User talk:5 albert square/Archive31

This is an archive of past discussions with User:5 albert square. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress; Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2019. – Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

17:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Have a very happy adminship anniversary on your special day!
Best wishes, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I was reverting edits really fast and didn’t read the edit sorry about that Mikemyers345 (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

That's OK. I wasn't sure if I was missing something, I know a bit about musical instruments because I used to play the Clarinet and the Piano but I must admit the guitar is never something I've learned about!-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi 5 albert square. Can you take another look at this case as I think this IP merits a longer block. Unfortunately, it is a public institution and potentially used by many, but this IP editor keeps coming back, mixing deletions with smaller non-controversial edits. They are skilled and even now I was able to find older edits they made that had not been rolled back on previous blocks. They have even wiped their talk page after your block, implying that they care and are still active. Personally, I would go for 6 months. Britishfinance (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I wouldn't go for that long but Floquenbeam is welcome to change the block if they wish. I wouldn't go for that long simply because the IP is showing as being a public institution so the block may catch out unsuspecting users. By the way, they are allowed to blank their talk page as per WP:BLANKING, however what they cannot do is remove the shared ip notice.-- 5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought that their history of determined vandalism for almost 6 months (they keep returning to the same articles), they might merit something stronger, however I can understand the policy. Understood re the Talk Page blanking. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I think a month might be long enough Britishfinance. It gives them time to reflect on their edits and if their behaviour continues it's likely the next block will be longer. If for some reason they do come back in the meantime, feel free to file a report at AIV and mention that they're block evading this IP. -- 5 albert square (talk) 02:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

23:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation is planning a global consultation about communication. The goal is to bring Wikimedians and wiki-minded people together to improve tools for communication.

We want all contributors to be able to talk to each other on the wikis, whatever their experience, their skills or their devices.

We are looking for input from as many different parts of the Wikimedia community as possible. It will come from multiple projects, in multiple languages, and with multiple perspectives.

We are currently planning the consultation. We need your help.

We need volunteers to help talk to their communities or user groups.

You can help by hosting a discussion at your wiki. Here's what to do:

1. First, sign up your group here.
2. Next, create a page (or a section on a Village pump, or an e-mail thread – whatever is natural for your group) to collect information from other people in your group. This is not a vote or decision-making discussion: we are just collecting feedback.
3. Then ask people what they think about communication processes. We want to hear stories and other information about how people communicate with each other on and off wiki. Please consider asking these five questions:
   1. When you want to discuss a topic with your community, what tools work for you, and what problems block you?
   2. What about talk pages works for newcomers, and what blocks them?
   3. What do others struggle with in your community about talk pages?
   4. What do you wish you could do on talk pages, but can't due to the technical limitations?
   5. What are the important aspects of a "wiki discussion"?
4. Finally, please go to Talk pages consultation 2019 on Mediawiki.org and report what you learned from your group. Please include links if the discussion is available to the public.

You can also help build the list of the many different ways people talk to each other.

Not all groups active on wikis or around wikis use the same way to discuss things: it can happen on wiki, on social networks, through external tools... Tell us how your group communicates.

You can read more about the overall process on mediawiki.org. If you have questions or ideas, you can leave feedback about the consultation process in the language you prefer.

Thank you! We're looking forward to talking with you.

Trizek (WMF) 15:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for granting my IP unblock excemption (UTRS appeal #24054), and yes I can now edit WP even when connected via a VPN. Thanks again.

Evilninja (talk) 01:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

21:16, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

(5 albert square NinjaRobotPirate) I would check out that talk page whenever you get a chance. I am referring to this. On top of that, my issue is them doing possibly pointy GAR and FAR. StaticVapor message me! 19:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

You mean ImmortalWizard? I've been following some of the drama but not all of it. As far as I can tell, Floquenbeam has the situation under control – IW has been warned that he's facing an indefinite block if there's any further disruption. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate Not looking for drama so If there's no problem, this can just get removed. I just feel like there was already a "no disruption or you'll be blocked further" a month ago, yet it seems like it continues multiple places it seems. My main concern is if this user should be doing GAR and FAR individual assessments when they have only been editing heavily since November. StaticVapor message me! 20:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I've been following some of the drama but I agree with NinjaRobotPirate. It looks like Floquenbeam has a handle on it.-- 5 albert square (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

User:MelanieN has offered to try to do some mentoring here, so while I kind of "have a handle on it", in the sense that I've had about enough and will be keeping an eye on this user, I'm planning to bring future problems to her attention first, rather than an instaban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I have laid out some suggestions on my talk page for what he should and should not do. Top of the list: don't do GA reviews. Will be an interesting test to see if he can follow advice or not. If he can, I think there is hope for him. If he can't, I will step aside and let someone swing the banhammer. -- StaticVapor message me! 22:33, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@STATicVapor and Floquenbeam: I told him on my talk page not to do GAs, but he may not have seen it, because he proceeded to take a GA, Cody Rhodes, and launch a reassessment of it at Talk:CodyRhodes/GA2. My mistake, he had launched it several days ago and was just following up at this time. But I need other eyes on this because I don't myself do GA assessment. He says it is missing too many references. Is he right? It looks to me as if every sentence is referenced, except in the 2016-2017 paragraph and the filmography. There are no cn tags although there are section tags (in sections that look OK to me). Another reviewer even asked him for advice about how to do GA reviews which he gave! I don't know whether he should be blocked, or firmly ordered not to do any more GAs on pain of blocking, or allowed to do them with supervision, or what. I found at least one full GA assessment which he did, David Warner, which he analyzed in great detail and said it did not pass. Was he right? Please assess and do what you think is needed, this is not my area of expertise. --User:MelanieN

@5 albert square and Floquenbeam: He has rejected my advice not to do GA reviews and I am no longer his mentor. The rest of you, do whatever you feel is called for. -- User:MelanieN

Sorry User:MelanieN, due to the hidden note it did not sign your posts when you posted them. IW updated all of his GAR after he was told not to do any right now, and I felt like User:MelanieN gave him a good reason why not to. On the WP: GAR page it says individual reassessment should not be done if possibly controversial. Since multiple people have a problem with this user doing them, that would make them controversial. I do not know what the next step in dealing with that is though. StaticVapor message me! 22:39, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:22, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Edinburgh EastEnders

Thank you for quality articles such as Jackie Woodburne in 2009, for improving quality in The Bill and Neighbours, for fighting vandalism as a serios admnim, for welcoming and creating inventive redirects such as Ethel's Little Willy, for "This user drinks. Period." - repeating (29  September 2010): you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi,

I hope you can help me. I am now looking after the admin on our school Wikipedia page. Our I.T guys provided me with a user name and password but unfortunately I can't edit the page (I think because my username is the school's name). I would be really grateful for any help as I am very new to all of this and I hoped to update a few things over the weekend. Thanks so much for your time, Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.70.18 (talk) 06:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you User:Aquinasmenai? If so, you need to post from that talk page and follow the instructions that have been left on the block template.-- 5 albert square (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey! Re your e-mail message. I don't actually maintain or develop the bot in any way. I (along with others listed in that bot's "Special thanks" section) provided a bunch of feedback for the bot's WP:BRFA as I am a WP:BAG member. But that's about it for our involvment and I'm afraid I can't help you out with the issues. As far as I know, the people to contact would be the one's listed at the top of User:ClueBot NG. And if they are not responding, then may be bring it up on WP:BOTN. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 16:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the response Hellknowz, I've emailed everyone listed on the bot's user page as I wasn't sure how involved everyone was with the bot nowadays. I'm just getting very concerned now as it has been some time. I'll give people a couple of weeks to respond and check either AIV or CBNG's contributions to see if there's any difference. If not I'll bring it up at WP:BOWN as it does need fixing.-- 5 albert square (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)