ABOUT MY ARCHIVES
Past topics I · Past topics II · Past topics III · Past topics IV · Past topics V · Past Topics VI · Past Topics VII · Past Topics VIII · Past Topics IX · Past Topics X
Past Topics XI · Past Topics XII · Past Topics XIII · Past Topics XIV · Past Topics XV · Past Topics XVI · Past Topics XVII · Past Topics XVIII · Past Topics XIX
Past Topics XX · Past Topics XXI · Past Topics XXII · Past Topics XXIII · Past Topics XXIV · Past Topics XXV · Past Topics XXVI · Past Topics XXVII
Schoolwork · AfC · DYKs etc. · Resolved notices
Hello Voceditenore, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following: 84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following: 95.235.116.126 (see: Loayur, Duelai, Ddgfs), 87.17.102.163 (see: Sasalikasty), 193.204.194.210 (see: Dyukpore), 79.30.8.179 (see: Vufroled), 5.90.255.50 (see: Ksyru), 79.49.65.250 (see: Fruial, Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-) 198.46.84.16 ( talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Voceditenore, I might have found the sockmaster behind all those sockpuppets and IPs. I think he's an Italian user registered from almost 3 years (more or less it's the time the socks started appearing), his edits about Italian IPAs are almost all regarding syntactic gemination and "Z" to "S". He's also been recently involved in quarrels with English users, both for Italian IPAs and for other languages IPAs, and he's already been blocked in 2 projects, in the first for edits about IPAs considered vandalisms and for using other identities, in the other because (as far as I've understood) he was identified by a checkuser as a noted Italian vandal who was blocked several times. Actually I can't say I'm 100% sure it's our man, but most of the evidences seem to indicate this. Just, I'd like him not to know he's still suspected of sockpuppeting until it's proven whether he's involved or he isn't, that's why I haven't told you his name yet, and I wanted to know your opinion about this issue: I don't think a CU request would be useful, because if he hasn't used other identities in the last 90 days (I've already checked the pages that the known vandal had edited in the past, I found no user restoring the vandalisms except, in a few cases, this user) and because CU policies forbid to link users to IPs; but if he's publicly reported he'll become aware of these suspects and he may turn everything against the reporter or move the matter from his identity to his edits, so he could even get away clean, also because en.wikipedia is a separated project from the others where he was blocked... Do you have any suggestions to give me? Cellettir ( talk) 08:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. The suspected user is (I'll remove it after you've read). 84101e40247 has just 50 contributions, he was more likely the main sockpuppet than the sockmaster. However, I'm not surely sure this guy is really the sockmaster, my suspects are based on a series of clues. Watch his blocks in his CentralAuth, the reasons are quite clear. He was also recently involved in a few disputes with some other users here, as you can read in his talk page, about phonetic transcriptions in Swedish phonology (it isn't Italian, but his non-collaborative behaviour is evident, his arrogance and aggressiveness, his starting from being the one right, which sometimes happens even in his edit summaries). It isn't the first time something like that happens: watching his contributions, the most recent episode was about "Il Canto degli Italiani", where he wanted to insert an absolutely wrong syntactic gemination in the text although even sources were against him. His obsession with syntactic gemination is proven also by the fact he's been inserting, arbitrarily, lots of texts similar to "<!-- syntactic gemination -->" in a lot of pages, such as here. I'm now listing a few differences between revisions in the same pages where some of the blocked sockpuppets has edited in the same way, all regarding syntactic gemination in Italian names: [3] ( [4]), [5] ( [6]), [7] ( [8]), [9] ( [10]), [11] and [12]. And I haven't written examples dating back to previous years, but just to make one example: [13] > [14] (blocked sock) > [15] (non-blocked sock) > [16] (Southern Italian IP); also, please note the number of coincidences between this last IP's edited pages and our man's... I hope this is enough to let you get an idea. I'd like to hear your opinion about this issue, just an opinion before I do anything improper. Cellettir ( talk) 10:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
talk) 20:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
We're starting a major maintenance run on portals to transclude leads directly on the portal base pages.
The reason I'm contacting you, is because you expressed concern over carte blanche automation of all portals. We need your input/oversight to help point out portals, or ways to detect portals, that should not be converted from their current method of maintenance. So far, I've instructed the AWB'ers working on this task to not include the portals listed under the Specific Maintainers section in our project members list on the WikiProject page.
But in case there are other portals besides these that are sensitive, perhaps you can help.
The task thread is Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB team please tackle maintenance run on intro sections.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
{{nobots}}
or {{featured portal}}
or {{Maintained portal flag}}
. I highly recommend marking any portal pages you don't want the bots or AWB users editing. Note that nobots will stop all types of bots and should not be used on bot updated subpages.
JLJ001 (
talk) 09:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Hi, VdT! It's hard to tell, but looks likely. The global contribs tool doesn't seem to be working. Regards, ( talk) 17:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Voceditenore,
Can you please let me know about your evaluation of the notability of the following articles:-
Some good places to search for possible non-trivial coverage or reviews would be equally welcome:) Feel free to take your time.... ∯WBG converse 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for that barnstar, Voce, it was a lovely gesture. However, I would like to share the kudos with Bri but can't because he and I work together. There's one here... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have created Ifigenia, Clitennestra and Fedra. Thanks for reviewing and improving Fedra. Please also review the other two for further improvement. Thanks - Jay ( talk) 08:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Michael Seal is up for deletion, + seems copied from here, - wasn't always like that. Can you help, expert in copyvio? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We do have BBC and review in a decent paper. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Zingarese cleared the copyvio, relief. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi -
An article I wrote, Andreas G Orphanides was flagged back in October 13 as possible copyvio. It appears that a couple of things happened - first, the article subject copied elements of the article into his own CV (which I guess is flattering for me), and, second, an anonymous IP that I assume was his also edited the article without understanding copyright. It was a bit of a mess, but I believe is now fully straightened out. On Oct 16th I left comments on the article talkpage suggesting the minor rewrites that would be needed to sort out any remaining issues. Would you please be willing to take a look and remove the copyvio notice if you agree that this is sorted? I contacted the original admin but in nearly 3 months have not had a response. Vizjim ( talk) 07:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I found you listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks. I've been trying to fix a copyright issue at Discovery Institute and am wondering if you could assist me. There is a copyright notice on the page, and there was indeed plagiarized text on the page. I made an effort to fix it. I'm not sure what the next step is, as the notice says "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." I have reached out several times to the administrator who originally placed the notice but haven't heard back. Thanks! Marquardtika ( talk) 19:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want, File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg and File:Le comte Ory - Dubois & chez Martinet - Final scene.jpg are now featured, both here and on Commons. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 21:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I know it's in flux, but I do wish you hadn't removed the Huguenots image right after I nominated it, listing its presence in Chaperon. Ah, well, it happens, and the gallery does look very good. Do think that one it's worth considering for there, though, just because he has a number of that sort of ceiling effect in his ouevre.
Oh, also, I updated the Oberon image for full resolution. I think you may have tweaked the colours? I wouldn't, though, the BnF is usually pretty accurate, and it clearly uses white paint, which often indicates buff-coloured paper. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid there may be a.. few new things for the opera portal's FP section.
And La Esmeralda has one up for voting. Thought ye'd like to know. I've done the initial setup for all of them to cut down on the workload.
Little bit of strategic planning, but the Rossini and King George IV one might not be a bad way to get an extra main page spot (as part of WP:POTD for Rossini in particular, as opposed to his works. @ Tim riley and Smerus:: What d'ye think would be a good date to grab for it? 29 Feb 2020?? Or is the article planned for then? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries! I actually have a few more coming up: La Esmeralda and Fervaal, are stuck at four votes, as en-wiki FPC tends to do for a while, and Cavalliera Rusticana has one of the two images done. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you prefer to do new FPs in batches or as they come? Nothing's passed... yet... but, FPC is pretty predictable, so I cam fairly safely say there's two in the next couple days, and four within the week. I'm happy to do the summaries, but I was kind of of the impression you liked to try to keep some consistency between them. But I'm happy to do them if you don't mind. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
ABOUT MY ARCHIVES
Past topics I · Past topics II · Past topics III · Past topics IV · Past topics V · Past Topics VI · Past Topics VII · Past Topics VIII · Past Topics IX · Past Topics X
Past Topics XI · Past Topics XII · Past Topics XIII · Past Topics XIV · Past Topics XV · Past Topics XVI · Past Topics XVII · Past Topics XVIII · Past Topics XIX
Past Topics XX · Past Topics XXI · Past Topics XXII · Past Topics XXIII · Past Topics XXIV · Past Topics XXV · Past Topics XXVI · Past Topics XXVII
Schoolwork · AfC · DYKs etc. · Resolved notices
Hello Voceditenore, you might be interested in the issue I am reporting as you have already been involved in it previously. It is about a bunch of IPs which are very likely (99%) related to an old acquaintance of en.wikipedia: a sock-puppet abuser who created about 50 socks to disrupt IPA transcriptions, obsessed especially with Italian names and words. The investigation I am referring to is the following: 84101e40247. The new IPs from which similar or identical edits have been done recently are the following: 95.235.116.126 (see: Loayur, Duelai, Ddgfs), 87.17.102.163 (see: Sasalikasty), 193.204.194.210 (see: Dyukpore), 79.30.8.179 (see: Vufroled), 5.90.255.50 (see: Ksyru), 79.49.65.250 (see: Fruial, Kilorty); it is also possible that there are some more, but for the moment these are enough to care about, right? I hope that you or someone else will take appropriate measures against this recidivous vandal! Thank you for reading :-) 198.46.84.16 ( talk) 16:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Voceditenore, I might have found the sockmaster behind all those sockpuppets and IPs. I think he's an Italian user registered from almost 3 years (more or less it's the time the socks started appearing), his edits about Italian IPAs are almost all regarding syntactic gemination and "Z" to "S". He's also been recently involved in quarrels with English users, both for Italian IPAs and for other languages IPAs, and he's already been blocked in 2 projects, in the first for edits about IPAs considered vandalisms and for using other identities, in the other because (as far as I've understood) he was identified by a checkuser as a noted Italian vandal who was blocked several times. Actually I can't say I'm 100% sure it's our man, but most of the evidences seem to indicate this. Just, I'd like him not to know he's still suspected of sockpuppeting until it's proven whether he's involved or he isn't, that's why I haven't told you his name yet, and I wanted to know your opinion about this issue: I don't think a CU request would be useful, because if he hasn't used other identities in the last 90 days (I've already checked the pages that the known vandal had edited in the past, I found no user restoring the vandalisms except, in a few cases, this user) and because CU policies forbid to link users to IPs; but if he's publicly reported he'll become aware of these suspects and he may turn everything against the reporter or move the matter from his identity to his edits, so he could even get away clean, also because en.wikipedia is a separated project from the others where he was blocked... Do you have any suggestions to give me? Cellettir ( talk) 08:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for replying. The suspected user is (I'll remove it after you've read). 84101e40247 has just 50 contributions, he was more likely the main sockpuppet than the sockmaster. However, I'm not surely sure this guy is really the sockmaster, my suspects are based on a series of clues. Watch his blocks in his CentralAuth, the reasons are quite clear. He was also recently involved in a few disputes with some other users here, as you can read in his talk page, about phonetic transcriptions in Swedish phonology (it isn't Italian, but his non-collaborative behaviour is evident, his arrogance and aggressiveness, his starting from being the one right, which sometimes happens even in his edit summaries). It isn't the first time something like that happens: watching his contributions, the most recent episode was about "Il Canto degli Italiani", where he wanted to insert an absolutely wrong syntactic gemination in the text although even sources were against him. His obsession with syntactic gemination is proven also by the fact he's been inserting, arbitrarily, lots of texts similar to "<!-- syntactic gemination -->" in a lot of pages, such as here. I'm now listing a few differences between revisions in the same pages where some of the blocked sockpuppets has edited in the same way, all regarding syntactic gemination in Italian names: [3] ( [4]), [5] ( [6]), [7] ( [8]), [9] ( [10]), [11] and [12]. And I haven't written examples dating back to previous years, but just to make one example: [13] > [14] (blocked sock) > [15] (non-blocked sock) > [16] (Southern Italian IP); also, please note the number of coincidences between this last IP's edited pages and our man's... I hope this is enough to let you get an idea. I'd like to hear your opinion about this issue, just an opinion before I do anything improper. Cellettir ( talk) 10:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
talk) 20:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
We're starting a major maintenance run on portals to transclude leads directly on the portal base pages.
The reason I'm contacting you, is because you expressed concern over carte blanche automation of all portals. We need your input/oversight to help point out portals, or ways to detect portals, that should not be converted from their current method of maintenance. So far, I've instructed the AWB'ers working on this task to not include the portals listed under the Specific Maintainers section in our project members list on the WikiProject page.
But in case there are other portals besides these that are sensitive, perhaps you can help.
The task thread is Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals#AWB team please tackle maintenance run on intro sections.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 23:37, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
{{nobots}}
or {{featured portal}}
or {{Maintained portal flag}}
. I highly recommend marking any portal pages you don't want the bots or AWB users editing. Note that nobots will stop all types of bots and should not be used on bot updated subpages.
JLJ001 (
talk) 09:22, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Hi, VdT! It's hard to tell, but looks likely. The global contribs tool doesn't seem to be working. Regards, ( talk) 17:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Voceditenore,
Can you please let me know about your evaluation of the notability of the following articles:-
Some good places to search for possible non-trivial coverage or reviews would be equally welcome:) Feel free to take your time.... ∯WBG converse 05:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again for that barnstar, Voce, it was a lovely gesture. However, I would like to share the kudos with Bri but can't because he and I work together. There's one here... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:11, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I have created Ifigenia, Clitennestra and Fedra. Thanks for reviewing and improving Fedra. Please also review the other two for further improvement. Thanks - Jay ( talk) 08:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Michael Seal is up for deletion, + seems copied from here, - wasn't always like that. Can you help, expert in copyvio? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
We do have BBC and review in a decent paper. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Zingarese cleared the copyvio, relief. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 21:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi -
An article I wrote, Andreas G Orphanides was flagged back in October 13 as possible copyvio. It appears that a couple of things happened - first, the article subject copied elements of the article into his own CV (which I guess is flattering for me), and, second, an anonymous IP that I assume was his also edited the article without understanding copyright. It was a bit of a mess, but I believe is now fully straightened out. On Oct 16th I left comments on the article talkpage suggesting the minor rewrites that would be needed to sort out any remaining issues. Would you please be willing to take a look and remove the copyvio notice if you agree that this is sorted? I contacted the original admin but in nearly 3 months have not had a response. Vizjim ( talk) 07:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I found you listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/Clerks. I've been trying to fix a copyright issue at Discovery Institute and am wondering if you could assist me. There is a copyright notice on the page, and there was indeed plagiarized text on the page. I made an effort to fix it. I'm not sure what the next step is, as the notice says "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent." I have reached out several times to the administrator who originally placed the notice but haven't heard back. Thanks! Marquardtika ( talk) 19:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
If you want, File:Haydée, ou Le secret Act II - Philippe Chaperon.jpg and File:Le comte Ory - Dubois & chez Martinet - Final scene.jpg are now featured, both here and on Commons. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 8.8% of all FPs 21:28, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I know it's in flux, but I do wish you hadn't removed the Huguenots image right after I nominated it, listing its presence in Chaperon. Ah, well, it happens, and the gallery does look very good. Do think that one it's worth considering for there, though, just because he has a number of that sort of ceiling effect in his ouevre.
Oh, also, I updated the Oberon image for full resolution. I think you may have tweaked the colours? I wouldn't, though, the BnF is usually pretty accurate, and it clearly uses white paint, which often indicates buff-coloured paper. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.3% of all FPs 09:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid there may be a.. few new things for the opera portal's FP section.
And La Esmeralda has one up for voting. Thought ye'd like to know. I've done the initial setup for all of them to cut down on the workload.
Little bit of strategic planning, but the Rossini and King George IV one might not be a bad way to get an extra main page spot (as part of WP:POTD for Rossini in particular, as opposed to his works. @ Tim riley and Smerus:: What d'ye think would be a good date to grab for it? 29 Feb 2020?? Or is the article planned for then? Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
No worries! I actually have a few more coming up: La Esmeralda and Fervaal, are stuck at four votes, as en-wiki FPC tends to do for a while, and Cavalliera Rusticana has one of the two images done. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 18:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you prefer to do new FPs in batches or as they come? Nothing's passed... yet... but, FPC is pretty predictable, so I cam fairly safely say there's two in the next couple days, and four within the week. I'm happy to do the summaries, but I was kind of of the impression you liked to try to keep some consistency between them. But I'm happy to do them if you don't mind. Adam Cuerden ( talk)Has about 6.4% of all FPs 11:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)