This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Hey, Deor. This IP bears watching: [1]. Seems to have veered into overt vandalism, testing our responses, with his most recent edits. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 17:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Dirtlawyer1: Why hasn't anyone left the IP talk-page warnings? I can't really take any action in the absence of warnings. I'll try to check on his or her edits occasionally, although the targeted articles aren't really on my usual beat. Deor ( talk) 17:45, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Not mine, either, but the IP started "experimenting" with the bio of a former Gators tennis player from the 1960s, so he popped up on my watch list and I started checking on his other edits. I will leave an appropriate warning. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to have done that- you can go to the history and get those page numbers. It would be better for researchers if those two sources were better integrated into the citations list so they could easily locate the original source. -- LibraryGurl ( talk) 00:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for catching the problem with Robert Louis Stevenson. I thought I was reverting to the last good version, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Robert_Louis_Stevenson&oldid=698886218, that was an edit by you. I have no explanation why it landed as it did. Peaceray ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:Deor thanks for your edit on my sandbox on the Bighorn River. How did you find my project though? Spidersmilk ( talk) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Spidersmilk: Whenever a page has two sets of of overlapping coordinates in the title position (at the top of the page), it shows up in Category:Pages with malformed coordinate tags, a maintenance category that I monitor. (That's why there was a red error message in the second infobox in your sandbox.) I usually try to stay out of people's sandboxes; but when that category gets too cluttered with them, it becomes harder to identify the mainspace pages that need correction, so I sometimes make a sandbox correction when there is an easy fix. Deor ( talk) 04:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Deor, Nice to leave a message to you, I checked Sunrisers Hyderabad Log and I found that you set Protection to that page Here, Now that page needs protection, Some IP Users creates 'vandalism'. I had already request here, but that was declined. Please help me to Protect/Semi-protect the Sunrisers Hyderabad page. Thanking You -- Nivas88 ( talk) 17:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

@ Nivas88: I've looked at the recent edits to the article, and I don't really see enough vandalistic activity to justify semi-protection at this time. Much of the IP editing seems to consist of good-faith (though possibly misguided) attempts to improve the article. If the article becomes a target for sustained vandalism, please leave another message here, and I'll take a fresh look at the situation. Deor ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Deor Thanks for your suggestion, But few IP's change some sections regularly like Former Players. -- Nivas88 ( talk) 18:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC) I'll Definitely inform you again -- Nivas88 ( talk) 18:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the block notice you left on User talk:Azeemtelecome was left unsubstituted and it was not signed. Eye snore 15:48, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Eyesnore. I don't block users all that often, and sometimes I forget how to do it properly. Deor ( talk) 15:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Reverts are happening. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 08:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@ George Ho:  Done for another 3 months. Deor ( talk) 08:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Deor, Nice to leave a message to you, I had already asked you to protect SRH article. At that time you said no protection need for that page, now please check that page and see how Much of the IP editing seems to consist of good-faith and create vandalism. Please help to protect to that page. -- Nivas88 ( talk) 21:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Nivas88: I'm afraid I don't know enough about the team (or about cricket) to determine which edits are vandalistic and which are valid contributions. I see that there have been a number of IP edits this month, and at least some of them must be good-faith improvements, since they haven't all been reverted. I could try pending-changes protection for a while, but I doubt that many, if any, reviewers know enough about the topic to be able to tell which edits might be vandalism. Many of the articles that I myself watch are subject to isolated vandalistic edits on a regular basis, but articles are not protected unless there is a lot of IP vandalism (and only a little IP improvement) in a short period of time; the articles' watchers and recent-changes patrollers just have to try to revert the vandalism when they see it. I know that it's frustrating to deal with vandalism, but in this case, where people are adding and removing names from various lists in the article, you and other editors familiar with the team are probably best qualified to separate the good edits from the bad ones. I'm sorry, but I'm still seeing enough good IP edits, along with relatively few bad ones, to decline to semi-protect the article at this time. Deor ( talk) 23:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@ Deor: Thank You. there are some good edits from IP's. However few IP's create Vandalism, see here, it was done before my edit, when I seen that I'm so afraid about that article valuable info. Later I understood and edit that to good faith. What ever it may be, when IPL starts at that time all IPL articles should be semi protected. Thank You. -- Nivas88 ( talk) 14:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Divine Comedy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• della Divina commedia di Dante Alighieri, dichiarata in VI tavole'', by [[Michelangelo Caetani]] (1804–1882}
• }}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 21:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a policy discussion in progress at the Manual of Style concerning the capitalization of "like", which you have previously discussed there. Your input is welcomed. —  LlywelynII 15:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Despite infrequent editing, almost none of IP edits were good. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 17:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's let the PC protection lapse and see what happens. I'll put the article on my watchlist, but I'm in the process of moving—will be done around the end of the month, I hope—so if Mr. 69.166.47.133 or an influx of other vandals shows up and I'm not around, you may have to go to RFPP. Deor ( talk) 18:34, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kisii School, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kisii. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

— ^cyberpower _Chat:Online 12:20, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Deor, thanks for explaining that you are an admin that doesn't like long-term protection of the ref desks. Let me tell you a little story about my experience with this semi-protection and see what you think:

I noticed a while back that the desks were semi-protected. I happened to be at the talk page of Jayron, and saw a message from Fut.Perf to the effect of "bad move unprotecting the reference desk, I'm re-protecting it". Jayron replied, "Ok whatever I don't like that but I'm not going to wheel war". And then I tried to talk to FPAS about it, and in my opinion he quickly became rude, uncivil and pointy toward me (he then removed most of his and my comments from his talk page, though Jayron's still has some record). And I became convinced that nothing anyone said or did would get him to lift his protection. And I asked a few other admins, and I put in a formal request, and nobody wants to undo this one small action that one admin took. Then I started discussion with a few others, pleaded my case at the RfC, and still nothing changes.

So from my perspective: no, wheel wars are not good, and should be discouraged. But it's not a wheel war to undo someone's protection, any more than it is a wheel war to put protection on after it has been off. Protection status can and should change, for a variety of reasons. So if I were an admin, I would just unprotect the desk whenever I saw that it had been protected for longer than 48 hours, or after the third edit request that day, or any other flexible rubric that suits me. And if some troll/vandal/banned user/ causes another admin to re-protect, that's fine too. My point is, unlike content edit wars, protection flipping on and off isn't inherently bad, it is in fact desirable, right? We wouldn't want a move to semi-protection to be immutably permanent, and we wouldn't like to never be able to protect pages. It's a think that is designed to switch on and off. Changing back and forth at the discretion of different admins is probably as good a method as any in deciding protection status. I meant what I said, and I may indeed end up going for adminship. But in the mean time, please consider that undoing a long-term protection is not a bad thing or a wheel war. Thanks, SemanticMantis ( talk) 16:16, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Deor. Nice to leave a massage to you. At this time I requesting to give some protection to Indian Premier League and 2016 Indian Premier League. Please once check those articles and try to give the proction. Thank you-- Nivas88 ( talk) 18:32, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Nivas88: As I said in response to your previous message on this page, I know practically nothing about cricket and am unable to determine which of the recent IP edits on those pages are valid improvements and which are vandalistic. I recommend that you request protection at WP:RFPP; an admin more knowledgeable about the topic may be able to act on your request. Deor ( talk) 19:01, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@ Deor:, It's ok. However the protection will be at before starting of IPL 2016 for all the IPL related articles, by any one of the Admins. If you check the all history by the IP's you can understood the vandalism. I had already ping that one of the vandalism for the article for SRH. -- Nivas88 ( talk) 12:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello Deor. I'm sorry you are tired! That's how I feel, after trying to remedy the problem I wrote you about all day. You are a genius! I tried to change the reference by adding the proper closing, but it still didn't work, so I deleted the reference altogether. Bingo! The double (and embarrassing) two sets of references, one as a list and one formatted, were suddenly gone. It's amazing how such a seemingly little thing can create such havoc. But I still have a problem! When I added text content, and all seemed fine, however, when I attempted to add an image, a similar problem occurred, with big fat embarrassing error messages at the end of the page, saying the following: Preview of references, ^ Jump up to: a b McGuire, Cara Mae (October–December 2010) "Interview: Lotti Golden: Then and Now" Helmet Hair Magazine, Jump up ^ Cite warning: <ref> tag with name Shannon cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined at all, Jump up ^ Cite warning: <ref> tag with name Wolman cannot be previewed because it is defined outside the current section or not defined at all. It's all so daunting! Can you help when you have gotten some rest? Thank you so much! Magdalamar ( talk) 22:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to ongoing RM discussion. -- George Ho ( talk) 12:39, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Some good edits; some bad. This month, one good IP and one bad. Extend PC? -- George Ho ( talk) 18:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@ George Ho: With only one bad IP edit this month, I'm inclined to leave the page unprotected for the time being. If vandalism becomes a problem again, let me know and I'll reinstitute PC. Deor ( talk) 18:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

There was one additional revert afterwards. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's see what happens after PC expires tomorrow. I'll put the article on my watchlist and if vandalism becomes more than the article's watchers can keep up with, I'll reinstate the protection. Deor ( talk) 21:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You edited the Camden Yards page. Our group is working on it for a project and not everyone was here to contribute their part. We would have gotten done what you deleted and we now have to go back and redo it. Please don't do it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Englishgroup2016 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Srry dude. I'm done Bigbooster126 ( talk) 14:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi there, wanted to please query why you deleted the Paparimu School page? Many thanks Paparimu ( talk) 20:08, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Paparimu: Greetings. The text of the article had been identified as a copyright violation by another editor, since it was copied verbatim from this Web page. The editor nominated it for speedy deletion in accordance with criterion G12, and after checking that it was indeed copied and pasted from that source, I deleted it in my role as a Wikipedia administrator. Deor ( talk) 01:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

@ Deor:Thanks for the info, however, considering that I wrote both the content on the Wikipedia page (deleted) AND the School website referenced I don't know if that could be called a copyright breach? Anyway, I am happy to edit it and change it however needed. Are you able to restore it at all? Any advice for ensuring this does not happen again? Just ensure the text is quite different? Paparimu

@ Paparimu: If you wrote the text on the Paparimu site and wanted to use that, you'd still need to release it under a free license by following one of the procedures detailed at WP:DONATETEXT. You could, of course, describe the school in different words without running afoul of our copyright-violation policies; but I must say that few articles about primary schools survive on Wikipedia without (eventually) being redirected or nominated for deletion (see WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES). I can't restore the article as the situation now stands, since in the absence of a free license I still have to assume that its text is a violation of copyright. The text was also very promotional, using the first-person "we" and a good deal of puffery. (You also seem to have a conflict of interest with regard to the school. I suggest reading WP:COI carefully.) Nevertheless, if you think that an acceptable article can be written about the school, you may certainly try to do so. Deor ( talk) 15:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Great work on those cemeteries. You got exactly the right locations! Philafrenzy ( talk) 15:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't make any sense the elimination of this article.

It was more than correct.

-- Aamrs ( talk) 13:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Aamrs: Golly, that's an article I deleted two years ago, when I was a brand-new admin. Someone nominated it for speedy deletion because it duplicated the existing article Combo box (which it indeed appears to have done). It was also written entirely in Portuguese, whereas this is the English-language Wikipedia. Looks like a just deletion to me. Deor ( talk) 16:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

... assume for the moment that the !vote was merge. Did you see anything you would have? I want to be sure I'm not missing something. Cheers! 🖖 ATS /  Talk 04:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@ ATS: I really have no idea. I didn't read the whole article before closing the AfD; I had never heard of Christina Grimmie before her death; and even if a discussion is closed with a consensus to merge, the closer is not obliged to carry out the merger himself or herself. What content, if any, to merge would be a matter for discussion at Talk:Christina Grimmie. Deor ( talk) 14:03, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Much obliged. 🖖 ATS /  Talk 20:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)