User talk:AmandaNP

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Unblock table

Your bot seems to have missed the unblock request on User talk:Plutonical. It was posted on 5 February 14:48, but it wasn't added at 15:00. It's still not there. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 20:17, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Issue was much bigger than was thought, with a total of 26 entries missing. The issue is now fixed and pushed to the server. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:34, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you make your bot undelete an older revision of this file?

Hi. I'm here to ask for moving this file to Commons. I've relicensed under public domain because it's too simple for protection. Files for moving to Commons must have all revisions exist, and it's missing the first revision uploaded by Vacant0. Can you use your bot for undeleting it? If yes, I'm very pleased for moving free files to Commons! Kys5g^talk! 02:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use my bot to do it no, but if you can get a commons admin (or recognizable SME in the area of PD-textlogo) to sign off that this is sufficiently meets that standard as I don't have the knowledge to tell, then I will happily make it available from my regular account. -- Amanda (she/her) 03:43, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, my fault. I though while bots can delete older revisions when unnecessary or unused fair use (CSD F5), bots can also restore revisions in place; but I was wrong, only their owners can undo these deletions. Thanks for your explanation! Kys5g^talk! 04:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Kys5g: The file cannot be moved to Commons because it's above threshold of originality in Poland, its country of origin. I have updated the description page accordingly. It's an SVG so the size is just numbers in the file for how the computer should show it by default—in reality the file is essentially infinite resolution. So the revision doesn't have to be restored. It can be though. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 03:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you explain why did PZ's JPEG logo exist on Commons? Kys5g^talk! 04:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not supposed to. I've put it up for deletion. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 04:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2024-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

Between 2 April and 8 April, on wikis using Flagged Revisions, the "Reverted" tag was not applied to undone edits. In addition, page moves, protections and imports were not autoreviewed. This problem is now fixed. [1][2]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 April. It will be on all wikis from 18 April (calendar). [3][4]
Default category sort keys will now affect categories added by templates placed in footnotes. Previously footnotes used the page title as the default sort key even if a different default sort key was specified (category-specific sort keys already worked). [5]
A new variable page_last_edit_age will be added to abuse filters. It tells how many seconds ago the last edit to a page was made. [6]

Future changes

Volunteer developers are kindly asked to update the code of their tools and features to handle temporary accounts. Learn more.
Four database fields will be removed from database replicas (including Quarry). This affects only the abuse_filter and abuse_filter_history tables. Some queries might need to be updated. [7]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

MediaWiki message delivery 23:26, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JayCubby blocked as sockpuppet

2 days ago, you globally locked BMX is on wikibreak right now! as an LTA. Yesterday, JayCubby, the creator of that account, was blocked for sockpuppetry by Primefac. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 19:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very puzzling situation cause I feel like I want to AGF, but there is too much here to use AGF, so I've processed a lock in the meantime. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deprotect the redirect page for 9/11

I know WP:WHATABOUT exists (it’s mainly for page deletion but still) but when it comes to page protection and if you’re not trying to compare how “controversial” the things are it’s fine. The page for the actual September 11th attacks that it redirects to are semi protected, so a redirect page that goes to that shouldn’t have extended confirmed protection, especially since it has only been edited a few times since the protection went on (which is a reasonable amount for a redirect page). I propose a trial deprotection of the 9/11 redirect page and, if vandalism returns, raise the level to what you see fit. CharlieEdited (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have several concerns about this. 9/11 has been subject to alternate theories in the past and currently falls under AMPOL CT. Given this is also the year of an election, and disinformation campaigns that have occurred more and more as of recent, I don't think this is good timing either. And beyond that, the talkpage gives a good indication of how unprotection could go wrong, even if it's not related to a page move. I don't see a balanced argument to deprotect it until at least after the election without a more valid reasoning. If you are wishing to edit the redirect, forming consensus and/or using the edit request would be a good idea. -- Amanda (she/her) 02:41, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about the page for the actual attacks. I am talking about the redirect page. Redirect pages almost never get more vandalism than the page they redirect to, so it makes no sense for the redirect page that is named 9/11 (which is the one I am referring to) to have a higher level of protection than the page it goes to. CharlieEdited (talk) 16:43, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Amanda, you are welcome to leave your own reply but I am also giving my own as I am a (talk page stalker)). I think the reason why redirect pages may have a higher protection than its target is because the target pages needs to be edited every now and then, but for redirect pages, there is usually no good reason to. You could either wait until you reach 500 edits, or better yet, do an edit request. Plus, people may do a cut and past move so I see why the redirect needs to be protected.

See the redirect page for kiev as an example. The redirect page is fully protected but the target page kyiv is ECP protected. I am almost ECP myself (480 edits). See Wikipedia:Redirect#protection:

Sometimes, a redirect to an article pertaining to a very controversial topic will be fully or, more rarely, semi-protected indefinitely. This is done when any of the following criteria are met:

*There is no reason for it to be edited

It is frequently expanded into whole articles
It is an obvious vandalism target
It redirects and/or refers to a very controversial topic

IMO, it meets criteria 1, 3 and 4, so its clear why it is protected. Also, 9/11 is actually included in that section so that page will need to change should it be unprotected. JuniperChill (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair. I wasn’t even interested in editing it anyway but I just got caught up in the fact that I keep trying to lower protection on certain pages, (namely Roblox which I still think should go back to semi but Ferret said no and the only real argument against it was “JuSt WaIt To EdIt It”), because for many articles their protection stays way after it’s necessary from admins forgetting about it. CharlieEdited (talk) 17:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For your information

I just saw some vandalism on my watchlist mentioning "Project Ban AmandaNP". Perhaps this is a sockpuppet of someone you encountered before? - ZLEA _T\^C 04:02, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]