(P.S - There are no actual Wikipedia user accounts named "Dr. Sagi Sathyanarayana" or "Dr. Sagi Satyanarayana". I'm really not clear on what the editor is trying to accomplish with these moves; perhaps an attempt at publishing an autobiography without understanding the difference between userspace and mainspace.) General IzationTalk 05:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Здравствуйте. Прошу Вашей помощи. Взгляните пожалуйста на эти статьи: Draft:Aviasales.ru, Draft:Victor Orlovski, Draft:Positive Technologies. Первая статья имеет статус хорошей в русской Википедии (дословный перевод); статья о Орловском - маленький стаб, где вкратце описана его биография (значимая персона); третья статья является переводом из русской Википедии, где статья существует уже более 10 лет и была признана значимой. Пожалуйста, окажите помощь! Спасибо! 93.77.161.95 (talk) 15:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this comes from a currently permabanned Namerst (talk·contribs) for the benefits of the non-Russian readers here is my understanding of the situation. A user translated from ru-wiki the article about one of the Russian largest air ticket aggregators Draft:Aviasales.ru and wrote or translated two related stabs. On ru-wiki the article was graded as Good article, but here it was considered a spam. I guess this is the difference is because of the expected readership. Most of users from Russia either use this aggregator or consider to use it and so they have some interest to its history and features, 99% of en-wiki readers do not and will not use it but very well aware of SEO efforts to promote internet sales. The company is certainly not the largest in Russia. The notability is only supported by Russian sources, etc. Thus, a large article about a hardly notable for the readers of en-wiki subject looks like spam and handled correspondingly. As the author so far has shown only interest to this company some sort of a Conflict of Interests cannot be excluded also.
Here are the questions:
Should we put some efforts and salvage the article or is it inherently not-notable?
The user looks like he or she could make positive contributions. Should I try to negotiate unbanning for him (maybe with the promise not to edit articles related to aviasales.ru?
Orphaned non-free image File:Inkijinoff Storm Over Asia.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Inkijinoff Storm Over Asia.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).
Hello, you recently locked the article of Pahonia as there was an intensive edit war. Now the Belarusian nationalists are fighting yet another edit war against recognized Wikipedians at the article of Pogoń: Onel5969 (his edit), Elmidae (his edit), and myself all expressed a clear opinion that it should be a redirect page because this article is worthless alone and is just another duplication of the article of the coat of arms of Lithuania. However, user Лобачев Владимир persistently fights an edit war with me and other Wikipedians there. By the way, the same user Лобачев Владимир is also pushing exactly the same thing at the article of Pagaunia, which I recently created as a redirect page, so it needs protection too in order to avoid an edit war. Best regards, -- Pofka (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Bakharev: I suggest locking Pahonia once again as Belarusian Лобачев Владимир, already known for edit warring, is persistently reinserting unrelated information and images of unrelated horse riders (Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, etc.) to the section "Grand Duchy of Lithuania" (e.g. one, two), so I think yet another edit war begins in this article. -- Pofka (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Shalamov.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Shalamov.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).
Thanks for uploading File:Dovlatov voice.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).
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cyril (Nakonechny), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tula and Alexandrov.
Hello, I've never done coding in my life but I'd like to add some topics at User:AlexNewArtBot/Romania, page that you created. I did two changes [3][4], I imagine the first one is correct but I don't know about the second one. I'd also like to add several topics relevant for Romania: Aromanian(s), Vlach(s), Megleno-Romanian(s), Istro-Romanian(s) and Morlach(s). These are all Eastern Romance peoples related to Romanians that aren't really included in any other WikiProject or alert page. I hope you can help me out with this. Thanks in advance. SuperΨDro20:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The new page classification is now done by InceptionBot operated by User:Bamyers99 but the syntaxes of the rule pages is the same. I was trying to accomodate your request by this edit, I saw you currectly added a rule for Transilvania yourself. Let's wait for possible abnormalities in the next few cycles of the bot, otherwise the mission is accomplished Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the help. I did again some changes to add all the templates that there are for the Balkan Romance languages (Romanian, Moldovan, two for Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian) and also to add Transnistria and all alternate names. These are the last I pretend to do. Are they correct? [5]. SuperΨDro09:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm wondering why full protection was applied on Roman Protasevich today. Looking through the history, it appears that after semi-protection expired on 2 June 2021, that an IP made two vandaledits. I think that the article is likely a magnet for anonymous IP trolls, but I'm wondering why this sort of disruption would justify prohibiting, say, extended-confirmed editors from making edits to the page until 11 June 2021. There was certainly a lot of disruption on the page by more experienced between its creation on 23 May and the end of May, though it appears to have subsided by the end of the month. I'm wondering if you would be willing to lower the protection level on the page to extended-confirmed, in light of the nature of more recent disruption. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikehawk10: It was my mistake, I have used TW automatic tool and selected semiprotection but for some reason the tool appliyed full protection. I hope I have fixed it now Alex Bakharev (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:Konarmiya.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Konarmiya.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).
Hi, this is a notice that I exercised WP:BOLD and removed the notability tag from Vadim Backman. I realize that there was no link to this google scholar, which I have added now. In my view it is a clear-cut pass of WP:PROF based on his high citation metrics in peer-reviewed scholarly publications. If you feel like I'm in the wrong, feel free to reinsert the tag and we can continue the discussion on the article's talk page. Cheers! nearlyevil66508:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is OK with me still I would prefer for a researcher not a list of the positions held nor a list of publications but a single notable result: e.g. discovered a principle later named after him or invent a method, etc. Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I gave him a final warning. I am still not sure if it is trolling or newbish incompetence. I assumed the later so gave him one more chance. Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that's fair. I'm not sure that it's either... I have a feeling it's more just like a bizarre obsession that should be stopped. I reported them to AIV, which will be flushed eventually so I'll see what happens. Anyway thanks and enjoy your vacation. Brycehughes (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Filatov oranges.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).
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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.
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Bots Newsletter, December 2021
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the eighth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Maintainers disappeared to parts unknown... bots awakening from the slumber of æons... hundreds of thousands of short descriptions... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
Our last issue was in August 2019, so there's quite a bit of catching up to do. Due to the vast quantity of things that have happened, the next few issues will only cover a few months at a time. This month, we'll go from September 2019 through the end of the year. I won't bore you with further introductions — instead, I'll bore you with a newsletter about bots.
Overall
Between September and December 2019, there were 33 BRFAs. Of these, Y 25 were approved, and 8 were unsuccessful (N2 3 denied, ? 3 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
TParis goes away, UTRSBot goes kaput: Beeblebroxnoted that the bot for maintaining on-wiki records of UTRS appeals stopped working a while ago. TParis, the semi-retired user who had previously run it, said they were "unlikely to return to actively editing Wikipedia", and the bot had been vanquished by trolls submitting bogus UTRS requests on behalf of real blocked users. While OAuth was a potential fix, neither maintainer had time to implement it. TParis offered to access to the UTRS WMFLabs account to any admin identified with the WMF: "I miss you guys a whole lot [...] but I've also moved on with my life. Good luck, let me know how I can help". Ultimately, SQL ended up in charge. Some progress was made, and the bot continued to work another couple months — but as of press time, UTRSBot has not edited since November 2019.
Curb Safe Charmer adopts reFill: TAnthonypointed out that reFill 2's bug reports were going unanswered; creator Zhaofeng Li had retired from Wikipedia, and a maintainer was needed. As of June 2021, Curb Safe Charmer had taken up the mantle, saying: "Not that I have all the skills needed but better me than nobody! 'Maintainer' might be too strong a term though. Volunteers welcome!"
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
BRFA activity by month
Welcome to the ninth issue of the English Wikipedia's Bots Newsletter, your source for all things bot. Vicious bot-on-bot edit warring... superseded tasks... policy proposals... these stories, and more, are brought to you by Wikipedia's most distinguished newsletter about bots.
After a long hiatus between August 2019 and December 2021, there's quite a bit of ground to cover. Due to the vastness, I decided in December to split the coverage up into a few installments that covered six months each. Some people thought this was a good idea, since covering an entire year in a single issue would make it unmanageably large. Others thought this was stupid, since they were getting talk page messages about crap from almost three years ago. Ultimately, the question of whether each issue covers six months or a year is only relevant for a couple more of them, and then the problem will be behind us forever.
Of course, you can also look on the bright side – we are making progress, and this issue will only be about crap from almost two years ago. Today we will pick up where we left off in December, and go through the first half of 2020.
Overall
In the first half of 2020, there were 71 BRFAs. Of these, Y 59 were approved, and 12 were unsuccessful (with N2 8 denied, ? 2 withdrawn, and 2 expired).
January 2020
Yeah, you're not gonna be able to get away with this anymore.
A new Pywikibot release dropped support for Python 3.4, and it was expected that support for Python 2.7 would be removed in coming updates. Toolforge itself planned to drop Python 2 support in 2022.
On February 1, some concerns were raised about ListeriaBot performing "nonsense" edits. Semi-active operator Magnus Manske (who originally coded the Phase II software|precursor of MediaWiki) was pinged. Meanwhile, the bot was temporarily blocked for several hours until the issue was diagnosed and resolved.
In March, a long discussion was started at Wikipedia talk:Bot policy by Skdb about the troubling trend of bots "expiring" without explanation after their owners became inactive. This can happen for a variety of reasons -- API changes break code, hosting providers' software updates break code, hosting accounts lapse, software changes make bots' edits unnecessary, and policy changes make bots' edits unwanted. The most promising solution seemed to be Toolforge hosting (although it has some problems of its own, like the occasional necessity of refactoring code).
A discussion on the bot noticeboard, "Re-examination of ListeriaBot", was started by Barkeep49, who pointed out repeated operation outside the scope of its BRFA (i.e. editing pages in mainspace, and adding non-free images to others). Some said it was doing good work, and others said it was operating beyond its remit. It was blocked on April 10; the next day it was unblocked, reblocked from article space, reblocked "for specified non-editing actions", unblocked, and indeffed. The next week, several safeguards were implemented in its code by Magnus; the bot was allowed to roam free once more on April 18.
Issues and enquiries are typically expected to be handled on the English Wikipedia. Pages reachable via unified login, like a talk page at Commons or at Italian Wikipedia could also be acceptable [...] External sites like Phabricator or GitHub (which require separate registration or do not allow for IP comments) and email (which can compromise anonymity) can supplement on-wiki communication, but do not replace it.
May 2020
We heard you like bots, so we made a bot that reports the status of your bots, so now you can use bots while you use bots
MajavahBot 3, an impressively meta bot task, was approved this month for maintaining a list of bots running on the English Wikipedia. The page, located at User:MajavahBot/Bot status report, is updated every 24 hours; it contains a list of all accounts with the bot flag, as well as their operator, edit count, last activity date, last edit date, last logged action date, user groups and block status.
In July 2017, Headbomb made a proposal that a section of the Wikipedia:Dashboard be devoted to bots and technical issues. In November 2019, Lua code was written superseding Legobot's tasks on that page, and operator Legoktm was asked to stop them so that the new code could be deployed. After no response to pings, a partial-block of Legobot for the dashboard was proposed. Some months later, on June 16, Headbomb said: "A full block serves nothing. A partial block solves all current issues [...] Just fucking do it. It's been 3 years now." The next day, however, Legoktm disabled the task, and the dashboard was successfully refactored.
On June 7, RexxS blocked Citation bot for disruptive editing, saying it was "still removing links after request to stop". A couple weeks later, a discussion on the bots noticeboard was opened, saying "it is a widely-used and useful bot, but it has one of the longest block logs for any recently-operating bot on Wikipedia". While its last BRFA approval was in 2011, its code and functionality had changed dramatically since then, and AntiCompositeNumber requested that BAG require a new BRFA. Maintainer AManWithNoPlan responded that most blocks were from years ago (when it lacked a proper test suite), and problems since then had mostly been one-off errors (like a June 2019 incident in which a LTA had "weaponized" the bot to harass editors).
David Tornheim opened a discussion about whether bots based on closed-source code should be permitted, and proposed that they not. He cited a recent case in which a maintainer had said "I can only suppose that the code that is available on GitHub is not the actual code that was running on [the bot]". Some disagreed: Naypta said that "I like free software as much as the next person, and I strongly believe that bot operators should make their bot code public, but I don't think it should be that they must do so".
Thanks for uploading File:Dovlatov voice.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).
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(cropped_to_40%25).jpg){kind=small}
_shown_in_her_laboratory_in_1947.jpg)
