User talk:xaosflux
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- Comment: Valid from: 2023-04-03 12:44 Comment: Type: 4,096-bit RSA (secret key available) Comment: Usage: Signing, Encryption, Certifying User-IDs Comment: Fingerprint: 34D49230690769512E0054832F0E92637366A6A9 mQINBGQrAnQBEADxNwdru6BpewwiEZngz+fEeCfnv/HesnjV1CNNZi5IHQ4ExPJJ 9AIwNS30FvOdXIM2/R2NeHAAnksV/mxX4zdQM9S/jD1eF/bYnMUss3Kdx5KotZmU 3zwK/fhXtBwB3GNdy6qtDf3vUHeNV0LGN5XiE4GpjQ9wFUp1OdnPf6pNmIgJpm6y /YmOixOs9CbY1o6dyHjjNb+RQHJrO5Arbe0lvyS5pm6SGVGWErk2gTu3XZ4fwdF7 3WarqcS9qzS94rr3kjV/SqQC9BaVit36HlQJU3qUmsY6eCr2LdyCj+FfpVr9T5fv eUR3LnEz4kHBOEbOjfvNvxBQzurNf2EnuKWNADU/CyBrgqQH6sX0O/rNFo7oHdTJ B6mvMGxqdVoYnXJ7jK7fPWaF3oWea6aFu2YpPZIndnAuWZXfoJY5/pJvcaNhTsi6 xnK7OKjDq21KdwX0/NGGSYaFjezdf6cXSrrpQE15f76LT5qSk1RbYH8W8ZVLKc59 4GAjnEZZDXOGYEBdJIoGHCdRwvvtH8MJqGeyAOB2xH0D+EhdrWkQIrfUMzAlzA6f 7UWsgchCTn7vl8uosd0LmH0u8wpy6MNVZc7nbqYJHT029BXclrlVtxtn73xhmzdj n/N+TZy6xFCxd5maDgxikbN6GkPP8p7sJP6Ig0sr0DLt6Fm0If5HtAWpqQARAQAB tB5YYW9zIEZsdXggPHhhb3NmbHV4QGdtYWlsLmNvbT6JAlEEEwEIADsCGwMFCwkI BwICIgIGFQoJCAsCBBYCAwECHgcCF4AWIQQ01JIwaQdpUS4AVIMvDpJjc2amqQUC ZCsDEQAKCRAvDpJjc2amqbPLEADqribQF33rfPJ8zhwGzAunZ9j76gS8UHQcbG// ozQEfvC1GdZ2hazZxltQzbRh2s/4xbPjjL6TeO5s9IHAteZOl8CjahHLoTiSIDVK JxlhadPQC8/He7EM42NV/zQUI3rWkwWc5ct+WaLkGthqB+vpKikZldxt/8Iyog2y rS1Y2OqEnCw9SmDYQcrPgb+fqXWurRYddeyjdTAX+er/OoeOAb6CWiUw/FW58vie uLU7TNTkz8NCPP7I+rIPWcckJOQ7pqcVOWZf3mgYhjbws+esjHpq6kHGW/VcjnLP dqxtGIuGH0KCY1NSSsDyDXP5lHN+m2kY57CKvIpcMSemHVoq9ir2N+N6p7+EkplF eMSL+V4WsR/zok2nliT74HOfUfzveNfJ23FHNY0uXCfJTPFL5CVqFPQJ3a2rnx8Q //ciyltjrLQIEcApkyxkbwdxRj7VP2G0MYRmvq2gZdE1tk0mUOFAdvGLOwdWWk5Q 24gkQY2qpoTHYeD0jAXW4OJPtRcGMPrKTYmOOvQk4oLFkWCnf6tQjtxMg+4IIl8I IhBD00n67e+r9S46h4ib+fAyVSBFtkV9O1KBlx4f7J6tGXVr5/gHhlwSJjMUxToj Hg6MiCoJvdSGI8AK6PY23se0mY5AHS5+vcqCXfDXPsKYE3y1zbo4zczK1aPRRs4s fru8wYkBIgQQAQgADAUCZCsE2gUDABJ1AAAKCRCXELibyletfB7zB/940yi/w244 UShVHtXOgJrI8l1yZacqZpU/ivFAKg+ThKzz6Tc8BKNjz5lnff66MzzxyHJ8DYlV M3xL+3Q3x91bRnkK2ph/cFPeGT1UEi4DHtvwVKVghNF1SY28Gc9C4IG6p26eCeKD Hl/c9jtVNb9+0vds9wTfuHkqp5AXPRjle6GXoT5x6r8A3SbtH1AmtbhQ2cxaRvHo BasRiptKGflLzXv5Iq5VvSQuJ0WL3GCGjZx7VSgTxRhK/nbZbhNxs1dQTnXzXGMd zClS7K0kEcg2BWa6LSfKauBTboc6T/xPIcuYOiGnjlHElQiPYiswCS/3JUcWxHgP L7aiVEEFsoJUuQINBGQrAnQBEADuIsq4xCuXrwDy7aKJmPqcaK0i1R6sKyQu3DBd UUXgHSr7qkU+M4+cjI4etdLR+MIp5hO2SVdJKUVku+MIdtI2KJn7ntvTdjqiVRKV KHmybuWavH/Onx/6o9owqeT98RxmkbzFFPrVNqw0OnOUmkvMxGeyyHH2/rUULFyk jhMtRuvFLSEvrtnEy4mpKXNNRVYWGDbM5K+4jsGyDVWyCXzOh7fo0ObN/e6Pf27M Nvq+D/Q80qF9YL9kN3PSTpiYRspxJ2m5NT8A5sGW2mYbGwQxCCDGpeOZOnZUDQvz sB8x+XcLk243pgXfJ/KXPVTCv7bVP49lLWxyYDqscAizhLzjWbrmtMP2t7yfeVVz X80/eGCTNZTKQY7mquzVe4Z+9crSgjKjipgq/DFYeWUDHV5my8o91DnSiVVp9FW7 6vWP+osH25hXFLfpnfODuezykUBinKwkSjy6/q8fzvMAnYfuClkHC1sjz2PbM4ZT YGVRzepebh217kensuuyDVV3suROgyNisUdulbZTIb5P0L4E2hsr1zilt+KGApni HuwtVuoOOEGqkT8yd/94w76SCkkfGBeTs47vp7ebAZvYR30M7WF0wliteGGYGNIW gu3XOqUXu5iAxACzHtuSR0kDfzRIYK8P2SvV6fi/D1uR9PxQST3OfgttrMhEwhsj 2ol12wARAQABiQI2BBgBCAAgAhsMFiEENNSSMGkHaVEuAFSDLw6SY3NmpqkFAmQr AxgACgkQLw6SY3NmpqmCexAAmXGXSEbEBjy+MPU//bMMoPco4wkgvkgbfEwfGP0i LNM+fhZ6gDy6FYzbv9MFiocCAKcAuLwMmgneqrcWlEk2S+KurYqSuyCV8xPlladB itU81t0s/x3QhMcnRjj2Rp/fe8Zlnb0erybUlmbVwXcY7SrV7p3qdCYtnmTvPz8m J/FOUcGGAdVkzVFnW11YbBhTgw5wvqRO8ukJKLMnngk6c2LWD+3c0KBmQGbio1Y5 NcDYDNCT8YYdji66BKPlFGsLHDnoYfD73okkqeKquYG67DIV0/OLTa/9kzaGX6Y5 BjJCMYTT1NaISIrjyiwmL64xgHVl5zDrMWArk/XNaDZskhTkHFZwgdUBnn3Bo7UU afcqZuoExVkPVCSDdN+hm9ekjPLzsEtv7MtePH2o1asbJXp2GU7LpZnfApoEdMt5 JYnODUNNwDOR1/QB/Hv7FttS7RuJD+xpDvPj5i2OHJta6C4AUAy+BGak6YByTKo5 UsCVAOQ8WjYl1ntmXpqtVV6HlqqvvJf9OjtL767m4h97Q5Y48ccYlRpXqVS4XM0O aWyRevm8HFd0s/Ags9fCpmFMyuVsUmla6ot7f4EVdUklo2d7+jPsBscMsm7OrlXU fBe0Fv/SGRoB6z9jj4QgAsYdDCeOqPVNVvRHtEyl54VakLSyXD4LzjXuceh/XUXq enU= =Ike+ -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
A barnstar for you!
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| This for your hardworks on enhancing Wikipedia through technical works such as programming, bot building and approving, Village pump, etc. I appreciate your selfless service to the encyclopedia. You are a typical metapedian of our wiki. Thanks for helping others in technical area. Thank you for taking the time for this. Thank you! PATH SLOPU 07:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Admin's Barnstar |
| I think you deserve a barnstar for Special:Redirect/logid/100058795. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2019 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| I was going back through several bot-related discussions, some heated up, some less-so, and it struck me just how consistently reasonable, thoughtful, and well-articulated you were, as an editor, as a BAG member, and as a 'crat.
So here's a barnstar for that, because quality deserves recognition. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Original Barnstar |
| For your diligent effort to fill in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Guide. In previous years, I've helped out with this part, but I didn't get the time to this year. Thanks for tirelessly working it through in a field of no less than two dozen candidates. Mz7 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC) |
Partial Blocks question
Hi Xaosflux. Quick question about this: Is it possible to use this to rangeblock an IP on a set of articles? For example, blocking IP range 123.456.xxx.xxx from editing all the pages in, say, Category:Polish female cyclists? Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 17:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Lugnuts: yes and no. It is possible to apply partial blocks to ranges (e.g. testwiki:Special:Redirect/logid/232809). Partial blocks do not support "pages in a category" as something you can block someone from (not yet at least), it can be applied to a list of pages and/or entire namespaces. — xaosflux Talk 18:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:50, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Categories
It's not about what I think. It's Wikipedia policy that all articles must be included in at least one real, directly declared content category, and that artificially transcluded "stub" categories do not count as categorization for the purposes of avoiding that requirement. Stub categories group articles by maintenance status, not by characteristics of the topic, and they disappear from the article as soon as it has been expanded enough to cause the removal of the stub template — so they don't make an article properly categorized by themselves, if it doesn't have at least one permanent category on it too. So it's not about me; it's about the rules. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Bearcat: yes, sorry I was a little bit miffed there and I think I started a much more cordial conversation here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Stub_sorting#Template:Uncategorized_stub. Although you are referencing something else I'm a bit lost on - can you please give me the link to which policy requires this? — xaosflux Talk 00:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Quick question
Hey Xaosflux. Is there a way to add a .css page to a category ? as you're the best technical user on the project :P Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @FlightTime: sure, just use css comments around it like this:
/* [[Category:Test]] */. — xaosflux Talk 17:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)- Great. Thank you very much. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Could I bother you once more. Could you please get me a copy of this template, I do not remember this discussion and would like to check it out. You can place it in my userspace here: User:FlightTime/Template:Acc Again thanx you for what you do. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @FlightTime:
Done if you don't need it anymore just mark for speedy delete. — xaosflux Talk 22:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, thank you very much. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Administrators' newsletter – February 2020
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).
|
|
|
Guideline and policy news
- Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
- The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with
wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input
. No proposed process received consensus.
Technical news
- Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
- When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]
Arbitration
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.
- Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators
Miscellaneous
- Voting in the 2020 Steward elections will begin on 08 February 2020, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 28 February 2020, 13:59 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
- The English Wikipedia has reached six million articles. Thank you everyone for your contributions!
Help
Hi, there is a weird text= at the upper left corner of the template/editnotice. see FooBar. Can you fix it? Can't seem to find the exact place that's causing this. Minorax (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Done looks like there was a syntax error at MediaWiki:Newarticletext - this should be fixed now, let me know if it is still an issue. — xaosflux Talk 16:45, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
- Seems fine now. Thanks! Minorax (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
RHaworth
Following your notifications at User talk:RHaworth#sysop flag, do you think it is appropriate that {{administrator topicon}} and {{Online Ambassador topicon}} are still showing in Talk? Having given evidence of my interaction, it was the latter I was conscious of and had concerns over, even though it is showing as defunct when clicked-through. Thx.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Rocknrollmancer: I normally only concern myself with removing links/boxes/etc that cause the use to be placed in to an administrator category. Online Ambassador was part of the long retired education extension, so I wouldn't worry about that one in the least. As far as the admin topicon, personally I think it should be removed if this user is still active, and you probably could just do it. — xaosflux Talk 12:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- OK, thanks, I'll keep an eye on it presently. The ambassador bit was obviously stale but now hypocritical IMO given that long-term admincond was a key aspect of the recent action. I noticed one admin made reference in Talk to an outside website content linked from the user's page - I knew about it and I'm pleased it was highlighted, but it's something I would not have done. Just continuing to be cautious. rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- And I see that User:Rocknrollmancer did indeed go ahead and remove the admin topicon from RHaworth's talk.[2] I completely disagree that either of you guys need have made it your business. User:RHaworth hasn't edited since 30 January. You couldn't afford him the dignity of removing the admin symbol himself? Perhaps politely asking him to, if you thought it was a horror to see it there? We're not machines, any of us, surely. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC).
- I would welcome absolutely anyone to revert Rock and allow Rhaworth to remove the topicon when he wants too, Sure he's no longer an admin but christ Rocknrollmancer was there really any rush to remove it ? ..... Leave the man alone jeez. –Davey2010Talk 19:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Bishonen: I routinely make a very neutral update, as I did here in Special:Diff/938652326 when removing a sysop flag (which I actually did in this case @ Special:Redirect/logid/105436426), so that users looking for admin help by category are not led astray; I didn't treat this case any different than any other time I've done that, such as in this recent update Special:Diff/933444697 for another user. The closest documentation to this process would be the
"If necessary, the user's userpage should be edited to clarify the status — particularly if any categorization is involved"
part of the admin policy for inactivity removals. I normally don't bother with components such as text that says "I am an administrator" / "I've been an admin since...", etc; or templates (such as the example being talked about here) that don't cause categorization inclusions and agree that the general community standards are that those are generally best left to the user to update when they want to. — xaosflux Talk 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)- Yes, I'm sure that was all very neutral. I wasn't talking about that, but about your reply to Rocknrollmancer above, when he came here to ask about those topicons: "you probably could just do it." I doubt he would have removed it without your encouragement. Of course he might have focused a little more on your phrase "if this user is still active". Maybe he is active and maybe he isn't, it's only been four days, and I don't have the heart to discuss if that means "active", or not. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC).
- Ah OK Bishonen, I didn't really mean to be encouraging there, and showed how I didn't actually do that type of edit despite any personal opinion. This is a wiki of course and if someone thinks an edit will improve the project I'm not usually one to argue with them unless I have a strong opinion, which I don't really in this matter. — xaosflux Talk 20:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for you getting the backlash here Xaos.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 23:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Ah OK Bishonen, I didn't really mean to be encouraging there, and showed how I didn't actually do that type of edit despite any personal opinion. This is a wiki of course and if someone thinks an edit will improve the project I'm not usually one to argue with them unless I have a strong opinion, which I don't really in this matter. — xaosflux Talk 20:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm sure that was all very neutral. I wasn't talking about that, but about your reply to Rocknrollmancer above, when he came here to ask about those topicons: "you probably could just do it." I doubt he would have removed it without your encouragement. Of course he might have focused a little more on your phrase "if this user is still active". Maybe he is active and maybe he isn't, it's only been four days, and I don't have the heart to discuss if that means "active", or not. Bishonen | talk 20:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC).
- And I see that User:Rocknrollmancer did indeed go ahead and remove the admin topicon from RHaworth's talk.[2] I completely disagree that either of you guys need have made it your business. User:RHaworth hasn't edited since 30 January. You couldn't afford him the dignity of removing the admin symbol himself? Perhaps politely asking him to, if you thought it was a horror to see it there? We're not machines, any of us, surely. Bishonen | talk 19:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC).
- OK, thanks, I'll keep an eye on it presently. The ambassador bit was obviously stale but now hypocritical IMO given that long-term admincond was a key aspect of the recent action. I noticed one admin made reference in Talk to an outside website content linked from the user's page - I knew about it and I'm pleased it was highlighted, but it's something I would not have done. Just continuing to be cautious. rgds,--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 13:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Flux, Zilla, Davey2010 do you think it would be okay if I undo the edit? Roger has not been inactive for more than an year, not impersonating someone else, nor pretending to be an admin. One can ask him to remove it, after he resumes editing, and yet does not do it himself. I would have done it directly, but cant because of this edit. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Usernamekiran: I'm staying out of this, and so long as it isn't causing a categorization issue suggest that everyone else just leaves it be for now. — xaosflux Talk 12:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- nevermind. The sonnet guy did it already. —usernamekiran (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Floquenbeam has already done it[3] although had they not then I would've supported it's inclusion again, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 12:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Changes later this week
The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 February. It will be on all wikis from 6 February (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
20:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
can you remind me (or, do it yourself if it's easier)
There's a way to force everyone's cache to refresh on a certain page, isn't there? Your change to the main page just now made it look very broken until I purged my cache. Is everyone going to have to do that, or is there a way to force it to happen for everyone? Otherwise (unless it just happened to me) I expect a lot of reports at Talk:Main Page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: normally the cache clearing is automatic, my change was a failure and I reverted it - you may have just caught it in the middle. — xaosflux Talk 00:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, looking at timestamps, I think you reverted back between when I first saw the page, and when I purged the cache. When I wrote the above, I didn't know it had been reverted. I'm useless at such things, so I'll just say good luck and bow out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: thank you for confirming the timeline, and for letting me know! This is going to require some review before another attempt. — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- I just looked at it about (1:00) UTC still looks weird. Purging the cache doesn't work. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 01:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: what skin are you using? Does it look normal like this? — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am using the Vector skin. But it doesn't look normal like this [4]. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 02:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: can you take a screenshot please? It will be rolled back soon and a before-after screen shot would be helpful. — xaosflux Talk 02:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I am using the Vector skin. But it doesn't look normal like this [4]. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 02:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: what skin are you using? Does it look normal like this? — xaosflux Talk 02:00, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I just looked at it about (1:00) UTC still looks weird. Purging the cache doesn't work. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 01:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: thank you for confirming the timeline, and for letting me know! This is going to require some review before another attempt. — xaosflux Talk 00:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, looking at timestamps, I think you reverted back between when I first saw the page, and when I purged the cache. When I wrote the above, I didn't know it had been reverted. I'm useless at such things, so I'll just say good luck and bow out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
- @CAPTAIN MEDUSA: thank you, that helped. You are seeing the "responsive" nature of the main page, it kicks in as your monitor resolution gets narrower. If you have the option to make your window wider you should see it change as you stretch it wider than about. See follow up at Talk:Main_Page#Next_steps. — xaosflux Talk 04:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
important: please don't roll back main page changes
I am sorry we missed each other multiple times today.
I'm running some tests to check the main page special casing can indeed be turned off. Please do not rollback as doing so may break mobile view. I've left a suggested fix for the Monobook issue. None of these issues reported so far seem urgent enough to warrant a full rollback. Please ping me here to confirm you have seen this message to reduce my anxiety levels! Jdlrobson (talk) 02:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jdlrobson: please join #wikipedia-en-MP. — xaosflux Talk 02:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- any plans to try this again (scoped to minerva?) Jdlrobson (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Jdlrobson: so yes, we should try again, do have code ready for minerva only? We still need to have a good explanation ready, what the benefits are (primarily that editors will be able to control the mobile domain page content) and what the expected impact to any one else will be (editors that picked minerva skin as their normal skin should get the minerva experience) - but what is expected for normal logged out mobile users that then click on desktop view? Will they get the normal reader view that vector readers see? — xaosflux Talk 14:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Image without license
Unspecified source/license for File:11184953807 900676337015529 7144798351685320704 n.png
Thanks for uploading File:11184953807 900676337015529 7144798351685320704 n.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 03:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Unspecified source/license for File:22284178752 603521243821635 7859896984696520704 n.png
Thanks for uploading File:22284178752 603521243821635 7859896984696520704 n.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 03:46, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I will be deleting these in the next 2 days. — xaosflux Talk 03:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| You deserve one of these methinks. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC) |
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- There is a new version of the Wikimedia Commons app for Android. It should fix the failed uploads problem. [6]
Problems
- There was a problem with the new MediaWiki version last week. It deleted some messages by accident. The new version was late because it was stopped to fix things. [7]
Changes later this week
The MediaWiki action API is used by various tools like bots and gadgets. Some error codes will change. Some parameter values that do not follow the standard will no longer work. [8]- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 11 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 12 February. It will be on all wikis from 13 February (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- Pages on Wikidata and Commons now load faster. You can read more about page load performance. [9][10]
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 February. It will be on all wikis from 20 February (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
16:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Protection due to "repeat" IP "vandalism"
Hey there Xaosflux, it's your everyday anon. I noticed that you indefinitely semi-protected Wikipedia:Bureaucrats/Message list. First off, this is definitely for the better, and I was honestly surprised that it wasn't originally protected. In fact, because only sysops would ever need to edit the list, I'm surprised it isn't fully protected. Regardless, I digress. I am only commenting here because:
- This IP range had been blocked up until today, and I decided to scan Special:Contributions/204.110.220.0/24 for vandalism until I noticed my edit to the aforementioned list and your protection.
- I don't believe that your automated response was appropriate for the situation. For one, I was the only IP user who edited the page since 2016, so I wouldn't consider that page (which could debatably be labeled obscure in the Wikipedia namespace, for tenses and purposes of "vandalism"). The edit came about because I was unaware that simply clicking the button to remove a bureaucrat's name would instantaneously activate the JavaScript to make the edit without any confirmation from the performer. I was especially shocked that an IP account was able to make this edit. With that being said, I immediately undid my own edit, and left "mistake, apologies" in the edit summary. I was wondering how you would consider this to be vandalism, especially when the mistake was corrected in under a minute, and frankly am a bit upset that my edit was judged as such.
Maybe part of this stemmed from User:CLCStudent, who reverted my fix simply for the sake of reverting an IP. I assume their initial reaction was that I was a vandal, which I would admit is completely justifiable, as registered editors tend to be more trustworthy than IPs in terms of the amount of vandals from both user groups (registered and unregistered). Anyway, after CLCStudent realized that I was fixing my mistake, they reverted my original deletion etc. and then the page was protected. Maybe I was only here to anecdote, but I am still confused about whether you judged the original edit to be vandalism or whether it was just a byproduct of the automated edit summary produced when semi-protecting the page. Cheers, 204.110.220.136 (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- For replies, I wanted to inform that this is a Dynamic IP on a public computer, so a ping would not properly work in this circumstance. In addendum, this range encompasses many computers, so don't be surprised when you find many instances of disruptive editing in the range's contributions. 204.110.220.94 (talk) 20:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi 204, if I understand your question, you would like an explanation for my log summery here: Special:Redirect/logid/100815767. As that was over half a year ago and a rather routine action my memory is not very strong about it. A quick review of that page history shows that every edit to that page by unregistered editors appears to be non-helpful, with the exception of .81's reversion of .208's edit; I don't think I intended for that log summary to be a direct vandalism complaint against any person using .208's at the time as I didn't bother to put a user talk page notice out. I likely only came across this by way of the edit summary from the most recent edit prior to the logged action via a watchlist entry. Hope that clears things up. You may want to review Wikipedia:Why create an account?, if for no other reason then it will help distance your own contributions from others that share your same internet space allocation. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 20:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
- Alright, thank you for the response. I decided to bring up this relic because I was taking ownership of both the .208 and .81 edits, and was wondering whether the first was considered vandalism. In hindsight, I guess it could be interpreted as such from circumstantial evidence of this range being used to vandalize, so it can be hard to distinguish AGF from those edits. With that being said, you have many other responsibilities to focus on throughout the project, so it would surely be hard to recall the specifics regarding the semi-protection of a page 6 months after it had occurred. I do appreciate your time to help me out, though, and this should be the last edit I make under this IP. However, I do have one last question: what would be the policy concerning CheckUser blocks and accused sockpuppetry for signing into a disruptive range? I don't want anybody to get the wrong idea if I were to do so in the future, and I don't want this conversation with me replying anonymously to be used as evidence of me trying to "deceive" someone, for that is not my intention. 204.110.220.65 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
- Hi 204, if I understand your question, you would like an explanation for my log summery here: Special:Redirect/logid/100815767. As that was over half a year ago and a rather routine action my memory is not very strong about it. A quick review of that page history shows that every edit to that page by unregistered editors appears to be non-helpful, with the exception of .81's reversion of .208's edit; I don't think I intended for that log summary to be a direct vandalism complaint against any person using .208's at the time as I didn't bother to put a user talk page notice out. I likely only came across this by way of the edit summary from the most recent edit prior to the logged action via a watchlist entry. Hope that clears things up. You may want to review Wikipedia:Why create an account?, if for no other reason then it will help distance your own contributions from others that share your same internet space allocation. Best regards, — xaosflux Talk 20:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Bureaucrat chat for RFA - Money emoji
I've opened a bureaucrat chat for the current RfA. Your input would be most appreciated at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 15:01, 18 February 2020 (UTC)