User talk:Rami R/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Rami R. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Log

Hi Rami, I saw you flagged the vote of user:Whiskeydog on the ACE2009/Voter log. Whiskeydog is an old alternate account of Dogriggr. As you can see, Dogriggr is still active. This information is not secret, and I am not sure why he voted with the old alternate account, but Risker, who deleted the Whiskeydog page, can confirm that this is a legitimate vote from an established and respected editor. --JayHenry (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine then. I was just tagging seemingly suspicious votes. If you say that this is a currently active editor's past account, and that editor hasn't voted using his current account (I see that it wasn't eligible[1]), then there's no problem. Should I note this in the log? Or perhaps it would be better if Risker or Dogriggr would note it. Rami R 08:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your work looking into this. Didn't intend my post as any sort of criticism. I just happened to know the story about Whiskeydog and thought I could help clear things up. It's important that people are looking into it -- thank you for helping on that front! --JayHenry (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Notification: Proposed 'Motion to Close' at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC re: a 'Motion to close', which would dissolve Cda as a proposal. The motion includes an !vote. You have previously commented at this page. Jusdafax 06:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal

After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration.

A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to;

gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and

ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community. Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Important notice about VOTE 3 in the CDA poll

You are receiving this message as you have voted in VOTE 3 at the Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll.

It has been pointed out that VOTE 3 was confusing, and that voters have been assuming that the question was about creating an actual two-phase CDA process. The question is merely about having a two-phase poll on CDA at the eventual RfC, where the community will have their vote (eg a "yes/no for CDA” poll, followed a choice of proposal types perhaps).

As I wrote the question, I'll take responsibility for the confusion. It does make sense if read through to the end, but it certainly wasn't as clear as it should have been, or needed to be!

Please amend your vote if appropriate - it seems that many (if not most) people interpreted the question in the way that was not intended.

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to
automatically
add this project
to your
watchlist

Hi Rami R/Archive 2, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing.

These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people.

Please help us:

>> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(refactored) Ikip 04:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

image thumbnail sizing

At the discussion for the deletion of File:JD Salinger.jpg, with regard to default image thumbnail sizing you said: "The (rarely used, and hopefully soon-to-be former) default thumbnail size is after-all 180px." I was wondering to what you were referring to, and if you could point me in the direction of such a discussion? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I referred to this discussion which concluded w/ consensus to increase the default thumbnail size to 220px. However, the change is stalled due to technical difficulties. Rami R 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Rami R,

you are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) How to help:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 14:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Your closure of your RFA

That was bloody impressive. I'm afraid I was just moving to neutral, but on the basis of your clear ability to read consensus I'm looking forward to supporting next time. Awesome. Pedro : Chat 20:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed in your withdrawal. Your withdrawal statement contains just the statement I thought you had in you, and it shows why you would be a good administrator. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to echo Pedro. Your RfA could have been closed (possibly as a pass) at any moment, so you're withdrawing is, in Pedro's words, "bloody impressive."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I felt that the likelihood of passing was at most theoretical. But no matter; this has been an interesting experience, and I look forward to continuing here just as an editor (at least for the time being ;) ). Rami R 22:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it probably would have been closed as unsuccessful, but your actions today will not go unnoted at your next RfA...---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, major props for accepting the community's consensus and running with it. Give me a shout in a few months' time and I'll nominate you if you want. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Clerking at RPP

Hi there! Re this diff, is that a script you're running, or is the edit summary just incredibly good work on your part? If it's a script that duplicates the VOAbot's work, I would be HUGELY interested in having it! I hate having to manually clerk RPP. Ged UK 10:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that's just old fashioned human clerking :) Rami R 10:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I rather feared it was! Ah well. Keep up the good work though, it's much appreciated :) Ged UK 11:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will! Rami R 11:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It turns out I was feeling up to the challenge, and I created a clerking script: User:Rami R/rfppClerk. It (currently) works on FF3.6 and IE8, but not on Chrome 4. Rami R 12:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't get it to work on FF3.6 on Linux, but i'll try it on my mac later. How does it work, will it be a tab or similar? Ged UK 07:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a link in the toolbox to the left called "rfpp clerk" that'll appear only when editing the RFPP page. After clicking it, you still need to click "save". Primitive, but does the trick (when it works). Rami R 07:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, I'll check it out later (I'm on IE7 where I am atm. Ged UK 08:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. It doesn't work on FF 3.0.7 on a mac; there's no link to click. On FF on Linux last night (which I think is an earlier version), the link to click was there, and it added the text to the edit summary, but didn't actually change anything. That said, I've been having trouble with an RPP script which is supposed t add in the templates on a toolbox click, and that doesn't work either. No idea if it's something in my monobook or what.

Anyway, the bot's back now, so I'll be alright for the time being, and manual clerking when necessary! Ged UK 07:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that the bot is back online. I successfully tested the script on FF3.6 on openSuse 11.2, so I don't think it's a Mac/Linux issue. If possible I'd update firefox, as support for version 3.0 ended on March 30. Rami R 09:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, well, perhaps that's the problem. It's supposed to update itself. Stupid FF! Ged UK 13:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

No, still doesn't work properly; it doesn't actually make any changes, just updates the edit summary. Oh well, don't worry too much! Ged UK 14:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Beh, I like to make working scripts! ;) Is the timezone and DST on your computer properly set? Also, are you sure there were any "expired" requests? The script only moves requests to the "fulfilled/denied" section after 6 hours of inactivity, and only removes them after 12 hours of inactivity (both values are modifiable). Rami R 18:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, it works for me now on IE7. Haven't tried it again on FF on mac or linux recently. Ged UK 12:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made a slight modification to the script; I don't know if it'll solve anything (it probably won't). Rami R 08:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move

Hey dude, You may be interested to comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Seats background color

I know. I just used the same color which the infobox was using before (for the infobox borders). The colors should be similar to those of the party colors, but of course somewhat lighter if they make the numbers hard to read. -TheG (talk) 16:57, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

There is actually a larger issue in that there is no alternative text being generated by the <timeline>...</timeline>. Hence, if you don't render the image (or if you are using a screen reader for the blind), the information is entirely lost (see WP:ALT#timelines). I think there is a way around this, by either using overlays, or a different method to render the bars (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(accessibility)#timeline). I will try to mock something up soon. If you have a few favorite examples that I can use for testing or have alternative suggestions, let me know. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Report of User:Douglasehall

Thanks for the report to AIV about Rami R. I've blocked him for obvious sockpuppetry and block evasion. However, next time it would be a great help if you report the case at the sockpuppetry investigations page. That way it's easier for us to track additional sockpuppetry instances if the user decides to continue. Thanks! Icestorm815 • Talk 21:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Report of User:Jrryjude

Hi Rami, Thanks for catching the ommision on the Herzl page to cite the location of the documents on Norman, The letter is at the Central Zionist Archives in Jersualem. It located within the secured Herzl rooms with his other family papers. Any quoted material needs to have its location verifieable for future researchers.

Jrryjude (talk) 10:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

format

That is the simple format that was created in good faith, you also have no right to alter it to whar you want, please don't derail what is the culmination of a lot of users contributions. Over 120 users have vote commented ad this is the format that was opened and it is supported my a vast majority of users. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

sixty supports and only forty oppose is a fair percentage for a tool, the is 66 point six percentage minimum pass support, if that is a minimum it is absolutely fine, more than that would be unfair requirement for a tool that is in operation as we speak and the wheels are not dropping off. If there is less than 66.6 percent approval for the continued use in some form then the tool is rejected, that is a pretty fair position to both sides of the position imo. Off2riorob (talk) 17:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Archive size

Readability and technical issues You are correct that WP:TOOLONG is about the article namespace and most of its guidelines really only apply to articles, but technical limitations apply equally to all namespaces. Archives in excess of 200kb will be difficult--if not impossible--to display on many mobile devices. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:45, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Jerusalem bulldozer attack

The article Jerusalem bulldozer attack you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Jerusalem bulldozer attack for eventual comments about the article. Well done! Aaron north (talk) 23:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

You are invited to participate in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RfPP script

Hey there Rami. Would you mind looking at this edit. It says that there are 2 requests pending but all of them seems to have been handled. The only explanation I could come up with was that because there were two requests, Tariq Aziz and Template:Treehouse of Horror, where the RfPP was not the last comment, it didn't recognize that the request was handled. Anyways, hope you can fix it. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. The script searched for {{RFPP| or {{rfpp| but T. Canens used {{Rfpp|. I've changed the script to better handle case differences. Rami R 16:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 17:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

You're a star! :o) Ged UK 07:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey again Rami. Could you please look at this edit? For some reason there's some duplicating going on. Elockid ^(Talk) 05:03, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. This time it was poor handling of multiple empty sections (pending, unprotect, edits to protected, and fulfilled/denied): the script determines if a section is empty by finding the first 4th level header after the end of the previous section; if the first header is after the section's end (the next section's first request), the current section is determined to be empty. However, the script failed to handle the case where there is no next request, as happened when you edited the page (both "Current requests for edits to a protected page" and "Fulfilled/denied requests" were empty). Rami R 10:06, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response! Elockid ^(Talk) 14:43, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I'm not sure if this is how I'm meant to reply to you. I apologise for what you feel are "disruptive edits" but I am trying to include information that Wikipedia currently doesn't have. As it stands Jerusalem is claimed by two parties, and while the Knesset meets in Jerusalem, the majority of international bodies do not recognise it as the capital of either.

I believed Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, and when asked in a quiz I recently lost £500 because the UN, and my own country's Foreign Office do not recognise the move of Israel's capital from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem in the 50s.

I am not arguing that it shouldn't be regarded as the capital of either area, I just think it should be recorded that both claims are disputed, and just as the Palestinian state's article lists alternative capitals, the internationally recognised capital of Tel-Aviv should be given also.

I understand that this is a sensitive subject, and I do not mean to appear "disruptive" or cause offence but wikipedia should have more detail than "though [it is] not internationally recognized as such."

If Jerusalem is not "internationally recognised as such" then where is?

-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.87.172 (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Please give a reliable source showing that Tel-Aviv is the capital. Rami R 23:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

My own country's foreign office states in their country profile that it does not recognise Israel's claim to Jerusalem as its capital and has a map showing Tel-Aviv as the capital.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/middle-east-north-africa/israel

The wikipedia articles on United Nations Security Council Resolution 478 and Positions on Jerusalem both also cite the UN's non-recognition of Jerusalem as the capital, while United Nations General Assembly Resolution 194 shows that right from the early days of de facto Israeli control over Jerusalem the UN didn't recognise it as fully within Israel

-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.87.172 (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"The UK locates it embassy in Tel Aviv." - that's the most your source says of Tel Aviv, nothing about it being the capital. Wikipedia articles aren't considered reliable sources, and even they don't make the claim of Tel Aviv being the capital. Rami R 07:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it says the UK locates its embassy in Tel-Aviv in the section marked "capital city" after stating that the UK and the rest of the international community do not recognise Jerusalem as capital, and it has a map, with a red square (which denotes a capital city) over Tel-Aviv.

I linked to the wikipedia articles rather than each individual source of the wikipedia articles. Resolution 194 showed that the UN didn't recognise Israeli control over Jerusalem at a time when the capital was indisputably Tel-Aviv.

If it was the word "capital" that you object to, would you prefer it if my edit read

"[Jerusalem] is self-proclaimed as the capital city of both Israel and the Palestinian State, though not internationally recognized as such in either case. ^[iii] A united Israel would be the largest city in terms of area and population in either nation. Those countries which do not recognise Palestine's claim to Jerusalem as the capital generally recognise Ramallah or Gaza instead as the seats of government, while the Israeli government is based in Jerusalem itself, most countries which do not recognise it as such, retain their permanent diplomatic missions in Tel-Aviv, the previous undisputed capital."?

Upon re-reading the Tel-Aviv article I see this already mentions that it was the capital and that most countries kept their embassies there because they didn't recognise Jerusalem, and I'm happy with that, although I would have expected it to be higher up in the article.

-Alex

I would prefer that all sides of the dispute on wikipedia would simply give up and realize the futility of pursuing the issue. I myself don't involve myself beyond removing claims of Tel Aviv being the capital, which I hope you're now convinced is wrong, even if Jerusalem isn't the capital. As such, I do not oppose your proposed change; rest assured others will. Rami R 13:10, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see myself as a "side in the dispute" as such, I just lost £500 in a quiz because I said Jerusalem was the capital of Israel and it turns out that the UN et al never recognised the move from Tel-Aviv. But you're right though, life is too short to spend arguing over a city which I'm probably never going to visit (because I lost that £500.)

-Alex —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.87.172 (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Typo

You mean "even when it's clear the vandal is not going to stop", right? 28bytes (talk) 23:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, thanks. I'm tired, should probably call it a day. Rami R 23:22, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

This may not make any difference, since you may be an admin in two days, but do you want me to request your having rollback? --T H F S W (T · C · E) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. However, I don't feel much need for rollback. I find undo and twinkle's rollback sufficient. Rami R 10:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hang on in there! At 77% and with some very weak oppose arguments any 'crat worth their salt closing it now would clearly pass it. I appreciate it's tough however :). I'm suprised there is less commentary to be honest, as you're the only one running - however *most* of the feedback is useful. There's no question in my mind you'd use the tools well and will only benefit WP with them. Pedro : Chat 19:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks :) I myself wondered about how this RFA seems quieter than the last one. Overall the RFA is going different, starting not very good and having an overall positive trend, as apposed to the last one with a good start and an overall negative trend. Still, around the same time in the previous RFA I had 81%, so party hats stay tucked away for now ;) Rami R 19:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, barring something very odd happening, at 85% now it looks like I'm first in the line to congratualte you! Well done. Pedro : Chat 10:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed barring something odd happening, or actually, even if something odd happens, Thanks for your support Pedro, I don't believe I would have gone this far without it. Rami R 11:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations! While I was unable to offer support, I am confident that your new role will be a net positive and that you will be a great administrator! Cheers! --Strikerforce (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on your successful RfA, Rami R! Here's the standard clothing for your new role, hope it fits. :) Best. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all! Armbrust, it's just the right size :) Rami R 12:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats! I missed your RfA, but would have supported! If you need any help, please drop me a line! Have a look in my monnobook for some helpful scripts (though you've written one of the best!). Ged UK 13:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratgulations! --Perseus8235 14:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats also. PhilKnight (talk) 17:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh it was nice to see your name at AIV! Congrats!--5 albert square (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Congrats. It should have happened the first time round, but better late than never! Do drop by if you need anything (be it advice or just a chat) and, as Ged says, raid the .js files of a few admins. There are some great scripts in mine (all stolen, of course). I'll look forward to seeing you around! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:AIV for User:69.118.143.13

Can you please revisit the WP:AIV for User:69.118.143.13. I have responded to your comment on the AIV page. 24fan24 (talk) 22:55, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked now, as the user has vandalized since. Rami R 23:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Issue with RFPP Clerk

There's an issue with RFPP clerk where if a section is completely emptied it bunches it together with the next section.

I've fixed this in my userspace copy of the RFPP clerk. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts. I've fixed the script another way, by changing where the next section starts.[2] The advantage is that newlines aren't continually inserted. Rami R 09:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hello, do you know who should I see or complain to for my Twinkle restoration?--NovaSkola (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Vandal alert.

Sorry to disturb you, but can you please block the address 118.137.75.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It is currently being used by the now infamous Indonesian misinformation vandal, who is inserting minsinformation into Little League and Pokemon related articles. Need your action ASAP. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Weeds (TV series)

There has been an ongoing attack on the series being called "black comedy", each time from a different IP, as pure vandalism with blank edit summaries. For the sake of concision, these are the diffs that reverted the vandal edits: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. Here is the note that Xeworlebi left, with a sarcastic yet justifiable comment that "no one [was] going to read [it]": do not change or remove "black comedy". There is, of course, a handful of "regular" vandal diffs, laced in between those I have listed above. Please reconsider my request for semi-protection. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

While true that there has been many unproductive edits, there have also been many constructive IP/newly registered edits.[13][14][15][16][17] I felt that overall, disruption did not clearly outweigh constructive edits. But, tell you what, I'm tired and drunk right now, so in the interest of letting a sober mind assess this, I give you permission (as if you need permission) to re-post the request, and I grant any admin the right to apply protection without consulting me (as if they need my permission). Rami R 23:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, an admin protected the page but unprotected right after seeing your decision. Please reconsider this as you are hopefully sober by now.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sober now, and still do not believe that the article requires protection. But I do note that another admin did think it needed. So if you still think it should be protected, you can post a request for a third admins opinion, or I'll post it myself if you rather. Rami R 17:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting my user page

Thank you: Thanks for fulfilling User:Fæ's RPP on my user page. All it takes is a few hours of Huggling and my user page gets vandalized. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem, keep up the good work :) Rami R 17:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

hebrew

you beat me to it! i was just about to take that sentence out too. wtf?Thisbites (talk) 09:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Beats me. It looks like some sort of bizarre vandalism as far as I can tell. Rami R 13:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

RFPP clerk

There was an issue today with the RFPP clerk failing because someone had added spaces to the unprotection title. I've fixed the page, but this should also help. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:54, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Good catch. Rami R 21:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Rami, not sure if your recent changes to the script have caused this, but for some reason I can no longer find the RFPP clerk button in my toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Same for me. I should have tested my change before making it :o. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 14:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. The slash character wasn't escaped. Rami R 17:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Premature semi-protecion on Sundae

I was working on the Sundae article, due to the google doodle event, cleaning it up and rewriting the recipe section, and you semi-protected it, claiming "persistent vandalism." I was in and out of the page for quite a long time -- from 8:33 to 9:46, according to the history logs, i was researching, wiki-linking, and checking data against linked wp pages for consitency of information -- and i saw NO vandalism at all during that time.

Did you think that *i* was a vandal because i was not logged in and made multiple changes? If so, shame on you for failing to look at my work or to assume good faith. If you saw evidence of "persistent vandalism," please tell me where and when -- i saw NO SUCH THING.

I despise wp editors who think that a professional writer who donates time here and has done so for many years is "vandalizing" pages by editing them from an IP address. This has happened to me repeatedly when i use my IP address. It is arrogant and shows bad form.

So, of course, i took the time to log in, finish my most recent edit that i got locked out of, and then came to you and complained -- but because of your arrogance, i won't finish working on the article by editing the historical section. Rudeness is such a turn-off when your staff consists of volunteers.

cat yronwode "Ol' 64" and also Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to complain of "rudeness", you might as well try not to be rude yourself. Yes, you specifically weren't a vandal, but look at the article history; vandalism was definitely at a level requiring semi-protection. Could my timing have been better? Probably. Is that really a good reason for you to take the time to complain when you could've just continued to improve the article while logged-in? Rami R 10:17, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've taken a look at the log, and this protection looks fine to me. There is a lot of vandalism by IP's today. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:18, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I came back this morning and spent another great long chunk of my time rewriting the history section so now it makes sense, is accurate, and contains more references. If i were not such a finish-my-work freak, i would not have come back to complete my self-appointed task. I am still angry at being accused of being a "persistent vandal" for my 1.25 hours' worth of work last night from my IP address. I understand semi-protecting a page when it becomes the subject of a google doodle; but the point is that you were calling a dedicated writer with more than 5 years at wp, who was trying to make the page really great in preparation for an onslaught of google-driven hits, a "persistent vandal." That is shitty, demoralizing, and exactly the opposite of what wp is supposed to stand for. Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You aren't being accused of being a "persistent vandal" the other IP editors who have vandalised the article due to it being featured on Google are. And your edit summary breeches WP:CIVIL, which isn't acceptable. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:49, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Cat, your frustration is understandable but it's best to avoid using invective since that tends to provoke drama. If you find yourself writing like that, try leaving the editing window open and doing something else for a while instead of hitting "save". Then rewrite your post after you've unwound to a reasonable extent. Rami, I don't think Cat attacked you personally; she expressed her upset about the surrounding situation, which is different. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The "you" in "fuck you" felt pretty directed... whatever. Rami R 07:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

It's incivility directed at you. Attack (WP:NPA) means something different. 75.57.242.120 (talk) 09:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Potato, po-tah-toe. It's like calling a war a "police action". — Rickyrab | Talk 06:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)