This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.
Undeleting some templates
Hi Harry. Can you undelete some templates for me? The templates in question are {{TonCwt to t}} and {{CwtQtrLb_to_kg}}. I'd just to check their functionality/documentation/history in relation to a discussion at Template talk:Long ton.
I've not done an undeletion request before. Where do the undeleted files go? Into the requester's user space? The requested templates are now redirects to {{long ton}}.
Cheers. Robevans123 (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Rob, I've temporarily restored them to Template:TonCwt to t and template:CwtQtrLb_to_kg so you can review them. I'll have to delete them again in a couple of days unless you want to talk to the deleting admin and get them to agree to them being restored permanently. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Robevans123 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Harry. Template:TonCwt to t seems to have gone back to a notice saying its "under discussion for deletion", but with no description/history etc. I guess that admins can see all previous revisions even though the template has been deleted? Does Template:TonCwt to t need to go back another revision or two? Same for [[template:CwtQtrLb_to_kg]. Thanks again for your help. Robevans123 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, the TfD notice just needed to come off. There isn't anything else to restore—the entire history is there; there just isn't much of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again... From the brief history, I see that "DePiep moved page Template:TonCwt to t to Template:Convert/TonCwt to t: given the reliance on {convert/...} templates, turn into a true subtemplate." Kept capitalised sp. See also categorisation" This was last year sometime so presumably there was a redirect which is how I had seen the template in the past... Presumably the history goes with a move. So, the second (sorry) request is can you temporarily restore Template:Convert/TonCwt to t to as it was before it was up for deletion review? Thanks again. Robevans123 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is as it was before the deletion discussion. If you want a permanent link without being redirected, it's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:TonCwt_to_t&redirect=no. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry - its Template:Convert/TonCwt to t that I'm now after - this should have the original source/documentation/history that I'm looking for... Robevans123 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's nothing there to restore—it was moved without a redirect to Template:Convert/long ton, and that in turn seems to have been moved without a redirect to Template:Long ton. I'm beginning to think you might be better of talking to User:Jimp, who did the rearranging—I'm struggling to keep of what's where. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm struggling too... I'll get in touch with User:Jimp. Thanks for your help. Robevans123 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's nothing there to restore—it was moved without a redirect to Template:Convert/long ton, and that in turn seems to have been moved without a redirect to Template:Long ton. I'm beginning to think you might be better of talking to User:Jimp, who did the rearranging—I'm struggling to keep of what's where. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry - its Template:Convert/TonCwt to t that I'm now after - this should have the original source/documentation/history that I'm looking for... Robevans123 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is as it was before the deletion discussion. If you want a permanent link without being redirected, it's https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:TonCwt_to_t&redirect=no. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi again... From the brief history, I see that "DePiep moved page Template:TonCwt to t to Template:Convert/TonCwt to t: given the reliance on {convert/...} templates, turn into a true subtemplate." Kept capitalised sp. See also categorisation" This was last year sometime so presumably there was a redirect which is how I had seen the template in the past... Presumably the history goes with a move. So, the second (sorry) request is can you temporarily restore Template:Convert/TonCwt to t to as it was before it was up for deletion review? Thanks again. Robevans123 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ah, the TfD notice just needed to come off. There isn't anything else to restore—the entire history is there; there just isn't much of it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hi Harry. Template:TonCwt to t seems to have gone back to a notice saying its "under discussion for deletion", but with no description/history etc. I guess that admins can see all previous revisions even though the template has been deleted? Does Template:TonCwt to t need to go back another revision or two? Same for [[template:CwtQtrLb_to_kg]. Thanks again for your help. Robevans123 (talk) 10:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Robevans123 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 05 November 2014
- In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories
- Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Block of Stephenmeachamsballs
Correct me if I'm wrong but you have recently blocked Stephenmeachamsballs here. But, s/he did not recieve enough warnings, and most importantly, s/he did not vandalize wikipedia after the level 3 warning. Therefore, you shouldn't be blocking him/her. If I'm wrong, please point that out because I don't see a policy relating to this. Thanks, ΤheQ Editor Talk? 23:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- There's no policy that requires anyone to go through all four warnings—just because there are four levels doesn't mean that you have to start at level 1 and work up to level 4; the system wasn't designed to give obvious vandals five chances to cause disruption. Obvious vandalism-only accounts (and an edit like this is about as obvious as it gets) should be blocked on sight. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, the username is obviously unacceptable, which in itself is grounds for a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
list vandalized pages
Can you please list what the user Rdshdt vandalized on my talk page.
- @Amaris Monteon: see Special:Contributions/Rdshdt. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Chatterbox
Hey HJ, I'm confused what to do here. Please take a look at this dude. The bulk of his edits are to talk pages where he chatters about things technically related to the subject, but none of what he talks about has anything to do with improving the articles.[1], [2], [3]. I've reverted and removed a ton of his comments, but I'm starting to get a strange feeling about him. He's also added content to articles that come off as chatter in articles. Example here and there is some clear editorializing here "What the stories lacked in modern day science, they more than made up in great reading" and here with "[the character's qualities] combine to make a character that succeeds in being highly entertaining but which rarely attracts the reader's lasting sympathy." This is absolutely WP:OR. See also this edit where he seems to be venting about "moderators". What do we do? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- Well, you've left them a note. They've not edited since then, so there's not much that can be done for the moment. If they carry on, they'll need a sterner reminder that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and that talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles rather than their subjects, and if it comes to it, a block might be in order. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Serius admin biznus
Harry, I accidentally uploaded a watermarked version of File:Trinity Test - Oppenheimer and Groves at Ground Zero 001.jpg to Commons, but I I tried to revert it, it said it had already been revert. But it is still there. Could you have a look at it? Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Vandalizing, racist, harrassing, IPs
These IPs, 79.176.24.227, 79.177.107.25, 201.240.62.82, keep removing the Arabic names of Israeli politicians while leaving the Hebrew translation alone. They also attack my user pages. Can you please block them all. Also, just in the last minute it looks like they made an account called Simon Wtekni Dr. R.R. Pickles (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- It is the second time in 24 hrs that I have had to revert a perfectly justifiable Arabic translation of PM Netanyahu's name. Was unaware that activities were more widespread. A polite word on their talkpage should be enough. Blocking is an overreaction IMO at this point. The ed has at least bothered to register. Irondome (talk) 20:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that blocking would be an over-reaction. It's not immediately obvious to me why why would need the Arabic translation in the articles on Israeli politicians (that's not to say that I'm taking sides, it's just a personal observation that if it's not obvious o me it might not be obvious to them, and so they might be motivated by something other than racism). A polite conversation on their talk page might be productive. What we don't want is to block them and then have them sock for years to correct a perceived injustice—we've got enough of them as it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- My main issue was that Arabic is an official language of Israel, with Hebrew, and that Arabic spelling is justifiable. I agree that a block is O.T.T at this point, although the guy is an irritant. (Reverted me again overnight) I disagree with the rather hysterical title heading up this thread. I do not think it is "racism" that is the prime motivator here, more likely ignorance of facts. I will wander over and have a quiet word when I get my thoughts together. Probably in a couple of beers time. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I didn't know that. Although two of those IPs geolocate to Israel so I wonder if this person does... Still, explanation and discussion is always the place to start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:15, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I will attempt sweet reason first. It's probably just the Israeli branch of UKIP having a moan. The IP(s) concentrate on the Arabic spelling thing and the term "Illegal immigrants" favoured over "asylum seekers", re migrants in Israel. Low level stuff but will attempt to nip in bud. Cheers mate Irondome (talk) 16:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- My main issue was that Arabic is an official language of Israel, with Hebrew, and that Arabic spelling is justifiable. I agree that a block is O.T.T at this point, although the guy is an irritant. (Reverted me again overnight) I disagree with the rather hysterical title heading up this thread. I do not think it is "racism" that is the prime motivator here, more likely ignorance of facts. I will wander over and have a quiet word when I get my thoughts together. Probably in a couple of beers time. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
- I agree that blocking would be an over-reaction. It's not immediately obvious to me why why would need the Arabic translation in the articles on Israeli politicians (that's not to say that I'm taking sides, it's just a personal observation that if it's not obvious o me it might not be obvious to them, and so they might be motivated by something other than racism). A polite conversation on their talk page might be productive. What we don't want is to block them and then have them sock for years to correct a perceived injustice—we've got enough of them as it is. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Malala Yousafzai
HJ, I'm trying to understand what's going on here. Previously, the article had PC (to expire 12:10, 11 November 2014) but was otherwise unprotected; today, Dennis Brown (talk · contribs) altered it to semi-prot for one year and no PC; and within a minute you reinstated the PC and shortened the semi to one month. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)