Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive153

Frankly, I don't like it. A completly nonsensical article,

"Nocturnal emissions control device". Love it! --

Jenny

07:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems highly likely to be a

hoax, but since an admin has just removed the speedy tag I guess it should go to AfD. AlasdairGreen27 (talk

) 07:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Without checking, I believe hoaxes aren't normally speedies except where they are so blatant they qualify as a G3 i.e. pure vandalism. I reckon that's the case here. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have to agree with Jenny that the article is funny and I wish to heck that BJAODN was still around. Another cultural phenomenon lost to the ravages of time, I fear.  :) --

talk

) 07:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And doggoned if it isn't on AfD. At least it's a good-faith nomination and I've voted accordingly. --

talk

) 07:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedied. Enigma ^message 07:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Bless you. That red link was a relief. I can now head off to beautiful downtown Dreamland secure in the knowledge. Nice working with you all today.  :)) --

talk

) 07:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted at

User talk:Shii/Hoaxes --Iamunknown

07:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pity it's gone, really. It was a gem among hoaxes. "For fans and critics alike, the Belltones' musicianship was only half of what their fans tried desperately to avoid. The other half was the paranormal-like connection the members of the group had with each other. (...) But yet, like the partnership between heat and humidity, it was like the Belltones, from day one, breathed the same air, had eaten the same food, and worn the same type of underwear". A classic ;-) AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There actually is (or was) a "Lonny Fame and the Belltones" - they were a fifties-nostalgia act at the University of Kansas in Lawrence. I like the sound of our version better though. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Needs immediate tlc

(That I can't give today)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirect#When_should_we_delete_a_redirect.3F is totally messed up currently, I suspect a side-effect of a missing set of nowiki's or of what I started to report below... someone fiddled with a key template while not knowing where and how it was used! (Hot potato. HELP!)

my original post began

I've recently found several redirects (the {R from... }) tags which have been indelicately altered, shall I say so they won't work properly in pages where they are directly included. (

1. Wikipedia:Redirect#Spellings.2C_misspellings.2C_tenses_and_capitalizations -- Looks okay, but extra eyes might pick up something I missed.
2. Wikipedia:Template_messages/Redirect_pages
   my quick peek, suggests okay, but ditto on extra eyes checking.
3. Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages
   -- ditto again.
   1. Wouldn't hurt to have someone look into why some of these table cells show a <hr> and others don't. Looks like there was a now obsolete reason for some of these having a <hr> and I suspect most can be eliminated, while opining the tables would look better without.

Gang up on these guys, a nickle for every incompatibility found! <g> Don't want essential "How-to" to look crappy. // FrankB 17:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize and take full responsibility for any problems caused here. I've been going through templates one-by-one and each time, I thought of a new way to do what I had in mind, so the whole effect is perhaps a gradually increasing mess. (I had no idea it would cause any problems, though). Just so I'm up-to-date, is "When should we delete a redirect" looking the way it should now? ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Lenoxus " * " 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks (publically) for the private apology. ON "When should we delete a redirect", I'm unclear on your meaning. If you want to change the messaging, just make sure it makes sense and interfaces nice with the help pages linked above. Whatlinkshere will show all occurrences and text searching "Wikipedia:" should find all the pages that is directly including them. If you're truly interested in deleting one, that goes via {{

Wikipedia talk:Redirects, first and foremost, with a side-note annotation in the other places if its a big change. Hope that helps. // FrankB

22:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – released by Maxim

I'm not in a position to take care of this myself right now, so could someone please release the autoblock on Giano II? It's a complex block history so it may take a few minutes to figure out which block/unblock is causing the problem. Thanks. Risker (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Maxim_(talk) 19:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Maxim. We're having serial power failures here and I've already had four crashes today. Risker (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey. There's a problem on the UserLogin&wpCookieCheck=login page. The link to the WP:HELP page isn't displaying properly. The page is also not W3 compliant, 7 errors.

If you're using the W3 validator, make sure you're sending the page itself, not the URL to the page; W3.org is not logged-in to Wikipedia ;).

Have a nice day/evening. --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail) 02:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be fine, when you actually log in. I don't know what's going on with index.php but the problem is only when you call it from the link above. --Selket ^Talk 03:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Also validation passes XHTML Transitional on copy-paste from view source. --Selket ^Talk 03:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned. [1] [2] --Sébastien Leblanc ^(Talk|Mail)

Reported at bugzilla:14709. --- RockMFR 01:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page moved; next time, post request on

WP:RFPP

.

Please move the page at

Would a move to

Ada Mae Johnson not be more appropriate in this case? Anyway, for future reference, thre is Wikipedia:Requested moves. — Edokter • Talk

• 00:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what is appropriate for an actor/actress? Is John Wayne's article under Marion Robert Morrison? Whatever the standard is. Thanks! --BenBurch (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done, with all double redirects fixed. Btw,

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies) stipulates that using either legal name or stage name is correct. —Kurykh

00:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! If you are an American, have a great Independence Day Holiday, and if not, well, have a great weekend! --BenBurch (talk) 00:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User is free to create category. --slakr^\ talk / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There is already a category of administrators willing to make difficult blocks. In fairness, there should be a category of administrators willing to make difficult unblocks.

It is well known that administrators are unwilling to unblock. People have called it the cabal, gang mentality, lynching, etc. This category will blunt such criticism.

It is also well known that administrators who don't like certain ideas but who can't think of a logical way to explain their feelings resort to calling things trolling or make accusations of sockpuppetry. This is not trolling. If you are an administrator and are not willing to make difficult unblocks, you simply don't list your name. It's that simple!

Once again, this category blunts any criticism from Wikipedia critics who call us cabalism.

Welcome to Wikipedia! That's quite a second edit you got there Voxtel. Have you been an IP for awhile to get to know the place, or a lurker? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not edited for months but I have edited. I lost my password and user name. I have some idea but does it really matter?

talk

) 22:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

De facto proof that the cabal sucks at being a cabal: they can't keep people from unblocking people everyone wants blocked. --slakr^\ talk / 22:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I can only read "difficult unblock" as "unblock against consensus". Not sure we should encourage that. We get quite enough of it already. Friday (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

No fair. Friday stole my comment and then edit-conflicted me. :) OK, try this: We don't really need categories that describe an admin's willingness to perform basic administrative functions. How about Category:Admins willing to protect pages in an edit war? Or Category:Admins willing to adjudicate complex 3RR reports? Or Category:Admins willing to block Giano? MastCell ^Talk 22:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Then should we eliminate the category "admins willing to make difficult blocks"?

talk

) 22:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer (from me anyway) Yes. It presumes there are easy blocks. No block I've ever done has been "easy". Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well said, Keeper76. Blocks are by policy; difficulty would reflect situations where it's not clear how policy applies. In that case, seeking consensus in advance would be best. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To reply to MastCell, I think we need to worry about a parent category first. Let's create Category:Admins willing to create difficult categories :) _{I's say my sense of humor's workin today.} Wizardman 22:40, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the smart thing for admins oppose to this idea would be to simply say nothing, hope that nobody signs up, then delete the category after it remains empty for a few days. That's fair! Attacking me, trying speedy delete, and other tactics are unfair and devious. So oppose it, there's an easy fair way!

talk

) 22:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very happy with that "difficult blocks" category. The description of

Jenny

22:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Didn't see this discussion until afterwards, but I've CfD'd

iridescent

22:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec: cat was redlinked as of this writing)I'm afraid that it's not going to happen. It's not an issue of ideology or opinion—

totally free to create the category, but it probably won't exist for long as we usually remove underpopulated categories within a few days of it being empty. --slakr^\ talk

 / 22:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

fine with me. a few days and it remains empty then it's ripe for delete.

talk

) 22:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like it might be time to work on some articles in the meantime, eh? MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It might be more useful to create the category

Category:Admins willing to make the tea. It would help in dispute resolution, at least. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

18:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ed Williams (novelist) - strangely it had been turned into a redirect to an article about an actor. DuncanHill (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, right, that explains things. Thanks. Well, it seems like he wants that article deleted, and any references to it (or himself) in other articles. I thought it'd be a good idea to raise this here, anyway, going on the BLP policy.--Les boys (talk) 12:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I found a mentions in two of the articles he mentioned and have corrected the links to point to the now-restored article about him. I think he wasn't so much requesting removal of mention of him, as saying that without the article on him we may as well remove them. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I used {{

This was cross-posted (and is being discussed) at MCQ. Dragons flight (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Edit war

terminated on sight; complainant and subject are both edit-warring and thus the article's been protected. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI}

) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Youngbird is a supporter of a competeing artist and has been vandalising the T.O.S. page repeatdly despite warnings! PLease take note! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbhasin (talk • contribs) 18:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Not happening. Page fully protected to stop you two from

edit-warring. Talk it out on the article's talk page. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Trump XXI}

) 18:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, Xasha, in response to a post by User:Vecrumba defending the notion that Moldovans and Romanians form part of the same people, repeated the Nazi accusation: "Please don't revive the Nazi tradition of arbitrarily assignign ethnicity based on God knows what invented criteria."

I hope administrators duly note these two inflammatory messages in blatant violation of Digwuren, and also take into consideration the user's block record and general pattern of tendentious, unproductive editing. --Olahus (talk) 17:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I consider the first use quoted to be only an allusion, and not a accusation. I'm a little unsure about the second. DGG (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a badly-worded comment, not an "issue of concern". Civility warning. Bearian (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please avoid Reductio ad Hitlerum. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and read this, too. Kelly ^hi! 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

And, might I point out, Xasha again invokes the Nazi spectre here: "The similarity with lebensraum discourses is not just a coincidence". In response to the warning he received due to his conduct, he combatively pledged to continue employing this sort of language. Biruitorul ^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also reminded Xasha of both the conditions of the restriction, and what happened when they were previously violated. If it happens again in short order a block will be required. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, enough is enough. Anyone in that dispute that can't avoid all that fighting is due for a long block. Last chance here. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He is now continuing to conduct a long revert war against several other users, running up to 3R within the last 24 hours at this point, but with numerous previous reverts in the past few days. It's at Latin European peoples (an abomination of an article, but that's a different matter), and it's all about whether Moldovans should be categorised under Romanians or on the same hierarchical level with them, in a tree list of "Latin" peoples. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm reverting an user who is always restoring edits by banned sockpuppets of Bonaparte and now is removing reliable sources to prove it's point. I'm not ashamed at all.Xasha (talk) 12:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Unfortunately, however, you don't get to revert ad nauseam, so I'm blocking you for 96 hours: 72 for the lame revert-warring and 24 for the incivility. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Xasha is modifying the article Latin European peoples and he ignores the discussion on the talk page. Somebody stop him please! --Olahus (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is someone here to explain Xasha (talk) that talk pages shouldn't be emptied without archiving a discussion. Maybe he's doing it to cover up former conflicts with other users caused by his permanent zestfulness for edit warring, harassing other users or using the encyclopedia as a battleground. He was several times requested by other users not to empty his talk page. However, this is the list of all the discussions deleted by him: User talk:Xasha/Deleted (not archived!) discussions from emptied pages. Cheers! --Olahus (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Users can do anything they want with the contents of their Talk pages -- delete, archive, whatever (except change other people's words). Corvus cornix_talk

Of course they can do anything with their talk page. I know that very well. But: concerning the user Xasa, there is a small additional problem: he likes to modify the wikipedia articles without giving any explanation and when asked about the changes, he just empties his talk page instead of talking about the disupted issue. After the talk page is emptied, he reverts the edits of the disputed article again and he behaves further as if nobody would have ask him anything about the disputed article. --Olahus (talk) 17:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, repeated insertion of loaded comments like this one can be considered harassment ("why are you beating you wife?"), provoking Xasha to remove all comments by that particular user. As for modifying wikipedia articles without giving any explanation - heh, it took you two blocks to notice the existence of talk pages yourself, Olahus. Although your behavior doesn't excuse Xasha's, perhaps laying off those accusations of "Stalinism" as well as not rushing to revert back once you get reverted yourself, but using the talk page first might have a better impact on the general editing atmosphere in relevant articles? --Illythr (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

A short view in the revision history of some articles disputed between Xasha and me is anough to demonstrate that you actually fully support Xasha's Stalinist POV (yes, this POV is indeed Stalinist and I can proove it to you if you want to) . So, I don't wonder youre attitude regarding me in this discussion and you're role as Xasha's advocate. Besides, in his talk page Xasha didn't by far remove just my comments. A short viev in the revision hístory of his talk page is the best proof that it is actually a common attitude of his regarding users that contest his POV.--Olahus (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Why, but of course! Otherwise my boss at

i

. You saw nothing unusual today. Please, move along.<

Xasha's free to do with his talk page what he wants (except changing other users' words). The history page is there for all to see, after all. What I disapprove, is that by deleting stuff like that he loses any challenges automatically, thus weakening his point.

If you want to prove something to me, better do it on my talk page. I might want to hide the Truth as well, you know. --Illythr (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit by

Romanian Principalities to read Danubian Principalities, because the edit was marked as minor and was not explained in the edit comment or on the Talk page. Xasha reverted my edit - this looks like part of a campaign to remove mention of Romania from articles involving Moldavia, doesn't it? However, after further research I think that it was a good edit. I think that, in this case at least, the only problem is a lack of adequate discussion and explanation (multiplied by the usual $ETHNIC problems, of course). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK

15:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A typical edit without principles of the user Xasha can be seen here when he reverted this edit made by me. He "excused" his removal stating that OSCE would have accuse

Resolved

 – Banned by the devs. MER-C 02:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to inform administrators and Wikipedians about the not complete copy/clone of Wikipedia [3] but it exactly looks as the real Wikipedia - I think - something is not correct with it (?)--Cerber (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a live mirror site, with no advertising added (makes a change) but it's pulling all the images from Wikipedia directly. What's the policy on these? Based on

龱

11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

See

Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Abc#Adorons.com. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk

- 11:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a remote loader website, see [4]. Do the devs know about it? MER-C 11:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, it does have something. Click view source on any page, and go right to the bottom (or search for a013.com) - it's doing something with an advertising sitetracker. And it's definitely remote loading, right click on any image and see "properties" - they're coming from upload.wikimedia.org. I've added it to

龱

11:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

That was probably because it was on Slashdot. You might get a faster response on IRC: irc://irc.freenode.org/wikimedia-tech (see this comment). MER-C 14:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't use IRC, but if someone wants to drop a note there, feel free. They still haven't fixed the one before adorons.com on

龱

14:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

 Bugged the devs on IRC. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous site (http://www.adorons.com/wiki) is very misleading especially for "Google search" using visitors, on the other hand, is it really an exact copy of the authorized official Wikipedia and not a modified/manipulated mirror? I also would like to know - What's the policy on these?--Cerber (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

They are using the WMF logo and Wikipedia globe, which is not released on a fee use licence so wouldn't be in breach of copyright on that account. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 12:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what you meant is: that it is a copyvio! Bearian (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The site now redirects to

For the duration of this proceeding,

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

) is not to be blocked, or unblocked, by any administrator, other than by consent of a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As noted in the text of the injunction, this restriction is in effect until the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley case is officially closed by a clerk, following a successful motion to close by the arbitrators.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Nearly five years by my reckoning is too much to bear and something needs to be done and soon. His latest incarnation,

PS: The Animal Guy sock has left a whole bunch of similar new postings and redirects in its wake. I've rolled back as many as I could, but I have to sign off. Please, could someone just delete his entries and send the checkuser to his IP for (hopefully) a major TOS violation? --

Resolved

 – User and talk page created for user. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Im trying to create a User Page for, "Tiny giant what???" When I try to make the page it say "The page title that you have attempted to create has been included on the local title blacklist, which prevents it from being used due to abuse." Am I included on the Blacklist because of the "???" on my name? What do I need to do to create a user page? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiny giant what??? (talk • contribs) 03:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and created a user and talk page for you (the system allows admins to create restricted titles). You can go ahead and modify them as you see fit. I'm guessing the "???" was probably the cause. Keep in mind that you'll have this problem again if you ever need to create subpages in your userspace, so you might want to consider being renamed at some point, but for now all is good. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:40, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Handled on user's talk page. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 10:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I had created the page for EyeBuyDirect.com and it has been deleted. What steps can I take to create the page properly? This creation was the first attempt of creation on Wikipedia and I would love feedback on how to correctly post.

Please contact me and we can discuss. Also, how can I go to the real time help chat? I know that used to be a feature but am unable to find it currently.

Thank you for your assistance.

Best, Blain —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blainhowardjs2comm (talk • contribs) 15:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll discuss with this user on his talk page. No admin action necessary at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – No action necessary.

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Does wikipedia policies allows cursor changing HTML codes in signatures such as this: --Raunak' ' ( .:: Raunak Roy ::.. ) 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC). Does the wikipedia policy of images in signatures applies to that too? --Creamy!^Talk 19:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I expect there's nothing written about it,

common sense would suggest that such a thing is a Bad Idea. Seriously, how does stuff like that help build the encyclopedia? Happy‑melon

20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think indulging some self-expression helps build the community. The flip side to your question is: How does this hurt the community? Dragons flight (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Some very established editors use a cursor like the one above in their signature. I am unaware of any controversy over this. Cenarium ^Talk 20:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

God forbid anyone simply click the damn button (or type ~~~~) and just get on with it.... --MZMcBride (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, User:Alison was the one who started that and no it is not against policy. Since she is an Administrator, a CU, and an Oversighter, I don't think there is any harm being done here. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Resolved for the simple reason admin action is not needed. Next?

weburiedoursecretsinthegarden

21:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeesh! I don't think I was the one to start it, to be honest. And please - no "zOMG-checkuzar-oversight-adnimz" - I have the same standing in the community as anyone else, so best off not using me as some sort of gold standard :) - Alison ^❤ 09:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Gurch seems to have vanished, shutting down Huggle as his final act ([6], [7]).

Erratic behavior. Enigma ^message 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well per WP:BOLD, and to prevent possible disruptive Huggle changes, I went ahead and fully protected the config page. No prejudice against reverting if this level of protection is deemed unnecessary. —

^talk

18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think restricted established editors from editing the config page is a bit extreme, why not semi protect it instead? There's more chance of a new user or an IP from vandalising than an auto-confirmed member. We've never had problems before with the page being vandalised. ——

t • c

18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. Semi would be good, not full. Enigma ^message 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think gurch is gone for good, but he may not be able to edit much or at all for the next few months :( delldot talk 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Gurch isn't an admin, full protection will restrict him from editing it if/when he returns. I'd oppose full-protection for that reason, as long as someone's watching the page closely. – 

iridescent

18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I overreacted. Back to semi, then. —

^talk

18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As a general note to everyone who's followed the link here from

iridescent

18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here form the feed back page. The whole point of the config is so that the huggle users can edit it. Anything that they are not meant o be able to change is configured into the actual program. I will watch the config page until gurch gets back (if he comes back) and I will also log all things to be fixed onto a page so the feedback page doesn't become too backlogged. The config page is already semi protected and that should be enough. If anything is playing up with huggle then please add it to the feedback page. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Though

Semi protection isn't really over the top. Following

WP:BEANS (not saying what) but you can change one line and mess up one line in that config and suddenly everything goes wrong. People wouldn't notice straight away and then there would have to be one major cleanup from damage. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont

19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone (preferably an admin) should add a notedire warning on the page about exactly what will happen to you if you edit the page and accidentally cause other people to make errors in their reverting. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, if I see anyone deliberately disrupting it (as opposed to a well-intentioned but wrong "improvement"), they'll be explaining their actions via {{

iridescent

19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: The page was originally semi’d back in January. —

^talk

19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all overreacting. The page has never been vandalised in the history of it's existence. The only questionable edition was by

t • c

19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest 20 edit per minute is pretty rare unless you are only taking a glance at each page and it is during a peak time. There are currently over 15 user huggleing on the english wikipedia and together they only made a total of 19 edits per miniute. Over time that is still quite big but if something went wrong with that it shouldn't take long to fix. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add something saying "If you want to propose a change do so at on the feedback page" or something similar. Otherwise looks good. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I must be blind (maybe make that line a bit bigger? :D) ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the line that reads "Vandalising or making test edits to this page could result in an immediate block." to "Vandalising or making test edits to this page WILL result in an immediate block."

I cannot imagine the amount of damage that could be done if someone made a very small change that went unnoticed for a while.

Also, shouldn't all the subpages of

WP:BEANS, so commented out) J.delanoy^gabs_adds

20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the part about dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. Perhaps a little atom bomb symbol, instead of the red stop sign? Font needs to be bigger, in red, and more panicy (How do you spell panicy, anyway?). And more exclamation points, please (where, exactly, to put them can be at your discretion). And finally, of course, a note somewhere (

barneca (talk

) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Dammit, just make Gurch an admin and full-protect the config page ;) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I could get behind 100%. But it's been tried. :( --

barneca (talk

) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what Gurch should do is move Wikipedia:Huggle/Config to User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make Huggle look there for instructions. I've suggested that to him, but he either didn't read or didn't want to do that, for whatever reason. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the config being open to edit is so that people can edit it :D. Putting it on his user page .css would kind of stop that from happening. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the point now is, Huggle is an incredibly fast and widespread tool. Vandalism to the config page has enormous potential to almost irreparably damage Wikipedia. I do not think that just anyone should be allowed to play around with it like that. Allowing only Gurch and admins to change the configuration page is a the only viable solution, IMO. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to edit it but restricting it so only gurch and adims can edit it is, in my opinion, a bit too protective. Also to change the location of the page at this stage would mean a re release of the current version of huggle and also making all previous versions useless. Also this would be a global change for all for the wikis that huggle is used on (commons,meta,bg e.t.c) meaning the inactive gurch would have to create an account on each of these wikis for the .css user page to be viable. I think thats about all I wanted to say. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Er...

iridescent

21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppsy, didn't notice he had a SUL. Well this would make things a bit easier if that is the way that we want to go. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the config page is good just semi'd. If there are changes that shouldn't be made by people other than gurch, he can hard code them in. If it ever becomes a problem, we can deal with it, but I don't think it is now. delldot talk 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)