User talk:7/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Happy tenth anniversary of Wikipedia!

WAYNESLAM 18:44, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Wayne - cheers!  7  02:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Your welcome, 7! Cheers, too! WAYNESLAM 16:15, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

IP at it again

I am leaving this note because you had last blocked 75.34.24.26 for similar problems in the past. KimChee (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped - no activity in 90+ minutes... but you can go ahead and report them to AIV if they start up again. Thanks.  7  06:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Request

Hello , I'm sorry about getting your time I asked Mr.Adam but unfortunatly he didn't answer me , please make my userpage to a semi-protected page , thank you (Faramarz IV (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

Done  7  22:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry again but i asked about My Userpage not my user talk page but now you've did it , it's ok , please make my user page to a semi protected page . thank you very much (Faramarz IV (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC))
My mistake - removed protection from your talk page and added to your userpage. WP:RFPP is the right venue for these requests in the future.  7  22:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for answer my ask , anyway for next requests i will do it on WP:RFPP . thanks dear adminstrator (Faramarz IV (talk) 10:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC))

I love you

User_talk:85.154.42.56 I was so getting tired of him giving me red flags in Igloo....thanks --Fbifriday (talk) 04:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!  7  07:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Unauthorized Page by Russian Federation

See here -- (Faramarz IV (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2011 (UTC))

The account hasn't edited in 2 years. What is prompting this concern now?  7  03:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry it seems i was wrong I thought there is no account to name Russia and User:Russian Federation made user page , but this name for account (Russian Federation) , is that correct in rule of Wikipedia (User:Russian Federation's account is not blocked)? (Faramarz IV (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC))
Yes, I understand the comment, and yes the username "Russian Federation" does indeed contradict the group/role/org comments in WP:U as it stands today, however I have not yet back in the history to see if it violated username policy in November 2008. But the point is we don't normally go around blocking old accounts with no edits in 2+ years. My question to you remains "what is prompting this concern now" - in other words, how did you find this issue?  7  22:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I just was searching (In fact for find new Userboxes) and saw this problem but anyway if you say it's ok , of course it is , you are adminstator and know rules better than me. Faramarz IV (talk) 11:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

And i forgot say , Thank you for answer , now i know rules of Wikipedia better than past time (Faramarz IV (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC))

RfA

I would want you to nominate me for RfA. I read all of the polices, and the guide of how to pass an RfA. I'm going to help with protection of articles and editing the protected pages with approved sections of the talk page.

~~EBE123~~(talk) 12:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest in running for RFA. While I applaud enthusiasm, I'm afraid you do not yet possess sufficient knowledge/experience for the community to have confidence in your readiness to become an admin. You may find the following advice helpful. If you have not done so already, please read:
A few thoughts:
  • Generally, It has been my experience that it takes at least 3,000 edits in a variety of areas to learn policy and guidelines well enough to attempt adminship. Also, nominees returning after an unsuccessful RfA should wait at least another 3,000 edits and 3 months before trying again. Nominees need to show the ability to contribute a number of significant edits to build the encyclopedia.
  • The Admin tools allow the user to block and unblock other editors, delete and undelete pages and protect and unprotect pages. Nominees will therefore do well to gain experience and familiarity with such areas as WP:AIV, WP:AFD, WP:CSD, Wikipedia:Protection policy, and WP:BLOCK to learn when to do these things.
  • Adminship inevitably leads one to 1) need to explain clearly the reasons for one's decisions, 2) need to review one's decisions and change one's mind when it is reasonable to do so, 3) need to review one's decisions and stand firm when it is reasonable to do so, 4) need to negotiate a compromise. Admins need a familiarity with dispute resolution. The ability to communicate clearly is essential.
  • Article building is the raison d'être of Wikipedia. I recommend significant participation in WP:GA or WP:FA as the surest way to gain article building experience. I find a large number of "Wikignome" type edits to be helpful.
  • I recommend taking part in RfA discussions to help learn from the experiences of others. Many nominees have found it helpful to obtain an Editor Review or to receive Admin coaching before submitting their RfA. Hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing.
Regards,  7  13:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


Ok, when I have done what you suggested, may I ask you again?
~~EBE123~~(talk) 13:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Let's discuss that when the time comes.  7  13:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet Note

Hi, I wanted to see if you could do me a favor. Could you possibly remove the box on my page that says I'm suspected as being a sock puppet of INGfertility? Originally I did sign in as INGferility, but after my first post a few months ago, you had suggested that I change my name. So I ended up creating a new user name. So I'm not trying to deceive anyone, I just took your advice and changed to a new name. As a matter of fact, if that INGfertility account is still open, you can shut it down. If you could possibly remove that message, I would appreciate it. Thank you Darb8033 (talk) 19:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It was posted by a different admin (Athaenara), not by me. However I think it would be perfectly fine for you to remove it yourself. Your old account was blocked with the specific request that you create a new username (which you did) so I don't think the box/tag is necessary.  7  22:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Salt Please

Can you please salt Henry D'Andrea and Nation Pollster. All were created by User:Thehenry and quickly CSD. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 07:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Took care of the first. The second has only been created once, and the user has been blocked.  7  07:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Digital Leather

You are mentioned somewhat tangentially in WP:AN#Digital_Leather, but I'd rather err on the side of caution and make sure everyone involved was informed. Best,  Chzz  ►  05:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup Chzz.  7  05:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to cooperate

This user stated they may be inactive, and by a list of other admins, list you as potentially able to react to requests in their absence. As ironies might have it, you are de facto involved in the issue to a small degree. So it seems appropriately well that I ask: when you have time; please look at this edit and perhaps comment there if you are so inclined. Thank you for considering this request, and for your contributions to Wikipedia. My76Strat 03:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Replied there - thanks.  7  04:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Help

I will need your help. How to delete an upload that I made? I would like to know. I didn't find anything answering that. Please answer. ~~Awsome EBE123~~(talk | Contribs) 21:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done - the way you had it tagged for deletion was fine.  7  22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacker rights

Please can you give me rollbacker rights. I promise to use it fairly.Ankit Maity 16:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi - your request at WP:RFPERM should be handled shortly. Regards,  7  01:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollbacker rights problem

Hi 7,

I saw that I have been granted rollbacker rights. But when I see my preferences page, it still shows that I am a autoconfirmed user. What is the problem in it?Please help.Ankit Maity 05:57, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Where did you see that you had been granted rollbacker?  7  06:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw it on the diff, contributions pages.Ankit Maity 06:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't help you. Please let the folks at WP:RFPERM handle your requests.  7  08:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Regard changes at the following articles: Villaño I, Villaño II, Villaño III, Villaño IV, Villaño IV, and Template:Villaños

Changes at that articles were made as the word "Villaño" is wrong and hasn't meaning in Spanish or any of both languages (English nor Spanish). The right word for all those articles should be "Villano", which means "Villain" in Spanish; and is the sense implied when using this word, referencing any of that wrestlers (A "villain" suppose to be a "scoundrel or criminal", as defines the Merrian-Webster Dictionary at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/villain; it is compared with the definition for "Villano" made by the Diccionario de la Real Academia Española de la Lengua at http://buscon.rae.es/draeI/SrvltConsulta?TIPO_BUS=3&LEMA=villano).

As demanded, sources that verifies what's the right word:

- The ESTO journal, at http://www.oem.com.mx/esto/notas/n296679.htm (Spanish), using the word 'Villano' at this next text: ""Para nosotros (Los Villanos III, IV y V) es un gran placer regresar a esta arena de grandes triunfos, pero también de grandes derrotas, pues aquí perdí mi incógnita [For us, (The Villains III, IV and V) its a great pleasure come back to this Arena of great victories, but also of great losts, as here I lost my mask]" .

- The Wikipedia in Spanish, article Villano III

- SuperLuchas.net, mexican specialized webzine, at the article Ray Mendoza Jr. (Villano V) se encuentra en el hospital luego de la función de este domingo

Thanks so much in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.102.95.117 (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I too was able to see some references with the spelling you have used, which is why I didn't undo any of your edits. I still personally feel that such large scale changes, especially when they differ from the title of the article, are worthy of discussion on the article talk pages. If you are so inclined you could start the conversation on the talk pages of the V article (I'm assuming the most recent guy has the most current editors). If everyone agrees then the final step would be to rename the articles to use the spelling you have suggested.  7  08:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Regard changes at the following articles: Villaño I, Villaño II, Villaño III, Villaño IV, Villaño V, and Template:Villaños

Hi 7: Fine, I'll follow your suggestions by starting the discussion at the article's board; I'll take care to sign up an official account for to become a signed contributor. Thanks so much again for you and kind regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.102.95.117 (talk) 08:17, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

disruptive edits

Hi, I expect you've read this already. There seem to be a lot of 'arbs', admins and 'crats complaining, but it seems to be as perennial as the discussion itself on improving the climate at RfA. There was once an RfCC on this editor, which petered out without any conclusion, and I believe, also a couple of ANI - do you think anything can be done, and if so, what would be your suggestions? --02:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Kudpung (talk)

Thanks for pointing me to that essay - interesting reading. I'm not inclined to take any further action myself at this point other than to voice my opinion, which I have done, especially if past RFCCs have been no-consensus. To be honest, if it was always a different non-SPA editor asking a joke question, and didn't happen on every single RFA it wouldn't be as big an issue.  7  04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Permanent deletions

Thanks for your reply, as I know you must be busy.

I'm afraid I'm not very good at using Wikipedia's functions, and I can't find a way to permanently delete content from my User page. I had give a not of personal background information initially, including the name of a company I work for an an email address. I can of course revise the page, but the original content can still be accessed. I want to delete it completely and permanently. Can you please tell me how I can do this, or if possible do it for me?

Again, apologies for your trouble. Many thanks. --Gunnermanz (talk) 05:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done - for next time you could just use {{db-author}} (please see WP:CSD for more info).  7  05:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent Blocks

Was just about to file an SPI on two accounts you've recently blocked. You should know there is an ANI thread regarding them and other socks that should in all likelihood be blocked. The thread is Wikipedia:ANI#Ohio-based IP's introducing hoax articles on TV shows. Have a look when you get a chance. Thanks! N419BH 04:41, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Seems like they've stopped now. All accts blocked per the duck test. Articles that have been created more than once are now create-protected. Thanks  7  05:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Also you accidentally blocked the IP indefinitely as well. Did you mean to do that? Heh. I have reblocked for a week (same reason though). Hope that will prevent them from creating more accounts for a while. --Bsadowski1 06:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Oops - good catch - thanks B.  7  06:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
I filed a SPI as well. Might want to drop a quick note. It's filed under the IP. I expect there are additional accounts and hoax articles that checkuser will have to find. N419BH 06:03, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

admin review

Please look at Special:Contributions/129.94.130.81. I'm seeing an active block notice from last October (should be expired) but the user is vandalizing tonight and related to your last block at AIV, I believe. I don't understand why I'm seeing that block notice from Cirt. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Strange - I saw the "currently blocked" notice from Cirt as well, but the account was definitely not blocked. A bug in the interface perhaps (probably should have left it for the developers)... but in any case they're reblocked now. Thanks.  7  03:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocking problem?

Hi, just wanted to check in with another admin and see if it's just me or is the server giving back database errors for block attempts? I've been getting '"1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; try restarting transaction (10.0.6.42)".' for the last 15+ minutes trying to block a repeated-recreating attack-page creating account. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

What account - I'll try to block that specific one.  7  23:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Chazualdean. But no need, it started working again so I came back to say never mind. Weird. Thanks anyway though. :) - The Bushranger One ping only 23:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

No prob. Didn't mean to put an end to the conversation and I hope Alison will still respond to either agree with or correct my comments.  7  22:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Enidblyton11

There has been enough nonsense from this user today to let the block stand, I think. I will await the inevitable unblock request! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 04:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks.  7  05:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Telenor Connexion

Despite your helpful advice, on COI and usernames, it seems she's quite determined to be a spammer. WuhWuzDat 14:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Poyno got them. Thanks.  7  23:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing a section name

The section Branch-based definitions of clade in the Cladistics article is poorly named, as it presents both branch-based and apomorphy-based definitions as the alternatives to the node-based definitions presented earlier. There might be a Wikilink to it though, so just changing the name might not be a good idea. Can I find out if there is such a link? Or can I change it and somehow arrange that such links will still go to the section despite the new name? Peter M. Brown (talk) 02:32, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Wikilinks to nonexistent sections do seem to get you to the relevant article, so changing section names is not particularly damaging. Peter M. Brown (talk) 17:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Apologies for the delay, I have been traveling. Seems like your changes are fine and I'm not noticing any section links to the old section name you mentioned so it should be fine. As an FYI - you may want to see this for details on how people can create numbered sections which will not break in the event of a section renaming like this... not that it would have helped in this case, but it doesn't hurt to know. Thanks.  7  06:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Also, fyi, this tool can be used to confirm that there are no links to that subsection (I have confirmed there are none).  7  06:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the Welcome!

I know it has been a long time since you welcomed me, 7, but I just wanted to say thank you. I have been on many other wikiWebsites contributing, and I hope to start my journey here now. Thanks again! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkstrawberry02 (talkcontribs) 08:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

How do I call attention to inconsistencies between articles?

The taxobox for Calamitaceae limits its occurence to the Carboniferous period but the one for Calamites, a genus included in the Calamitaceae, extends into the Permian. Not a big deal, but surely worth flagging somehow. No paleobotanist, I have no other information. Peter M. Brown (talk) 15:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FYI-note

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:FYI-note has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō Contribs. 23:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Asij-mustangs.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Asij-mustangs.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Not Copywrite Infringement....

I currently work for Apex Sports Agency and I am trying to make out wikipedia page, my name is Andrew Montanez, you can find me out their website under agents...I am having trouble getting this page to stay on. Please help. Thanks AndrewJITSU (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see this page as well as WP:WHYNOT. Also, since you work for the company please also make sure to read our conflict of interest guidelines. Lastly, I am afraid that even if you did not have an inherent conflict this agency would not survive our notability guidelines.  7  04:52, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh no, it's back again! Apex Sports Agency. Third time lucky? :-/ - 220 of Borg 18:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of Fiendhard (talk · contribs)

Please indefinitely block him. The user is a troll from 4chan. See the similarity between his contributions and this and this and this and this. →Στc. 07:11, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We?

Hi. I hope you won't find all this boring, and I certainly don't want to "poke my nose in", but knowledge and experience are to share, and all that, and the conversation you were having at RFA reminded me of an experience I had.

Basically, similar to here, a new account was very likely to be an SPA, and was commenting in an xFD. It went something like this:

  • User: We think foo..., so therefore we say bar......
  • Me  : Who are we?
  • User: Sid and Doris Smith, nobody important, so as we were saying...

Names are changed, and I won't link to it, just out of super-carefulness about pointing to it.

That of course left me thinking "Shit, now what to do? It looks like I asked them to out themselves...".

It had never occurred to me the question could be taken that way, but once it was I was in a position I found embarrassing.

As I say, just sharing, because it surprised me a bit when it happened to me, and it was totally unexpected. Begoontalk 04:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:OUTING I wouldn't worry about it - outing is when you publish someone else's info. If you asked someone to identify themselves, and they do, it's their choice. Having learned they were both using the account I would point them to WP:NOSHARE, but if it was (for example) the husband doing all the edits but saying that he speaks for the wife as well that would probably be fine. However, to your point about SPA, it is probably not Sid or Doris or anybody other than an editor who has already edited that discussion...  7  04:36, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm sure you're right, I didn't make them name themselves. I was always aware that there was little chance that he/they were Sid and/or Doris, the discussion in question was peppered with SPA comments, and you could hardly hear what was being said for the "quacking", but, touchy as I am, it still left me feeling a bit potentially embarrassed, and it was a surprise, so I thought I'd share. See you around :) Begoontalk 04:51, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for RevDeleting the diff on my edit review page and blocking that IP address. Have a good one! -- Luke (Talk) 00:52, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem.  7  00:53, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

58.178.147.160 (talk)

I see you blocked this user, but did not revoke talk page access. I've always seen this vandal abuse his talkpage (which he is doing now). ─═KlilidiplomusTalk═─ 05:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hawaii 5-O

Just a quick heads up: the band of vandals you handled on the Hawaii 5-0 article appear to be moving over to the Hawaii 5-O (1970's series) article. I just reverted four or five incidents, but I'm sure that won't be the end if it's the same group. --Drmargi (talk) 07:49, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe my eyesight is failing me, but I can't see the reverts or the article you are mentioning. Can you send a diff?  7  10:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summary

I think there are several religions that wish to inquire as to how easily you were able to rm satan. TNXMan 00:38, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Face-wink.svg  7  00:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Every UAA report I make seems to be done by you; many thanks for your tireless work! sonia♫ 11:01, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
thanks Sonia. Keep up the good work patrolling.  7  11:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

User Doug cocks

I don't know how I managed to report User talk:Doug cocks to wp:aiv. I don't seem to have warned him and I did not click the Huggle report button. I did revert at least one of his edits with Huggle. Strange. Jim1138 (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries.  7  04:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
I went back through my contributions. I warned Doug for removal of content. This was my first warning to Doug. I apparently was his fifth warning (by Huggle's reckoning) and an automated report to AIV was made. It appears that Huggle was not recording the warnings on Doug's talk page. I have seen this before where Huggle did not update the user's talk page. Though you would want to know. Jim1138 (talk) 05:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks - left a note for huggle team. Keep up the good work patrolling.  7  05:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

MSU Interview

Dear 7,


My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.


So a few things about the interviews:

  • Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
  • Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
  • All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
  • All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
  • The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.


Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Username

I suspect you get a lot of this, but I am so jealous of you. If I had known 11 years ago that I was going to be a Wikipedia editor, I would have rushed and grabbed the username "7". Lynch7 14:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike - I'll leave it to you if I retire from editing.  ;)  7  14:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Rubbing hands, with an evil smile on face. Hehe :) . Thanks for your kind comments on my RfA btw! Lynch7 14:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Need help in history merge for Some old articles

Would you be restore merge history for some old articles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll be around sporadically for the next 2hrs - can you give me a sense of how many articles and how complex?  7  03:03, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Just 2 articles Indian Red Cross and Indian Red Cross Society .The correct name is Indian Red Cross Society moved in 2007. Then Uva Wellassa University with University of Uva Wellassa .Both are old moves just need to ensure that the entire history is intact.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 Done on the red cross - not possible on the second on per WP:PV.  7  04:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much.Sorry did not notice that they were parallel versions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:50, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

About 209.82.162.35

A Level 4 Warning was placed on their talk page at 1:31, I assume for the 21:48 edit to I Dream of Jeannie or possibly for the removal of maintenance templates on Joan Collins at 22:29. At 1:55 the IP then proceeded to again remove maintenance templates (this time from Gilligan's Island) and to again add unsourced POV/essay content so I reported them but you declined the report as "stale". I always though that "recent vandalism" meant within the past day/past several hours but is the recent/stale concept something that is up to the patrolling admins? I was just wondering, I don't want to waste people's time needlessly reporting vandalism if there's a time-limit I'm not understanding. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 05:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to worry, you aren't wasting anyone's time. You are correct that "stale" is a subjective measure... In my experience most admin think of an IP vandal like this in terms of fresh/stale being within minutes... or perhaps 30 to 60 min max. Realizing that this is probably someone at a school library or their neighbors computer and that they have walked away and that somebody else may come along and edit means that there is very little reason to block unless the vandalism is truly current. It wouldn't have hurt for them to get blocked (because nobody has edited), but it also wouldn't have helped (again, because nobody has edited from that IP so the vandalism has stopped). If this had been a vandal-only-account (logged-in-user) with a similar editing pattern they probably would have been blocked.  7  12:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I can see your point about "stale". I would like to mention that this IP has apparently been exclusively used by a single person who has mangled numerous articles about Hollywood subjects and who has also been socking their way through various IPs (208.101.233.xxx, 209.221.34.170, 209.221.34.4, 209.221.35.188, and the most lately-troublesome one...209.82.162.35) as well as Wiki named accounts (1962marilyn, Mmonroe1962,and Harlow1937) as evidenced by Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mmonroe1962 and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 1962monroe. The only time that this particular sockpuppeteer has ever responded to any of the many posts, Notices, Warnings and Blocks that have been left for them is after they were blocked on January 22 when their appeal was: "I use information from other websites... that in my opinion have info that Wikipedia needs. Wikipedia doesn't have pages for some people, movies, places, and fictional... pages people would like to read on. I've tried creating a page entitled "Jeannie (fictional character)", "Rand Brooks", and tried inhancing "Beverly Michaels"."
Shearonink (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The suspected IP sock tags you've added are the right way to handle this. Some of the IPs haven't been used in a few weeks, and appear to be from an ISP (dialup?) "Glenwood Telephone Company, Eastman, Georgia", so while he may get them for a while he may not keep them for long, and he may not be the only one who gets them. In theory you could ask for page protection for those pages, but some haven't been touched in 10+ days. You could also re-open an SPI case on them, but again with a dynamic IP range that is days or weeks stale it is unlikely a checkuser would yield much. I agree that its frustrating, but at this point I'm affraid blocking one or more of these IPs seems unlikely to prevent anything.  7  23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to chime in here because I was going to report the IP to AIV when I realized that Shearonink had beaten me to it. I understand that blocking this IP may not yield much in terms of the vandalism to the various articles, but since you declined to block the IP, the IP has come back and done more of the same (reverted by Shearonink). Using your logic, 7, all this particular IP address has to do is vandalize, wait a little time, and then come back and vandalize some more so the last edits are "stale". Even if a block doesn't put a complete halt to the problem, every little bit helps, and I don't see how it hurts. I'd rather block the enemy I can see than let him be just because his shadow may not be far behind.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying nothing can be done, but I am saying that blocking one or more IPs (all of which are now stale) is not the mandate of WP:AIV - suggest starting an ANI thread instead. As an alternate you can log an SPI and a checkuser will be able to quickly determine if a rangeblock is appropriate.  7  02:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
If I reported this to ANI, what would be the response? Opening a topic there is easy enough to do, but I don't quite see the game plan. Do you think reporting at SPI should be done first?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

() I would start at ANI. The gameplan would be to get other admin to look at the situation and evaluate the best way to proceed. If a rangeblock is one of the suggested outcomes then a quick SPI can be created to see the impact / collateral damage.  7  03:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:40, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm done. No one responded to the topic, and it was archived.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I saw that as well, and I'm sorry nobody responded. Given the large number of watchers of that page I suspect that is an indication that this doesn't rise to the level of a rangeblock or page protection yet. However I'm watching a few of those pages and will act if necessary. I noticed that a few of the IPs recent edits have not been rolled back by either of you which may indicate that not all edits are problematic, further complicating the blocking decision. However if the problem continues we may need to look at WP:LTA.  7  00:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Bbb23 & 7 - I'm sorry that I was unable to give that IP/Hollywood editor's AN/I section the attention it sadly deserved at this time, real life has been interfering, I just didn't have the time. This particular person's careless editing is massive - I've been aware of a pattern of behavior for a long time that seems connected...Hollywood subjects, no edit summaries, no references, never uses the Preview button (so the edit histories all get clogged up with miniscule edits), will do many (many) edits in a row to related articles, IPs seem to be from various GA locations, any of their various names have been "Blonde Bombshell" actresses, has only ever responded once to any of numerous posts, Notices, Warnings and Blocks...and that is only when they unsuccessfully appealed this most recent month-long Block. I do think this particular problem-editor will return, they've never been able to stay away for long in the past. I just wish they would reference their edits from reliable sources and use the Preview button so the history wouldn't get so clogged up....that would take care of most of the problematic issues. Shearonink (talk) 02:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
7, I've noticed this phenomenon before with some problematic editors, that some of their edits will at least not be revertable (not always an improvement, but not something I would just undo). In 209's case, they edited 3 articles, and one was a good correction, one was partly a good correction and partly some non-disruptive errors, and the other was a change in structure that might or might not be an improvement. The reason for the phenomenon is not clear to me. I suspect in some instances it's intentionally devious, and in others it's just that the editor is generally impervious to rules but is not a vandal in their motivations. If I had to hazard a guess, I would say 209 falls into the latter category, but I'm not sure I have the experience to make that guess. I suppose we'll just keep watching. Nothing to apologize for, Shearonink, no matter what some of us wiki addicts may do, real life is more important. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

7, you mentioned WP:LTA above. I just got through reverting a bunch of 209's usual edits, including the addition of unsourced Nielsen ratings and the removal of maintenance templates, among other things. I didn't bother posting warnings on 209's Talk page because it doesn't help. Would you be willing to reconsider and block? Or, if not, some other suggestion?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

70.52.175.179

Save us time and lock his talk page access, too. Also please please please extend the block to at least a month or two. The guy using that IP has been at this for over 5 years.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

... but that IP has only been active for the last 2 hours.  7  04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Bonemarketing

Could you please have a look at User:Bonemarketing? It's clearly a promotional account. Hghyux (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked User

I was reviewing an AfC submission from TheDepot8 (talk · contribs) and noticed that you had blocked him. Just curious what you know about him, or what your reasoning was for the block. I can't see any obvious problems with the user or the article, but didn't want to accept it in case there's some problem. Thanks. —JmaJeremy TALK CONTRIBS 06:07, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It was a username block - The Depot is a website here and NZ Cultural Icons (what they keep writing about) appears to be a non-profit which is the main reason I gave them a causeblock, not a spam hardblock. If their AFC submission is notable and not overly spammy then I'm sure it's fine, but worth double checking.  7  10:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for all your help! Kylestewart98 (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you!  7  23:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion G10

Hello, 7. I see that in the edit summary to this edit you said that, to qualify for speedy deletion, "the negative accusations need to be unsourced". This is, in fact, not the case. Neither Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G10 nor Wikipedia:Attack page says that lack of sourcing is a requirement, nor, as far as I can see, is there any reasonable way of reading either of them as implying that. I am not going to speedily delete the article, because it seems more constructive to allow the AfD to run its course, but I just thought I'd let you know for future reference that I think your view of the speedy deletion criterion is mistaken. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:CSD G10 - These "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. Am I misinterpreting that?  7  09:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Maybe I was misreading it. I took "may include" as meaning that that inclusion of unsourced content was not essential, but thinking of it now I'm not so sure that I was right. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:12, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
NP. If I'm wrong, feel free to speedy, but as you said I think letting the AFD run its course and serve as precedent for whether we allow any such future articles may be the better long term benefit to the project, rather than speedy-ing it now, closing the AFD, and then having the speedy overturned on a technicality. Either way, thanks for letting me know.  7  09:16, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it would be at all helpful to speedy-delete in a case like this, whether or not it satisfies the speedy deletion criteria. For one thing, there is enough controversy about the article that I think we ought to see what consensus says. I also think that in this case speedy deletion would, in the long run, not be speedy, because there would virtually certainly be a call for a deletion review. So, I am 100% in agreement with your decline of the speedy deletion: the only thing I questioned was the reason you quoted, and even there I think I was probably wrong. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:40, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to events in June and July: bot, script, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I invite you to the yearly Berlin hackathon, 1-3 June. Registration is now open. If you need financial assistance or help with visa or hotel, then please register by May 1st and mention it in the registration form.

This is the premier event for the MediaWiki and Wikimedia technical community. We'll be hacking, designing, teaching, and socialising, primarily talking about ResourceLoader and Gadgets (extending functionality with JavaScript), the switch to Lua for templates, Wikidata, and Wikimedia Labs.

We want to bring 100-150 people together, including lots of people who have not attended such events before. User scripts, gadgets, API use, Toolserver, Wikimedia Labs, mobile, structured data, templates -- if you are into any of these things, we want you to come!

I also thought you might want to know about other upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC and our other events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation Volunteer Development Coordinator 00:17, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Sumanah, but unfortunately I won't be able to attend.  7  00:22, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Cirex

Regards. On the Cirex article I added two magazines[1][2], which i found the online versions (real ones are printed in the US) I hope that can help identifying him as a real person. My respect! Mroxidizer1 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I see you have also contacted Phantomsteve about this. I am going to let him reply as his was the most recent review of the article. However, may I ask, what is driving your interest in this topic?  7  23:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydney smith school

Hello.

I can see the evidence that the article was in part a hoax, however, there was to some degree valid information there. May I request that the article is restored and moved to the correctly capitalized title per my request on the talk page, as well as having the hoax information removed? Thanks in advance. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There is really nothing there worth restoring. As of the last version you edited, minus the hoaxes, the text was this:
Sydney Smith School is a High School located in Kingston Upon Hull. It serves children from the ages of 11-16, who are mainly from mostly the west area of Hull. The school is made up of many diffrent buildings and the PE block has a fully working indoor heated swimming pool.
Regards,  7  00:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Abuse Filter on the Article Feedback Tool

Hey there :). You're being contacted because you're an edit filter manager, At the moment, we're developing Version 5 of the Article Feedback Tool, which you may or may not have heard about. If you haven't; for the first time, this will involve a free-text box where readers can submit comments :). Obviously, there's going to be junk, and we want to minimise that junk. To do so, we're working the Abuse Filter into the tool.

For this to work, we need people to write and maintain filters. I'd be very grateful if you could take a look at the discussion here and the attached docs, and comment and contribute! Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look and see if I can help.  7  23:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sydneysider1979

Hey there. Thanks very much for the advice and tips. I am very new to this, so glad and appreciative of all the support so far. Thanks again Sydneysider1979 (talk) 06:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC) Sydneysider1979

No problem. Feel free to ask me questions or place {{helpme}} on your page to ask for help from the community.  7  06:38, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Lamborghini Urus

I wonder why you have removed the redirect. There is no content in this page except some vague statements about a future car and the redirect was perfectly enough. Also, why have you deleted the history in the process ? Hektor (talk) 08:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The page Lamborghini Urus was a redirect, first to the wrong named vehicle (a vehicle that ended up with a different name) and then to the Lamborghini main page. Now that the Lamborghini Urus has been announced as a concept car it has its own article, hence this article should be the main topic rather than a redirect to Lamborghini. Do you disagree?  7  08:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
... I'd be happy to restore the history of the 3 edits on the redirect if you think those are relevant.  7  08:25, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Excellent idea! Thank you. Hektor (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 Done  7  00:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked IP-spammer

Thanks for your message on my talk page. I have replied there. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:52, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

Brownie transparent.png ... for clearing the nastiness from my Talk page. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 13:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
No problem ;)  7  13:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Although they should have suppressed all the edits, not just the username. I requested it to the oversight distribution list but no response yet...  7  14:10, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 14:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
And right back at ya! Thank you!  7  00:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Unblock request on hold

Thanks for your message on my talk page about the unblock request at User talk:58.7.177.161, which both you and Drmies drew to my attention. I have replied there to the unblock request. Maybe either you or Drmies would like to go back and accept or decline the request. (As you will see from my comment there, my choice would be to decline, but I will leave it up to you.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The person who requested probably has a different IP by now, making an unblock moot. Calabe1992 00:00, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

unblocked MonmouthMuseumWales

And I've seen enough (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Storm in teacup - learn lessons, move on. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
No - sheer incompetence and abusive use of position power. As the person who designed the {{coiq}} template that gets used dozens of times a day, I have a firsthand view. Perhaps our orgname policies are draconian, but they're according to consensus. Want them changed? Propose it - don't unilaterally do it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
It's important that WP, as an organisation, avoids giving the impression, to good faith newbie editors, that its policies are of such overriding importance that minor indiscretions over (for example) user names must be dealt with by applying the maximum force of an instant block. If newbies are really being blocked "dozens of times a day" when a cursory look would suggest that they are acting in good faith, it's not surprising that new editors are deterred from participating. A little more WP:AGF is needed. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your comment and I took a sec to add a minor point to the AN notice you posted. In that vein, you might take a look at WP:SOCKS / WP:ROLE since it was also slightly modified to try and give more clarity to this issue. -- Avanu (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, WP:ROLE is under sockpuppetry policy which may be confusing but is directly linked to the concept of sharing accounts which is a WP:U policy. They both have room for more clarity but I plan to remove myself from the discussion because I obviously feel what I did was a correct interpretation of policy and matches what we have done for years. Some agree with me and others disagree. I plan to step back and let others review this impartially and I'll be more than happy to adjust my approach to whatever community consensus is reached. Regards,  7  23:41, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I admit that I initially thought the block was arrived at too quickly, in part because I didn't feel that it lined up with the ORGNAME policy, however, after sitting there thinking about how I would clarify it, I realized that it is kind of up to interpretation as to whether a name is the 'full name of a group' or not. Anything where two reasonable people can interpret it two different ways is bound to cause problems eventually. This made me start thinking about the actual goal behind the policy, and I started to focus on that more closely. My guess is that ORGNAME's goal is to make sure people don't just create 1 account and then everyone shares that, or they lose the password, or the 'wrong' person gets the password and causes a problem. So if we avoid letting people make "MittRomneyCampaign", but allow "BillW at MittRomneyCampaign", then whenever they fire the PR guy, we don't have to worry about a big brouhaha because he changes the page with a bunch of defamatory junk. I can see that it relates to SOCK because the whole point of SOCK is to keep the 1 human to 1 account. I guess the inverse of a Sock puppet might be a 'Promiscuous Puppet'? That is, multiple humans sharing 1 account (My, that account 'gets around'.)
I appreciate your work and hope this leads to a productive outcome where people can all agree on how policy should work. Happy editing! -- Avanu (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. You too.  7  00:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Marcuslhoward

Hi. I tagged the page because the user blanked it after copying the draft into mainspace. It was an effort to avoid potentially confusing the editor if the page is restored, and because the article looks like it will be deleted at AfD. But I think I understand your reasoning, as I would not normally tag blanked drafts. I would like to know, however, if there is a discussion or policy you can reference to show when G7 does and does not apply. WP:G7 doesn't specify any qualifications besides user talk pages. I only ask because I don't want to make unnecessary mistakes. If you were just making a personal judgement call, that's okay too, but it will be helpful to know. NTox · talk 23:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi NTox. Not to worry, not a mistake on your part... It was definitely a judgement call. Just seemed liked deleting it now a) didn't help anything, and b) would therefore require another step an another admin action when/if they want it restored. For the specific policy guidance, refer to the last sentence of the G7 link you provided - If the sole author blanks a page other than a userspace page or category page, this can be taken as a deletion request. (emphasis mine)  7  04:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I am very happy you pointed to that last sentence. A quite obvious misread on my part; even slightly embarrassing. But best to learn nonetheless. Take care. NTox · talk 05:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)


Turquoise Jeep

Turquoise Jeep page was deleted and I think its' important to have a wiki page so that the fans can really know more about the mysterious record label. They are verified on twitter and they have millions of fans. What can we do to get them restored? — Preceding unsignedcomment added by Ctni99a1 (talkcontribs) 16:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi - please take a look at WP:WHYNOT which may help clarify.  7  03:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Reverts at David

Hi! Thank you for reverting that mess at David. I wanted to, but don't know how to do it in one operation. What's the secret? Yopienso (talk) 02:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

No problem. If you use Twinkle you can do it automatically (see here). Unfortately I can't do javascript on the machine I'm on right now so I did it manually by selecting the last good version from history, and clicking edit on that version and then saving the changes which accomplishes the same thing.  7  04:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm too chicken to venture into Twinkle and Huggle lands. So, to do it manually, I:
1. Select the last good version from history.
Does that mean open that revision? Open the revision I want to save?
2. Click edit.
That's straightforward. So now I'm editing the whole article as the revision I want to revert to.
3. Save the changes.
Does that mean just click on "Save page"?
That makes sense. I think I get it. Please let me know if I misunderstood. If I'm good, I'm going to copy this to a sandbox for future reference. Yopienso (talk) 06:52, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes - from the David history page I clicked on the date/time link of the revision I wanted to revert back to - in this case 05:15, October 30, 2012‎ (note time is adjusted) and then it shows me the version as it was at that time - then I click edit and it warns me that I'm editing an old version and subsequent changes will be lost - then Save Page.  7  07:17, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
BTW - Twinkle is really not that bad... Huggle is powerful and I use it as well, but with power comes risk so best to start with twinkle and get comfortable before going into it full speed.  7 

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Erdbeerteller01.jpg Thank you very much! Think I'll keep it simple for now. Yopienso (talk) 07:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!  7  23:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Revision

In regard to the Broaster page you changed back, we updated some of the info to reflect the facts. All items on the page are factual and supportable now. I made a different name so no one will know we are conencted to it, strange, but I did it. Further, we dislike having our competiton mentioned in the same area of our legally owned trademark as it causes a conflict of interest. Also, there were quite a few innacuracies on the original Broaster page and, more importantly, there were trademark infringements on the original page. The Broaster Company ownes the trademarks for Broaster, Broasted and a host of other similar names and vigerously enfoces complaince with trademark law.

This should do it, thanks for the info.

Pressureguy (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war (September–December 2012)

You revdeled a lot of posts by this guy. In his posts apart from attacking Soper did he mention slogans? Darkness Shines (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I only revdel'd the username because the username itself was an attack. The edits are still visible, and I don't recall any specific slogans. Regards,  7  01:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Curious

Hello 7, I was wondering if there was a particular reason why you didn't block this account and moving my request to holding pen? --Webclient101talk 05:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

In the spirit of not biting newcomers the general view among admin reviewing UAA and editors commenting at WT:U is that once someone raises their concern with a username (as you rightly did) that it would be overly harsh to thereafter immediately block them. I am not saying that this is my view, but this seems to be what others expect now. This account name definitely violates WP:ORGNAME in my view, and if the editor never responds to your username concerns after a week in the holding pen they will likely be promosofter blocked. Regards,  7  07:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I absolutely understand what your saying. But the user who I reported unambiguously advertised their company (which is linked to there username) on their user page, why doesn't that justify a block?
Webclient101talk 17:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
I disagree that the user "unambiguously advertised their company". If I was the deleting admin I would have selected copyvio as the reason for deletion of their userpage because it was copied from here. Unambiguous advertising is a page that says "click here to buy whatever", or "xyz is the best website for ...". This may have been the start of an article on a (probably non-notable) company, which was borderline stealthy advertising but this was not pure and simple spam. The bottom line is this is a judgement call and it has the added complication that you were discussing their username with them. Once a user is left a warning template that says "hello, I'm a fellow editor and I have some concerns about your username, please either change it or let's discuss here" it would be a bit harsh for an admin to follow right behind with a block. If the user never responds then as I said they should be promosofter block before the roll off the holding pen pages.  7  01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
I understand your point and I trust your judgement. Best, Webclient101talk 01:15, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, 7. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC). 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.

Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 05:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Not too unusual and probably nothing to worry about. This happens often when a user creates an account and then decides that they wanted a different username and then creates another account while still logged in. Neither account has edited, but I'm watching both users. But thanks for being vigilant.  7  11:09, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject:REHAB update

You signed up for WikiProject User Rehab


Hi there, I'm RDN1F. It's come to my attention that you've signed up for WikiProject Rehab, but since that time the project has retired. I've decided to take it upon myself to rejuvenate the project - but I could do with your help. If you are still willing to help mentor (or even give me a hand in bringing this project back!) leave a message on my talk page
RDN1F TALK 16:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Quite busy IRL these days but still have it bookmarked and will keep an eye on it.  7  23:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Too kind?

Greetings. Excuse me for bringing up a purely admin issue, but it seems to be that you have taken an extremely lenient decision concerning the persistent vandalism of editor 199.91.203.210. This is someone who, from September 2012 onwards, vandalises wiki pages at least once per month and does nothing else but vandalise. Shouldn't this be a clear case of a permanent ban? If it's not, what are the criteria for a permanent ban? Thanks in advance. -The Gnome (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem brining it up. The IP address had been blocked once before, for 48 hours, and I blocked them for 2 weeks. I wouldn't call that extremely lenient. We may ban users but we don't permentely ban IP addresses. If the problem continues after this block the next blocking administrator will likely block for a longer period, and so on after that.  7  23:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Adarsh the Creator

You mentioned on ANI that you were about to block this user for 3RR. They've now apologized for making the legal threats, so my quarrel with them is settled - but I figured I'd let you shorten the unblock appropriately to a term you think fits the 3RR offence rather than unblocking them and having you block them again. If not, let me know what you think fits and I can do it. Best, m.o.p 06:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that King of Hearts has left them a note, to which they have yet to respond. Will let it play out there on the user's talk page. Regards,  7  23:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Your input is requested

Greetings, 7/Archive 3! If we have not met, I'm AutomaticStrikeout. I've come here to ask you to take part in the survey at User:AutomaticStrikeout/Are admins interested in a RfB?. I am trying to gauge the general level of interest that administrators have in running for cratship, as well as pinpoint the factors that affect that interest level. Your input will be appreciated. Happy editing, AutomaticStrikeout (TCSign AAPT) 01:28, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AIV report

Why did you remove my AIV report? I don't see how 2 hours of inactivity (wherever this activity was supposed to be) would make my report any less valid. Davejohnsan (talk) 17:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the heading at the top of AIV:
3.The warnings must have been given recently and the users must be active now, especially for unregistered users.
The 2 hours mentioned in my summary was actually referring to the second of two IPs that I removed. Yours was actually reported 4 hours after they stopped editing for the day and I didn't stop by until 2 hours after that. So that doesn't qualify as now per the AIV guidelines. In any case, it appears they were back at it today and another admin has blocked them.  7  23:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
So what time frame falls under "recent"? I was working when the IP editor made the last edit yesterday, and wasn't home until 3.5 hours later. Davejohnsan (talk) 01:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I was not referring to any issue with "recent" warnings, I was referring to the fact that the editor was not actively vandalizing "now" which I would consider to be at most within the preceding hour.  7  02:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

HELP

Hi. I'm new user of Mediaviki. I created some page that used Mediawiki. Can You help me with some thing or show me somebody who can do it? I need some help with upgrading Mediawiki and set option. Thank You.--TraaBBIT (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - not an expert by any means. Have you tried this?  7  05:32, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

T: template redirects

Hi, you participated in Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 October 20#T:ITNBOX and other Template redirects, some of which I have relisted at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 November_18#T:WPTECH. Please come along and share your thoughts .. ;-) John Vandenberg (chat) 15:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Hide patrolled script

It seems that the extremely useful "hide patrolled" script is not functioning. Can you fix it please. Sole Soul (talk) 16:08, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Gravitational observatory listed at Redirects for discussion

Information.svg

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Gravitational observatory. Since you had some involvement with the Gravitational observatory redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 23:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year 7!

Thanks, and likewise to all WP - wishing everyone a healthy 2015!  7  18:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to subscribe to the edit filter mailing list

Hi, as a user in the edit filter manager user group we wanted to let you know about the new wikipedia-en-editfilters mailing list. As part of our recent efforts to improve the use of edit filters on the English Wikipedia it has been established as a venue for internal discussion by edit filter managers regarding private filters (those only viewable by administrators and edit filter managers) and also as a means by which non-admins can ask questions about hidden filters that wouldn't be appropriate to discuss on-wiki. As an edit filter manager we encourage you to subscribe; the more users we have in the mailing list the more useful it will be to the community. If you subscribe we will send a short email to you through Wikipedia to confirm your subscription, but let us know if you'd prefer another method of verification. I'd also like to take the opportunity to invite you to contribute to the proposed guideline for edit filter use at WP:Edit filter/Draft and the associated talk page. Thank you! Sam Walton (talk) and MusikAnimal talk 18:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Waveny-front.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Waveny-front.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t c) 05:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Outdent2

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:Outdent2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Hawkes Plaza.JPG

Thanks for uploading File:Hawkes Plaza.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 01:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, 7. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Help me change the "Durham, England" page to "Durham"

Hi 7,

Durham, England, is a historic university city. Due to this, it is the namesake of many other cities, towns, and villages around North America. As it seems that on wikipedia, typing in Cambridge, Oxford, or Montpellier - to quote a few - lead to the original cities, I would suggest that a change should be made that typing in Durham should redirect a user to Durham city in England, while providing a heading on the top of the article like "For other places named Durham, see .......".

I don't have permission to do this as typing in Durham leads to what I think should be the Durham Disambiguation article, which already exists under the name Durham, not Durham Disambiguation/Places named Durham.

Could you please help me fix this?

Thank you in advance!

Frederickbertani (talk) 22:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 23:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Information icon

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in more than one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e. as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised, that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions, and that you have not been inactive for a three-year period of time). If you remain inactive for a three-year period of time, including the present year you have been inactive, you will need to request reinstatement at WP:RFA. This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. — xaosflux Talk 00:28, 1 October 2016 (UTC)