Wikipedia talk:Changing username

Not done No reply template

Because I'm lazy, I've created Template:Ndnr which renders:

 Not done No reply. {{subst:#ifeq:{{{sig}}}|n| | ~~~~}}

Cheers --Dweller (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to parameterise {{not done}}? —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

{{not done}} is used for different purposes throughout the project, so it's probably not a good idea to specialize it for one page. Though maybe it can be incorporated into {{CHU}}. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine "No reply" could have uses elsewhere, but point taken. I don't think there's much point to fiddling with or making templates for the sake of two words anyway; each to his own. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It'd be nice if it included the signature, too, on second thoughts. --Dweller (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Done, I think, but it has to be substed. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Testing:  Not done No reply. Dweller (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC) A success, I'd say. And 12 characters for the substed template is much better than the 27 for nd nr and signature --Dweller (talk) 16:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I tried to figure out how to make it auto-sign without substituting, but apparently that's not possible... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Time for reattribution of 10K edits

When established editors rename, how long can we tell them it's likely to take, say, 10K of edits to reattribute? --Dweller (talk) 09:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Anywhere from instantly to a day or so is my guess. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I changed my user name on January the 3rd, and it still hasn't completed. It's about 10k edits as well. Any idea? Could there be a glitch? Nymf _talk/contr. 19:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It could be a while if the database servers are lagging, which they were the other day. Andrevan@ 03:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

More frequent archiving

Anyone else think we need to have Chris G Bot 3 (talk · contribs) archive completed WP:CHU requests (whether  Done or  Not done) more often? Once a day or less seems really low, and I think it would help make the page more manageable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

According to my count, 22 of the 39 currently posted requests could be archived. A faster archive time does sound useful in keeping the page trimmed down. Useight (talk) 05:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be more in favor of archiving completed requests every 6 hours or so, while keeping rejected ones around a bit longer (24 hours), to ensure requesting users have a chance to see why their rename was declined. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be fine with that schedule (for both you mentioned). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here's the current way it works (from User:Chris G Bot 3):

It checks if threads need archiving every hour. The bot will only archive a thread if {{done}} or {{notdone}} is present and has been placed by a flagged 'crat (see here for a list of current 'crats). {{done}} threads are archived when the last timestamp in the thread is older than 12 hours. {{notdone}} threads are archived when the timestamp is older than 36 hours.

Do we want to get that last timeframe changed to 24 hours? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 15:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

two conflicting SUL's

I am currently dealing with a case where apparently someone is impersonating an admin from de-wiki across a number of of wikis (at least fr & en) by creating accounts in his name and then performing low level vandalism while linking to the de-wiki account. Here is a request to rename the en-wiki account away from the impersonating username. Something similar is getting done on fr-wiki. Since the en-wiki account got created automatically I assume it is linked to a SUL. What kind of problem will this generate? Agathoclea (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

obviously there is a history see this Agathoclea (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is there a SUL conflict? The vandal could do it because the software did not check whether an SUL account of the same name exists and thus allows a vandal to create a name on any wiki that is not part of the unified login. Since Armin P. now visited both fr- and en-wiki after this happened, accounts were created and it's no longer possible. There is not really anything we can do but the vandal's claims are pretty easy to disprove since the SUL tool will show that the accounts are not connected. The software has been updated to make it impossible to register any account where a SUL account of the same name exists, so something like this should not happen again. Regards SoWhy 23:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I want a cool/short username, can someone help me?

I was turned down for User:1 a while back because usernames are supposed to go across namespaces, and someone had (barely) used it on some other language, even though here it wasn't a real user. I see User:8 is a sock, for example. Most of the other single digit number usernames also don't lead to a real user. Can someone help me figure out which short/cool username I can actually usurp? In exchange, I'll write one medium GA, or one short FA, on the subject of you're choice (no long FAs, terms to be discussed ;-) ). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:Dank#Gayguy69

I blocked this username, and there's some discussion about whether this was the right thing to do. I'm particularly interested in feedback from females, since we're always looking to bump female editor participation up from its current dismal 15%, and I think it's possible that more women than men would be offended by the name. (Posting this here, at WP:VPP, WT:RFCN, and at WT:U; I'm trying to get a sense of whether women answer the question differently when they don't see themselves as a tiny minority in the discussion, so if you know female editors who you think might be interested in the question, please show them the link.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Even if this particular name is okay, I'd like to get a sense of whether women find usernames offensive that can't be seen as anything other than a reference to a specific sex act. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, and as said in the linked discussion, I find it offensive that women are being given a special status in that they may be too fragile to accept things that men can. Certainly the possibility that a women may be offended (whilst a man would not) cannot be a valid reasoning for issuing blocks. Anyhow I'm off for the night. NJA (t/c) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)