Current time: Wednesday, June 5, 2024, 07:49 (UTC) | Number of articles on English Wikipedia: 6,831,581 |
Graph
Would you or be able to update this [1] graph with the 2008 figure (2008 population was 142,000,000 million)? Thanks.--Miyokan (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- Provide me with a source and it can be done. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
- "According to preliminary estimates, the resident population of the Russian Federation on 1 January 2008 was 142 million people"
Req of clarification
Hi Zscout. Thanks for the involvement in History of Lithuania. It is always interesting to see new editor on this page. However I would like to speak about different event involving your sysop rights again. Speaking particularly about user:Piotrus unblock and motives to do so, as stated in unblocking by you: I looked at the diffs, both parties are guilty and he was also dealing with IP edits and possible vandalism. Just work it out. I am the person who filled the complain, due to persistent edit warring of particular contributor (involving multiply pages), which is lasting for great time now. Therefore I feel responsible and if my report was somehow improper it should be corrected. Plus per whole my participation in this project I did not witnessed such rationale. Due to these reasons I would like to ask these questions:
- c) There was placed user: TigerShark contest of the block. There is no, nor on user’s in question talk page, nor 3RR original board, nor on WP:AN, WP:ANI .
- b) did another administrator was consulted before you took such action.
- c) There exactly 3RR policy suggests that there is made an exclusion from the rule due to “dealing with IP edits”
- d) Which exact IP account’s (is it IP 62.212.208.65 ? ) contribs you identified as “possible vandalism”. If it is **.***.208.65, I reviewed those contribs and there is nothing which could imply involvement of vandalism.
I hope you will produce an answers to my specific questions, due to the reasons presented above. Best, M.K. (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- 3RR is always discretionary, so what one admin thinks violates 3RR another might not think. Piotrus, just like any other user, has more than one way to seek admin help in dealing with the unblock. Not only he has his talk page, but also email and IRC. He chose the third option, where he discussed with me the problem and asked if I or other admins can look at it. I did look at it and I personally feel that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR. So that was my justification for the unblock. As for who the IP address belongs do, I do not have the ability to check that, and checkusers who can decided not to run a checkuser due to possible violations of EU law. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 14:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for the reply. Your replay is a bit puzzle for me. Especially part that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR., I just looking into RCR article history and can see only one IP adress the same one consistently [3]. There do you found that it got new account? M.K. (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
- That I don't know, since I do not have checkuser ability. If you read above, it will state why a checkuser wasn't done. But if I can be frank, this is an issue that happens a lot on Eastern European articles (I work on Belarusian articles) so I know the possible gaming tactics. Anyways, I have strongly warned and cautioned Piotrus to just sit down and start discussing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see, now things going a bit clearer to me. And I am saddened because he violated 3RR and you shouldnt have overturned it by yourself, because this at least required some discussion at the public board, not some back-stage tinkering. I am not in any case arguing to reinstate the block now of course and I am not a supporter of excessive blocking. I now am primarily concerned about openness of the process being violated and not about keeping Piotrus blocked. Too bad he pulled you into this back stage affair. M.K. (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Any block, including 3RR, can be overturned using non-public methods. That is always an option available to all users, not just admins. We have a unblock mailing list endorsed by the Foundation, so it's more common than what you think. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for answer delay. Last question, I hope. Am I understand you correctly, you recieved a request through Unblock-en-l -- Unblock requests? All the best, M.K. (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I mentioned he chose IRC, which is also allowed. I do not subscribe to the unblock mailing list. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for answer delay. Last question, I hope. Am I understand you correctly, you recieved a request through Unblock-en-l -- Unblock requests? All the best, M.K. (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Any block, including 3RR, can be overturned using non-public methods. That is always an option available to all users, not just admins. We have a unblock mailing list endorsed by the Foundation, so it's more common than what you think. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- I see, now things going a bit clearer to me. And I am saddened because he violated 3RR and you shouldnt have overturned it by yourself, because this at least required some discussion at the public board, not some back-stage tinkering. I am not in any case arguing to reinstate the block now of course and I am not a supporter of excessive blocking. I now am primarily concerned about openness of the process being violated and not about keeping Piotrus blocked. Too bad he pulled you into this back stage affair. M.K. (talk) 11:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- That I don't know, since I do not have checkuser ability. If you read above, it will state why a checkuser wasn't done. But if I can be frank, this is an issue that happens a lot on Eastern European articles (I work on Belarusian articles) so I know the possible gaming tactics. Anyways, I have strongly warned and cautioned Piotrus to just sit down and start discussing. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi thanks for the reply. Your replay is a bit puzzle for me. Especially part that an IP address started all of this, then got a new account so it could avoid 3RR., I just looking into RCR article history and can see only one IP adress the same one consistently [3]. There do you found that it got new account? M.K. (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
IRC unblock
I am not involved in the article in question and, additionally, I never tried to get Piotrus blocked (despite lack of reciprocity in this matter). So, I will provide an opinion exclusively based on what I see.
I would not have submitted the 3RR report on Piotrus, but the existing 3RR report was an onwiki rationale of the block. This rationale may be faulty, and I have no opinion whether it is, but it is important that the blocking rationale is onwiki.
There is a glaring lack of an unblocking rationale onwiki. IRC is simply not valid for any wiki action. Blocking or unblocking. All the rationales must be onwiki. (OTRS, RFCU and other few matters excepted.)
Piotrus did not just "choose" IRC (as you said above.) He contacted you individually via IRC PM. The choice is peculiar since both you and Piotrus have an excellent history of interaction onwiki (nothing wrong with that) and it is known that you are a kind of guy who does not like to withhold a favor. This request, however, was improper. You were duped here, Zscout, and you were being drawn into acting without on-wiki discussion.
I am sure that in no time you will be contacted (again off-line) on this matter and "discussion" of this conversation will take place elsewhere. This is rather sad, but it's a wiki-reality that some prefer to act in a way that they cannot be seen. It is up to you whether or not to engage into such discussion of course, but just be cautious when anyone (myself included) asks you to take any action onwiki and uses IRC or email rather than wiki for that. It may be innocent, but you may be being played. And please don't forget to justify wiki-actions onwiki every time.
Cheers, --Irpen 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- He asked in a general channel to all admins, then those willing to take on the case were sent PM's. As for noting everything, I answered all questions typed by MK. But as for discussion off-wiki, it happens all of the time, especially with unblocks. Asking for unblocks on IRC is not only comment, but frankly welcomed. I remember booting users from #wikipedia in the past asking for unblocks, but it got to a point where other channel ops were telling me to knock it off. Given the new block options, such as email, and other administrators have no email addresses set up, IRC and the mailing list are people's only chances to get unblocked. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 02:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Per our discussion on IRC
- Peer review for Homerun (film): I am the primary contributor to this article and am aiming for GA status; I do not intend to take this article through the endless nitpicking and incivility that is FAC. This article has already received two reviews; you may wish to do the other one first.
- Peer review for Flag of Singapore: The primary contributor, Jacklee has not edited the article recently. Although I am currently aiming for GA status, this article is a potential National Day Main Page FA, so review with FAC in mind.
When you have the time, please read the articles and post your feedback at the peer reviews. Thanks.
--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
I'm a bit frazzled from some RL stuff. Hope I didn't come across as angry at you. Heimstern? Yes. You and MB? No. I have no idea why Heimstern was trying to get the image deleted. Would you mind removing the tag now, as the "issues" have been resolved? Bellwether BC 05:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Already beat you to it. I pulled Heimstern aside and analyzed the image with him and just explored all options. You had it going right in the article, but as a person who deals with fair use all of the time, I expect to see more. But I don't mind editing either. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:46, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Bellwether, I think I said a few times that I was trying to get the image deleted because it was non-compliant with our fair-use policy. Now that it is, there's no reason to delete it.
- Zscout, thanks for the help. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- You're welcome User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Rothe Gertrud.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Rothe Gertrud.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
MfD nomination of User:Zscout370/Botoptout
User:Zscout370/Botoptout, a page you created, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Zscout370/Botoptout and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Zscout370/Botoptout during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- I wish you spoke to me first and I would have clarified everything for you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully it is all sorted out now. I'd like to thank you personally for carrying out the move. That really does help and is in stark contrast to how the differences over User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out have been handled. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Anyone could have done the move, I gave them authorization at the MFD. But I guess events changed when I went outside. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hopefully it is all sorted out now. I'd like to thank you personally for carrying out the move. That really does help and is in stark contrast to how the differences over User:BetacommandBot/Opt-out have been handled. :-( Carcharoth (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Logo licensing
I know a coupe years back we re-tagged all logos as non-free. How should an image like Image:PC flag.png be tagged? Its a logo, but its obviously free as a non-copyrightable shape. So it should have the logo license, but not a non-free cat inclusion. Any ideas. MBisanz talk 06:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm...I am lost for ideas at a moment, but if the image gets deleted, I will restore it and send it to the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as I can stop it from being deleted, I have by adding a FUR tag. But I do wonder if the idea of having a single Logo license is a good idea. Maybe a non-free and a free license on the upload page? MBisanz talk 06:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know there is a way to mark this kind of image on the Commons, since they keep German logos that are simple in design (at the behest of de.wikipedia) so I suggest asking them for advice. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was at a meetup and ran into a dev and asked about this. He said our best bet is to create a Cat:Free Logos with corresponding license on the upload page. Seems the rename to Nonfree Logos should've included the creation of a Free Logos cat. I'll get on it later this week. MBisanz talk 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- O look, we already have something like that Template:PD-textlogo. MBisanz talk 03:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- That works for me. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Was at a meetup and ran into a dev and asked about this. He said our best bet is to create a Cat:Free Logos with corresponding license on the upload page. Seems the rename to Nonfree Logos should've included the creation of a Free Logos cat. I'll get on it later this week. MBisanz talk 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know there is a way to mark this kind of image on the Commons, since they keep German logos that are simple in design (at the behest of de.wikipedia) so I suggest asking them for advice. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
- Seeing as I can stop it from being deleted, I have by adding a FUR tag. But I do wonder if the idea of having a single Logo license is a good idea. Maybe a non-free and a free license on the upload page? MBisanz talk 06:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)