Wikiversity

Wikiversity:Notices for custodians/Archive/1

< Wikiversity:Notices for custodians | Archive
Filing cabinet icon You are examining an archive of past discussions for transparent review by inquisitive participants.
Please ask questions and share your thoughts on the current discussion page.

Mass blocking of open proxies

I'm just posting here to inform you all that in the next few weeks there is a (very large number) of open proxies that will be blocked in order to enforce the prohibition of editing from open proxies on all wikimedia projects. I have gathered a list from the log data dump of the English Wikibooks just now. There are in total 1072 IP addresses on the list, and after I do a similar thing on a few other wikis (and remove duplicates) it will likely grow. Once complete, this effort will significantly reduce vandalism. Thanks. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 15:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

Blocked users who try to edit will see this message. As mentioned at Wikiversity:Blocking policy, blocked users can edit their own user discussion page. They can use Template:Unblock on their user discussion page in order to request unblocking. Example: see the deleted edits here. Please watch Category:Requests for unblock. --JWSchmidt 16:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Quebec

It appears that all of the material in Category:History of Quebec and Canada is copied from a website that indicates the material is copyright protected. These Wikiversity pages will soon be deleted unless evidence is provided that the copyright holder is willing to release this material under the GFDL copyleft license. An attempt has been made to contact the copyright holder(s). Since this material has been at Wikiversity for from one to several months, I'm not sure there is a great rush to delete these pages. I'm willing to wait about a day below deleting the pages.

I have seen no evidence that User:Wherebot is doing anything at Wikiversity. This situation with "History of Quebec and Canada" is exactly why I wanted Wherebot to be active at Wikiversity. Back in December some of us had doubts about Wherebot and a question about its functionality was asked at w:User talk:Where, but nothing seemed to change. If there is anyone who has ideas about how to use bots to scan Wikiversity for possible copyright violations, I'm interested in trying something new.
--JWSchmidt 02:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would give seven days to send a permission via OTRS before deleting those pages. About Wherebot: it would indeed be useful, if this bot worked. sebmol ? 11:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a reply from Mikec here. --JWSchmidt 23:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See also the response at Talk:History of Quebec and Canada/Study Guide.

Time zone info

Well, seeing as daylight saving time has ended or will soon for most of us, I'd like to remind custodians to update their time zone info on the Wikiversity:Support staff page. Cheers. --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

About an hour ago, Wikiversity was hit with an onslaught of vandalism. Unforatuntely, no custodians were active to contain it. I think I've gotten everything cleaned up but I would appreciate it if you could all keep an eye out on suspicious edits. sebmol ? 20:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Passwords

Recently two sysop accounts have been used at Wikipedia to block other sysops and delete the main page of Wikipedia. In the most recent case, the account may have been using "password" as the password. Please use a strong password. --JWSchmidt 03:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a followup: More sysop accounts have been compromised on Wikipedia. Custodians here are strongly encouraged to choose strong passwords for their accounts on Wikiversity. --HappyCamper 23:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't leave your fly open --JWSchmidt 00:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of Mahatma Gandhi's life

Chronology of Mahatma Gandhi's life seems like its content was from from this website. --JWSchmidt 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC) --JWSchmidt 14:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
The claim from Gandhiserve is bullshit. This organisation doesn't hold the copyright of most content of its web site. See commons:Talk:Mohandas_K._Gandhi#Copyright_issues for more input about this. This text is extracted from s:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, and is now available at s:Chronology of Mahatma Gandhi's life. Regards, Yann 13:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused. Yann, are you suggesting that we restore the page, or delete it, as a duplication of the Wikisource version? Was it you who removed the content from the page, and is this the reason why? Cormaggio talk 14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, it would be a duplication of Wikisource. So yes, it can be deleted, unless some other people here want to expand / annote this text. I didn't remove the content of the page (see history). I also started a French translation on the French Wikisource. Sorry for answering so late. Yann 15:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I'll delete it now. I only asked about the blanking as it was done by an anonymous editor, so it could have been anyone. :-) Cormaggio talk 17:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

possible copyvio

Please see my note at Talk:Remixing Çatalhöyük Project. The material in this project was copied from another website which uses "Creative Commons NonCommercial Attribution 3.0 Licensing" [1] It is a very interesting project page, and follows the intent (if not the letter) of the original license. I believe that this licensed material is incompatible with WV. But is there a way we can salvage this interesting lesson? Note, it looks like most of the text in the pages in Category:Remixing Çatalhöyük Project and most of the images in those pages are from this site. --mikeu 04:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please read User:Okapi. It seems to imply that the account is affiliated with the website, but we should probably check that it is and that they did agree to release under our license. --mikeu 04:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will first try to contact someone from that project: have written the above user and also the person mentioned here, since I could not find a email on the above links. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 21:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi, sorry for the delayed email, but i am pretty sure we can put our content up here. creative commons is non-exclusive and the website states we are free to distribute our material elsewhere with a different license:

best! lizzy and the rest of okapi

(I'm sending the response below to the email address attached to the User:Okapi account. Cormaggio talk 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks Lizzy (and all at okapi). There isn't any problem with the content you've added to Wikiversity being a "copyvio". However, the problem here is that the licence you're using on your site is a "non-commercial" Creative Commons licence (there are quite a few Creative Commons licences, each with different specifications - see here). Wikimedia (and therefore Wikiversity) requires that our content does not have this "non-commercial" restriction - our content is meant to be as free as possible (which is sadly not the case with the licence you're using). Believe me, we would love to be able to use your content (it's great!), but unless you can change your work to a more permissive licence (eg. CC-BY-SA, or, in English: "Creative Commons, attribution, share-alike") - which has to be done with the express consent of the creator and anyone else who might have a claim on the content's copyright - we sadly cannot use it. However, we will do as much as we can to help, and to facilitate you adding your content here - if you need any further guidance on licences, just let us know. Cormaggio talk 14:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is now dealt with - the material has been dual-licensed under GFDL and CC-BY-SA for the purposes of Wikiversity - this has been sent to the OTRS permissions-en queue - and I've added the otrs tag to the article. Cormaggio talk 09:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Projects Interview - tell your view

I am not sure if you saw this already: User:OhanaUnited/Sister Projects Interview (background info) ? If you have some time, please share your inputs, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting removal of custodial access for User:Terra

It's been 3 months, and I am not confident in this candidate. I will not object to him taking on another mentor, but since no-one took me up on that 2 months ago, I think it's better for now to just request removal and let him either start fresh. As far as I'm concerned he should be able to either make his own request for full status, find another mentor and go through training with someone again (admittedly I haven't had as much time for him as I would have liked), or just wait a while.

I'm posting a request for removal of access on meta now. Should he either pass an RFC or aquire a new mentor I or another b'crat can re-instate him as appropriate. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the user right removal policy:
"To request the removal of another user's status, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. All discussion must be kept on your local wiki. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted person from that wiki should provide a link here to the discussion, a very brief explanation of the reason for the request, and summarize the results of discussion."
Please justify that this is a community decision or please show if there is a special policy. Thanks, --Özgür 14:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, though Wikiversity custodianship is different in that we have an explicit mentoring stage followed by an evaluation stage. The current wording is: "If you are unable to find a new mentor, you will lose your custodianship status without further notice or discussion, but you may reapply at a later date. Probationary custodians may have their custodianship removed by a steward at the end of the 48 period when requested by their mentor." It seems that McCormack's suggestion below is to create a discussion period after a mentor's assessment. We currently have a discussion period after a positive assessment, so it seems fair to have one for a negative assessment. This would be a change to the policy as currently worded. Cormaggio talk 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I'd like to put forward Terra for a vote (over a 5 to 10 day period), in the normal fashion. 5 days if consensus is clear; longer if more time is needed for a clear consensus to emerge. If SB_Johnny wishes to preface the vote with a negative/neutral report, that's fine. Currently I'm in favour of the candidate, but I shall examine his edits carefully and read SB_Johnny's report carefully before deciding on my vote. --McCormack 14:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So long as I am freed from any responsibility for his actions, that's fine (which means his access should be removed until he gets another mentor or passes an RFC). However, I will be strongly opposing permanent status. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm nearly to the end of my probationary period - and after careful thinking I'm not sure about going through the vote of full custodianship - however though after looking through the Special:ListGroupRights from this site - apparently a user can be granted use of the Import tool if need be - would it be possible if I could be granted use of this tool - I have used it previously to import a number of pages requested on the Colloquium - but wondered whether or not it is possible to be the Local Importer rather than being a Custodian, if it is possible to be the local importer instead of being a custodian - in a few months time once I Know a lot more about the site I could then nominate myself for custodianship or by the request of the Wikiversity community. Terra 20:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Action

I have written a report and opened up the vote now. Note: after extensive discussion with SBJ on IRC, my understanding is that he would prefer not to write a report and we agreed I would write one instead. --McCormack 07:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Custodial flag

Since I believe all bureaucrats are at least custodians, I will post this here. Please flag my other username, User:Emesee, with the custodial flag. Unified logins is helping to shape my login usage behavior. --Remi 07:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind then. I don't feel like thinking about it right now. But thank you both for considering the matter. --Remi 08:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About SUL and logout: I have also days, when I - who uses only one account - is logged out of SUL (don't know the reason, it is disturbing). I just use then another browser to login with the account. Also another option might be possible see here. At begin I was against the idea of someone having 3 custodial flags :-) but the more I think about it: I trust you and if also some more people think like this and voice their opinion here, the flag change can be done easily, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 08:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a recent-changes patroller, I find it confusing when someone is using several accounts. In Remi's case, the problem is greater because he is such an important and prolific editor. As he isn't on IRC, it's very important to use his talk page sometimes - and then one wonders "which one"? Mind you, he does seem to find my messages wherever I put them...! --McCormack 06:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that could be done with redirects on the certain user talk pages, so all goes on one page only.
Regarding the edit by Remi yesterday here and also that nobody replied so far here besides us two: if nobody gives any feedback anymore (Remi asked the question first 8 days ago), I will give Remi the 3rd custodian flag. Let's say: in 7 days he can get it (to use it for the benefit of WV). WV "must" mark records by being different than other Wikimedia projects - let's just do this. Does somebody disagree ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 16:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think creating a precedent is bad, and finding individual reasons for each case is what avoids creating precedent. Multiply this kind of thing across 10 custodians with 3 or 4 accounts each, and we won't know each other any more. Custodial accounts are important things and treated with respect. Plus I would want to know if 3 is going to be the maximum. So to summarise: 3 conditional objections - (a) provided that others don't follow suit without reason; (b) provided a good reason is given in every case of custodial account duplication, (c) provided a maximum number is set. --McCormack 17:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a+b: - if someone wants she can always find a reason (and if it is just taking the same reason as someone used before), so we can't hinder these things.
c: agree, so what should be the maximum ? @Remi: is this account already deflagged ? Because this can't be seen (see e.g. Terra's case: [2], request)
"and we won't know each other any more": we actually don't know us even now - we just know what others let us believe with their edits :-)
"Custodial accounts are important things and treated with respect." here we come again to the question - is it a "big deal" or not ? Remi is a trusted user (who could e.g. be kidnapped and forced to tell his pwd so someone else could "harm" WV). I see WV as a place where people should feel comfortable (as long as they don't hinder others in this). And if someone needs more technical possibilities of Mediawiki to feel @home, so let's try it out. ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erkan pinged me, so I'll comment briefly. I've been following it, and so far don't see why there would be a problem with a custodian having tools across multiple accounts. More later... busy today! --SB_Johnny | talk 19:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind the "later"... too hot to be productive now anyway. Look, as far as I'm concerned we opted to give the tools to "the guy who's username is Remi", rather than "username Remi". If he wants to extend the tools over multiple accounts for reasons of convenience, that's fine with me. I wouldn't mind flagging "SBJ", come to think of it. Seriously, it's not like we're giving him "more tools", it's just the same tools on 2 accounts.
If folks are really worried about it, I'll run CU on both accounts here and elsewhere, and if you insist I'll even chatwith the WP CUs to see if we can find evidence that he did something unproductive a few years ago when e first found out about Wikipedia et.al. Sound silly? Sure does to me :-).
So what's the problem, and why was I pinged? Let's just flag him! --SB_Johnny | talk 19:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with Remi (person) having a custodian flag on three separate accounts. But I wonder if it's an idea to try sorting out the bug in SUL, which is causing the problems between User:Remi and User:Emesee? Cormaggio talk 10:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wanna look for an existing bug report: [3], [4], ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done (User rights log); 17:21 . . Erkan Yilmaz (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Emesee from (none) to Custodians (see Wikiversity:Notices for custodians#Custodial flag + announcement at: Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/June 2008#Custodial flag for Remi), ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 17:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Meta Logo - Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg

Hi, Can someone update the meta logo on the main page per m:Meta:Babel/Wiki_logo. The new logo is Image:Wikimedia_Community_Logo.svg. Thanks 203.122.240.118 15:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Y Done, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 15:53, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Increase in Account Creation

I've noticed an Increase in the Account creation section, but most of the accounts begin with Eml4500 and there are a lot of them - are these accounts permitted to be on Wikiversity and are they taking part with some project, I'm just curious as to why a lot of them are being created as I'm noticing them in the Recent Changes. DarkMage

Also one of them created a subpage of User:Cacycle/wikEd this user though doesn't exist - could this have been created by common mistake. DarkMage 18:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are taking part in a project, see Wikiversity:Colloquium#Wikipedia discussion.
subpage: how about asking the user about that ? ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 18:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I wanted to know, thanks for responding. DarkMage 19:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oversight

Two edits containing only vandalism and personal information by Moulton 2DFS (block log) have been removed from the history of Two pages by a steward at my request. --mikeu talk 17:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Emesee 18:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

range block log

User:Sebmol closed an RFD with a decision to delete. The deleted pages were repeatedly recreated by anonymous ips. The recreated pages were then deleted by User:Emesee and User:Ottava_Rima per the decision at the WV:RFD. This edit waring continued for nearly one hour and culminated in the range blocks listed below. The range blocks are wider than what they needed to be to, and will need to be narrowed if we decide to continue the blocks after the 24 hours expires. This range blocking is a rather extreme response, but the anon edits were causing disruption and IMO needed to be stopped. Please comment below. --mikeu talk 16:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Emesee 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone find out a way to prevent subpage creation off of a certain user name? Ottava Rima (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These ip ranges have been blocked for excessive attempts by a user to evade an existing block. Any attempts to recreate the deleted pages may be blanked, rolled back or reverted by anyone, or deleted by a custodian. We should discuss a more permanent arrangement to prevent this abuse, disruption and harassment from continuing before these blocks expire. --mikeu talk 05:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above blocks have been extended for 2 weeks to allow time for discussion. --mikeu talk 01:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replacing these with (hopefully) more tightly-targeted but still effective rangeblocks. I'll leave them in place for 2 weeks. CheckUser is really needed here to be more precise. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 17:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • In addition to activity from the above ips, there are also other incidents that we might want to consider in this discussion. First, there is Moulton 2DFS (now indef blocked) who has made edits that required oversight. Additionally, there were other anon ips, outside the ranges listed above, that engaged in an edit war over Moulton's edits. One anon has been removing the edits, and at least one other has been reinserting them. By continuing to allow one blocked user to edit anonymously we are now getting edit wars that are spreading. This has even disrupted our attempts to follow policy, as indicated by the need to protect pages. --mikeu talk 17:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Block the range for a year. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm relatively certain that Moulton 2DFS is completely unrelated, though it's likely that the person has been reading "Wikipedia Review". We'll look into it with the CU tools when we have them. 71.202.65.147 is as far as I know a newcomer, but it's fairly clear that the user has had prior encounters with Moulton. I strongly advise against any further rangeblocks until the office has confirmed Emesee's identity, because the IP ranges involved are used in a densely populated region with a large number of colleges and universities. The most important advantage of having the CU tools is to ensure that we are accurate in our blocking, and hopefully we'll have them within the next day or two. --SB_Johnny talk 18:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See also: contribs from 71.202.65.147 at beta. My main concern is that the edit wars are attracting more participants. Should a narrower range block be put in place for one more day when the 24 hours expires to give some time to do a CU? --mikeu talk 18:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Range block notice

If you do rangeblock Virgin Media (formerly Telewest and NTL) IP addresses, please block as anon-only (whether you disable account creation or not is at the admin's discretion) since there is likely to be more than one editor on the same IP. I also edit from a Virgin Media IP as well. Thanks, AC --Sunstar NW XP 19:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. – Mike.lifeguard | @meta 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned this because on my (now-closed) wiki I had some spam users. I checkusered them, and found they were operating off Virgin Media, so blocked the IPs as anon.only. Hope this helps. AC. --Sunstar NW XP 17:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton sockpuppet account on wikisource

Please see s:Wikisource:Administrator's_noticeboard#Moulton --mikeu talk 13:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrol

Should Wikiversity get involved with patrolled pages (more info)? --JWS 18:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps useful for us to start getting practice, but the volume of edits doesn't make it critical yet, I think. --McCormack 18:16, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The German + Italian WV have this feature activated. It is definitely more work, since you have to click "[Mark this page as patrolled]". But in theory it should help that other people do not have to read that edit again and could invest their time for other things in WV. Some feedback from the German WV about it before implementation here (in German). If a decision is made it should be considered if this should be enabled for all or only custodians at first. ----Erkan Yilmaz (Wikiversity:Chat, wiki blog) 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any other comments ? btw: I support this feature. We have been using this now quite some time at de.WV and it makes patrolling easier, if you don't have to check a controlled edit, ----Erkan Yilmaz uses the Wikiversity:Chat (try) 00:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned up some duplicate images (they were already on commons) that were resized and uploaded here for use at Introduction to Computers/Introduction. I deleted the uploads and modified the page to use the commons versions. I left a note at Talk offering help, since this is something that I found confusing at first. Of more concern is sloppy copyright when uploading - compare Image:180px-IBM PC 5150 Image.jpg (uploaded here as GFDL) vs. w:Image:IBM PC 5150 Image.jpg (originally Non-free promotional) Other recent uploads have slight changes in license or loss of original author name. There are still a few problem images that I left in place since they are not linked to and it would probably cause confusion for the editors of the page if I made changes. I'll keep an eye on this. Long term it is probably best to move the images from wikipedia to commons using Move-to-commons assistant instead of uploading to insure thet attribution and license info stays intact. But that is a bit more complicated for new users so we might need to create a tutorial or something. --mikeu 04:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could make a direct link to Wikimedia Commons from Special:Upload and suggest that people look for media there and upload new files there. We could also have more information on Commons at Multiproject upload. Maybe we could develop a tutorial about Commons as part of Wikipedia service-learning courses. --JWSchmidt 05:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all good ideas. The one remaining problem is when an editor here wants to use an image they found that is only on Wikipedia. The best thing would be to move that image to commons and then both projects can link to the same copy, rather than download from wp and upload to wv which is what happened with a few of the files. Mu301, 06:00, 9 January 2008

For an update on these images see User:Mu301/todo --mikeu 04:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have categorized all your untagged images (as of ~15 days ago due to TS replag on s3) into this category. I have also notified uploaders using {{subst:User:Mike's bot account/Uploader message|sig=~~~~}}. There may have been some false positives on the notifications, but that's covered by the last line of the message. I will periodically categorize images like this to keep your backlog organized. If you change {{subst:nld}} to a point where is suits Wikiversity I can easily replace the categorization with the template. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"There may have been some false positives on the notifications" <-- Why? How many? What is "TS replag on s3"? --JWSchmidt 01:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see my talk page for a discussion regarding the false positives. The toolserver is currently having troubles, and some tools are non-functional. Moreover, those which are working are using old data (as always; see m:Toolserver). So the data on English Wikiversity is lagged about 15 days behind. If there have been edits/upload/whatever on the live site, those are not reflected on the toolserver's copy of the database. I doubt there actually were any false positives, but it's possible. – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have since manually informed each user (and some that were missed previously due to conservative sorting) of which images are currently affected, and linked to Wikiversity:license tags, where soon there will be some more detailed plain-language instructions for what to do (ie don't re-upload). – Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blacklists

Update: the MediaWiki:Usernameblacklist has been in use for about 4 months. The MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is now active. The MediaWiki:Titleblacklist was in use for a short time, but is no longer active because use of this feature was causing trouble for the servers. --JWSchmidt 20:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Single User Login

FYI, I am now testing single user login. See w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-03-24/Single User Login We will likely start to get requests for username rename and usurption. A few have already been requested. --mikeu talk 18:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that b:User:Whiteknight on wikibooks has recommended that all b'crats hold off on renaming for now, as there seem to be mixed messages emerging from meta on how things work right now. I'll talk to him sometime today and try to get the scoop. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any recent updates you can share with us, SB? --HappyCamper 01:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SB, I started the two requests by having them post Template:Usurpation requested to the target username talkpage. It states the template should be there for two weeks. So no hurry, we can work up a policy page in that time. We have only had a trickle of requests related to this, but when this opens up to everyone we might get more. Better to be prepared. --mikeu talk 02:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited MediaWiki:Privacypage so that it now links to wikimedia:Privacy_policy. (This is the link called Privacy policy at the bottom of every wv page.) This is done to conform with WMF policy. See Wikiversity talk:Privacy policy for discussion. --mikeu --mikeu talk 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Landan

Over the past few months User:Jfrankc08 has created pages about what seems to be an invented language and nation (Landen), both here and at Wikibooks. Please take a look at this user's contributions. Should we just delete it all or does this count as some kind of learning project for invented languages? --JWSchmidt 04:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if how it can be used for learning can be justified in fairly reasonable terms, then perhaps it is not harming things. I would rather see our learning materials on Klingon be removed before Landan. And as a note in general, I don't think Klingon has ever been given a rational for being here. Although based on what I know about Wikibooks, I'm not sure it is appropriate at all there. I woudl be quite for deleting Klingon anyway and moving to some appropriate place on Wikia, but I'm not sure that the consensus is there.--Remi 05:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can start by putting all of the pages for constructed languages into Category:Constructed language. I'm also puzzled by this page: History of Hayiti. --JWSchmidt 06:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Remi, and thanks for your thoughts about Klingon. Fantasy languages are of educational value in a diverse variety of academic disciplines for diverse reasons. Some fantasy languages are more notable than others, and some invented languages have quite considerable historical and linguistic importance. A proposal for deletion would need to be very well reasoned. Having looked briefly at the Klingon pages, the general quality of the project seems to be considerably higher than the Wikiversity average. I do support clean-up and rationalisation drives very strongly, but I think this is not the place where it needs to be done - please do not try to tag the Klingon pages in any negative way. On the contrary, I think Jonathan Webley is a user who needs full community support. We should avoid a repetition of the Mike Carver fiasco where a valuable contributor was lost. --McCormack 07:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fantasy languages are of educational value in a diverse variety of academic disciplines for diverse reasons." In what way are they are they any more useful in facilitating learning than real languages? Especially Klingon? This I am not sure. --Remi 07:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately I lost a long and very detailed response to this in an edit conflict. I do not have time to repeat my defence of the Klingon project, but please do not try to undermine Jonathan's confidence in what he is doing here. (I'm worried about a repetition of the Mike Carver case). --McCormack 08:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could see much more value in creating a language as a tool to learn about linguistics... --Remi 07:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be happy to encourage a project on linguistic terms - but I'm a bit stumped by this one. One the one hand it looks like a joke: "Landan has over 8 million native speakers, and about 5 million non-native speakers"; but on the other hand, it could well be an interesting and fun experiment. I'm definitely supportive of Klingon (and Jonathan), as I see no problem with teaching and learning Klingon - the problem previously in the Wikimedia community has been a whole project in Klingon. I'm disappointed to see the User:Mikec case described as a "fiasco" - most of my dealings with him were through email, during which I bent over backwards to explain how copyright and GFDL works, towards which he repeatedly responded in unprovoked defence and anger. Cormaggio talk 10:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have no objections to an invented language, being used on this website or anyother sites. A lot of companies and corporations have developed an invented language, and used it in films like fantasy, sci-fi or other Genre's. The only thing which I don't want to see is a random number being used saying like this language has over 8 million speakers when officially it hasn't, which could cause some members of the General public getting confused and annoyed. Terra 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its a complete hoax. He did the same thing on Wikibooks. 5 million speakers? Thats a complete lie. It needs to be deleted. (76.15.56.93 23:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Please note what it says, "In fiction, Landan has over 8 million native speakers, and about 5 million non-native speakers." (emphasis added) I believe I have misread before. :) --Remi 23:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize I did not see that. Still, it does not change my view on this. I still believe this should be deleted. 76.15.56.93 23:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about Landan, never heard about it (and I am from central Europe...), probably a hoax. BUT the Klingon should stay. Just check out this link ;) [5] (more links). Moreover I want to poit out the work of Tolkien, known creator of artificial languages. Entry also on WV.--Gbaor 12:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we make a definitive decision on what to do with this page? I am inclined to delete it. To me, the pages come across as having placeholder content used for getting a feel for how to set up a "school" on Wikiversity, and has already served its purpose. --HappyCamper 12:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also think we should delete it along with all related pages and categories - I made this decision according to google search results landan, landan language. There should be at least few hits for this topic... I haven't found any. --Gbaor 08:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm not a custodian, but what about creating a portal for fictional languages from various films or books, they have fictional languages mentioned on Wikipedia, this is a site for learning and may prove helpful for people who are trying to study fictional languages for education work or even those in the filming industry who are trying to learn various languages like the Elven Language, like those on the Lord of the Rings film. DarkMage 21:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Wikiversity:Notices_for_custodians/Archive/1&oldid=1873659"