User talk:Pi zero

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
I watch talk pages where I have recently left messages. Please reply in the same section to make discussion easier to follow.
If you leave a message on this page, I'll reply to it here.

Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood
Daniel Burnham

Jan–May 2011
Jun–Dec 2011
Jan–Jun  2012
Jul –Dec 2012
Jan–Jul   2013
Aug–Nov 2013 
Dec 2013–Aug 2014          
Sep 2014–Jun  2015          
Jul –Oct  2015
Nov 2015–Jul   2016          
Aug 2016–Feb 2017          
Mar–Aug 2017 
Sep 2017–10 Jan 2018       
11 Jan 2018–                             


What could these Portal users be all about? Hmm. --SVTCobra 17:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I've been thinking those looked fishy. Can we disallow them under the "misleading or confusing" clause of WN:U? --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
IDK. --SVTCobra 17:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
Three of the "Portal" accounts have popped up as upload abusers in the last day or so. --SVTCobra 15:07, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Open WN:DR + other votes[edit]

Any chance of closing some of the open votes? Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Just to e clear, I am shying away from doing reviews until my WN:FRRFP is closed. I think I did one fail, but it was like a automatic because it was single source. --SVTCobra 00:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
I know you are the ultimate curator, but have I been keeping you awake at night? Did you review each of my edits? I say so because of Special:Diff/4402999. I find it amusing, but maybe a little sad too. --SVTCobra 05:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC) [keyoard]
I try. To err is human (though, as has been pointed out, to really screw things up you need a computer). --Pi zero (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
There are things that keep me awake at nights, such as my worries for Wikinews, and my —related— worries for the future of the human race. You haven't been especially vexatious to me. --Pi zero (talk) 11:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


Just to let folks know. Tomorrow local time (Saturday, May 5), I'll be doing my civic duty by participating in Annual Town Meeting (I'm in central Massachusetts). I expect to be out of internet contact from early in the morning until sometime in the afternoon — again, local time. It's likely I'll get home, rather exhausted, just a few hours before midnight UTC. --Pi zero (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

We'll try to keep the project from going down the tubes in your absence. Bring a cooler full of refreshments to mark the day and pass the time with less stress. Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, that's done. For better and worse. We adopted zoning bylaws on the sale and growing of marijuana, and we voted to replace the town's elementary school at a total price tag (supposedly most of it eventually gets reimbursed by the state) that's just mind-boggling.

I've wondered about writing up such meetings as OR. Not necessarily submitting them, but at least writing them up, for practice. For submission, I'd want to have some close discussions with veteran Wikinewsies about COI (because I wouldn't care to refrain from voting at town meeting). --Pi zero (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Every attendee gets to vote? Or are you on the city/town council? I wouldn't mind evaluating your write-ups for NPOV, but I'd probably need some points of reference. Do they get coverage on hyper-local sites like Patch Media? Good luck with the MJ. Did the state decriminalize or do you have to worry about them and the Feds? Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:46, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Massachusetts decriminalized it. And we have an open town meeting (that's what I linked to, above), where, yes, every citizen of the town has the right to vote at town meeting. The vote for the new school needed a 2/3 majority, and the vote count was (according to my notes) 767 to 282 in favor. We have no quorum (or maybe it's one or two people; for practical purposes it's no quorum), which my father explained to me, long ago, is why we don't have the attendance problems some towns do; some towns have had to call the fire department over to make their quorum, but if you know that choosing not to come to town meeting will mean that someone else will make the decisions, even if there are only a handful of people there, that's a good reason for you to attend. --Pi zero (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I did click the link, but didn't read all the way into the voting. It's closer to the old Greek Democracy, yet probably unworkable for larger societies. The Internet was supposed to solve that, but we've seen already how that will undoubtedly go wrong. --SVTCobra 01:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Town Meeting is the legislature of the town, while the Board of Selectmen (hm, I wonder what the current practical nomenclature is, and whether it's been officially changed...) is the town's executive. As I say, the quorum is important in how it works, though alas that principle isn't widely understood, so there are some people here trying to impose a quorum. The largest-scale example of this sort of thing I've heard of was in Qaddafi's Libya, where he had, iirc, all local communities holding town meetings, the decisions of which supposedly flowed upward. I remember something on PBS about democracy some years back (honestly can't remember what it was called), where in exploring why democracy has trouble taking root in Africa, the host interviewed Qaddafi, who said something about different people having different responsibilities in the state, and the host asked Qaddafi if he was the person responsible for thinking and Qaddafi said, yes. But the host also suggested that by imposing this massive town-meeting system, sham though it might be, Qaddafi might actually be planting the idea of democracy there in a way that could ultimately take root more effectively than in most parts of Africa (though of course there have been a lot of dramatic changes in Libya since then that the host didn't remotely anticipate). --Pi zero (talk) 12:48, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


I have gone through all of the Protected edit requests and substantially reduced the list. The remaining ones are changes I feel uncomfortable making, or outright disagree with (such as adding or changing infoboxes on old articles; issuing corrections on really old articles; and questionable style changes). Perhaps you have some time now that our review queue is cleared. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll see if I can slip some in. I'm struggling mightily to restore my momentum on developing the semi-automation we desperately need, while several other things are happening off-Wikinews that I also need to pour time into. It seems worthwhile to allocate a fraction of my efforts to protected edit requests. --Pi zero (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Rescuing dead urls[edit]

Are you starting a project to rescue dead urls in sources? If so, that is going to be the single most massive and time-consuming project ever. The {{w}} project will look like a stroll in the park. --SVTCobra 16:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I'm not systematically seeking to do so, no. However, when I need to examine the sources of an article for curational purposes, and that leads me to dig up an archive of a broken source url, I figure to save that information on the article page so the effort of finding the archive doesn't just get thrown away. --Pi zero (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sinebot or similar[edit]

Why is it we don't seem to have a Sinebot or similar bot to sign comments? --SVTCobra 14:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Such bots have come and gone, over the years. At some point, I admit, I stopped worrying about it, except to add {{unsigned2}} when I notice it's needed; I'm not, after all, fond of bots, on principle. Eventually I hope dialog-based assistance may be able to help cut down on incidence of such problems; but of course I hope that about most things on-wiki :-). --Pi zero (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's start work on an Artificially Intelligent bot that can write synthesis articles without violating copyright. --SVTCobra 14:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
which would leave no motivation for writing articles on Wikinews. (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Exactly. And the AI would probably refuse to publish the articles we wrote, anyway. But don't worry, the AI will make sure you get all the important news like obeying the robot overlords. --SVTCobra 15:00, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Hmm. [1]. --Pi zero (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


Sorry for creating this. --Faop8 (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Faop8: Not a tragedy; it'll be taken care of, in the natural course of things on Wikinews. We have a standard process that (after a few days) cleans up attempted articles that didn't work out. --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)


Just to alert you to Special:AbuseLog/8732. Green Giant (talk) 02:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Probably the same entity as this and may be related to something else that also happened around the same time. But I wouldn't worry about it. --SVTCobra 05:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I don’t understand the reason behind the block. The username policy says nothing about it. Though we have a never assume policy (it can be used as don’t assume the only notorious use of the symbol for inspiration behind the username), the block notice should answer “why” it is unacceptable. I don’t see a reason mentioned on the user talk either. (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
That's why there's a link to the policy. And, yes, it is covered by the policy. --SVTCobra 09:53, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
point out exactly what is problematic here. (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The account with 11 swastikas was created by the same person who created User:MAKENEWSGREATAGAIN and User:NWAexposer. Unfortunately, although the swastika is an ancient symbol for luck, it is more recently also associated with Nazi symbolism. Combine this unacceptable anti-Semitic edit with the swastikas and it is clear they only intended one meaning for that username. Green Giant (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
As if you don't know, Is this really another hill you want to make a stand on? --SVTCobra 10:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Location also matters, since the offensive sense of the swastika is especially likely atm from the "red states" of the US. The IP caught by the abuse filter at the start of this thread has reported location in central Ohio. --Pi zero (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think location is particularly important. Internet edgelords can come from anywhere. As they troll, they choose the most offensive things for shock value, more than representing a view they actually hold. --SVTCobra 10:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Not in itself decisive, certainly; but perhaps relevant in accumulating contextual support for offensive intent. The profile I see emerging is consistent with someone with a rather crude modus operandi (I'm put in mind of Rex Tillerson's leaked comment about Donald Trump). --Pi zero (talk) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

when you say the same person was behind the IP vandalising the project, (well, how did you reach that conclusion?) then why is the block notice echoing nothing about it? (talk) 13:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I had a notification that NWAexposer edited my userpage (as well as others). All three accounts logged in to WN within 25 minutes of each other. I considered this to be disruptive with a potential to spill over to other wikis, so I carried out a checkuser at loginwiki to see if there was a link between the three accounts, which was confirmed. They were actually registered within four minutes of each other from the same IP together with two other accounts which were disruptive on WQ, using the same operating system and browser. I regularly check the abuse and block logs here and elsewhere, primarily for spambots, but in this instance I saw the above IP (in the same range) had made two attempts to replace Pi zero's userpage with swastikas. My conclusion is that it is the same person or persons. In the past, accounts with swastikas in the name have been locked for "offensive/abusive usernames" e.g. this one. Green Giant (talk) 14:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Then that needs to be mentioned in the block note for historical record, not just "Unacceptable username". BTW, I did not know you had CU permission. Well, someone with Swastik should not be blocked just by itself because of preconceived notions. (talk) 14:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the CU is only at loginwiki, and comes with stewardship. I can also do CU on some smaller wikis on request. I agree that preconceived notions are dangerous but in this case it is clear the account was not intended for constructive editing. Green Giant (talk) 14:58, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
what happened in this cause should have been documented. It is not because of swastik in the name but actions — incomplete information could be misleading for those who learn from observing. (talk) 15:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
If you mean create a User Page with a block notice to "document" the incident, I disagree. That would give the troll nothing but satisfaction. A username consisting of nothing more than swastikas is globally considered offensive on Wiki projects. Whether it is one swastika or a bunch strung together, no such account has been allowed to stand. So much so, that no record is left of them. You can check for yourself here: Special:CentralAuth. Type in as many or as few swastikas as you like and see if you find any accounts. Green Giant can perhaps elaborate, but I believe that when such accounts come up on the Steward message board, the user names are suppressed and hidden. I have seen "hidden names" there, but I don't know what they were since I am not a Steward. One could make a case for hiding it on our own block log and deletion log. --SVTCobra 15:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I’m not sure how much documentation is necessary in cases like this, nor can I see a clear location to do it. Some (but not all) lock/unlock requests to stewards are made at m:SRG. Perhaps something similar might work here e.g. a noticeboard. Would WN:AAA be suitable? I think there’s also a danger of creating more administrative work than needed. As for SVTCobra's comment, the hide-name function is used in the listing at SRG, where the username is offensive or abusive. You can still read the name by opening the page for editing though. A somewhat different tool is used by stewards to globally hide a username, particularly if there are offensive edits by the user. It doesn’t hide the edits themselves which would need an oversighter if necessary. Green Giant (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not consider any number of swastik offensive. I can not say unless I know the reason to choose it, and the message it is trying to convey. I decline to treat it as offensive just because a bunch of “bad people” used it. Getting offended by swastik without knowing the reason behind it is ignorance. I am not pointing out any single person. (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Offense is taken, not given. So, good for you to not be offended. But the meaning (or perceived meaning) of symbols, as well as words, can change over time and history. We shouldn't ignore ancient history, but neither should we ignore more recent history, lest we fail to recognize that things always change and always will. It is arguably a mistake that the swastika was made so taboo by force of law, but it was, and it only served to make it a favorite among trolls and hate mongers. It is, however, part and parcel with the world we live in today. The degree of severity of the stigma varies greatly, of course, from place to place but there are entire countries where it is illegal to display the swastika. Many more, depending on use, it constitutes a hate crime. The swastika is not unique in suffering this fate, though it is by far the most known symbol. Less known, is the fact that the sowilō is similarly illegal in some places. The celtic cross has been banned in places. --SVTCobra 17:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I see swastik multiple times a day, and it is prominent in various cultures, even now -- people draw swastik in rangoli every single day. Just because one of the uses was infamous, that does not nullify everything else, so for the username policy, it should be better than, "oh, some bunch of 'bad people' used it so it is prohibited" -- the intention needs to be disclosed; and if someone finds swastik "inappropriate", they should educate themselves about the other cultures. (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I am fully aware it adorns many temples; it can even be found in tiles in old buildings here. I know it has a different meaning and people use it with good intentions. The swastika was never black-listed for use in usernames, even though it was proposed many times, for this very reason. I take this to mean that people are free to use it as a single character as part of an overall username. But to construct a username entirely from swastikas has not been permitted. Also, to construct a username entirely from repeating characters (any character) is also something that gets routinely disallowed. Ever since SUL was final, it is beyond just Wikinews. It will not matter if we re-write Wikinews username policy. Swastika-only usernames will be globally locked. At the same time, I would not be inclined to re-write any policy, here or at Meta, to allow such usernames, merely based on your personal life experiences. Do not take this as an insult, but you may be too young, too inexperienced in the world, to fully grasp the gravity of this matter. --SVTCobra 19:04, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
This May, keep your "may"s to you yourself. Like any government, democratic or not, the organisations are run by people with agendas. And it is not the first time most of them want to act ignorant. (talk) 19:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Right. You keep on marching through life with that attitude. I'm sure it's going to get you far. --SVTCobra 19:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
When I started writing a comment here, the discussion was still fairly reasonable. During the time I've been writing, the discussion has started turning sour. I'll still say pretty much what I was going to. I admit to some disappointment, though. And I'll thank everyone not to turn my user talk into a war zone.
  • The symbol in question is in current positive use in some cultures. I hope we're all clear on that. It's not some ancient history.
  • In this particular case there was demonstrated vandalistic intent. There was also demonstrated antisemitic expression, which I prefer not to give special status to, when I can avoid it, since trolls love getting special attention.
  • Some policy reasons for blocking need further explanation, especially if there are any additional restrictions on the block, such as "Prevent account creation" or "Automatically block the last IP address used by this user, and any subsequent IP addresses they try to edit from". It was pointed out to me some years ago (by BRS) that this is especially true of WN:ROLE; but it is also often true of WN:U. If an account name is unacceptable, generally, the user should choose another, and they can't do that if the account cannot create other accounts and the IP is temporarily blocked too. If we don't want to let them just choose another account name, the reason for blocking should give some indication of why. And in this case (as in a great many cases), just the name itself does not provide that.
--Pi zero (talk) 19:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Pi, everyone has explicitly acknowledged 'current positive use in some cultures'. I will never assume good faith from a username that is a long string of swastikas, with or without vandalism. But in this case we were in the midst of a vandalism attack. And the best way to halt those is to use the severest version of the blocks and get a grip on the situation. The account creation and IP restrictions could have been lifted should it have turned out to be unrelated, but it was not. And why are we talking about this like it is a local issue? That name was never going to stand as an SUL.
But why the lecture on role-accounts? Because of User:Jimbo WaIes article guy? I guess I prevented account creation because it looked unmistakably like a part of the Cruizer/"Jimbo Wales is peed on" campaign. The lack of a block notice was an honest oversight. The user could still have appealed. I usually handle role issues like User:EMOTION! --SVTCobra 20:50, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't object to the actions taken. I'm not even overly upset about details of it to do with justification, 'cause it's not like I haven't slipped a little when in a hurry to cut short ongoing vandalism. I did want to acknowledge that assumptions should not be made about the symbol in general (reminder: nobody here should ever assume good faith, generically; the key is not generally assuming bad faith, either). Regarding reasons for blockage, well, I've found it an interesting insight that WN:U is another policy that, like WN:ROLE, doesn't fully explain a block when it involves additional restrictions, so I decided to try to articulate that. --Pi zero (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
The mind-boggling bit is that three of us were on IRC discussing the attack when I made the block. I presume we all saw it happen, more-or-less in real time. But now, days later when Green Giant points out something in the AbuseLog, it suddenly becomes the Battle for Hamburger Hill. I tried to give a nuanced explanation of how the symbol has taken on a life of its own but to no avail. --SVTCobra 21:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
My nuanced comments haven't been working very well either. --Pi zero (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

first of all, I cannot see the abuse log or the IP of that account; secondly, I just asked for better block log info so that those learning from admin’s action do not misinterpret it, and the final point is about MSM and their actions leading to misleading information about eastern cultures. (talk) 21:56, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[edit]

not to take up your time but check this wiki like news wiki wikitribune is cool. --Tribuneman2018 (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

We've been aware of wikitribune since it was first announced; naturally, since it's generally agreed to be a blatant attempt to undermine Wikinews (though not really threatening to Wikinews since it was notably undertaken without even trying to tap into our local expertise on what does and doesn't work). It's been discussed here from time to time; generally, folks here haven't had a high opinion of it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Help -- email[edit]

I used wikinewsie for contacting Commonwealth and they replied -- however their response came to my private email, instead of -- why so? And what if I want to reply to them? However, in an earlier scenario, when someone emailed me on -- I received it on

Also, why do I get a failure message whenever I message scoop? Did you receive the mail I had forwarded to scoop?
•–• 10:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi Pi. I noticed our role account policy really doesn't speak to the matter of having a role, but rather just the issue of shared access. Shouldn't we expand it a little, perhaps using some of the ideas from meta:Role account to account for usernames that imply an office, position, or task. Cheers, --SVTCobra 13:56, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

"Punching bag"[edit]

Among all the other comments on the Abrams article, you said that one of my actions made you feel used[2]. I invite you to tell me which action that was so that I may make any adjustments that I conclude to be appropriate and necessary. If you don't feel like saying, simply don't ping or reply. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: This has become quite a complicated situation. Possibly I can untangle it a bit.

In your 'punching bag' remark you accused me of emotional blackmail. I was insulted — would not describe it as feeling "used", but I did find it insulting to suggest what I perceived as a petty motivation. It's not uncommon, when I'm really ticked off, for the volume of my on-wiki remarks to drop off precipitously, as I spend ballooning amounts of time making false starts and harshly filtering what I want to say. Not uncommonly, all that comes out after epic writing sessions is short, downright cryptic remarks. In this case, though, the problem of what to say in response was made even more baffling by the fact that your remark about emotional blackmail was also precipitating an insight into, tentatively, perhaps how your thinking ran on this matter.

Once in graduate school I experienced a spectacular example where all the students in a math class had the "math thing" but the professor did not. It was, actually, a useful class for me, looking back, providing some perspective on the shape of the overall landscape of that particular part of the Platonic realm of mathematics. Which is interesting, because the professor, lacking the cognitive ability that makes the abstract shape of mathematics visible, was literally unable to see the landscape that I appreciated learning about from the class. It was actually invisible to them, and a side insight from taking the class was learning something of what the subject looked like to the professor, once one subtracted from it that whole marvelous landscape that was the primary point of the class for most of us (I think; certainly for me). Here I think we have a similar situation. Some of what's going on with Wikinews, you're just not seeing. For whatever reason; it may not even matter why, for practical purposes. But, just as with that professor, a key question in understanding your perspective is, if part of the landscape I'm seeing is simply not there when you look at the same thing, what do you see when you look there? And in this case, it appears you're ascribing emotion-related motives to me. Perhaps that sounds like a small insight, but my intuition is telling me it may be quite important; quite useful, if I can quite figure out what to do with it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression "the math thing" before, but [post removed; didn't realize the ping was from days ago, and we've already talked some out on my talk page and you did what I interpreted as walking away] Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Admittedly, on some of our various conversations I have not yet even read your most recent responses. Discussions with you are often exercises in frustration and extreme time sinks on a project whose entire infrastructure is designed to (among other things) avoid time sinks. The Wikipedian habit of long, verbose back-and-forth discussions is (though I suppose I fall into the habit easily with you; all that history between us, after all) historically frowned upon at Wikinews. In this case, the sheer number of these conversations, and the impracticality of pursuing all of them — and the fact that they often each have different tones from each other — can also make it awkward to try to address any one of them as one is never quite sure what developments on another of them might skew the perception of remarks made on another.

I had chosen to share the curious case of that math class in the hope — mistaken hope, I think — that it could be useful. Math is something that, in my experience, some people have the knack for, some don't, and people aren't thought any less of if they happen not to have the knack for it. I suppose I was hoping to invoke that sort of tolerance for differences in cognitive skills. However, the whole thing comes out as a weird sort of meta-demonstration of something, because I attempted to appeal to a form of reasoning that isn't your preferred mode of reasoning, which makes the entire appeal a rather predictable source of further unsuccessful communication. --Pi zero (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Small note[edit]

Just in case you hadn't seen it yet. Abuselog. Green Giant (talk) 13:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Interesting. --Pi zero (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for pointing that out. I have left a message at the bot operators talkpage. Green Giant (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

A thank you is in order[edit]

I saw you flagged the profane articles by a, I want to believe is just disgruntled, individual. On be half of the rest of us, thank you for speedy action. AZOperator (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Time for a short-term IP block perhaps? Green Giant (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I see I'd given them a one-hour block, earlier. Sometimes that's enough, after all. Gave them longer this time. --Pi zero (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Aye, that should give them some time to ruminate. Cheers. Green Giant (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request[edit]

Hey, Please delete User_talk:Jamiebally, as an editor asked to take this username. Thanks! 1997kB (talk) 03:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@1997kB: It looked to me as if the redirect had been pointing to the page to be moved into it, so that it ought to have happened with no problem had it not been edited. The info provided at the speedy-delete tag checked out, though, and it's done. --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:DANGI VIA GBARA[edit]

I'm not sure what to do about this template. The user seems to be excited to be on wikis but I don't think they fully understood what a template is for. It doesn't seem to fit any speedy deletion criteria, so I'm thinking maybe it might be best to move it into userspace? Your thoughts, please? Green Giant (talk) 16:41, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Filter for WP0 abuse[edit]

Hi! Could you create a Special:AbuseFilter for WP0 uploads? You can copy it from w:fi:Toiminnot:Väärinkäyttösuodatin/153. After this they can't upload copyviolated files (like File:Don G ft Masta It Is What It Iz.mp3) in this wiki. The same filter is already enabled on many wikis. Stryn (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

@Stryn: I'll look into it. I've never been comfortable with the abuse filter (yet another gratuitously introduced different language). --Pi zero (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, I tried. However, each time I tried to save the filter, it erased what I'd entered in the conditions field, and refused to save on the grounds that the conditions field is required. (Only supporting, to my thinking, the general principle that it's a fundamentally bad design strategy to be introducing separate languages and interfaces for these things.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what went wrong then, but because this wiki is abused a lot (most of all WMF wikis) of those uploads, I changed the filter 26 to match and prevent from uploading those copyviolations on this wiki. Stryn (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Hopefully that will do the trick. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

WP0 Abuse[edit]

Hello, I don't speak english very well, my home wiki is portuguese wikipedia there I'm rollback end autoviewer

I come here to give you delete all WP0 files that find here

FranciscoMG (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving over redirects[edit]

I was a little surprised by this edit because I didn’t know that new users on WN could move pages over redirects. I noted it in RC, where the user appeared to have shown up in the deletion log! Green Giant (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That surprised me too. But their account was created on September 10, 2017 -- and maybe move is allowed after certain days. Or maybe they reached threshold edits but were later deleted (I guess).
•–• 21:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)