User talk:Xeno/Archive 27

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30

Proposal to extend the editing restrictions placed on User:Communicat

Hello, I have proposed that ArbCom extend the editing restrictions which it placed on Communicat (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Motion to extend editing restrictions on Communicat/Communikat and would appreciate your views on this. Thank you Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Noted - I will take a look when I have time. Generally all arbitrators watch the relevant venues, so there is typically no need to ping us individually - though I understand the desire to try and prod us along... –xenotalk 18:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Bubblespop201

I wanted to drop you a note that I'm giving Bubblespop201 a second chance to edit. You blocked the editor for an egregious BLP violation, which was entirely justified, but the editor has given an unambiguous acknowledgement that what they did was wrong and that they will try to make useful contributions. I've warned the editor that this is a last chance and that any further disruption would likely lead to a second block that will probably not be overturned. I've put the editor's page on my watchlist and will try to keep an eye on them. -- Atama頭 17:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Generally I am sympathetic to granting second chances, though I might suggest in future to ask them to put their edit button where their mouth is and engage the {{2nd chance}} procedure (especially when their first edit is so blatantly inappropriate). Let's hope that your faith in this editor has not been misplaced. –xenotalk 18:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

How can we correct a wrong title?

Hello, I am the elder daughter of Kanġi Oĥanko. Now I have time to give you details about my dad (via e-mail only, for private reasons), if you care. He can't do it himself.

For the moment, can you tell me how we can correct a wrong transliteration in a title. There are very few words in Ukrainian which use the [g] sound (like in "get"). The letter г is a [h] in Ukrainian (like in "hand"). Then, Луганськ is nearly correctly given as Luhansk, but the Луганський державний медичний університет becomes Lugansk Public Medical University. There are other cases in the Wikipedia in English and other languages, but i began with that one...

--Air Miss (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering that the University itself uses "Lugansk" at http://lsmu.edu.ua/eng/, I don't think we need to need to change anything. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Many official or non-official websites still use Kiev (like Wikipedia, in the title, for example, instead of Kyïw or Kyïv or a minimal Kyiv, even if the Ukrainian constitution says Ukrainian is the only official language in Ukraine. There are many, many examples like that in the Wikipedias, for various reasons. The main reason is that Ukrainians fear that correct tags would mislead the user or not found by those who don't speak Ukrainian.
Then, many official websites are in Russian (which violates laws and the constitution...) and then г becomes g, while the [[[Luhansk Oblast|Luhans‘ka's website]]] for example has only Ukrainian and the г is an h. How do you sort this out? Is it only the English-, German- and French-speaking people to decide what are the Ukrainian, Byelorussian (unless you speak the language and read “Беларусь” correctly as /bɛləˈruːsʲ/, why this German, stupid Belarus), Ruthenian languages and all others should be? Or do the native speakers can decide? Is it mine to decide what English should be? --Air Miss (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi Air Miss. Please do email me at xenowiki (at) gmail (dot) com (or click here) with news of Kanġi Oĥanko. As regards articles titles for foreign-language subjects, typically it would be the most common English spelling that is used. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Foreign names and anglicization and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) for more information on this topic. –xenotalk 23:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi!

Just checkin' in
Just wanted to pop in and say hi and share some cuteness via WikiLove. :) (Hamster! Eating! Awww! He would make a better box if he were facing the other way, but, oh, well...I'm not obsessive enough to flip 'im) Thanks for all you do. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 01:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the hamster. I will get him to work in the server farms right away ;p –xenotalk 12:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

AUSC stats

Hi,
my thoughts were to keep all editors who held community/ArbCom appointed CU rights during the last six months (plus Jimbo) in the AUSC stats. You're subtle nudges didn't go unnoticed, but if my metric isn't the most useful one for AUSC you'll have to be a bit more explicit. :) Do you want me to remove everyone who does not hold the bit at the end of the month? Or is it maybe enough to just make that part explicit, i.e. with a gray font color? Do you want non-ArbCom AUSC members highlighted as well?
Cheers, Amalthea 20:15, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

OH! I didn't see you re-added them, I thought maybe I had overlooked them when I made the edits last month. I don't think there's any kind of hard-and-fast system we have nailed down there... My main use for that page is in relation to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 7#Advanced permissions and inactivity. If you think it makes more sense to keep them on to explicitly show the absence of activity, then I think it is better to have zeros (0) rather than blank spaces. Blank spaces should be used for people who didn't hold the bit that month. And maybe a slightly different grey for non-arb AUSC holders and months where the bit is absent. –xenotalk 20:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
I didn't think too much about it, was just the way I set it up – and I didn't mind your edit at all, and of course didn't mean to make you revert it. Differentiating between months without bit and without checks makes sense (and is how Avi always held it, not that I think about it). I'll make some tweaks till the end of the month. Cheers, Amalthea 21:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Well, it does make sense to show zeros for months with no activity even for users who have relinquished the privs since (zeros for the months they held it, blanks for the months they are waiting to roll off the report). It just made it easier for me to visualize when they were removed =) But colouration and use of zeros vs. blanks will do that just as well. Thanks for your efforts on this. Maybe you can be coerced into updating WP:CRATSTATS as well? (No good deed...) –xenotalk 22:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

PGP public key

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.17 (MingW32)
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=rkP7
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

With thanks to Tim Starling for the Gpg4win tutorial. –xenotalk 01:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Why has it taken so long for even this basic level of security to be implemented? I was routinely using PGP on sensitive projects more than 20 years ago. Malleus Fatuorum 03:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
It is unclear to me whether a PGP implementation would have had any mitigating effect on the current situation. –xenotalk 03:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I have an aversion to word salads so I'll just say yes, it would. Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I haven't been privy to the investigations into the attack, so this is all just hypothetical: if the attacker obtained entry via a rootkit, wouldn't they be able to defeat PGP by keystroke logging the victim's passphrase? –xenotalk 03:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Entry to what? That remains the unanswered issue here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Entry into the compromised system, of course. Hypothetically speaking. –xenotalk 04:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
There's no "of course" about it, and please don't try to treat me like an idiot. The initial claim was that Iridescent's email account had been compromised. So what exactly was this compromised system if it wasn't Iridescent's email account? Did someone just randomly guess a password to the ArbCom email list? Do you really believe that we're all fools? Malleus Fatuorum 04:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I never made that specific claim (though I did refer back to it, as I personally had no reason to doubt it at the time). It is my understanding that the evidence that lead Coren to that conclusion has since been re-examined and no longer appears to be genuine (Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 8#Enquiries are continuing).
The simple truth is: I don't have the answers you're looking for, and I really was speaking hypothetically and speculatively above - I'm not on the inside track of these investigations.
I'm off for the night. –xenotalk 04:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

change user name

Would I be correct to assume that this would keep me from being able to usurp the name "Ched"? .. ty — Ched :  ?  14:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Borderline - I'd lean towards granting it because it looks like most of the edits were either reverted or very slight copy edits. –xenotalk 14:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
OK ... thank you Xeno. Let me think on it for a day or two. I don't want to make a decision on the spur of the moment. — Ched :  ?  14:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Something to enjoy while you work

Welcome back! I hope all is well and things are back to some semblance of normality for you.
If you don't drink alcohol, pretend its alcohol free :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I'll let you know if things are back to normality once I have figured out what normality is. Thanks =) –xenotalk 17:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Question

How do you get user rights?The computer rocks! (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Most you can request at WP:RFPERM. Administrative or bureaucrat privileges are obtained at WP:RFA/WP:RFB. (And some of the higher-order privileges require special requests or applications.) –xenotalk 17:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
If I want a bot-account flagged (policy-compliant, purely userspace ATM), where do I go then? :) Amalthea 01:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
What for? Prodego talk 01:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Mainly nominornewtalk in the near future. Amalthea 01:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Mmm, then you would need the actual bot right. WP:BRFA. Prodego talk 01:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Ah? BOTPOL isn't actually clear on that. It says userspace bot tasks don't actually require approval (as long as they behave), and that accounts are bot-flagged upon request by a BAG person. BRFA isn't necessarily a part of it, I think, and a bot flag has some inherent features as well (apihighlimits, and having the edits properly marked in RC and watchlists) so that I don't think it should be. Amalthea 13:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Is it just your own userspace? –xenotalk 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Heh, of course. Mine and bot. Amalthea 13:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
... but it's not really important right now; I'm not looking to create precedent, and if it isn't straightforward then let's just leave it as it is. Amalthea 13:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
It seems straightforward enough to me - I've flagged the bot (indicating any other tasks require formal approval). –xenotalk 13:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
Of course, thanks! Amalthea 13:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter
Volume 4, No. 2 — 2nd Quarter, 2011
Previous issue | Next issue

Project At a Glance
As of Q2 2011, the project has:

Content

Project Navigation
To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list.
Thanks, but you should leave a timestmap for miszaBot! ;> –xenotalk 13:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Usurpation

Thanks a lot! Pierrot de Lioncourt カバー!!!カバー!!! 14:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

No problem =) –xenotalk 14:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent usurpation request

Hi there!

You have recently been dealing with a usurpation request from me, hoping to take over the user name SteveH. I thought I had set this up recently but had been unable to log in due to what I was told at the time was a system bug. I began to get suspicious when the progress report said that SteveH has made several edits, as I knew I couldn't have made them. I was thus not too surprised when you found out that SteveH had been created in 2002, rather than by me recently.

This does raise a troubling point, however. When attempting to set up the account the message I got definitely said "account created" not "account already exists". Might it therefore be possible that there is something else amiss with the account-creation process? Or maybe I was just unlucky due to an unfortunate coincidence of circumstances. Either way, at least I now know what has been going on! Seems a "rename" request is my next port of call.

Best regards,

Steve Holmes SHtemp (talk) 14:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is possible that this has to do with the transition from the "old" Wikipedia to the "new" Wikipedia - perhaps the account never was "created" in the new Wikipedia but the edits were still attributed to it - I'm not entirely sure. Even if this is the case, we would need to re-attribute those edits elsewhere if you are going to take on the name. Choose a different name, edit with it for 3 months, and feel free to request again at that time. Also please do take note of the fair warning about using your real name to edit. –xenotalk 14:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
This problem has nothing to do with the transition between Wikipedia databases, which occurred in January 2002. It sounds like a bug in the account creation software ... are you sure you didn't make a typo or something? It'd probably be best to ask Tim or Brion or someone about it. Graham87 17:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hm - gotcha. Not sure then! Thanks for chiming in =) –xenotalk 17:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the further comments. I'm not that concerned about grabbing SteveH particularly (I've got plenty more ideas for a "handle"!) but was confused for a while as to what had gone wrong. By the way, I've now discovered how to find the list of all registered user names so I should be able to avoid the same problem happening again! SHtemp (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Feel free to let me know once you've chosen a new name and I can process the request expediently. Or here, even. –xenotalk 15:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

That's an offer I'm not going to turn down! Could you try to rename SHtemp to "AstroSteve" do you think? (yes, I have checked - it is free!) Would I have to log out while you did so? SHtemp (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably not... This is  Done. Log in to the new name, and happy editing! –xenotalk 15:30, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Brilliant! That's what I call excellent service - many thanks!! Now let's get down to those edits.... AstroSteve (talk) 15:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Happy to help =) –xenotalk 15:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for the heads up, I appreciate it. I decided to weigh in. --TimL (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. –xenotalk 12:10, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Editing the infoboxes of astronauts?

Hi Xeno! I just had a question, and who else better to ask than an administrator! :D

I've noticed that when I try to edit the infoboxes of astronauts (in order to put in their alma mater), none of my changes to the infobox shows up when I preview the changes. Is there any specific reason for this?

Grenadetoenails (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure... What happens when you save the changes? –xenotalk 12:09, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
When I save the changes, none of the changes that I made to the astronaut's infobox show up. Grenadetoenails (talk) 22:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Strange. Can you tell me an edit that needs to be made so I can test myself? –xenotalk 22:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
If you go to the page of Gregory Chamitoff, and look at the Edit code for his infobox, I have put in his alma mater; but it doesn't show up on the actual page. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grenadetoenails (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Infobox astronaut doesn't support alma_mater. at least not yet. Infobox standardisation will solve this problem soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I added alma_mater support to the infobox. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Mag for teh win! –xenotalk 01:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Magioladitis and Xeno for your help! :DDDDDD Grenadetoenails (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for doing the technical legwork with the inactivity desysop for admins and bureaucrats. I'm glad to see these proposals finally gain support. I know I had enough trouble just getting consensus to email inactive admins to ask them to voluntarily give up their rights if they didn't plan to use them (I don't think any did). Gigs (talk) 13:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

OH! I was trying to remember who wrote that bot. =) I was going to ask if you might be able to re-purpose it for ongoing notifications (30 day warning +email , 3 day warning). –xenotalk 13:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I'll see if I can find the code when I get home. Gigs (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

An ArbComm case

Howdy. With your edit here, you reverted my previous edit. I trusted the report when it said "13 active arbitrators voted on the final decision before the case came to a close today." I should have actually checked that the case was closed. Thank you for fixing that, and sorry for the mistake.--Rockfang (talk) 15:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

No worries - and it is a little ambiguous as written. I guess you could look at it as: you bring your car to a stop in your driveway, but your driving activity isn't fully complete until you turn off the ignition. I think this is how Ncmvocalist has written it - the case is all but closed (and met the requirements for closing at publication time), but still needed (and needs) a clerk to formally close it. Hope that helps explain it. –xenotalk 15:38, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot flag

this edit is causing User:YurikBot to appear in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/1–1000. Can you fix that at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits/Unflagged bots, i believe?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah! Thanks. Didn't know about that page. Updated. –xenotalk 17:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand

This request for amendment has been languishing for oh so long a time. Perhaps you could take the issue in hand and resolve it one way or another? Thanks, --Ravpapa (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I will try and move it along. –xenotalk 12:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

DodoBot

Are you familiar with this bot? It's owner seems to be on an extended break. There is a pending request 10 days old that has not been addressed. I simply don't know if that's normal or not. I'm waiting patiently for it to move thousands of files into WP:ECLIPSES, and am just not sure how long I need to wait. (as long as it takes? :-) ) i.e. What should I expect? Thanks. --TimL (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd give it some more time. Maybe shoot the owner an email. –xenotalk 12:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a peek...

...at this (re: "bot" account and username policy)? Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  02:43, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, that request was meant in your capacity as a member of WP:BAG and in no other capacity. I'm not looking for any major action; really just an opinion. Having said that, Kingpin13 has opined at Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Bot in question, and I don't necessarily think more input is required. Thanks! I see you have added your opinion as well; thanks again.  Frank  |  talk  12:30, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Yep. No worries. –xenotalk 12:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

IB INTERVIEW User:Poysndi

Hello my name is Andres and in my ITGS (Infromation and technology in a global society)course, of the IB I need to interview someone who is related tot he issue of my choice. Since my issue is Wikipedia I was wondering if I could possibly interview you. I would greatly appreciate if so. Please provide me a way to contact you such as an e-mail address so I can send the interview. Thank You Poysndi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC).

You can email me via special:Emailuser/Xeno. Not sure when I will have time to respond though. –xenotalk 16:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

template interwiki

Hi, i have question my bot (rezabot) has flag to editing interwiki in enwiki.can i edit intereiki wiki standard script in templates? and categories? does it need to request different flag or not? thank for your timeReza1615 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

The last time I checked, standard pywikipedia did not handle templates well. (Wikipedia:Bot policy#Interwiki links: Interwiki bots should not run unsupervised in Template namespace unless specifically designed to run on templates.) Categories should be fine. –xenotalk 12:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Help!!!

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but can you help me? Another user had this username before me (See this) and his old signatures (in archived talk pages and closed discussions) link to my pages. Can you change them so that they link to that user's new username InarZan2 ? Also please remove my name from those threads. -- PrinceMathew (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hrm I don't have time to do this myself, but you could do it, or you could ask someone to do it at WP:AWB/TA. –xenotalk 18:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I will do it if I am allowed to. But I just want to know if I can:
1) Edit other user's comments?
2) Edit archived talk pages and closed discussions? --PrinceMathew (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
In this case, yes. –xenotalk 20:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
... but please be very explicit in your edit summary, PrinceMathew, to avoid misunderstandings. Amalthea 20:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno & Amalthea for your time and consideration. --PrinceMathew (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Question about usurpation request

Hello Xeno! I would like to ask you about your suggestion in Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#Dipa1965 → Dipa request. Do you mean that, even if the usurpation is accepted by en.wiki, I would never have a global "Dipa" account unless the it.wiki user accepts to change his name there? Thank you in advance.--Dipa1965 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, mostly the concern is that right now the it.wiki user has the "claim" to the name globally, as the user with the most edits with that name. If, for example, you had the name "Dipa" on some other project, and had more than 26 edits, then you would have the claim. Or you can just ask him if he minds you taking over the claim. –xenotalk 21:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Dipa again

I apologize for bothering you again! I would like to ask you about your response for the case Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations#Dipa1965 → Dipa. I think I don't fully understand your suggestion to ask the it.wiki user if I can take over the claim. If he would accept that (i.e. me taking over his claim), wouldn't it also mean that he should change his account name in it.wiki too? If the latter is true, I would be really hesitant because I don't think he would like it. Thank you again.--Dipa1965 (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

He can keep the name in it.wiki as long as you don't mind not being able to use your SUL on it.wiki. –xenotalk 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

What will happen to Wikipedia in the future? --Amerq (talk) 10:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Que sera, sera. –xenotalk 12:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
What's that mean? --Amerq (talk) 07:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Whatever will be, will be - the future's not ours to see. –xenotalk 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Unblocked

Hello. I've removed the automatic signing in the {{unblocked}} template. However, after rethinking, there is a possibility that the purpose is to substitute that template. Do you want the unblocked template substituted (basically, have it transcluded as {{unblock reviewed}})? If that's the case, I'll undo my edit. Thanks in advance, HeyMid (contribs) 10:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes - was meant to be subst'ed. =) –xenotalk 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Great idea. Thanks, –xenotalk 12:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

History merge request

Hi there Xeno! :) Can you please history merge User:Diego Grez/2010 Pichilemu earthquake with 2010 Pichilemu earthquake? I did some work on the userspace draft and forgot about it until now. Thank you in advance!  Diego  talk  16:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure.  Done. Wasn't sure which revision to leave live, so I left the last known mainspace revision (23 July) showing. –xenotalk 12:47, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hidden navbar on Template:Asbox

Howdy. In my eternal trawling of the database for odd-looking fish, I've come across the hidden navbar on the Asbox template. I'm trying to assess the usefulness of this feature; as one of either it's users or implementers, I'd like to draw your attention to Template talk:Asbox#Why the navbar ?. - TB (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I don't use the navbar, so would not object to its removal. –xenotalk 21:21, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Help Me Understand

Please help me understand why Andrew Lancaster put a copyrighted map which is not relevant to Haplotype J1 in general back on the page.

This map is specific to a certain J1 population and it is copyrighted with this at the bottom in the research paper with, "European Journal of Human GeneticsISSN: 1018-4813EISSN: 1476-5438© 2011 European Society of Human Genetics." It is NOT from a comic book. It is not released by the publisher. The one who claims it he has permission also claims to be a "prince." Even if he actually got permission, from Sergio Tofanelli et al, the copyright belongs to the publisher. There is no fair use of this document that can be justified, unless it is contested.

I took my time to go into this in detail. I posted why it should not be included on the page and in the Talk. Talk:Haplogroup J1 (Y-DNA)#Map depicts J1 M267*G variant rather than being a map of J1 Haplogroup in general.
Please help me understand why he reverted my editing with absolutely no consultation. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 17:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks to me like Andrew Lancaster was removing the image, it was an anonymous editor who added it back: [1]. –xenotalk 17:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Semi-pretection for a page

I think the page from Starsky & Hutch (film) should being semi-protected. It has been vandalized in the past and now again as I saw in the history. --Station7 (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:RFPP. –xenotalk 18:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Need some help please

Hi Xeno - Since you're on the ArbCom active arbitrator list, I thought you might be able to steer me in the right direction. I'm trying to look up any ArbCom decisions regarding disputes about inclusion/exclusion of controversial wikilinks in "See also" sections of articles in order to inform my understanding of current community-wide consensus on exactly what should be included in "See also" sections, and what shouldn't. I tried searching the archives using "see-also" as the search term, but all I get are people saying "see also...X", which is a rather inconvenient coincidence. Is there any way I can fine tune the search for what I'm looking for, or do you have any knowledge of this type of ArbCom dispute that I might peruse? In case you're interested, the current dispute about this issue is here at DRN and here on the article talk page. Thanks. Shirtwaist ☎ 06:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - can't say I can think of any off-hand, but admittedly I didn't follow arbitration much before I was elected. You might consider posting this query at WT:AC. Just thinking about it from the committee's perspective, the actual inclusion criteria of "see also" sections (as a content decision) probably wouldn't factor into any final decisions directly - only if a user were being consistently disruptive with regards to "see also" sections would you likely find anything relevant. Have you poked through the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout) page and its archives? If DRN does not bring closure, an RFC would probably be the next step. –xenotalk 12:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, it has been brought out in the DRN that an ArbCom case in 2006 dealing with a disruptive editor resulted in the adoption of this proposal, and the non-adoption of this proposal. The current wording in the "See also" section of MOS(layout) being debated now, e.g. "Links included in the "See also" section may be useful for readers seeking to read as much about a topic as possible, including subjects only peripherally related to the one in question" (emphasis is mine) was added in 2008, apparently without any related discussion. I was just wondering if any new consensus on just what "peripherally related" means. I think you're right that if no resolution is found, RFC is the next step, although correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't RFC supposed to precede DRN in the dispute resolution process? Not sure if the OP was aware of that...oh well. Thanks! Your help is appreciated. Shirtwaist ☎ 23:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Good find. No, RFC is not necessarily a precursor to a DRN thread. –xenotalk 04:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A loud mHi! from my dad, Kąġi oĥáŋko (I wish I spelled these words correctly, but my father wouldn't look at them...). -- 'Air Miss', his elder daughter

Air Miss 00:04, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes!!!

File:Concorde Cockpit.jpg First real edit!
I'm happy: I achieved my first real edit (at Air Antilles Express) and I wish I wasn't flying in the clouds head over heels instead of straight and level...

I would like to send you a mail to ask things (if you have time) and give you news about Kąġi Oĥáŋko, but I'm didn't find the right button. Air Miss 00:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Air Miss. Just click special:Emailuser/Xeno. Thank you also for the kitten; coincidentally, I am cat-sitting this weekend for a friend =). Congratulations on your first 'real' edit. Hope it's the first of many. –xenotalk 04:38, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Status of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats

Hi there. I noticed you tagged Wikipedia:Bureaucrats with {{information page}}. I don't think that's the correct tag for the page though, since it does not "clarify" or "supplement" other policies/guidelines but itself contains "rules" as to when and how crats should act. As such, it probably is both a policy (for those parts, like the new desysop rules) and a information page (for the parts that describe how to do things). Do you think we could split those parts, so that we have Wikipedia:Bureaucrats as the policy for crats (like WIkipedia:Administrators for admins) and Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' how-to guide for the info on how to do something (similarly to Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide)? Regards SoWhy 07:30, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The page has been an information page for over 7 years, so I do not like the idea of gutting it to be a policy page - too much would need to be removed - perhaps the very few bits that aren't covered by policies or guidelines on other pages can be adapted onto a new page that would be transcluded by Wikipedia:Bureaucrats. See [2] for a suggested start (in my opinion, the actual policy implications of removal of admins bits should be inscribed at Wikipedia:Administrators). It's interesting how long bureaucrats have managed without a {{policy}} to govern them. =) –xenotalk 12:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, maybe Wikipedia:Bureaucrats was part policy all along and it just lacked the {{policy}} tag? ;-) I disagree that those parts should go into WP:ADMIN though, since it does not describe anything admins should do but rather what crats can do to admins. Putting the parts into a separate policy page would work too of course but the standard is usually for policy pages to be at the title of the subject in question and how-to-pages designated as such (per WP:POLICY#Naming). Regards SoWhy 15:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
It describes how the administrator user right may be manipulated by bureaucrats. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats is currently a hybrid information page containing policy-like elements (what bureaucrats may do with their technical abilities), how-to elements (how they can do it), and strict informational elements (who are the bureaucrats, when are they available, who were the former bureaucrats, etc.). If there is some kind of tag that can be used to more accurately describe its hybrid nature, that would also be an option. But I think it should remain where it is, and mostly in its current form (as there is simply not enough there to require users to look at three different pages). –xenotalk 15:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
How about {{Purpose}}?
Seriously though, maybe we simply need to slap a hybrid tag on it? Something like this:
How's that? =) Regards SoWhy 18:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Good start - see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Header. Tweak as necessary. –xenotalk 18:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Copied discussion to Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Status of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats; please continue there.

Errors In Message Delivery

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that some errors were encountered while processing your delivery request (Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity). Please deliver the messages to the following users manually, if you wish, because the bot was not allowed to do so:

  • Whouk - Connection error.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 16:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC).

Whouk got through fine (huge talk page though, so bot probably couldn't get confirmation), but not Tanner-Christopher (page was protected). –xenotalk 17:08, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Big Hugz to You

WolfHugz
from the founder WikiWolfcub for your help with my Pesky username usurpation! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks =) And sorry for the mixup! ;> –xenotalk 19:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
No probs! :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 19:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Typo

Hi there. Saw that you recently created Wikipedai:Reviewer, which has a typo (Wikipedai). Also, Wikipedia:Reviewer already exists (though it redirects to a different target). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops! Thanks =) –xenotalk 14:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Banner template question

Note sure quite who to ask this question but you seem to be good with templates in general so I was hoping you might know the answer to this question. In the process of deprecting and merging several of the WikiProject banners into WikiProject US I have noticed that some of the banners continue to get used which leaves me with 2 possibilities. Heres were I could use some advice.

  1. Should I redirect the template to WikiProject US (so that the article says US but then doesn't always have the particular project).
  2. Should I just Deprecate the banner and add a category that puts all the tagged articles for the projects using the deprecated banner into a deprecated articles category. This would allow them to be easily visible and fixed.

Using the first method I notice that in addition to not showing the supported project, I also tried to put the deprecation category but it doesn't populate. Probably becuause it redirects it before it gets to the category I'm guessing.

I am sorta leaning with going with option 2 but do you have any thoughts on this? --Kumioko (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

 #3 Convert the banner into a wrapper template that calls the US project banner with the appropriate task force code? –xenotalk 20:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks and excuse my ignorance but could you give me an example of that or something. I ain't understandin'. --Kumioko (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Sure; see [3]. –xenotalk 02:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, I like that idea but Ive never seen it before. Is this being used in other templates or di dyou just think of this for this particular problem?. Thanks again for the help. --Kumioko (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Also I saw you mention about using some other parameters. Are you referring to the other parameters of the WPUS template (like Unref, or needs references) or are you referring to other parameters for the wrapper template. If its the latter can you point me in the right direction of what those parameters might be? --Kumioko (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, ideally you should add at least the more popular parameters that would be supplied to the WPUS banner along with the task force parameter. So add |needs-photo={{{needs-photo|}}}, for example - so if someone passes that parameter to the wrapper template, it will get put through to WPUS. –xenotalk 03:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Got it thanks. --Kumioko (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Template

Do you like categorization being removed at all from the User:Xenocidic/Stormy template? Being in your userspace leaves the decision up to you, so I believe...

By the way, do you like the gnomish work I'm doing on templates, starting top-down from Wikipedia:Userboxes/Media/Books? Still got no feedback. ZipoBibrok5x10^8 (talk) 11:44, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If the other users don't mind being categorized, that's fine with me. I just don't want categorizing userboxes.
Gnoming userboxes probably it isn't the best use of your time, but if you enjoy it, then I'm sure someone will appreciate it. –xenotalk 22:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
  • On further thought, I undid the category because I think at least some of the users using this userbox are simply referring to the weather condition, and not necessarily "dark and stormy night-type" stories. –xenotalk 16:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This user

does not know what rollback is used for. I'm requesting you to remove his rollback rights for constantly abusing his privileges. Walrus068 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Examples include the following three edits: [4] [5] [6] 71.170.159.75 (talk) 23:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 Done; rollback removed. –xenotalk 00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Two of those are vandalism. (2 and 3)--1966batfan (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, in [7] you restored some egregious vandalism to the article using the rollback tool. –xenotalk 00:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Rollback removal

Really. Give me some examples.--1966batfan (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

See immediately above at #This user. –xenotalk 00:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't paying attention. Sorry. Everybody makes mistakes.--1966batfan (talk) 00:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. You must pay closer attention when doing counter-vandalism patrol, or you may find yourself blocked from editing. Might I also suggest not simply blanking every constructive criticism that gets left at your talk page? This is a collaborative project. –xenotalk 00:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit Count-itis.

Can you take a look at my comments at User talk:Koavf? This is the third run-in with him I've had over the past few months, and that excludes a couple of things where I took the silent route! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Potential editcountitis, while a concern, isn't really an issue directly - it would depend on the character of the edits themselves. If an editor's contributions continually fall short of expectations - especially on a mass scale - they may become subject to editing restrictions. It may be that such restrictions or an RFC/U will become necessary, but I hope that Koavf will instead examine his approach to editing and take additional care in the future (and engage the appropriate community processes) when undertaking batch or mass editing. –xenotalk 13:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, I think, on reflection, I have been a little harsh this time, BTW I wasn't complaining about the countitis, just the methods used to get there! Shouldn't have used it as the header, just wanted to avoid using the user's name too prominently. Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation/Reverts

I suspect User:117.205.54.37 is a sockpuppet of User:117.205.48.214 along with several other IPs. An investigation is necessary. I'll do an edit summary next time I revert.--1966batfan (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Garden-variety vandals probably don't require formal investigations, just blocking/reporting to WP:AIV (you can reference past IPs in the range who have made similar edits in the report). Thanks for agreeing to use edit summaries to explain your reverts. –xenotalk 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Usurp

Hi Xeno, before I formally request username change to "Lionel" (to drop the 't' on current name) wanted to get your advice. The account here is long inactive, but I think the there is a "Lionel" on the Spanish wiki (?) with recent edits? I doesn't affect me since I don't speak Spanish. Thanks! – Lionel (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think usurping would be a bit borderline. "en:User:Lionel" has been around since 2003 (!) and does return approximately every year (last edit: May 2010). Also see sulutil:Lionel: currently "de:User:Lionel" has the claim to the SUL (edits 2006-2010, last edit: Sept 2010), so it would give me pause (see WP:Handling SUL conflicts). I'm not saying it would be outright declined, but is would certainly require further consideration. –xenotalk 12:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: FYI

Thanks for the message on my user page. I am not particularly attached to my username, and wanted to avoid trying to usurp another user, so I had thought the rename would give an easier solution, as well as leave the user on the French site the opportunity to use the name globally (the username "Dorade" is french anyway, so more appropriate for a french user - I just picked it as a word that wasn't in use). If a username change is complicated, I could try the usurp process, but I have a different username on the french site that I should also try and match up, and it is too close to my real name so I should really rename that one, too, but I will do that via the local site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorade (talk • contribs) 12:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok =) Henceforth, thou shalt be known as 'Ged Sparrowhawk'! =] –xenotalk 12:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ged Sparrowhawk (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

SULinfo

Thank you again for the new and improved SUL tool. Would it be possible to have the default display be sortable? Also - would it be possible to have the default display allow you to re-run the query with the additional options available? –xeno 12:17, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello xeno. This should now allow to change the options on the same result page. But I did not understand what you mean when you said "Would it be possible to have the default display be sortable?". As far as I know, the default display is already sorted by local wiki name, isn't it ? Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the update! The default view is sorted by local wiki name but not sortable by clicking the sort buttons that show up in the more advanced displays. When I am evaluating a usurp request I will usually like to look at unattached accounts sorted by edits. –xeno 13:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
When you double-click on the sort button on the top of the column "Editcount", it will sort unattached accounts by editcount, no ? Do you have a concret exemple, please ? -- Quentinv57 (talk) 13:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The sort buttons are not showing on the vanilla view: sulutil:Example. –xeno 13:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC) [Also when no SUL, there isn't any way to change advanced options]
Sorry, I did not notice, because I was using an other URI that worked (http://toolserver.org/~quentinv57/tools/sulinfo.php?username=Example). But now, it's fixed. Any other suggestion while SSH is opened ? :D -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Hm for some reason the header is now sorting itself into the other rows. As indicated above, need a way to change advanced options when no SUL. –xenotalk 14:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if it is possible with cookies or something, but I would always like to see the inactivity column, even if I surfed from sulutil:Example. –xenotalk 14:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
The first point is okay, you can check ;) -- Quentinv57 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yep - advanced options are now available no matter SUL status. Thanks! –xenotalk 14:30, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
You should see what I've done. You may be happy. If only I would earned two hours of salary for that ! ;-D
Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Awesome! Nice work. =) But is there two versions of the tool? Because using sulutil:Example doesn't seem to obey my preferences. (Also: The unattached section is still sorting the header into the other rows.) –xenotalk 16:24, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I just noticed too. The reason is that I never worked with cookies. But it should be fixed too now. Concerning the sorting of the unattached section, I don't know because the Javascript to sort a table has not been written by me, it's taken directly from http://en.wikipedia.org/skins-1.5/common/wikibits.js. However, I've tried to edit something and I found the error : now it is working as well !
Have a good evening. Best regards, -- Quentinv57 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

← Very nice! If there was anything I could do to get the WMF to advance you 2 hours salary for your efforts, I certainly would do so ;> –xenotalk 17:00, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I was jocking, I don't need any money for that :D. By the way, thanks for the message you just added to my meta talk page, it makes me really happy ! All the best. -- Quentinv57 (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Cirt-Jayen Workshop

Amid the recent reversions, the comments by Peter and myself were left out. If the material ends up being kept on the Workshop page, please restore all of the comments that were made in reply to it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Off2riorob's fresh post should be considered a 'net new' proposal and any relevant comments should be re-made. I believe the original removed proposal is supposed to be archived somewhere other than the workshop, but Hersfold will have to confirm this. –xenotalk 15:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand that with respect to David Fuchs' comment. But my comment, and, I think, Peter's comment, were made this morning, after Rob re-posted it. I'm very sure that my comment should be restored per what you say here, but I don't want to presume to make the edit myself. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Please go ahead and re-insert your comment. –xenotalk 16:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Xeno. Seeing Hersfold's decision to remove the section (a decision with which I agree, for whatever that's worth), I've commented instead on the talk page. Problem solved, at least for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Need a little advice

Hi

I have a sensitive subject that needs delicate handling and I do not know exactly how to go about it. Difficult to explain, so I will use regular editor (RE), copyeditor (CER), and I (me) for the three parties involved.

I had a look at an article that had been mentioned during a copy-edit for GOCE. Once I had a look at the article I decided that the CER was perhaps not fully aware of what the RE was using was regular philatelic talk. It was also apparent that the article was undergoing more edits and that I should remove it from the GOCE requests list as it would probably be better to wait until the REs were finished before the CER copy-edited it. While I was there I read the article and concluded that perhaps there were too many images of a certain type.

I stated this opinion on the talk page. The CER and the RE joined the discussion, and I sugested removing a few of the less relevant images as nine of them seemed a little OTT. The RE has responded by deleting all "his" images (he refers to them as his images), removing a vast amount of text, links, refs, sections etc. I can understand that many of the images removed may well be from his personal collection, but some appear to be from flickr or a German archiving source, as well as two uploaded by other editors.

My questions are: Can an editor remove material they have created (text) if they decide they no longer wish to be involved with an article?; and should one revert if it seems the RE's removal has removed more than just their work?

I am sure this will have come up before and I wondered if you can either advise me, or point me in the right direction, as to how this has been handled before; what you might do in the situation; and the best way to get the ER back into the article. If I revert him, and delete any images he may have contributed, I suspect it will only widen the gap and burn any possible bridges. I have extended a plea on the ER's talk page. I also feel bad that I may have been the one that caused them to pursue this course of action, though I was trying to be extra cautious after seeing another editor thought there may be ownership issues. After adding a note on their page I have just seen that there was an ongoing debacle with a fourth editor (post above mine on the user's talk page and a couple above on the article talk page).

Any advice would be more than appreciated ¦¬(

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a great deal of time to respond right now, but one way (perhaps not the most delicate way) to handle this would be by pointing out the note at the bottom of every edit window: "By clicking the "Save Page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL." So any editor could restore the article to this version if they wanted. –xenotalk 12:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Delivery request

A week ago I made a delivery request for WikiProject Eurovision using MessageDeliveryBot (talk · contribs) (confirmation), which has not yet been delivered. Since your one of the bot's admins, I thought I would ask you if there is a problem with the request. CT Cooper · talk 11:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

"This request has been deleted." Try resubmitting it? Or ask EdoDodo (talk · contribs) to look into why it was deleted. –xenotalk 12:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly why it was deleted, and I was expecting to be contacted if there were any problems. I will ask EdoDodo (talk · contribs) what happened here. CT Cooper · talk 13:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I've un-deleted your request and started up the bot and it is delivering the messages now. I'm not quite sure what happened before and why it was deleted, and unfortunately I can't find out because logs of the bot's operation are not kept. - EdoDodo talk 15:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for your help. CT Cooper · talk 17:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

TT

Thank you

Good call. 28bytes (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No prob. Clearly just some breathing space is indicated at the moment. –xenotalk 22:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


I've removed some material again - the spirit of the MFD decision (and indeed the prescribed course of action in similar situations) is that an editor who has a dispute or grievance with editors should take the appropriate dispute resolution steps. Posting a new message, calling editors "semi-literate scumbags", referring to the old message (easily accessible in history), all seems to run very much counter to the spirit of the MFD and this collaborative project. TreasuryTag should take appropriate dispute resolution steps, or - if such is his desire - simply withdraw from the project as intended in a quiet, dignified manner. –xenotalk 12:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Your incompetence

If you seriously think that it would be legitimate to slap down an indefinite hardblock for the posting of an anonymous criticism of Wikipedia by a good-faith productive editor, then (and I really never thought I'd have to say this to you, Xeno) it is time to resign your various bits on the grounds of extreme incompetence. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 12:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I've emailed you on this subject. –xenotalk 12:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Your email is copied below so that the people reading can make sense of this conversation.

I've removed some material again - the spirit of the MFD decision (and indeed the prescribed course of action in similar situations) is that an editor who has a dispute or grievance with editors should take the appropriate dispute resolution steps. Posting a new message, calling editors "semi-literate scumbags", referring to the old message (easily accessible in history), all seems to run very much counter to the spirit of the MFD and this collaborative project.

Please do not restore material that significantly repeats or refers to the previous material that was removed following a formal discussion or you may be prevented from doing so via available means.

I understand that you probably feel you are under attack from all sides right about now. I think that a break of a few weeks would probably do you a lot of good and help you to put things into perspective.

My thoughts are that you should probably drop this. But, if you decide not to - you should take appropriate dispute resolution steps. Or - if such is truly your desire - simply withdraw from the project as intended in a quiet, dignified manner.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts on this (and speak freely).

-xeno

— I hereby release the above-posted email into the public domain and confirm it is a true copy of the message I sent via Emailuser. –xenotalk 13:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
My complaint above was very specifically about your threat to hardblock me indefinitely for replacing the material in question. Since your email did not even touch upon the issue of blocks, it is not at all relevant here and it was mere persiflage on your part to bring it up in the first place.
So I re-iterate my comment from before. If you seriously think that it would be legitimate to slap down an indefinite hardblock for the posting of an anonymous criticism of Wikipedia by a good-faith productive editor, then it is time to resign your various bits on the grounds of extreme incompetence. ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 13:04, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I really do think taking a break for a while would you do you a lot of good, TT. –xenotalk 13:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
That's as may be. You still seem to be (deliberately?) missing the point that an indef hardblock for posting the material that I posted is stupid and overkill. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 13:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
I acknowledge that it is your belief that a block would not be an appropriate response to your restoring the material I removed. All the same, I do thank you for agreeing not to restore the material, and sincerely hope that you are able to find Wikipedia more enjoyable and less stressful going forward. –xenotalk 13:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Delicate matter

Hi

Thanks for the advice, sometimes wood from the trees etc. lol

Anyway, Kumioko fixed it before I got back today so all bullets going his way on that one lol ;¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it - let me know if I can be of further assistance, even if I wasn't much =) –xenotalk 12:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

appreciate the headsup. :). Thanks for your valuable work. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

No prob - happy to help. Cheers, –xenotalk 20:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for prompt action

I am very grateful to you for your prompt action.--Arshan.abbas (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure thing. Remember to log out and log in to your new account, though. –xenotalk 16:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

TreasuryTag

I removed the hardblock because it seems silly not to allow him to directly post unblock requests; you appear to have redone it. Could you explain? Ironholds (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Wait, ignore me; my bad. Looks like my defaults for the unblock interface got messed with. Ironholds (talk) 19:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • You had me worried for a moment =). As an FYI, Previous blocks have come along with all kinds of edit warring on the talk page - I did not think it would be appropriate to repeat that cycle. –xenotalk 19:55, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    Sure, and if that happens I'm happy to reblock the talkpage, and for a longer period; the alternative is a situation in which a user is vicariously running unblock requests through the admin who hit him with the banhammer, which is all kinds of awkward. Ironholds (talk) 19:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    Thank you for the note. –xenotalk 19:58, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
    TT is presently edit warring [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] to maintain a wildly inaccurate statement that constitutes a personal attack on my integrity as an administrator (cf. [15]). –xenotalk 21:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Note to self; do not unblock TreasuryTag's talkpage access ever again in the future. Ever. Ever. (No, Ironholds, not even if it seems like a good idea. No, it's not POSSIBLE to be that drunk, and I'm pretty sure that would require one live chicken and a rabbi anyway). Ironholds (talk) 07:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
    Your granting of talk page access was not unreasonable. It is unfortunate that TreasuryTag took the opportunity to continue edit warring over his inaccurate statement while blocked. –xenotalk 13:13, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

How best to do this?

I was just about to remove my entire section given the indef'ing. But now you've (sorta) replied to it. So feel free to refractor my comments right up to nothing, at your discertion about what is best. Egg Centric 19:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The reply was comprised prior to your section and stands on its own, so you can remove your comments if you like. –xenotalk 19:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Question about speedy keep

Hi there. I respect your judgement and even-handedness on all things WP, so I wanted to get your take on a situation. Would you consider this to be a candidate for a speedy keep under criterion 2? Based on some of the history, it seems like the nominator may be acting in bad faith, as there was a recent keep of a similar list. I made a few more comments at the AFD, and I've already added sources, but since I've already !voted, I'm not sure if it would be correct to close it myself. Thanks in advance for your response. —Torchiest talkedits 17:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... It looks like it's already well on its way towards a firm keep, so I would just as sooner suggest that you let it run so that the nominator can see that these list articles have pretty firm grounding. –xenotalk 17:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay, sounds good. Thanks for your help! —Torchiest talkedits 17:39, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing Username from Babajiskriyayoga to DevadasLavoie

I am aware of the implications of using a realname. This name is actually a given yoga/spiritual name and is OK.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babajiskriyayoga (talk • contribs) 17:59, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, the rename has been completed. Thanks, –xenotalk 18:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Changing username

Hi Xeno! Thanks very much for taking action on my request to change my username from Alin (Public Policy) to Alin (WMF). I was wondering, though, if this username change also automatically reflects the same username change on other Wikimedia projects (like a different-language Wikipedia, or Wikimedia Commons)? I'm asking because I found out that while the username change worked seamlessly on the English Wikipedia, it did not automatically happen on other language Wikipedias or Wikimedia Commons. I tried to unify my Alin (WMF) account, but all this did was allow me to log into other Wikimedia projects with this username, but failed to transfer any of my watchlist items or contribution history. Could you help me change my username on these other Wikimedia projects from Alin (Public Policy) to Alin (WMF) as well? Thanks very much! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm - unfortunately, we are still waiting on the developers to bestow a global rename facility upon us. I am only a bureaucrat here, so can't help you directly with the other projects. See commons:COM:CHU for commons; m:RENAMELINKS for other projects. (You'll have to let the bureaucrats know to move the automatically created accounts out of the way. These links may help: sulutil:Alin (Public Policy); sulutil:Alin (WMF)) Let me know if I can be of further assistance. –xenotalk 17:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
Hum, I see... I guess I'll need to make a few more username change requests then, on the other Wikimedia projects. Thanks for all your help! Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 05:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Why UserName different than other noticeboards?

Others divide up involved and uninvolved. But the big issue I see is that Mugginsx is so disruptive that no one can get the story straight. I'll just have to do an ANI on her. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Whether anyone is involved with the article has no bearing on whether the username complies with the policy. –xenotalk 22:10, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
OK. In a more rational discussion I might disagree, but with this one, it doesn't really mattter. :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I expanded on my rationale at [16]. –xenotalk 22:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Can a RFC be closed before the accused editor has even had a chance to speak?

I have never heard of this. Is this done here? CarolMooredc is always accusing me of disrupting, whether it be on the article talk page or to the RFCs she has initiated with me three within three weeks. If anyone is being WP:harassed it is me. But regardless, I stated at the beginning that I would be the advocate for ThisLaughingGuyRightHere until he had a chance to come online. Also I knew the all but one accusation were false but that due to the accused editor's inexperience, he would not be able to answer them and that is what I believe that CarolMooredc hoped for. Still, I think he should have at least a chance to answer for himself. Mugginsx (talk) 22:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

As I just clarified on the RfC page, I wasn't talking about closing anything. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Technically, the editor does not need to defend himself: the community will opine on the username and it will be deemed either improper or not. The editor does not need an advocate, but you can opine based on the username policy (or other project fundamentals).
I've suggested there that it would certainly be in good taste if the user were to adopt a different username - especially given that they are editing the subject matter, and one that requires all the necessary deference in matters involving living persons. –xenotalk 23:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. It seems that we are editing on different pages at the same time. I am glad to hear that the RFC is not yet being closed. I would however ask you again to please put my initial statement back under Carol's where it should properly be according to the time it was edited. People usually read from top to bottom and it will be the right thing to do anyway. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I see you have done so. Mugginsx (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep. I had to look closer to see what you meant. –xenotalk 23:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hello Xeno! I hope you enjoy this cookie as an amicable greeting from a fellow Wikipedian, SwisterTwister talk 19:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding my idea Watchlist Feature at the Village Pump

You cited a policy on metawiki that said administrators, or whoever, weren't allowed to view watchlists. How was that relevant? It doesn't appear to eliminate the use of a bot, because bots cannot understand watchlists. Interchangeable|talk to me 19:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

A bot wouldn't be able to access it, and if a bot were able to access it, so too would its operator. –xenotalk 21:17, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to make the bot view watchlists but not its owner? Interchangeable|talk to me 23:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
It is my understanding that watchlist data can only be accessed by devs/sysadmins. If you want a bot to groom your watchlist you will need to copy it onwiki or perhaps have the bot use the RSS token. –xenotalk 23:53, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Translation? (I don't know what RSS is... sorry!) Interchangeable|talk to me 03:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Syndication#Watchlist feed with token. I think first you'll have to find someone willing to contribute actual development time to a watchlist trimmer. Then you can work with them on the details. –xenotalk 03:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Then it probably won't happen - I don't know the first thing about computer programming. Thanks for your time. Interchangeable|talk to me 16:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Delivery Successful

Hello, this is an automated message to inform you that your message delivery request (Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity) was completed successfully. Happy editing!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot at 14:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC).

Thanks, MDB. It would be the best thing in the world, if you were to provide a contributions link to these edits, suchlike: [17]. –xenotalk 14:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators

Hi Xeno. Nice to see that my suggestion was realized. I'd like to suggest a table-style for this page though, such as this example. What do you think? Regards SoWhy 17:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

If a bot were maintaining it, sure. –xenotalk 17:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
If the subpage were to accept those values (you would need only 1 revision number for the notes) and create a table row, that would be keen. That way it is easy for admins to delete the single line item related to them to signal activity. –xenotalk 18:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
I've left Hersfold a message about whether the bot could update such a table.
I'm unsure why we need a special subpage template though, when we have all those user-templates already? Wouldn't it be easier to have a column in the table with a link that says "click here to signal activity" or something like that? Regards SoWhy 19:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Tables are unwieldy. Something like
{{/user|Conscious|lastedit=10 July 2010|email=20110809|email2=20110903|note=diff1|note2=diff2}}
is a lot cleaner. –xenotalk 19:25, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Ahh, you mean the template will create the table code and links but the inactive admins page will show only that line? Now I get it, great idea. Should be possible, {{Adminstats}} works similarly, doesn't it? I'll ask Hersfold if he can do it. Regards SoWhy 19:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Check Wikipedia:Inactive administrators#September 2011. I don't have time to write the diff handler or add the diffs, but the groundwork is in there. –xenotalk 20:31, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
Nice work. I'll see if I can work out those diff handlers. Hersfold said the bot won't have a problem with those templates. :-) Regards SoWhy 13:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I changed the templates a bit (separating note and email in two cols) and added the diff-handler. Now it will show the note=/note2= as given (e.g. with a link) except when diff=/diff2= is set (in which case it will call {{diff2|<diff ID>|<note>}}). I'll add the diffs manually later today but in future the bot should be easily able to do it :-) Regards SoWhy 14:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I used the new table/template system on the October list although I'm unsure as to why it adds <br>-tags to the Pending-field. I'd be grateful if you could check my changes. :-) Regards SoWhy 14:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
On first glance, it seems to be looking a little bloated, but I have some ideas how to whip it into shape. Do you think it is important to display both log action and last edit? –xenotalk 16:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Feel free to change it around as much as you like. I'd display both edit and log action though, to make it clear that both have been checked. Sure, we could call it "Last edit/log action" but I don't think there is any harm in having both. Regards SoWhy 16:39, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I think all the full length dates are what's doing it. I was trying to get the checkY or {[cross}} to allow a hover-over display of date (rather than displaying it in text), but not having success and don't feel like figuring it out right now =) –xenotalk 17:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Think I'm done for now =) –xenotalk 18:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Koavf and AWB

Just to let you know that I've re-added Koavf to the AWB checklist. I'd said I'd do it on request, and he's requesting it for different work than the tagging which got it removed in the first place, but thought it only polite to give you a heads-up anyway. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that Koavf is far too careless with AWB; for example, see the thread on his talk page about his erroneous fixing of dashes in filenames (proper use of AWB shouldn't lead to such errors, Koavf seems to just blindly hit save or is perhaps using an inappropriately modified version with autosave). As I indicated earlier, I will simply block Koavf indefinitely on the next problem, as poor AWB use is just a symptom of deeper problems with his approach to editing generally.
Thank you for the note. –xenotalk 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks all I appreciate Xeno's criticism--and it's substantial and reasonable--but I don't understand what he (you) thinks is the more fundamental problem(s) with my attitude toward editing... With no sarcasm, I'd like to ask what that is. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
My main concern is that you seem to be trying to do too much at once. I see that you regularly run bot-type tasks with AWB at a high rate of speed while using hotcat simultaneously. The main problems with this are 1) committing edits that introduce obvious and severe problems careful editors would have detected (such as malforming image wikicode), and 2) running large tasks without proper consensus for mass editing. Others have suggested that you are running at a breakneck speed to try to reach 1 million edits: this really doesn't matter to me, as long the quality of the edits do not suffer, the edits are desirable, and you have consensus to make them. –xenotalk 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again For what it's worth, I am always open to others' criticism and it's usually well-founded. I have definitely gone from bold to reckless before, but I hope that you and other editors understand that it's always at least an attempt to be in service of the encyclopedia and never for making it worse. In case you are interested in scrutinizing me in the future, I will happily accept such criticism on my talk. Thanks again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Question I have recently tagged a bunch of talk pages to categories that I created. I can only assume that this is non-controversial and I'm not trying to be sarcastic when I say this, but is that okay by you? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
As long as the category creations are desirable (as I recall that you had some people questioning whether albums-by-liner-notes-author were desirable) and the albums project has no problem with the project tags, this seems fine. –xenotalk 12:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I care

Re [18]

I care. I don't know how to use warning templates. I will only report level 4's to the aiv noticeboard. (learned my lesson there) I will give some explanation to vandals about their vandalism. Please put the link to the warning template page on my userpage.--1966batfan (talk) 00:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Replied here

FYI: I've blocked him for a month for his reporting of users who have not violated their final warnings yet. You warned him earlier that he could/would face an indefinite block if he continued with his warning/reverting issues, so I figured I'd give you a heads up. either way (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I think that he could really do well to read up a lot on our processes. –xenotalk 18:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

AWB

Th thread is not about AWB. Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC).

No - it is about reckless and sloppy editing - some of that done with AWB. –xenotalk 12:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: SmackBot 39

What you say sounds valid, but I am struggling to understand the fix to the template you are suggesting. Moving it over the redirect? Adding a new parameter? Or is there a magic word of use here (I can't think of one)? Regards, - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 17:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The diff I linked was all the fixing that was needed. –xenotalk 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I'm confused now (it's been a long week...). Isn't that what task #39 is doing? - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 18:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. I'm sorry, I totally misread this one. –xenotalk 18:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
No worries. Glad I made the right call on the BRFA, that's all :) - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 18:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Quick hand

Hi xeno. I'm not really familiar with CHU, so I was wondering if you could do something quickly for me. There is no question that this should be declined, but I wasn't sure if a 'crat needs to do that, and if it's okay to just remove the section outright (as a personal attack), or if that would mess with the bot. Anyway, if you could take a look that would be great. Thanks, - Kingpin13 (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Just removing it won't affect the bot and is probably the better option over a bureaucrat having to formally decline it. –xenotalk

De-adminning accounts

Hi. When you remove rights from an account, it probably makes sense to check the user's user page for accuracy. I realize this isn't strictly necessary and that the stewards don't do this, but making simple changes such as these can make life much easier for passersby. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Hm - yes - I was hoping that we would have a bot that would do this. Though, I do wonder how far we should go in re-writing these pages. These folks are basically still administrators, they just don't have the actual permissions. –xenotalk 19:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
They're not administrators for any definition that's relevant to users. If a user comes across a former admin's user page and it says that they're currently an administrator, it's a bad situation. Same with categories. "Admins open to recall" should contain admins. "Wikipedia administrators" should contain admins. In a technical sense, these people can still regain administrator rights, but I fail to see how that's important in context. I agree that rewriting is often annoying (but this is a wiki and there is was a clear warning about your contributions being mercilessly edited); I took the approach of commenting out, as it removes some of the issues that arise from rewriting.

Bots aren't really smart enough to do text changes. They could do category adjustments or reports of users who are mislabeled or something. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Name change

Hello, I was hoping to get a name change, as I'm looking to contribute to wikipedia but need something more secure in terms of my name. Can you help me out? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RyanMonell820 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

How secure do you want to get? I can rename your current account, but a record will be kept in the log. The best way would be to simply create a new account. (I could rename your current one to something random.) Of course, with the rename you get to keep your 2006 creation date. Up to you, really. –xenotalk 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

IRC

If you're online, could you hop on #wikipedia-BAG? I'd like to discuss something with you, and get some advice, if you're willing. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Or, maybe you're not online. Sorry to bother you. -FASTILY (TALK) 02:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Yea, I went off shortly after my last comment there. Probably could be on IRC sometime today if you still want to bounce ideas around. –xenotalk 18:01, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

User:Ripac

Hi, since you're a CheckUser I thought I would come to you. I recently came across a rather odd user called Ripac (talk · contribs), whose one edit here was to undo a bot edit to CAT:SD. Their talk page history reveals nothing of interest, and their global contribs indicate they have only edited here and itwiki, and that those edits consisted of three benign edits and four eventually RevDeled (or OSed? can't tell) spam edits, earning them a block over there. They might have other deleted contributions that I can't see.

Anyway, it all certainly seems odd to me, and I can't imagine that these would be the edits of a first-time user. Looking at WP:SOCK#LEGIT, it seems as if only privacy and clean-start accounts are allowed not to link to alternate users (so if this is a different type of alt, then they are already breaking a rule by not linking). Yet these two categories do not seem to fit either since the user appears not to have edited anything particularly socially embarrassing (it:Tortilla and so on), and spamming hardly constitutes making a clean start. However, I did not want to formally submit something to SPI yet since I have no idea who the main account might be, and so was wondering what your professional advice was. It Is Me Here t / c 21:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

They haven't edited in quite some time, so maybe just best to keep an eye on them, I'd think. –xenotalk 22:38, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm

Hullo there. I am surprised to see that 'facepalm' has its own article. As you know it was deleted by consensus as non-notable. Then when the redirect you created was also nominated for deletion two years later, somehow it was saved on the basis that it is now suddenly notable, yet in its present form the article still does not reflect this, as it has only one reference - Know Your Meme - and that is quite obviously not reliable. This word has only ostensibly existed since around 2007 - it is a purely internet derived term or 'meme'. I suggest that it goes through the deletion process again or is merged into List of gestures. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It had better sources before: [19]. You should feel free to take whatever editorial actions you see fit; including editing them back in or nominating at AfD for merge and redirect. –xenotalk 13:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm fully aware I can take action; I just thought I'd test the water with you as you were the administrator supervising the original deletion discussions. Or, more accurately, I can't really be bothered.
Anyway, I dispute that those two sources are much better; number one is a footnote in a thesis which only confirms the word's status as an internet meme (and someone else has already contested its viability as a source), and number two is an entry in a book compiled from a website comprised of submissions from users. The only genuinely good source I've seen is someone on the article's talk page mentioning it appears in the OED, though, as I said there, the OED seem to be adding any old crap to the dictionary these days... even the 'Google Test' only reports about 625-850 paged results.
Basically, I don't think this, at least as a full article, belongs in Wikipedia until the concept is given more reputable attention than it currently is. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; and most importantly, Wikipedia is not Know Your Meme. --78.150.164.120 (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me first: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facepalm (2nd nomination). –xenotalk 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

On a iPhone

I can't for the life of me figure out how to edit or log in from an iPhone, at least using the Wikipedia app. Do I have to go through the browser instead?--~TPW 16:21, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ditto! I use safari (after disabling the mobile site) Jebus989✰ 16:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep- mobile safari. Wish there were a decent app for editing. –xenotalk 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Xeno - Arbitron

The user admitted it was messed up. Can you delete, please? --Hinata talk 23:55, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This was sorted. –xenotalk

fyi

I would be happy to write a co nom. It may be short, as I am having PC issues at the moment. –xenotalk 01:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
That's amazing. Will contact you before this weekend. Wifione Message 04:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

My account

You think I could USURP to my old (Secret) account from this account User:Secretalt if it's possible. I want to reedit again as Secret, but I can't recover the password from that account. Thanks Secret account 07:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes this sounds fine. –xenotalk 01:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Appreciate your help with my sandbox. BusterD (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. Just as a minor terminology note, the process is selective deletion, not revision deletion. –xenotalk 16:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for usurping, etc.

Also, dark itself is a problem word without going to the moon even. Like most words, it is unsimply a relative measurement. -- Queeg (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Oh, and I didn't write that userbox =) –xenotalk 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Deletions

Thread retitled from "User:Garydubh".

I notice that yesteday and today you have been moving and deleting several pages to do with the User:Garydubh, a sockmaster. Today you deleted Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garydubh/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Garydubh/Archive with the summary that they are "no longer relevant". I find this rather strange because about a year ago he requested the right to vanish after about two years of sock activity under different usernames and anonIPs. Some weeks ago he returned as an anon IP with the same MO. The sock archive page is in fact relevant because with it I am able to review such things as previous activity, IPs used and other appropriate sock related links. Now this is no longer possible. I noticed some recent edits by another user that look like a new sock of the last IP that broke his right to vanish request but now there is no page to start a new investigation and more importantly no history to link to for an admin to review unless I happen to remember to make a note of these previous pages and remember the page names. Any other editor may not even know or remember the previous sock activity, so any new investigation looks like a simple new sock and not sockmaster who damaged two articles and kept on promoting his own organisation and product. How come all pages related to this user and his sock activity have been deleted and are now unavailable for regular editors? TIA ww2censor (talk) 15:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do not file any more onwiki SPI requests under the username "Garydubh". Feel free to email any requests or related concerns directly to arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org. –xenotalk 15:51, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks but it is a pity you have not given any reasoning or other more informative comments. ww2censor (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
From what I understand, the most recent identifications were false positives. –xenotalk 16:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks for that info. ww2censor (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

FFD

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#Fascinating which you might be interested in. (I won't be watching this page; post there if you wish to join the discussion). –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. –xenotalk 15:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Xeno, so much for handling my request so quickly; it means a lot to me. With appreciation and gratitude, -Tristessa de St Ange (talk) 03:09, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. =) –xenotalk 20:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Impersonating me!!!

Dear Wikimate, Kindly check the actions done by this user. He is impersonating my ID and leaving false messages in my talk page. Kindly check this edit. Kindly do the needful. arun talk 07:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be sorted now. Cheers, –xenotalk 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent mass nominations at FFD

You may be interested in User_talk:SchuminWeb#You.27re_deleting_files_too_soon and the undelete requests below it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that whole mess is an abuse of process, but I really don't have the energy right now to look further into it. I registered my opinion by mass voting against deletion. It doesn't make sense to spend time deleting free images that aren't causing any particular problems (no space is reclaimed, etc.). –xenotalk 20:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

username change requests

Hi Xeno, could you please kindly action the 6+ awaiting username changes?
I can't edit pages until that's actioned. Thank you in advance. 12:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're all set. Happy editing, –xenotalk 19:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you again :) -Qadri fan (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
There's one near the bottom that I would be thrilled if you actionned ASAP ... it's an offensive name that I'm AGF'ing and following through to their rename. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, done. –xenotalk 20:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
You rock! Cheers! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks

Thanks for processing my usurpation request. :) Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Also thanks from me for the same! best regards, Joplin (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
  • No problem all, happy to help. –xenotalk 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

RE: FYI

(Re) Thanks for letting me now. I withdrew the statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! Cheers, –xenotalk 17:42, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Research into the user pages of Wikipedians: Invitation to participate

Greetings,

My name is John-Paul and I am a student with the University of Alberta specializing in Communications and Technology.

I would like to include your Wikipedia user page in a study I am doing about how people present themselves online. I am interested in whether people see themselves in different ways, online and offline. One of the things I am looking at is how contributors to Wikipedia present themselves to each other through their user pages. Would you consider letting me include your user page in my study?

With your consent, I will read and analyze your user page, and ask you five short questions about it that will take about ten to fifteen minutes to answer. I am looking at about twenty user pages belonging to twenty different people. I will be looking at all user pages together, looking for common threads in the way people introduce themselves to other Wikipedians.

I hope that my research will help answer questions about how people collaborate, work together, and share knowledge. If you are open to participating in this study, please reply to this message, on your User Talk page or on mine. I will provide you with a complete description of my research, which you can use to decide if you want to participate.

Thank-you,

John-Paul Mcvea
University of Alberta
jmcvea@ualberta.ca

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I would be happy to help. –xenotalk 20:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

User:ICanHazBiggerCheezburger

Hi, me again (I asked you about SPI a little while back). I recently came across a VOA which I blocked, but the user clearly knows their way around Wikipedia (the link to WP:PN, and the suggestive title "I don't go away" – see deleted contribs), and so is surely someone's alt? But, again, since I don't know my way around SPI (and wouldn't know which was the user's main account), I was hoping for some advice from your good self. It Is Me Here t / c 21:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

There was one other user on the IP but they're already blocked. –xenotalk 15:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anomie

It's transcluded! Thank you again for co-nominating me. Anomie⚔ 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Great! Best of luck =) –xenotalk 13:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

News of a dear friend

Hello, Xeno. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Air Miss Ѡrite ➔ 15:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for this. –xenotalk 18:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

SUL account

Hi, I turned my account to SUL, so what's the next step? Thanks Mehran Debate 17:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

You're all set now; you can press special:MergeAccount again. Best regards, –xenotalk 18:10, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much, and my last question, how can I have this account in the other wikis? Currently it isn't global in these wikis:
az.wikipedia.org, commons.wikimedia.org, de.wikipedia.org, en.wikibooks.org, en.wikisource.org, en.wikiversity.org, en.wiktionary.org, fa.wikibooks.org, fa.wikiquote.org, fa.wikisource.org, fa.wiktionary.org, fr.wikipedia.org, meta.wikimedia.org, nl.wikipedia.org, no.wikipedia.org Mehran Debate 18:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Hmm - if those are not your accounts you will probably have to usurp locally at those venues. Most projects have "WP:USURP" as a shortcut.
az:WP:USURP az has no bureaucrats, so you ask at m:SR/SUL. –xenotalk 18:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
commons:COM:USURP
de:WP:USURP'
...etc. See m:RENAMELINKS for the rest. Best of luck, –xenotalk 18:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks again, you are very industrious. Mehran Debate 18:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehran (talk • contribs)
No problem. Don't forget to update your signature ^^ =) –xenotalk 18:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Xania's Italian flag in my RfA

Hi. Thanks for redoing my edit; I agree that just adding initial colons to the offending image wikilinks is a much better approach. (And I knew about that trick and should have thought of it myself! Oh, well.) Richwales (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem =) –xenotalk 15:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in my study, entitled “Online Self-presentation among Wikipedians.” I appreciate it.

As I indicated in my last message (which you have since archived), here are five short questions about your user page that I would like you to answer. These will help me to understand your motivations for creating a user page such as yours. Please be as brief or as thorough as you like.


5 QUESTIONS

1. Are you a member of social networks such Facebook or MySpace?

A: No. I do have a rarely used Twitter account. –xenotalk 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

2. In addition to maintaining a user page in Wikipedia, have you also written or edited articles? If so, about how many times?

A: I write articles rarely, edit them somewhat less rarely. I have nearly 18,000 edits to the article space [20], though I have only 500 edits to the article space in the last year. A decent number of my article space edits are administrative, rather than editorial, in nature (for example, in July 2009, I had conducted a mass rollback that accounted for over 5000 edits). –xenotalk 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

3. What are the key messages about yourself that you hope to convey with your user page?

A: The primary message intended to be conveyed by my userpage are my various roles on this project. I also have included a 'randomizing userbox' element which chooses from a selection of userboxes that give visitors a glimpse of my personal interests. –xenotalk 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

4. Have your Wikipedia contributions ever received feedback, such as being edited by others or commented on? Have you received a message from another Wikipedia user? If so, do you think your user page positively or negatively affected what other people said and how they said it?

A: Yes on both counts. I suppose my userpage may affect the way people approach me because I am an administrator, bureaucrat, checkuser, oversighter, and arbitrator. Depending on the user this may positively or negatively affect what and how things are said. –xenotalk 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

5. Do you see your “online self” as being different from your “offline self?” Can you elaborate?

A: Of course. My "online self" is named Xeno and edits/administrates an encyclopedia. My offline self is not and does no such thing =) –xenotalk 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Please indicate your answers to these questions on your talk page, or on mine. Please respond by October 1st so that I have time to properly read your responses. If you like, you can email your answers to me instead (jmcvea@ualberta.ca).

Thank you again : )

Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Additional information & consent statement

ADDITONAL INFORMATION

Background

• I am asking you to participate in a research project that is part of my MA degree.

• I am asking you because you have created a user page in Wikipedia that other people can use to learn about you.

Purpose

• My research is about how people present themselves online.

• I will look at how people present themselves when presenting themselves to the Wikipedia community.


Study Procedures

• With your consent, I will analyze the language of your user page and gather basic statistics such as the count of words, the frequency of words, the number of sections, and so on.

• I will also read the text of your user page, looking for elements in common with ads posted by other people. I will note whether you include a picture, or links to other content on the internet.

• I ask you to answer my five questions, above. This will take about ten to fifteen minutes to complete. I will ask you to answer the questions within a week, and send your answers to me.

• Throughout my research, I will adhere to the University of Alberta Standards for the Protection of Human Research Participants, which you can view at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/gfcpolicymanual/policymanualsection66.cfm


Benefits

• There is no direct benefit to you for participating in this research. You may, however, find it interesting to read my perspective on how you present yourself online.

• I hope that the information I get from doing this study will help understand how technology affects the way people come together into a society.

• There is no reward or compensation for participating in this research.


Risk

• There is no direct risk for participating in this research.


Voluntary Participation

• You are under no obligation to participate in this study. Participation is completely voluntary.

• You can opt out of this study at any time before October 10, 2011, with no penalty. You can ask to have me withdraw any data that I have collected about you. Even if you agree to be in the study, you can change your mind and withdraw.

• If you decline to continue or you wish to withdraw from the study, your information will be removed from the study at your request.


Confidentiality

• This research will be used to support a project that is part of my MA degree.

• A summary of my research will be available on the University of Alberta website.

• Your personally identifiable information will be deleted and digitally shredded as soon as I have finished gathering data about you.

• Data will be kept confidential. Only I will have access to the computer file containing the data. It will be password protected. It will not be sent by email or stored online.

• I will always handle my data in compliance with University of Alberta standards.

• If you would like to receive a copy of my final report, please ask.

Further Information

• If you have any further questions regarding this study, please do not hesitate to contact Dr. Stanley Varnhagen, my research advisor for this project. If you have concerns about this study, you may contact the University of Alberta Research Ethics Committee at 780-492-2615. This office has no affiliation with the study investigators.


INDICATING CONSENT

By answering these questions, you indicate your agreement with the following statements:

• That you understand that you have been asked to be in a research study.

• That you have read and received a copy of the Information Sheet, attached below (“Additional Information”).

• That you understand the benefits and risks involved in taking part in this research study.

• That you have had an opportunity to ask questions and discuss this study.

• That you understand that you are free to refuse to participate, or to withdraw from the study at any time, without consequence, and that your information will be withdrawn at your request.

• That the issue of confidentiality been explained to you and that you understand who will have access to your information (see “Additional Information”).

• That you agree to participate.

Thank-you again! Johnpaulmcvea (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem - happy to help. –xenotalk 20:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: LivingBot typo

Thanks, fixed that (and "grievious"). - Jarry1250 [Weasel? Discuss.] 20:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem! –xenotalk 12:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit reattribution issue; account automatically recreated

Warburton1368 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
Edinburgh Wanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · target logs · block log · list user · global contribs · central auth · Google)
Help

Thanks for changing my username over. Not sure if I'm missing something but a small number of my edit history and articles created appear not to have copied over and my old username is still active as well. Warburton1368 (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Probably you were still logged in to your account, so it was automatically recreated. If the edits don't move after 3 weeks you can try to find a developer to manually move them over. (You could post to bugzilla:17313) –xenotalk 12:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks im happy with the old username being there will just turn into a redirect. Just would be nice to have all the contributions together will wait three weeks and ask. Thanks again and you were correct i was logged in on my ipad hadn't even realised. Edinburgh Wanderer 14:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Saying that Its slightly odd when i click on any old link to my old username it links to my new account ok anyway. But when i log into the old one it says my old user name in the top but says its edinburgh wanderer on all the other pages. It cant be redirected because it keeps saying its redirecting to itself which it isnt as the majority of my old edits are in the new one. Think its just as confused as its user. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
After rename, redirects are automatically created. When a page redirects, the address bar will still reflect the redirect page, but the page title will reflect the landing page. See [21]. –xenotalk 15:06, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
  • Not like that. If i log into my old account Warburton1368 and place on redirect it isnt redirecting it thinks its Edinburgh wanderer so the redirect takes you back to that page. All its doing is linking to its self. However if i log into the new account im edinburgh wanderer and click on and an old username stamp it correctly takes to the new page not the old one. Do i have to wait three weeks or can i ask the developer to look at now.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what you are asking. Just use the new account henceforth. No, you cannot ask a developer now as the edits will probably move themselves in due time. –xenotalk 15:14, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I mean the old account thinks its the new one but isn't thats basically it. Its not accting as a redirect because it thinks its the one. Anyway will leave it but think it will need deleted to avoid problems as basicly contains a mirror of the current anyway dosent matter ill ask a developer in three weeks to copy content over. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:17, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
The address bar will show the redirect address, but the page title will show the target page.
I'm sorry, I still don't follow. The old account's userpages are redirecting to the new account name. And it was automatically recreated because you were still logged into it. And some of the edits aren't re-attributed yet, this is normal when renaming accounts with very many edits. –xenotalk 15:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
I fully understand that it has recreated itself because i was logged in. All edits live on wikipedia with a signature correctly redirect to the new page no problem their. What i dont understand is when you log onto the old one which i wont do until i need to check if all edits are copied across is that it appears to be confused their is no redirect on it it mirrors what my userpage used to look like. Basically on classic wikipedia in the top right corner it shows my old user name when you click the option for the talk page of that user account it comes across as user edinburgh wanderer. But it isnt a redirect to the new account its still the old one but it seems to think its the new one. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
See the image to the right. The red circles show the address bar and the "redirected from" note. The page title properly shows as Edinburgh Wanderer (blue circle). This is how redirects always look - the address bar stays the same even though Wikipedia transparently redirected you to the proper target page. Yes, if you log in to the old account and click the userpage or talk page links, they will redirect to Edinburgh Wanderer. If you want, you can eliminate the redirects and use it as an alternate account. –xenotalk 15:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Dosent look like that the address bar says Warburton1368 the box below shows User:Edinburgh wanderer but their is no redirect sign. Their is a redirect on thats live as when im logged into new account as ive seen it working. But its just when you log into the old one it thinks its both and their is no redirect. Also the history on that old page shows no redirect being set up. but yet when you click on old page on live site it redirects Its as if their is two Warburton1368 one thats a redirect and the other thats the old account. The old username dosent redirect to the new site it thinks it is it but it isnt its a mirror image of what it used to look like. Im not sure how to add a screenshot. AS a beurocrat are you able to log into the old account or is that not possible. Edinburgh Wanderer 15:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I can't log in to your account. Maybe you are confusing an account with a userpage. Your old username still exists because it was automatically recreated as a new account. But its userpages are redirected to the new account. See [22]. I think you are overthinking this - just continue using the new account. Your old account and userpages can be left where they are. –xenotalk 15:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Im not explaining myself but you link proved my point that is a different history completely to the one i see also no when i log into old account its not redirecting to the new one. I have changed it and it dosent look like the new one. Their is two user pages the one you see with the redirect and another i see when i log into old account. Their clearly is the link with redirect you created and the old account. I think something has went wrong. I am no newbie i understand how a redirect worksEdinburgh Wanderer 16:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Yep, I don't what you mean. Provide me some links and upload some screenshots (special:upload). Or just continue editing with your new username - everything looks fine to me. –xenotalk 16:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Its annoying more than anything. Will just use the new one. it dosent matter really it just isnt making sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edinburgh Wanderer (talk • contribs) 16:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
If you want the new 'Warburton1368' to disappear, I could rename it again to something else after you ensure you are logged out of it. But would like for the edits to move over first, so I don't complicate the re-attribution process. –xenotalk 22:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Im happy just to wait and see if the edits move over and if they don't get a developer to do it. We can see where we are at after that. Thanks for your help.Edinburgh Wanderer 22:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Vote for bugzilla:26816 =) –xenotalk 22:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: usurpation Crio

I added to the usurpation of Crio in the usurpation page. Thanks for all your help. Cheers. --Crio de la Paz 17:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crio de la paz (talk • contribs)

I think you're all set. Cheers, –xenotalk 22:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Crio de la Paz (talk) 04:46, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

No problem. –xenotalk 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Merge usernames

hello.. i have 2 accounts in wikipedia - one with 1300 edit counts and other with 300 edit counts. is there a way to merge these accounts into one. in fact i want the 300 count account to be merged with my 1300 count account. pls do help me out regarding the possibilities.. Thanks a lotRahuljohnson4u (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not possible to merge the accounts. You should use use {{User alternate acct}} to signify you own both the accounts. –xenotalk 12:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


Archive 20 ← Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno/Archive_27&oldid=1150993617"