Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:53, 16 April 2008

21:33, Friday 17 January 2025

Userpage (commons · meta)	Talk (Archives)	Gallery	Barnstars	Drafts

Hi! Please leave a message and I'll get back to you... Don't hesitate to get in touch if you have a question or need help. I'll do my best and can probably point you in the right direction if it isn't something I can sort out myself. Will

Wikibreak

Enjoy :) ~~ 08:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

This is all your long service leave, WJBscribe. The Cabal won't authorise another break for a couple of years now :) Have fun, Daniel (talk) 04:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy yourself. Anthøny 16:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Have a great holiday Will :)— Ѕandahl 00:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey Will, welcome back. Did you enjoy your break? ~~ 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back! - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I did have a good break. I'm back with renewed enthusiasm both for content editing (which has long been suffering) and for a more relaxed approached to other responsibilities... WjBscribe 02:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

KellyAna

Hiya, enjoy your vacation.  :) No hurry, but when you get back I would appreciate your thoughts at an SSP report involving KellyAna (talk · contribs). I noticed that you had performed the name change from CelticGreen in December, and was wondering if you had been aware that she may have also been using another account, Antigone28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), before that. Thanks, and enjoy your wikibreak, Elonka 11:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(followup) Just FYI, I think this is all resolved. KellyAna has been indef blocked, Antigone28 is inactive, and IrishLass0128 was blocked for two weeks, but then contacted me off-wiki and asked to simply have her account listed as retired. There's an anon that we're keeping an eye on, and if you do want to see the latest, that's at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/KellyAna and the related talkpage. But I don't think any further action is needed from you. But welcome back!  :) --Elonka 02:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Random question

I was reading the thing about all the rights various classes of users can have and I just wondered... The table that shows who can do that shows that Sysops can do some things that Bureaucrats cannot. That doesn't make sense. Are you both a Sysop and a Bureaucrat simultaneously? I'm confused... J.delanoy_adds 01:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe is both, yes. Usually users need to be admins already in order to be bureaucrats (who can actually make themselves admins, so it's no point in making a user a bureaucrat only). Mostly bureaucrats just do the repetitive background stuff (that's why the user group was created after all) - both classes are separate though. -- 213.152.52.38 (talk) 12:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Adminbots

I have mentioned your name, innocuously, here, and you should probably have a look at that thread in any case. Jehochman 15:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that matter is of interest to me... WjBscribe 02:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'd like to thank you for participating in that thread. It was beginning to feel like an uphill battle for a while there. I am confused about one thing though. You have said "A lot of them contained only one revision - in due course those would have been deleted by RedirectCleanupBot." - I was under the impression that many of the redirects contained only one revision because they were redirects created by pagemove actions. And because they are pointing at articles that actually exist (as do all pagemove redirects), then RedirectCleanupBot won't touch them in any case. I think a lot of confusion is being caused by three separate uses of the word "orphaned":

• (1) Orphaned talk pages (CSD#G8) are talk pages where the corresponding page does not exist or was deleted.
• (2) Orphaned redirects are redirects pointing at deleted or never-created titles. Also called "broken" redirects. Possibly this is a new and incorrect definition of "orphaned".
• (3) Orphaned pages are pages not linked to from anywhere else (ie. "what links here" shows nothing). This usually refers to articles not linked from other articles, but can refer to other namespace pages as well. These links from somewhere else are also called backlinks. Redirects can be orphaned in this sense (looking backwards at what connects to it) as well as in the other sense (looking forward at what it connects to).

In this case, East718 (though really this traces back to Misza13) considers it acceptable to ignore backlinks from Misplaced Pages and User namespace (more details at the ANI thread) for pagemove talk page redirects, and thus has a more liberal interpretation of what "orphaned" means. Does this all sound right? Carcharoth (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Until you pointed it out I hadn't considered the possible meanings. I meant to say that those talkpages which redirected to deleted pages and contained only one revision would be deleted by RedirectCleanupBot. If my comment reads as if it suggests more, that may be a problem - I meant only (2) in your points above. In my opinion East718's questionably speedy deletions go well beyond redirects. I also warned him that I consider his deletion of images problematic. In particular that {{fair use disputed}} tags seem to be being ignored. This has the effect that an image can be tagged for deletion by BetacommandBot and (even if a human queries the deletion), be deleted by East718's deletion script without a human mind every considering the question. I was then and remain doubtful of his claims that he could possibly be reviewing the number of images his bot processes. WjBscribe 02:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, well, I don't want to get into that too much. I think East does good work, so the comments you and Werdna are making are a bit troubling as all I wanted was an agreement from Misza, East and anyone else running such scripts, to leave redirects alone. I do agree that a wider review of deletion script activity is needed, but let's not antagonise the people running them. BTW, your "A lot of them contained only one revision - in due course those would have been deleted by RedirectCleanupBot." comment is still there and may be misleading people. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrected that sentence. I find it interesting the amount of people who are willing to criticise Betacommand's bot's tagging and yet how few will follow through to check who ends up deleting the images (a far greater problem IMO). If you think East does good work we will have to agree to differ. I rarely express the view that an admin is incompetent, but I have to admit that I'm finding that conclusion hard to resist in this case... WjBscribe 04:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Name Change

Hi,

I've placed my username to be changed back to my former user Yun-Yuuzhan in the usurp Changing Username page is there any chance of allowing it to proceed. Terra 16:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

i've cancelled my request for the username change. Terra 17:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:FAP

Hey, welcome back! Just a reminder to update Misplaced Pages:Today's featured article/Protection ;) Leaving an old TFA there can interfere with template-editing (in this case, {{infobox UK place}}). Perhaps multiple admins could maintain the system, so the absence of one won't impede its effectiveness? Cheers, Gracenotes § 18:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have been away for about a week without internet access. I would hope other admins might keep that page updated - alas not. WjBscribe 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

London Meet 13th April 2008

It was nice to meet you yesterdayBashereyre (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Username

Hello. Is there any peculiar reason my request (Mogador99 → Mogador) is not taken in charge ? Have I anything to do more precisely ? Thanks to tell me if there is anything wrong in my request. Regards, Mogador99 (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

SUL

Hi WJBscribe. From WP:CHU/U, I understand that usurpation of accounts with "GFDL significant edits" is not likely going to succeed. But the discussions at WP:SUL/C & others seem to have died without any consensus. So what is current status? Cheers. Tripledot (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Mediation Case

Hi there, WJBscribe. Thanks for reversing the rejection. I do appreciate it, a lot. In regards to the still open RFCU, I have been told by administrator Doc glasgow that I cannot close the RFCU even if I wanted to. He wrote on a recent ANI thread, "Plus the person who instigates an RfC is not permitted to close it (even if they wanted to)". I am not sure why the RFCU is still open as it's been mostly dormant for a long time. In any case, I thank you for reversing the mediation decision and I very, very much look forward to IZAK accepting the case so that we can begin formal mediation and work out the personal and professional differences between us. Bstone (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I can close the RfC, stating that mediation is being pursued instead. Would that be acceptable? WjBscribe 17:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Very. I am quite excited by this as this is by far the most stressful thing in my editing here in Misplaced Pages. Once it is resolved I am very much looking forward to returning to a full time editor. Bstone (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. WjBscribe 17:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)