Wikipedia

User talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2011/March

< User talk:AmandaNP | Archives
Latest comment: 13 years ago by DeltaQuad in topic Checkuser


The Signpost: 28 February 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Northenglish SPI

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I added a response to you at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Northenglish if you wish to comment further. Thanks —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

  Done -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 02:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Richardmalter at SPI

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello DeltaQuad. I notice you have already marked WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Richardmalter for closure as no action. The complaint had been that 202.63.58.223 was editing BDORT as a sock of User:Richardmalter. My inclination is to think that these edits are a violation of an Arbcom topic ban, since Richardmalter is banned from editing BDORT under any account or IP. It is logical to semiprotect BDORT to deal with this apparent violation. Could you take a look at the more complete story at User talk:BullRangifer#User:Richardmalter and see if you object to my reasoning? I'm asking for your review since you had already closed the SPI as not a violation. Your closure appeared to be saying that Richardmalter might be editing logged out, but he is not supposed to be editing there under any identity. Unless you object, I will enact the semiprotection and log it in the Arbcom case. BullRangifer has added more text to the closed SPI case; it might have been simpler if he had just written to you directly. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh my, so sorry. The words ArbCom didn't cross my eyes. (Had a few personal things that must have made me skip over it) I will unarchive the SPI and feel free to take action. Wow, I am appualed I missed this. Again sorry for the trouble. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 03:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Effort appreciated

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

DeltaQuad -- thanks for your efforts in closing the proposed deletion discussions for Society for Humanistic Judaism and for Or Emet. I created the second article, so am glad to see it didn't go... thanks again for jumping in on this. SeparateWays (talk) 02:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No Prolem. Those socks should be out of your way as I scrached all AFDs they commented on and closed all they nominated. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 03:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


Poop patrol

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Hi Deltaquad, thanks for the bot run. I'm ready for another run whenever you are, though there are some tweaks that it would be nice to have. ϢereSpielChequers 17:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Ya...hit a bit of a snag, for some reason the bot crashes in the middle of each query now so I will be taking a look into that. Sorry for the delay. DQ.alt (t) (e) 18:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
No worries, I was just hoping you weren't waiting on me for anything. BTW I suspect that the code Olaf left on wiki might not be the final version he had - I think that at least one of the problems covered in User:Botlaf/Improvements is back with us. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's stupid and wierd why it isn't working, but I should have it fixed sometime over the march break here. And I would have no problem improving it once it works :P -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 04:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Brilliant that's good to hear. As well as a bunch of typos, on that first run I picked up quite a few vandalisms that had got past both our hugglers and our watchlisters. ϢereSpielChequers 12:34, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Where are the instructions that come with this thing lol (jk). As you can see, by no work of my own, she is running again which tells me it was just the content of something onwiki (not the code) that was the issue. Along with that, I see (because of a print statement) that it already ignores redirects. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 06:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, the biggest problem at the moment is that it doesn't ignore safe phrases in links. So Planing has a problem because Planing mill is usually linked, but posses works fine. ϢereSpielChequers 12:54, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

GOCE / Mid-drive newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 backlog elimination drive
 

Greetings from the Guild of Copy Editors March 2011 Backlog elimination drive! Here is your mid-drive newsletter.

Participation
 
GOCE March 2011 backlog elimination drive progress graphs

So far, 79 people have signed up for this drive. Of these, 64 have participated. Interest is high due to a link to our event from the Watchlist page, and many new and first-time copy editors have joined us for the drive. If you signed up for the drive but haven't participated yet, it's not too late! Try to copy edit at least a few articles. Remember, if you have rollover words from the last drive, you will lose them if you do not participate in this drive. If you haven't signed up for the drive yet, you can sign up now. Many thanks to those editors who have been helping out at the Requests page. We have assisted in the promotion of seven articles to Good article status so far this month.

Progress report

We have already achieved our target of reducing the overall backlog by 10%; however, we have more work to do with the 2009 backlog. We have almost eliminated May 2009 and we only have some 700 articles left from 2009. It is excellent progress, so let's concentrate our fire power on the remaining months from 2009. Thank you for participating in the March 2011 drive. We anticipate it will be another big success!

Utahraptor resigns

The UtahraptorTalk to me has decided to step down from his position as project coordinator due to real-life issues.

Your drive coordinators – S Masters (talk), Diannaa (Talk) and Tea with toast (Talk)


Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 04:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Rosanacurso

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, do you know how long checkuser investigations usually take? It appears that one of the SPs is still active. Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 17:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Obviously this is done, but it usually doesn't take this long. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 22:03, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion, guidelines for use at WP:MINOR). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and all users will still be able to manually mark their edits as being minor in the usual way.

For well-established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 20:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

AfD

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

You might take it easy on some of those AfD closings....here and here, 2 keeps and 1 delete is not a consensus, also here, and essays are not policy...ok, ya, there is no way 2 keeps and 1 delete is a consensus here, here, etc. CTJF83 17:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so votes #s are not the reason to close AFDs. That's why they are called !votes. "should not be calculated solely by the balance of votes" This is a direct argument off of the AFD closure instructions. So here is what I think (in the order you listed them):
  1. Ok, this one was an overshot.
  2. References were found, up to 9. That and 2 keep !votes pushed me for a keep against the nomination.
  3. This one you have a COI in. There was two additional keeps from the relist, and even though Delete or Keep might not be clearly marked, they still are involved.
  4. Here the prod was removed and two other editors agree, with a good number of sources.
  5. A newer user was going on a deletion spree + 2 keeps + A good amount of info in the article lead me to my decision.
Maybe it wasn't the best idea to go on an AFD closing spree, but I saw work that needed to be done, and did it. I left a whole bunch more controversial ones for admins and other expirienced users to deal with. So one mistake there, every one makes mistakes. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 17:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Wait, now I see what happened with the first one, that was a technical mess up because I didn't have time to close before you relisted. Besides that was a button hit that screwed that one. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 17:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
#2 might be justifiable....but in general 2-1 is not a consensus. I'd either relist those or leave it to an admin. Just an FYI coming from someone who was bitten in the ass on an RfA. So if you are thinking about RfA, best to be far more cautious....just my thoughts, heed it or not. CTJF83 18:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
With all due respect, looking at the RfA, I read through just over half of the opposes and it wasn't because of AfD's mostly. Although the diffs by Courcelles were quite interesting closures for AfDs. I have to disagree with you and take this on a case by case basis and I think my closures were appropriate (except the 1st mistake). Weather I am going to RfA soon or not, admins also have to be willing to take a leap of faith and try things some times. They can't just sit on the sidelines. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 18:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
A lot of the AfD comments were later in the oppose...anyway, like I said, just my thoughts, heed it or not. I'm not going to go to WP:ANI or WP:DRV, but someone else could in the future. Also, I have your page on my watchlist, so will see if you respond. CTJF83 18:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Orphaned non-free image File:Air India Express Flight 812 crashed.jpg

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Air India Express Flight 812 crashed.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. 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. mechamind90 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Template on DeltaQuad.alt user page

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Maybe you should do something about that template. I am not sure what it is supposed to mean, but it sounds as if you want to say that currently you are not travelling and therefore nobody should be using your alternative account. This creates a situation in which other users are trained to ignore alarms of this kind, which is not a good thing. Hans Adler 19:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Frig, that's been up there for a while...on it now. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 20:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bizovne

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey. This case is still on hold five days later, and it seems the IP is causing issues. Shall I block, or are you still investigating? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but I haven't had much time to look into it. I will look into it today, but please don't hold back blocks or action because of me, I was just holding it from archive. It's unlikely that my things will return anything else, but checking anyway. DQ.alt (t) (e) 16:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

LisaBot on IRC

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hey DeltaQuad, I was wondering if there was any chance you could take a look at your IRC bot, LisaBot? It's repeatedly joining and parting from irc://irc.wikimedia.org/simple.wikipedia due to the remote host closing the connection at the moment, which is making it somewhat hard for a few of us to read the IRC feeds due to them flooding up fairly quickly. Of course, this may also be a problem that could be stopping the bot working, so I thought I would bring it to your attention. Regards, BG7even 16:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey BlueGoblin. Thanks for the note. So I took a look on freenode and I see that she is not on which tells me she's having issues connecting to freenode. I attempted to put an auto restart in but obviously it won't connect to freenode and then keeps trying. So I can try and deal with it in a few hours, but being at school they block porting on SSH port 21, and IRC port 6667, so I can't do a thing from here. Sorry about this. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 17:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
  Fixed -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 18:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Great stuff, thanks a lot. Hope you get the problem fixed - had a problem with an auto-restart on one of my bots a couple of years ago, but all fixed now thankfully! Know the feeling with port blocking; my school does the same. Thanks again, BG7even

Talkback

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 
Hello, AmandaNP. You have new messages at Acather96's talk page.
Message added 19:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Signpost: 28 March 2011

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Checkuser

Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Hi. I am not sure I fully understood your decision here, could you please explain why it was declined? Thanks, RafaAzevedo msg 13:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, basically I was agreeing with the Checkuser above saying no need to check, that it's a WP:DUCK block if it's going to happen. DQ.alt (t) (e) 17:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a similar question about [1] - the main Racepacket account is definitely not stale, and neither is the 158 IP. --Rschen7754 00:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Racepacket has been confirmed by a checkuser to live in the same approximate location. And from the amount of evidence LauraHale has presented (I haven't read all of it), it looks like a WP:DUCK case, which means block. My third reason is User:DeltaQuad/Templates/nocu There are exceptions, but this looks like enough of a duck case not to connect. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 02:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind clarifying your decline on the case then? It could certainly be misleading. --Rschen7754 07:59, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, It definitely could be, sorry for not clearing it up at first. And just because it's CU declined, never means admin action can't be taken. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 11:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for your comments. I wasn't sure if a check user was required if you were arguing a duck type case. I put check user in there anyway because I've never done the process and I thought that a check user would be required before being able to block on a duck argument. Good to know for future reference that one isn't required. (And hopefully, I never have to go through that filing again.) Your clarity is appreciated. :) --LauraHale (talk) 12:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hey Luara, No problem whatsoever. Feel free to ping me on IRC if you have any questions any time. See ya around IRC. -- DQ(t) [[Special:Emai(e) 12:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AmandaNP/Archives/2011/March&oldid=1184907792"