User talk:AmandaNP: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:08, 4 February 2012

Nominate someone to receive a DeltaQuad Award today!

Archives
2009: Dec 2010: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec 2011: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec 2012: Jan

RfC closes

Hi DeltaQuad. Thank you for the numerous closes of RfCs you've made the past few weeks. Your efforts do not go unappreciated. Cunard (talk) 01:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by and letting me know, it's always good to know i'm doing a good job :) -- DQ (t) (e) 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 09 January 2012

Technological roadmap: 2011's technological achievements in review, and what 2012 may hold

News and notes: Fundraiser 2011 ends with a bang

In the news: Wikipedia ends annual fundraising drive; Monmouthpedia launches

WikiProject report: From Traditional to Experimental: WikiProject Jazz

Featured content: Contentious FAC debate: a week in review

Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Betacommand 3

Technology report: December in more detail; and why the MediaWiki codebase was "slushed" this week

Thanks for closure

Hi DQ, I just wanted to thank you for closing my proposal at Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. I realise it was a daunting load of text to read and I think the outcome was reasonable and what I expected. I hope your break is going well. Dcoetzee 10:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dcoetzee, thanks for stopping by, and sorry I missed you while I was on break. I hope that you guys do have some successes in the future from all the work put into it. -- DQ (t) (e) 02:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Appeal

Articles for Creation urgently needs your help!

Articles for Creation is desperately short of reviewers! We are looking for urgent help, from experienced editors, in reviewing submissions in the pending submissions queue. Currently the are 2792 submissions waiting to be reviewed.

Do you have what it takes?

Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines?
Do you know what Wikipedia is and is not?
Do you have a working knowledge of the Manual of Style, particularly article naming conventions?
Are you autoconfirmed?
Can you review submissions based on their individual merits?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then please read the reviewing instructions and donate a little of your time to helping tackle the backlog.

The Signpost: 16 January 2012

Special report: English Wikipedia to go dark on January 18

Sister projects: What are our sisters up to now?

News and notes: WMF on the looming SOPA blackout, Wikipedia turns 11, and Commons passes 12 million files

WikiProject report: WikiProject Beer

Featured content: Lecen on systemic bias in featured content

Arbitration report: Four open cases, Betacommand case deadlocked, Muhammad images close near

Technology report: ArticleFeedback moves into new trial phase; and how MediaWiki integrates with Facebook, IPv6, and PostgreSQL explored

Strewth!

	You've been sDrewth'd
	You see him there, you see him there. Very nice. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

poop patrol

Hi Deltaquad, glad to see you around, any chance of firing up your bot for a poop patrol run? Ta Ϣere SpielChequers 12:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do first thing in the morning. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:22, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:45, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edit comment, and well my morning is a few hours away, and my sleep patterns are a little off right now, so my morning isn't everyone elses morning, but in the next few hours. :P I'm UTC -4/-5. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'd noticed you were Canadian. I think if anyone were to analyse my eits they'd see some very odd times, especially when I was backpacking round New Zealand. Are you thinking of going to Wikimania? If so I've an idea for a joint presentation that takes the poop patrol concept on a couple of stages. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've saw it this year and never actually considered going but I thought it would be neat. I could see if I could go, I just have to apply for a scholarship. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 17:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Hope this didn't throw your bot. If so its fixed. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same IP

The same IP as this is evading his block with the following IP;

23.19.68.66

Can you re-block him pls? Thanks Pass a Method talk 03:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done on a /16 with a note that this is a new webhost, not the same as ones in the past. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 03:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection at Talk:Muhammad/images

Hi, as far as I know, we've only had one case of vandalism there recently. Would you consider unprotecting? We don't get many IPs commenting there, but we had one yesterday, and it would be nice to have the page open in case he has anything more to say. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the protection time, it was only 3 hours (which expired about to minutes ago, so it is unprotected as we speak), and has to do with the fact that of not feeding the trolls, and an attack that was immanent. I normally would agree with you, but not in this case. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 12:10, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I noticed "(indefinite)))" in your edit summary and didn't read further. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

SPI

I'm wondering as to why the information on the case was deleted rather than simply rejected and archived as in typical fashion. Itgetsworse (talk) 14:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no evidence of socking against a long-time editor, and it honestly was just disrupting the process. SPI deletions of such cases are normal. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the evidence you deleted? Itgetsworse (talk) 14:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Pickbothmanlol&diff=473442631&oldid=473337618 – I've started a new case. The evidence for Fluttershy being Pickbothmanlol is compelling. You need to see past the "long-time-ness" of an editor. Can you please restore what you deleted so that it may be archived for historical reference in future cases involving Pickbothmanlol. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am completely willing to get past 'the "long-time-ness" of an editor', I look at each new case as it is. I am not willing to restore the case previous on grounds of not feeding the trolls (If I may note the above editor has been blocked for socking) and leaving the old issues behind. You case seems to have enough meat in itself for the statements that you make that i'm sure you don't need the previous SPI to help you out. I'll be heading over to look at the new SPI soon. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the deleted revisions were restored, then I could explain what this tweet was referring to and use it as further evidence that u_abusebeercans is Fluttershy's twitter account. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with this, but of course I don't see everything as you do, so in the interest of good faith, I have restored the case, and inserted also the case into the new one collapsed. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 22:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Native languages in lead

Does this mean we can now delete the scripts (and optionally replace them with IPAs) citing that discussion as consensus? BollyJeff || talk 15:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can take a look at this tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but what is the consensus? Should we remove the indic scripts existing in the articles and replace them with IPA? X.One ^SOS 10:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you guys. I have looked back over the RfC and have found that the consensus is to remove the scripts from the pages. That might be a bit on the edge of consensus, but it also seems like a reasonable compromise since there is no consensus on which language is to be used, instead of going around and edit warring about them more, which was the problem in the first place. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 14:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:DeltaQuad, I feel like some clarification is needed here. Throughout Wikipedia, millions of articles already have the native scripts in the lead. Does this warrant the removal of all of them? After I saw User:Bollyjeff's post above, I noticed that he had removed scripts from several articles, despite the fact that some of these articles have had discussions on which script to use (see this, for example). If I am incorrect on this matter, then I apologize and User:Bollyjeff can revert my edits. I look forward to your response. With regards, Anupam^Talk 16:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair warning to you. User:Anupam is going to try and circumvent this decision. BollyJeff || talk 16:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bollyjeff and I reached some kind of understanding here so we should be okay. I just thought I'd point that out. Have a good day, Anupam^Talk 16:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then I guess we have to remove scripts from all India-related articles then, and cite the consensus. X.One ^SOS 12:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not think that would really be helpful. If they are being problematic, then sure. However, they are helpful in many articles and there's no need for a mass campaign to remove all of them. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 17:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually never seen a wiki benefit from mass changing per a consensus. I would recommend that they be pulled in over time, with the most severe cases of scripting that are causing issue be dealt with first. I'm not trying to dismiss the consensus, but it's not something we should rush. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I still had doubt on this. I was under the impression that....

For geographical articles, "IPA+State language" was the consensus.
For biographical articles there was no consensus on using Indic scripts but IPAs should be added.
Discussion on film articles was completely ignored. So no consensus on that & hence IPAs only should be added. No Indic scripts there too.

Am i right here? What is it? Could someone bullet-point all options please?
And i agree that a spree for removal of Indic scripts should not take place. That would have more vandalisms. Especially on biographical articles. Lets undertake this over time. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy, what a mess. I thought the current practice was:

For geographical articles, "Indic scripts in State language". (reaffirmed by this RfC)
For biographical articles, "IPAs only". (newly agreed to by this RfC)
For film articles, "Indic scripts for film language and English translation". (existing policy not covered by RfC)

I am also confused. We have a discussion and still there is disagreement on the outcome. Sorry to bother you DeltaQuad, but can you spend a little bit more time on this one? BollyJeff || talk 12:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I have seen this RfC maybe the scope of this is whats gonna shoot everyone in the foot, but, it was all India Related topics, narrowly constructed to specific roots in an Indian subject. Right at the beginning of this RfC it was noted bt Anupam that this RfC was that and also it was asked right below if it included other articles, and where MikeLynch verified that "Yes, all India-related articles" are covered. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the actual beginning of the RfC was here. You may have missed that, and only closed the section beginning with Options. BollyJeff || talk 15:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you DQ, when you say that we shouldn't rush things. I don't prefer mass-removal of scripts, it may lead to problems in the short run. I intended this RfC to cover all India-related topics, and some users found it fit to branch out a separate section for Geographical articles (the branch is perfectly fine by me, and in fact, I too opine that State language should be included for geographical articles). It would now be meaningless to have separate discussions for films, biographies, sports, universities, etc. Lynch 7 16:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So Mike, what was the purpose of the whole thing, did you get a definite resolution, and what do you want to see done now as a result? BollyJeff || talk 16:58, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many old Hindi films had titles displayed in English, Hindi and Urdu. Hence all three are used on articles. But then seeing a Urdu script on one article made editors to put it on other articles too. (And its very difficlut to verify whether the film used it or not. I am not gonna watch all movies!) Urdu credits fazed out and no disputes were seen on new film articles. But few films still use it and hence we had to use them on articles too. But again, "if A has it, B should also have it" started. Hence films were intended to be discussed separately in this RfC as the question "if the film credit itself has it in Urdu, why shouldnt the article have it?" is fair. -Animeshkulkarni (talk) 17:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the film mentions its name in Urdu or French or Klingon is immaterial, and that will be impractical to implement. See, we should not be having the scripts just for the heck of it, or just because its a Hindi film, or just because it is Indian. Anyway, this is the stuff that should have been discussed at the RfC, not in its closing discussion. Lynch 7 17:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bollyjeff: The intention was simple, it was to remove unnecessary impressions of "ownership" of articles by a particular language community. I'm guessing you know Indian languages yourself, and you would be aware of this problem. The inclusion of scripts would not be much of a meaningful addition to the article, and the disadvantages (vandal magnets, the "ownership" issue, possible libel going undetected) far outweigh any advantages. That is the mindset with which I started the discussion. Definite resolution, I don't know, that's for DeltaQuad to decide. Lynch 7 17:40, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean we should remove all scripts from pages which have been unstable in this category, like Rajinikanth and Deepika Padukone? X.One ^SOS 10:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those problematic pages should be the first ones to see the scripts go. DeltaQuad, could you clarify on the consensus regarding removal of the scripts? (and mention it in the closing comments of the RfC?) There is currently a lot of confusion. Lynch 7 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I thought that this was already cleared up above, but i'll go for it again. The consensus is to remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation. Is there something else that I missed and that needs to be cleared up? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question

You stated (on my post to an archive): "appeal it on the closing user's talkpage if you wish..". I don't understand. What is a "closing user"? Who is the "closing user"? It clearly states, "Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below.", which is what I did. I was prevented from posting until after it was archived. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know that you would like to clear your name or state something for the record, but SPIs once they are archived are closed because the administrative decision has been made. Any clerk can reopen the case if needed. If you think that this new evidence clears your name, I would encourage you to speak to the closing administrator on the case (in this case it would be HelloAnnyong), because if we just threw it in now, and there is enough evidence to support your name being cleared, then we look back at the Archive and start thinking 'why didn't the closing admin think of that when he made the close?'. That opens a whole new issue, when we can just let the original administrator know about it. I hope this explains it, and I do personally care that everyone has a reasonable chance to defend themselves, and if you need any assistance please do let me know. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I appreciate the explanation. Not everyone has the experience or knows all the buzz words - or has time to read all the many pages of Wiki guidelines and policies. Computer Guy 2 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I thank you for being understanding that I had a reason. It's people like you who give me a smile every day when I look on and realize the wiki is still sane. :) And never expect anyone to read the policies inside and out...I doubt that that is even a direct policy. :P It's more like the unwritten words 1/2 backed up with policy. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 January 2012

News and notes: SOPA blackout, Orange partnership

In the news: World watched as Wikipedia shut down for SOPA blackout

WikiProject report: The Golden Horseshoe: WikiProject Toronto

Featured content: Interview with Muhammad Mahdi Karim and the best of the week

Arbitration report: Four open cases, proposed decision in Muhammad images, AUSC call for applications

Technology report: Looking ahead to MediaWiki 1.19 and related issues

The Signpost: 30 January 2012

News and notes: Update on Global Development, Wikipedia Day NYC is a success, JFK audio on Commons

In the news: Zambian wiki-assassins, Foundation über alles, editor engagement and the innovation plateau

Recent research: Language analyses examine power structure and political slant; Wikipedia compared to commercial databases

WikiProject report: Digging Up WikiProject Palaeontology

Featured content: Featured content soaring this week

Arbitration report: Five open cases, voting on proposed decisions in two cases

Technology report: Why "Lua" is on everybody's lips, and when to expect MediaWiki 1.19

Screwball, et al

I have reason to believe that Screwball/68 was able to make another two accounts. Should I make a new investigation, add them to the existing one, or what?--Metallurgist (talk) 06:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With two accounts, I'd file a new investigation under the same case name. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 07:06, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Disclaimer: Editing at an odd hour here because of snowtrucks outside and my computer running a temperature...so not at my best thinking, hope it all makes sense.[reply]

Thanks for looking into the discussion on the very important and highly visible page that is central to the Republican Primary race 2012. Metallurgist has done excellent work and has been maliciously attacked by a few. One clue about identity or multiple identity of the antagonist is his or her similar thought-process. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 08:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Thanks Again .!. (Edited myself) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, though I haven't seen the new case yet...can I get who these editors may be or the case filed? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DQ, . . . I just spent half an hour reading through prior messaging on TALK and don't have anything to add. Who are these editors? I don't know. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question

Is the closure of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Highways#RFC_on_coordinates_in_highway_articles still in progress by you? Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but feel free to take it if you wish, I just knew no one was going to touch it for weeks, and I just keep getting distracted away from closing it. :P -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 01:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do it, as I'm involved in the discussion. Just wanted to make sure, that your comment at WP:ANRFC is still actual. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 01:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you plan on closing this soon? --Rs chen 7754 21:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 18:59, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh

Ok, I've borked another commenting-out edit. What obvious coding am I missing? :^/ Tiderolls 02:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{Tlx}} Tlx likes the template as #1, not the comment. ;) [1] -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 02:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

grrr... Tiderolls 02:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued block evading

The same IP has been evading his block with this IP 194.170.28.239. Considering he has evaded his block at least 6 times and evaded his block literally minutes after a range block, do you think its time to semi-protect the articles and talk pages? It does not look like he's going to stop block evading and he has continued the same behavior which got him blocked in the first place, including personal attacks (see [2]). Pass a Method talk 19:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a webhost, so i'll check it when I get home, but can you point me to the original block again so I don't have to go pushing through all the archives? and which pages do you think should be protected? (We need persistent evasion on those pages to protect) -- DQ on the road (ʞlɐʇ) 20:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of semi-protecting the Rind et al. controversy talk page, most IP comments on that article are probably by the same IP commentator. The original block is here. Pass a Method talk 22:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another round of whack a mole.

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. - all recent edits were done by proxies.

IP is an open proxy for the one listed - Issued 4 IP blocks in relation to proxies. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 23:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's now evading his block on the talk page of Rind et al. controversy with this IP; 213.175.169.130. Can you semi-protect Talk:Rind et al. controversy please? History shows persistent evaision on that tak page. Pass a Method talk 11:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possible IP is an open proxy for the IP mentioned...but then again i'm not looking that hard. Besides he's just going to leave again, so evasion for a week.

IP is an open proxy for 221.130.162.48.

Per his comment on the TP that we won't allow him to edit for a week, i've given the TP two weeks semi. This guy really wants to play whack a mole with us and is probably follow this discussion. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:51, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thanks for all your help with UTRS over the past several weeks! I think the tool is really incredible, and there's no way it would have gotten done without your help. Thanks a thousand times over! *Hersfold* ^(t/a/c) 06:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tor policy

Hi DeltaQuad,

I am considering setting up a Tor node, but obviously I don't want it to prevent me from editing WP (I'm not using Tor myself). Unfortunately the WM/WP policy pages on Tor are not always very explicit and/or up-to-date. I was advised by Snowolf that you may have up-to-date answers to my questions, so here they are :

is Tor blocking policy global (meta) or local (different WPs, different policies) ?
are Tor nodes blocked automatically according to the public Tor IP list (using TorBlock ?) or on a case-by-case basis ?
are only exit nodes blocked ?
are blocked nodes soft-blocked or hard-blocked ?

Thanks. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 14:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 135: / Line 135: @@
 :::::::Does that mean we should remove all scripts from pages which have been unstable in this category, like [[Rajinikanth]] and [[Deepika Padukone]]? <font face="Comic Sans MS">[[User:Secret of success|'''<span style="color:blue">X.One</span>''']] [[User_talk:Secret of success|'''<span style="color:black"><sup>SOS</sup></span>''']]</font> 10:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 ::::::::Those problematic pages should be the first ones to see the scripts go. DeltaQuad, could you clarify on the consensus regarding removal of the scripts? (and mention it in the closing comments of the RfC?) There is currently a lot of confusion. '''[[User:MikeLynch|<span style="color:#000080">Lynch</span>]][[User talk:MikeLynch|<span style="color:#00BFFF">7</span>]]''' 12:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
+{{od}}
+*Personally I thought that this was already cleared up above, but i'll go for it again. The consensus is to '''remove the scripts and replace them with IPA to clarify the pronunciation'''. Is there something else that I missed and that needs to be cleared up? -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="blue"> (ʞlɐʇ) ]]</font></font> 19:08, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 == Question ==