extension, editnotices must (as a workaround) be written in a way that produces valid XHTML (You remember User talk:Amalthea/Archive_5#The TW RFPP issue?)).
• I personally consider the above behavior a clear bug, MediaWiki should never be able to produce invalid XHTML, no matter what you throw at it.
• There are a number of scripts and bots and users that "clean" BR tags in articles so that they are properly closed. I consider that a waste of resources, and prefer unclosed BR tags in MediaWiki code myself, simply because they are shorter.

Amalthea 17:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hi Amalthea, I've been translating Twinkle to Spanish on testwiki: and (on twinklespeedy.js) I tried to implement a prompt window for extra reasons not listed in there, the thing is that it works, but only for tagging, if I try to delete all I got is this, no prompt window and the default summary without a delete reason. If you are not busy, can you take a look at the code when you can? Cheers, and sorry for bothering you :) -- Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 09:57, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to tell, is the value/reason "otros" or "g15". -- Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 10:01, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've added a small change that asks for a reason if none was given if Twinkle is used to delete a page directly. It's a bit of a hack, really, but sufficient for what you need I think. Cheers, Amalthea 20:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias! :) -- Màñü飆¹5 ^talk 08:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Expand in Twinkle

Hi, Template:Expand is in the process of being deleted after a TFD and a DRV. Could you remove it from Twinkle? Since editors are still adding the template that way. I just saw it also was posted on Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Template:Expand but it's still there. :) Garion96 (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks! I noticed the section at WT:TW at the time, but the template was already at DELREV so I thought it best to await that outcome first.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Tnx, tried to find it myself but really had no idea I had to look at User:Ioeth/friendlytag.js. :) Any other scripts perhaps still use the template? Garion96 (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

None from Twinkle/Friendly as far as I know. Amalthea 18:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

November and December

Could you archive November and December 2010? Simply south..... 22:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

All Done (although "archive" is a bit of a euphemism here. :)). Amalthea 13:45, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Close enough. Thank you. And I hope you don't mind my quick spellcheck

.....htuos ylpmiS 19:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Another copy and paste, if you don't mind

Hi Amalthea, sorry to trouble you again but you remember those handy scripts for granting reviewer/rollback? Any chance you could copy, paste and adjust as necessary to make me one for autoreviewer/autopatrolled? Thanks a lot, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Oh, {{subst:User:HJ Mitchell/Autorev}} ~~~~ would be great for the message, plain old "trusted editor" for the log summary and "Autopatrolled" for the message header. Thanks! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, too late to shut the barn door now, so here is another copy&paste incarnation: User:Amalthea/MakeAutopatroller.js.
May Zuse forgive me. :) Amalthea 14:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Much obliged! I don't need anything fancy, and I'm sure that will make things much easier. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the buttons are making the top bar longer than my screen. Any chance you could change the tab to "make autorev" and the rollback one to "make rbk" or something else concise? Very much appreciated, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Have shortened them a bit, if they are still too long you can now configure them using something like:

MakeRollbackerConfig={portletTitle:"+rbk"};
MakeAutopatrollerConfig={portletTitle:"+atpt"};
MakeReviewerConfig={portletTitle:"+rev"};

before (!) the importScript call. Remember to bypass your browser cache to get the changes. Amalthea 21:35, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. Between drop down menus, Twinkle and these, the top was getting a bit long! Thanks again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for help on my sig!

I really appreciate it! Geofferic ^T•_C✡ 15:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. Amalthea 16:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Your expertise...

...would probably be welcome at MediaWiki talk:Common.js#RefTools consensus reached on VPP, need implementation. –xeno^talk 00:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The person you've called is currently unavailable. For edit.js related tasks that require more than 10 minutes of undivided attention, please press 1, 2, or 3. Good luck. :\

Twinkle source code

Hey

I've filed a couple of bugs in Twinkle, is there some sort of process set up so that I could contribute a patch? Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really a process, no. For small changes just post the lines that need to be replaced, for larger changes it's IMO easiest if you copy the script in question to your userspace, make the required modifications, and then post a diff (preferably between live revision and your revision). Cheers, Amalthea 13:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Of note I've attached a diff to bug 419. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, almost missed that one -- implemented now, thanks! Amalthea 22:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement

I bought up a policy discussion about free images of actors vs non-free images of characters at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 50#Characters/actors images replacement. Thought you might want to contribute to it. JDDJS (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankee for the notice, I've repeated my opinion there. Amalthea 18:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kim McKay entry

Dear Amalthea,

I would like to contribute an article to Wiki about an Australian environmentalist named Kim McKay but I understand that her previous entry was deleted - and that you were one of the reviewers.

Can you please advise me on how I should go about submitting my entry or having it reviewed.

Best regards,

Cuthbert29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuthbert29 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to answer yesterday, but it got buried under a dozen other tabs. The previous articles were blatant copyright violations, they used content that was created and published by others in violation of their (and our) license. I notice you already recreated the article, which is great!
Keep up the good work, and feel free to ask if you have further questions!
Kind regards, Amalthea 11:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Amalthea, thanks for your response. Best regards, Cuthbert29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuthbert29 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to say...

...thank you again for the nom, now that it's all over. I hope you feel as vindicated as I feel trepidatious about playing with my shiny new buttons. Going offline for the rest of the night, but wanted to beam at you in normal-sized text first :) Gonzonoir (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're very welcome! And I feel affirmed, yes, but I never doubted that this would be a very pleasant week for you. Cheers, and go nuts do good with your new buttons. Amalthea 15:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

template:diff2

Hi, can you give me a hand at Template:Diff2/sandbox? Check the history for some context. Thanks, Waldir ^talk 18:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you trying to change? Amalthea 18:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

First I converted the #ifeq: into an #if:. Then I tried to use its else clause to simplify the remaining of the template, since inside it we know there won't be a parameter #3 and the (now second) #if: can be reduced to {{{2|}}}. See this diff for the change I made, and the next edit summaries for my troubles. --Waldir ^talk 19:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! :) I do think the new code is slightly more intuitive (and it's better indented anyway). I'll sync the master version. Cheers, --Waldir ^talk 19:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

wpReason

Why doesn't reason get filled in? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:UserRights/Snotbot&wpReason=hello

Trying to have it automatically fill in reason from {{BRFA}} at WP:BRFAA. –xeno^talk 14:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it's coded that way: SpecialUserrights.php, line 456 in r77562:

Xml::input( 'user-reason', 60, false, array( 'id' => 'wpReason', 'maxlength' => 255 ) ) .

That "false" in the third parameter means it never gets a prefilled value. Changing that would be quite trivial, but needs to go through bugzilla:. And/or we add another crutch to your monobook.js to fill the field. :) Amalthea 16:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Bah - just when I think I'm getting the hang of things... –xeno^talk 16:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, quite impossible I'm afraid, as a rule MediaWiki never does things like you'd expect it to. :) Amalthea 13:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

bugzilla:26851. Thanks for the insight =) –xeno^talk 18:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

• Second verse, same as the first? https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Special:RenameUser&reason=WP:USURP&oldusername=Flynx&newusername=Flynx_%28usurped%29&suppressRedirect=1 (I know you can't see, but does not checked)... –xeno^talk 16:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I only have a dated version of that extension installed somewhere so I don't have any of those new fancy options, but all of reason, oldusername, and newusername work for me. A glance at the trunk suggests that the other parameters should work as well. Which one fails you? Amalthea 22:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
    • The suppressRedirect=1. –xeno^talk 22:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Crux is in lines 49 to 60 of rev 81598:

// If nothing given for these flags, assume they are checked
// unless this is a POST submission.
$move_checked = true;
$suppress_checked = false;
if ( $wgRequest->wasPosted() ) {
  if ( !$wgRequest->getCheck( 'movepages' ) ) {
    $move_checked = false;
  }
  if ( $wgRequest->getCheck( 'suppressredirect' ) ) {
    $suppress_checked = true;
  }
}

It disregards any values for the options "movepages" and "suppressredirect" if they are passed in via url parameters. Why I don't know, they don't seem sensitive enough for that to me. The check was introduced by "Greg" in revision 20843 when he made the movepages checkbox remember its status after a form submit. When suppressredirect was added, the code for movepages was apparently simply copy&pasted (as you can see the comment is still wrong), and inherited that logic. In my opinion, that "wasPosted" check can be removed entirely here.
Happy bugzilling, Amalthea 22:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Posted to bugzilla:23819. –xeno^talk 23:03, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

So, how about that javascript hack? ;> –xeno^talk 13:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC) (P.S., I tried, but failed, miserably).

Working now after [29] and [30]. Thanks! –xeno^talk 16:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle {{db-multiple}} support

Thought you might like this. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Great! Are you confident enough in your changes, or should I wait for feedback from users before applying your changes? Cheers, Amalthea 23:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Pretty confident. If it works for me, and you, then it ought to work for everyone else... (Ought to, anyway.) The traffic on WT:TW is painfully low, considering the amount of people who use Twinkle. So I don't expect any establishment of consensus there before MiszaBot comes along in a couple of weeks and archives the thread. (Oh, and thanks for the talkback - I've never got around to setting up my watchlist, and using it. Very neglectful of me, I know.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't tried it out thus far, but I've copied it over to Twinkle "trunk". If you notice any issues please ping me. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 14:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! The only issue is, you also copied over my header comment. This comment probably isn't necessary in the trunk copy, as a record of my contribution to the script is present in the page history. — This, that, and the other (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh... and there are also all my "**TTO" comments, which were really just for my personal benefit. I will shortly remove these from my copy of the script, so that you can copy it back without the unnecessary comments. (I will leave those comments that are potentially useful, though.) — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. And thanks for fixing the attack page typo; I don't know how I didn't catch it! — This, that, and the other (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That was fast! :)

Hi Amalthea. Wanted to drop you a note, I changed your sock block notice on Joseph Landrut (talk · contribs · count) to reflect Joseph Robert Neil James as the master account (since it was the first in use, as far as I can tell). Thanks for the quick noticing of the account and block. I was just moving to do it when I saw it editing, and was surprised someone had beat me to it. Syrthiss (talk) 15:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I copy&pasted the wrong name. Cheers, Amalthea 15:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Amalthea/VectorMenuToTabs.js

It looks like User:Amalthea/VectorMenuToTabs.js broke because of the deployment of MW 1.17; see the image to the right. This appears to fix the problem. Ucucha 02:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I've applied your patch. Cheers, Amalthea 11:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

twinklespeedy.js again

I have made some more improvements to twinklespeedy, fixing WP:TWBUGS#433, WP:TWBUGS#423, WP:TWBUGS#383, and a old feature request (which I can't find, now I look for it) that requested that Twinkle's admin deletion rationales should match the normal ones. Nothing too earth-shattering. See User:This, that and the other/twinklespeedy.js, and the diff. This should be my last set of improvements to twinklespeedy for the moment.

Just a couple of things:

• I don't see many admins using Twinkle's CSD function for deleting pages. Is there some reason why it is disliked, i.e. is it somehow inferior to the standard deletion procedure? Can it be improved?
• I was wondering about WP:TWBUGS#366: what needs to be done to fix this? Should F4, F5, F6 and F11 be removed from the CSD interface entirely (just for users, not admins, I suppose)?

— This, that, and the other (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Synched, thanks. You'll close those issues?
2. I don't use Twinkle for deletion of single pages either. From the top of the head those are reasons against using it:
   • Standard deletion doesn't really require more steps than with Twinkle.
   • Standard deletion shows the deletion log before I delete the page.
   • Standard deletion hints at existing talk page (and IIRC subpages).
   • The normal SD tag notifications don't really apply if you delete a page without tagging. Typically if I delete a page right away I either don't think a notification is required at all or I'll need to type a manual notification anyway.
   • With tagged pages, the "delete" link in the SD templates prefills the summary textbox in the standard deletion form, which is typically the reason you ant to appear there since it already contains the links for copyvio/content duplication/foreign language wiki/….
3. Removing those templates would be the easiest way, yes. Another option would be to make them use the respective delayed templates instead (essentially merge with twinkleimage): Place e.g. {{subst:orfud}} instead {{db-unfree}} (and use/redirect the respective notification templates as well).

Thanks, Amalthea 12:14, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Done. Thanks for your help. I've got some more fixes/improvements/additions in mind for other parts of Twinkle; I fear I am disrupting you too much if I keep on asking you personally to apply them. Do you know of another JavaScript- and Twinkle-savvy admin who would be happy to help out?
2. So, in other words, probably not worth improving admin CSD that much. The small minority of admins who do use it are presumably happy enough with it as it is.
3. I don't have the time to do this at the moment. Existing functionality is only slightly broken, anyway, so there's no rush.

— This, that, and the other (talk) 10:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

JavaScript-savvy and Twinkle-savvy and Admin are a few (User:AzaToth, User:Ioeth, User:TheDJ from the top of my head), but I don't think any of those users is going to be quicker to respond than me. Don't worry about distracting me. Or prep for an RfA. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 14:48, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

morebits and the edit API

Because of this discussion and this Twinkle bug, it looks like Twinkle is going to have to be switched over to the edit API within a relatively short timeframe (due to MW1.17 and the pending resolution of bugzilla:27478). I have made a start by writing a new function in morebits.js called Wikipedia.editPage. It is at User:This, that and the other/morebits.js, along with some other minor changes. This function is currently used by my twinklespeedy, and it should arrive soon at my twinkleunlink (which already uses the API, but via Wikipedia.api, not Wikipedia.editPage yet).

(1) What do you think? (UncleDouggie has modified twinklewarn.js to use the API, but it uses jQuery instead of anything in morebits, an idea which I'm not a fan of.) (2) Does it work for you? The API-savvy twinklespeedy works for me on Firefox 4.0 beta and Chrome latest, so it should work for you. (3) Any chance of applying it? — This, that, and the other (talk) 04:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

My current version of twinklewarn.js is still using morebits.js to save the changed page, but that's just because it was done in a panic of trying to get Twinkle running again. We have a discussion running on my talk as well with some more issues to work out. —UncleDouggie (talk) 04:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion has been centralized at Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Code_restructuring. —UncleDouggie (talk) 05:19, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes. When you do read this, Amalthea, it will be even more out-of-date than it is now... — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Catching up right now. Great work, guys! Amalthea 09:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

csd patrol

Could you please do this? It should fix the patrolling problem, and works in Chrome and Firefox. — This, that, and the other (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Amalthea 11:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:05, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Section removed

Hello. Can you tell me why some user has completely removed teh "International response section"? I'm talking about the 2001Sendai earthquake article --Jetstreamer (talk) 20:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk to Mkativerata at Talk:2011 Sendai earthquake and tsunami#International Response section. Amalthea 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

About my signature

Hey Amalthea, thanks for cleaning up my signature, it follows signature's guideline and looks good as well. Cheers - Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 23:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Jack_Merridew

Sorry to bother you, but re, SPI - and this

I do know the background. But...how are we to know? User:Jack_Merridew ia deleted (lots), and User talk:Jack_Merridew is blank.

Gold Hat (talk · contribs) edits are...well, at best, not entirely benefiting Wikipedia.

Is this really not sock-puppetry? Even when the user says "hey,, I am a sock"?  Chzz  ►  11:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, have a look at WP:ILLEGIT, but I don't see that he used Gold Hat as an alternate account intending to deceive. I'm fairly certain that his comment "Look, quit removing my post; I didn't call strat a sockpuppet; I'm the sock, fwiw." was in response to the continued removal of his 'fun' signature: You interpreted one of these posts as a personal attack, he thought that you thought that he called My76Strat a sock, so he wanted to clarify that part. I'm sure that this was not intended as disruption or provocation.

He used to be quite open about all his accounts, and he only asked to have his user pages deleted ca. 1h ago during that latest argument and hasn't really edited since, so give him some time. And I'm not quite sure what you mean by "not entirely benefiting Wikipedia". Besides today's argument Gold Hat appears to have made many constructive article edits in the recent week alone.

This really doesn't need to escalate any further. Amalthea 12:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for removing the SPI, etc.  Chzz  ►  13:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Talk page stalkers (if I have any), ...

... I really have to go offline now, if one of you could have half an eye on FOB Ramrod kill team during the next few hours to make sure the edit war doesn't start up again that would be great. :)
Thanks, Amalthea 00:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

On my watchlist.—Kww(talk) 00:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kww! :) Amalthea 13:32, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I wound up blocking both of them.—Kww(talk) 05:15, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I threw in a revert, and also mentioned it to Sage Ross, who protected it prior to the blocks. (It was later changed back to semi, once they'd been blocked).I hope that was helpful. I'm not so much a TPS, more of a happened-to-be-passing, nosy bastard.  Chzz  ►  10:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, guys! Sorry that I'm AWOL, am swamped at work. :( Amalthea 14:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Popups

Brilliant, thanks :). I did attempt to look into writing some js to do this when the problem first arose, but evidently I'm better with css than javascript ;). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help. Cheers, Amalthea 16:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle system date

Re TW-B-368

It is a problem, honestly - and one I've experienced, many times.

Surely there is some way to fix that?  Chzz  ►  10:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Twinkle could ask the server for the date, but it'll require one additional request.
Anyway, the issue isn't closed yet. Amalthea 10:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

OK; I'll wait another year, and maybe follow up again.  Chzz  ►  02:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I won't do anything about it right now, with the shift to jQuery/API editing in progress, and honestly I think there'll always be more pressing issues. Don't know what software you have that requires you to set your clock wrong, but I'd say that's the one that should be fixed? Amalthea 13:31, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		for getting rid of the disembodied head on the main page. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Heh, was expecting a Barnstar of the Spoilsport behind that orange bar. :) Amalthea 20:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Issues with user

Hello. I'm starting to have issues with the user Tomeepa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) whose continuously re-adding un-sourced content to the Mafioso rap page. The first time I reverted their edits (3/14/11) an anonymous I.P. - 180.23.85.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) changed them back soon after (I wouldn't at all be surprised if there's sock puppetry going on here). I explained to them earlier that these edits are trivial and un-sourced, thus, un-constructive. Soon after, they decided to once again restore this dubious list. Come to think of it, the whole page should be nominated for deletion or redirected to Gangsta rap#Mafioso rap, being that it fails to meet Wikipedia's requirements (unless expansion with reliable sources are added). Anyway, I'm getting tired of cleaning up edits that shouldn't be made in the first place, so I was wondering if you could contact this user. If so, it'd be greatly appreciated. --Blastmaster11 (talk) 01:42, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Your redirect is probably a good editorial solution and will make the issue moot. I'll keep the relevant pages watchlisted though. Amalthea 10:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your persistence!

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For persistence in the face of overwhelming odds helping me get my FF back to normal after 4 days. I really appreciate the help! Chaosdruid (talk) 19:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Glad I could help. Amalthea 19:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the help dealing with User:Robvanden! Uirauna (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And thanks for help with my seconf RFA, though like Red Sox, is off the another bad start. –BuickCenturyDriver 09:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. It appears to me that this applications was a bit overhasty though; at the very least you should have proofread your nom statement and answers. During an RfA, you want to show yourself from your very best side, mistakes there can be quite glaring. Amalthea 09:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:SEPTActaMTA8235

I don't understand why you undid the {{IPsock}} notice that I added to User talk:71.75.85.204. The user talk page discussions described a nearly identical user history, so it seemed reasonable to add the {{IPsock}} notice. Did you run a checkuser and find that I was wrong? Or did I use the template improperly? Thanks —Tim Pierce (talk) 18:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice that they both asked to place a YGM template at HJ's, but that seems to be a coincidence, and I'm certain that SEPTActaMTA8235 was telling the truth when he said they were unrelated: I saw that SEPTActaMTA8235 (talk · contribs) is actually Perseus, Son of Zeus (talk · contribs), and knew from a previous check that the named account behind 71.75.85.204 (talk) was someone unreleated.
Amalthea 18:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. The users also seemed to cite an identical history of saying that they vandalized Wikipedia to have their accounts blocked because they wanted to change their username, which seemed pretty unusual. I see also that Perseus, Son of Zeus says that he's now editing under Perseus8235, which shares a similarity with SEPTActaMTA8235. So I'm still skeptical. FWIW. —Tim Pierce (talk) 03:06, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perseus isn't editing the encyclopedia under any username, or at least shouldn't be, since he is banned. That aside, Amalthea is a checkuser themselves so I would assume they know the IPs that Perseus tends to edit from. Syrthiss (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

A quick check

When closing this SPI yesteday, you noted that you could do periodic sweeps for new accounts. Well User:Sugababes1992 popped up today and immediately went to Rian14s favourite target. Could you do a quick verification before I block the account? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:32, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, confirmed & blocked. Amalthea 13:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

And the page protected too? Wow, you did all my work for me! Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Right, wasn't sure whether you may be invested in any of those articles and may want to recuse from protecting yourself.
By the way, congrats to your strong showing in your semi-recent RfA. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 13:49, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing at all invested, I seem to have a knack for stumbling upon sockfarms (User:G.-M. Cupertino and Jake Picasso spring to mind). In this case she makes it pretty easy to detect her new accounts - which is fine by me. Regarding the RfA, I think I hit a rare pocket of kindlier, gentler RfAs as opposed to the usual barb-wired gauntlet. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea - a new sock has popped up as User:Riansmith2011. Could you check for any sleepers? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

This message is pertinent as well. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, handled, and picked up Rian2010 (talk · contribs) on the way. Amalthea 17:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

If only we had a "most unimaginative sock" award, Rian would be a near shoe-in. Cheers again for the help. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for bugging you again, but could you check User:Mennadavies2011 as a Rian13 sock? I've put a semi-prot on List of Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps episodes as that is where they seem to have moved on to after you protected the main Two Pints article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

 Confirmed. You shouldn't have called him unimaginative. :) Amalthea 13:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I should have added 'transparent' to the list of adjectives. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, sorry to be a pain, but I think there may be another Rian13 sock. There are huge editing gaps in User:Dannybaby1234's editing history, and they've popped back up to start editing Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps now that it's semi-protected against new socks. The similarity in the name choice is also striking. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 13:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated. As far as I can tell this would have been the first time that he used two socks in parallel, I don't think he does that. Cheers, Amalthea 14:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, luckily I left all of their edits in situ pending clarification. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 14:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Check my work, please

Based on this, I've softblocked the reported IP for a week. Darkness2005 has pointed fingers in false directions before, though, so if there is any reason you can see that my block is inappropriate, feel free to undo it.—Kww(talk) 17:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Appropriate, and nothing more I can or need to do. Amalthea 17:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

FYI: User talk:Darkness2005#I'm sorry for vandalizing/contributing so many articles without using the edit summary.
Curious if this works out. Amalthea 21:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Lagoo sab with new names

Hi Amalthea, could you have a look at this new investigation against new likely sock accounts of the banned User:Lagoo sab? Best regards, JCAla (talk) 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Has already been handled. Amalthea 09:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkness2005

If you have a chance and it's appropriate, please could you review the responses to Darkness2005's request to be unblocked? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't plan to go AWOL over the weekend. I have unblocked him, hoping for the best. Amalthea 10:14, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks so much Amalthea. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 11:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey

I have also participated further here; I am presuming good faith, but her reply came across sounding a bit harsh even if not intended that way. Per the press release you mentioned, I have been all over the Villa Giulia topic since the review and have started incorporating some things from the Italian article (this is a start, currently in userspace), and got a not-perfect translation of the press release; thank you Google. I agree with your comments therefore, and from my stance support the idea of a discussion at WT:CSD as you suggested. I doubt I will participate in that one, but I may peek in on the discussion. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Greenock125?

Afavoritaweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I'm pretty much assuming it's him. Where do we stand with him? Did you ever broker some kind of probation, or is he still rogue?—Kww(talk) 16:27, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated to Greenock125: Different continent, no indication of any foul play over the last 3 months.
Regarding Greenrock, as far as I know he hasn't created any socks for several months, and is currently avoiding Wikipedia altogether and wants to ping me in a bit to ask for another chance. If he can make that first step and thus show some self-discipline I was planning to try another unblock, probably with the same conditions as last time.
Cheers, Amalthea 18:30, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Good. It's so unusual to see a red-linked user going through and doing singlechart conversions that I made an assumption. Glad I checked.—Kww(talk) 19:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I've unblocked him today, although I have doubts whether this is going to work out: I'm sure he means well, but even while we talked about an unblock it proved quite difficult to make him accept the very basic conditions in actuality. But I believe we've talked about that before. Amalthea 17:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Just discovered the unblock situation today — FYI I'll be keeping a close eye on him too. I've spend too much time sweeping up his sockpuppets for him to come back and mess things again. - eo (talk) 19:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do, and make sure to raise any problems you notice on his talk page. FWIW, as far as I can tell he hasn't created any sock accounts since last November, so at least that part of the problem may be resolved. The IPs he used to edit as have also seen very few complaints. My hope is that this unblock can work out if his edits during the next months continue to be largely uncontroversial. Amalthea 21:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

unusual autoblock

I've got an autoblock case where it just keeps tripping: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ABlockList&ip=%232651478 shows an autoblock, yet http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=AlecTrevelyan402&blocks=true shows that the blocked account has been doing nothing. Is he periodically logging back in and refreshing the autoblock? Have I somehow set up a superautoblock that won't die?—Kww(talk) 22:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the only explanation I can offer, yes. His IP is stable, but has no logged actions. Presumably he just keeps triggering the autoblock (I don't know exactly what actions do that, if logging in is enough then it's not that surprising for a normal non-socking editor to keep logging in).
There are autoblocks that have been active for even longer than yours, e.g. this one. Amalthea 07:17, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I guess the follow-up question is "are the autoblocks blocking innocent people so far as you can tell?" If it's some kind of shared IP, I can redo the block sans autoblock.—Kww(talk) 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

In this case I can only see that no other account has used AlecTrevelyan402's IP, but I can't find out whether the autoblock is actually affecting that particular IP. Amalthea 11:44, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for checkuser

Dear Amalthea,

An article Torry Harris Business Solutions was vandalized (change of company name) by user User:Droplucky1. Would it please be possible to let me know the IP, so that any other changes from this IP can be rechecked.

Cheers Itkidontheblock (talk) 05:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Itkid,
I'm afraid I can't do that. As they say, CheckUser is not for fishing, meaning that unless there is some evidence hinting at abuse of multiple accounts, I am not allowed to begin an investigation here. Looking at Droplucky1's edits to that article I don't suspect that here. Am I missing something?
Kind regards, Amalthea 08:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Amalthea, Just a single edit of the company name, Harris to Harras (a misspell however) in two places. Itkidontheblock (talk) 09:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit summary dropdown of common summaries, via Javascript

Hi Amalthea, do you think you could find the time to chip in at Wikipedia:VPR#Now_what? I can't think who else definitely has the expertise. Rd232 ^talk 23:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

How is that supposed to look? Like the drop down/text box combo in the deletion interface? Amalthea 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Template talk:RailGauge

Hi Amalthea
Please see Template talk:RailGauge#530 mm - 21 inch and Template talk:RailGauge#Gauges between 1 ft and 2 ft perhaps you can help. Peter Horn User talk 00:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Keith D seems to have maintained that template for the last two years, can't he make whatever changes are required? Amalthea 13:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

PROD removals

Hiya, if the PROD is the wrong template to use, could you have please added the correct one? Mabuska ^(talk) 13:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of switching templates, correct process is described at WP:RfD. However, I don't think that they aren't are likely to find consensus to delete. Amalthea 13:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah, i did not know about RfD. I'm having a slight grammer understanding problem with your second sentence - are you saying that they are like;y to find consensus to delete or aren't? The "i don't think" with that "aren't" has got me slightly confused. Mabuska ^(talk) 22:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Nah, sorry, that was my grammar writing problem. I meant to say that in my opinion they are unlikely to be deleted; but please don't let that keep you from making your case, I have never been involved there so I have little experience in the reasonings behind keeping and deleting long-standing redirects.
Cheers, Amalthea 22:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think there is a good chance, as one of them was already designated to be deleted but over half a year on no-one has gotten round to actually doing it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackpot (Transformers)? It was deleted, and recreated as a redirect later.
An article deleted on grounds of notability concerns really only says that a standalone article on the topic under discussion isn't useful. Whether the page may host a useful redirect is a different question. Amalthea 11:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)