Jump to content

User:Liz/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorted 3 IPv6 addresses:

2607:fb91:bd0b:a57e:c0d:aa32:a539:4ede
2607:fb91:bd82:58ce:86b:3134:20ec:d5ad
2607:fb91:bdae:c5b9:35e0:7d88:f23f:a03e
Total
affected		 Affected
addresses		 Given
addresses		 Range Contribs
16M /64 16M /64 3 2607:fb91:bd00::/40 contribs
4M /64 1 /64 1 2607:fb91:bd0b:a57e::/64 contribs
4M /64 2 2607:fb91:bd80::/42 contribs
3 /64 1 /64 1 2607:fb91:bd0b:a57e::/64 contribs
1 /64 1 2607:fb91:bd82:58ce::/64 contribs
1 /64 1 2607:fb91:bdae:c5b9::/64 contribs
I'm currently unavailable for editing and contributions during the UK Bank Holiday (May Day) weekend. I shall respond to any queries upon my return on Tuesday 5 May. Please note I have NOT left Wikipedia! Have a good weekend :)

Liz Read! Talk!

Purge code &action=purge

"What makes night within us may leave stars" - Victor Hugo blallen@lhs.org

PROD list

id1Liz is
evaluating CSD:G13
eligible AfC drafts		id2


Admin statistics
Action Count
Edits 668546
Edits+Deleted 744350
Pages deleted 627495
Revisions deleted 18693
Logs/Events deleted 21
Pages restored 5454
Pages protected 1958
Pages unprotected 25
Protections modified 133
Users blocked 1198
Users reblocked 141
Users unblocked 18
User rights modified 12
Users created 1
Pages merged 52
This list:

Inline icon templates by shape and color

[edit]

Any of the following inline, comment-level templates can be converted into {{Resolved}}-style hatnotes by using {{Resbox}} to put a box around the icon and text.

Green check marks
 Implemented {{Implemented}}
check Partially implemented {{PImplemented}}
 Resolved {{Resolved mark}}
Accepted {{Accepted}}
Agree {{Agree}}
Approved {{Approved}}
Checked {{Checked2}}
 Verified {{Verified}}
Conditional yesCY {{Conditional yes}}
 Confirmed {{Confirmed}}
 Confirmed with respect to the named user(s). no No comment with respect to IP address(es). {{Confirmed-nc}}
 Technically indistinguishable {{Tallyho}}
 Blocked and tagged. Closing. {{Blockedtaggedclosing}}
checkY {{Check mark}}
checkY {{Tick}}
Helped {{Helped}}
 Done {{Done}}
 Task complete. {{Donetask}}
 Done – as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored on request. {{Unprod}}
Answered on user's talk page. {{Autp}}
Responded at the appropriate venue. {{Responded}}
  checkY Merger complete. {{Merge done}}
✓ {{Marked}}
 Done {{Done-t}}
✓ Pass {{Pass}}
Green tickY {{Aye}}
 Yes {{Yes check}}
✓ {{Y&}}
Cross marks
☒N {{Xmark|23}}
☒N {{Xmark}}
☒N This offer has expired {{Expired}}
☒N Deleted {{Deleted}}
 Not done {{Not done}}
Not done – empty request {{Not done empty request}}
Not done – please clarify {{Not done unclear}}
☒N Not done and not likely to be done {{Not done not likely}}
☒N Stale {{Stale-small}}
Rejected {{Smallrejected}}
☒N {{X mark}}
Red XN {{Nay}}
 No {{No mark}}
✗ Not done {{Not done-t}}
✗ Fail {{Fail}}
✗ {{N&}}
NoN {{X mark-n}}
X'ed box {{Xed box}}
Cancelled {{Cancelled}}
 Deleted {{Deleted-image}}
Red X Already declined {{Already declined}}
Red X Blocked {{Opblocked}}
Red X User blocked {{User-blocked}}
Red X Not a bug {{Notabug}}
Red X Not fixed {{Notfixed}}
Red X Won't fix {{Won't fix}}
Red X I withdraw my nomination {{Withdraw}}
Red X No technical evidence {{Nojoy}}
Red X Unrelated {{Unrelated}}
Red X Off-topic {{Off-topic talk}}
Black check marks
 Already done {{Already done}}
 Resolved {{Resolved1}}
YesY {{Check mark-n}}
Checked {{Checked}}
checked box {{Checked box}}
Yellow check marks
checkY {{Yellow tick}}
 Half done {{Half done}}
 Partly done {{Partly done}}
 Partly done {{Partly done-t}}
Blue check marks
checkmark Semi-done {{Semi-done}}
 Fixed {{Fixed}}
 Fixed by reporter {{Fixed by reporter}}
 Pending {{Bug pending}}
 Resolved {{Bug resolved}}
 Blocked and tagged {{Blockedandtagged}}
 Blocked without tags {{Blockedwithouttags}}
 IP block exemption granted {{Ipbedone}}
 IP blocked {{IPblock}}
 Proxy blocked {{Pblock}}
 Proxies blocked {{Psblock}}
 Range blocked {{Rblock}}
Minus sign
 Closed {{Close}}
 Denied {{Denied}}
no Disagree {{Disagree}}
no Not approved {{Unapproved}}
no Not bug {{NotBug}}
no Duplicate bug {{Duplicate bug}}
no Invalid {{Invalid}}
no Declined {{Declined}}
no No action {{No action}}
no No comment {{Nocomment}}
no Unnecessary {{Unnecessary}}
no No comment with respect to IP address(es) {{Nc}}
minus Removed {{Removed}}
Plus sign
plus Added {{Added}}
 Posted {{Posted}}
 Works for me {{Works for me}}
 Passed {{Passed}}
 Likely {{Likely}}
 Highly likely {{Highly likely}}
 Clerk endorsed {{Endorse}}
 Clerk declined {{Decline}}
 Check declined – Checkusers will not link accounts to IPs, per the privacy policy. {{Decline-IP}}
 Endorsed by a checkuser {{Cu-endorsed}}
 Check declined by a checkuser {{Cudecline}}
 Delisted {{Delisted}}
 Inconclusive {{Inconclusive}}
 Not Applicable {{N/A icon}}
Neutral sign
 Closed {{Bug closed}}
 New: {{Bug new}}
 Second opinion requested {{GA2ndopinion}}
Purple turn-right
 Deferred {{Deferred}}
 Defer to Abuse filter {{Deferabusefilter}}
 Defer to Local blacklist {{Deferblack}}
 Defer to Global blacklist {{Defermetablack}}
 Defer to WPSPAM {{Deferspam}}
 Defer to XLinkBot {{Deferspambot}}
 Defer to Whitelist {{Deferwhite}}
Simple clock
 Pending approval {{PendingRequest}}
 GA on hold {{GAOnHold}}
 On hold {{On hold}}
 On hold until {{OnHoldUntil}}
Clock
Orange clock Proposal on hold {{ProposalOnHold}}
 Reviewing request. {{Reviewing request}}
Pink clock Awaiting administrative action {{Awaitingadmin}}
ClockC {{Await}}
 Later {{Later}}
 Pending {{Tobedone}}
 Discussion ongoing...
 {{Discussing}}
 Doing... {{Doing}}
 [[User:|]] is doing... {{Isdoing}}
 Started {{Started}}
 In progress {{Inprogress}}
 Checking... {{Checking}}
 Reviewing... {{Reviewing}}
Note mark
information Needs discussion {{NeedsDiscussion}}
information Note: {{A note}}
information Administrator note {{Administrator note}}
 Assigned {{Bug assigned}}
Exclamation
 High Priority {{High priority}}
Nota bene* {{N.b.}}
 Urgent: {{Urgent}}
exclamation mark  {{Bang}}
 Requesting immediate archiving... {{Archive now}}
 Bureaucrat note: {{Bureaucrat note}}
 Checkuser note: {{CUnote}}
 Acknowledged {{Bug acknowledged}} ({{Ack}})
 Confirmed {{Bug confirmed}}
 Comment: {{Comment}}
 Remind {{Remind}}
 Remark: {{Remark}}
 Clerk note: {{Clerk-Note}}
 Robot clerk note: {{Clerk-Note-bot}}
 Renamer note: {{Renamer note}}
 Coordinator note: {{Coordinator-note}}
Question mark
question mark Suggestion {{Suggestion}}
? Maybe {{Maybe-t}}
question mark Maybe {{Maybe-i}}
Question? {{Qmark}}
Question? {{Question mark}}
{{InfoNeeded}}
Not done for now {{Not done for now}}
Not sure {{Not sure}}
Not sure. {{Notsure}}
 Investigating... {{Investigating}}
 Question: {{Question}}
 foo: {{Question|label=foo}}
 Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
 Feedback required {{Bug feedback}}
Bulb
Light bulb iconB {{Bulb}}
Flashing bulbB {{Bulb2}}
Idea: {{Idea}}
light bulb New proposal {{NewProposal}}
Smile
Thank you {{Thank you}}
 Thank you very much! {{Thank you very much}}
Smiley You're welcome! {{You're welcome}}
Smiley Sorry! {{Sorry}}
 Thanks {{Thank}}
Thank you {{WikiThanks}}
Thumb sign
Thumbs down icon {{Thumbs down}}
Thumbs up icon {{Thumbs up}}
thumbs up Great! {{Great}}
👍 Like {{Like}}
 Dislike {{Dislike}}

Others

[edit]
ω Awaiting {{Awaiting}}
(orange butt icon Buttinsky) {{Buttinsky}}
 Comment. {{Commentvote}}
 Dupe {{Bug dupe}}
Merged {{Clerk-Note-merged}}
bug   New bug {{NewBug}}
  Bug fixed {{BugFixed}}
copy   Duplicate proposal {{DuplicateProposal}}
shuffling arrows Proposal out of scope {{ProposalOutOfScope}}
 Moved to Commons {{Moved to commons}}
Orz... {{Orz}}
 Possibly {{Possibly}}
eye I have read the above message. I will reply when I have a moment. {{Read}}
flag Redflag {{Redflag}}
trash Redundant {{Redundant symbol}}
recycle Reopened {{Reopened}}
@Example: {{Reply to}}
arrow Reverted {{Reverted}}
lens Review {{Twomanrule}}
lens Review – This section is under review or has been partially reviewed by {{UnderReview}}
Facepalm Facepalm {{Facepalm}}
scissors Running with scissors is too dangerous for Wikipedia! {{Scissors}}
trout Self-trout {{Self-trout}}
trout Self-whale... for when a trout just isn't enough {{Self-whale}}
Yes Sent {{Sent}}
per snowball clause {{Snow}}
 This review has not received any comments in two weeks. {{Stale GAN}}
SUL Check {{SULcheck}}
 ToDo {{ToDo}}
eraser Undone {{Undone}}
 Uploaded {{Uploaded}}
red-outlined triangle containing exclamation point Warning {{Warnsign}}
 Request withdrawn {{Withdrawn}}
 Working {{Working}}
 Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. {{WPcrystalball}}
 Completed {{Completed}}
 Blocked but awaiting tags {{Sblock}}
 Possible {{Possible}}
 Not possible {{Impossible}}
 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) {{Possilikely}}
 Unlikely {{Unlikely}}
minus Replaced {{Replaced}}
 Looks like a duck to me {{Duck}}
 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me {{Megaphoneduck}}
 1.75x amplified ultimate quack of ultimate destiny {{Megaphoneduck|ultimate}}
 Clerk assistance requested: {{Clerk Request}}
 Relisted {{Relisted}}
 No sleepers immediately visible {{Nosleepers}}
 Behavioural evidence needs evaluation {{Behaviour}}
Redirect arrow Global lock(s) requested {{GlobalLocksRequested}}
 Stale {{StaleIP}}
magic eight ball The CheckUser Magic 8-Ball says: {{8ball}}
crystal ball CheckUser is not a crystal ball {{Crystalball}}
fish CheckUser is not for fishing {{Fishing}}
 CheckUser is not magic pixie dust {{Pixiedust}}
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ {{Shrug}}
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) {{Lenny}}

Multi-sign templates

[edit]

The following templates implement several icons:

Others

[edit]

Blocked reviewers

[edit]

Hello, again, AFC,

As I look over the daily 150-250 CSD G13 stale drafts, I noticed over the course of last week that several were reviewed by three reviewers who were later blocked for sockpuppetry or undisclosed paid editing. These would have been drafts that were reviewed last summer and fall that sat dormant for months, likely abandoned by their creators.

I realize that AFC is perpetually backlogged but would it be worth it to resubmit drafts that were evaluated by reviewers who were later found to not be abiding by basic Wikipedia policies? I feel like if AFC reviewers were acting improperly, they might not have done an adequate job reviewing draft articles. After looking at thousands of these drafts, I have found the vast majority are abandoned after the first rejection and are never revised and resubmitted. Let me know what you think.

Empty categories

[edit]

Hello,

Empty categories are tagged and sit for 7 days in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion. If they are still empty after a week, they are deleted. But every day, there are categories in Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion that are removed because they are no longer empty. Categories can get emptied out-of-process or be created before the page creator has assigned any pages to the category. So, please do not delete these categories prematurely unless, like what happened today, they are created by a sockpuppet.

CSD C1

[edit]

Okay, this is kind of a "D'oh!" moment for me. I have been working with empty categories since I started editing regularly back in 2013. One exception to CSD C1 tagging is "project categories that by their nature may become empty on occasion (e.g. Category:Wikipedians looking for help).". I, and I think other taggers, for years took this to mean WikiProject categories that are empty. There are a ton of empty WikiProject, especially surrounding article assessment because not every WikiProject has articles in the 20+ assessment categories that exist.

But, today, when I was in the process of de-tagging an empty WikiProject category I reread that phrase again and am now wondering if "project categories" doesn't concern WikiProject categories but categories in "project space", mean Wikipedia-related categories. Technically, WikiProject categories are in Wikipedia space but can I get confirmation from others that "project categories" does not refer specifically to WikiProject categories? I went back into the page history for WP:CSD and see that this criteria hasn't changed over the past 8 years so I guess I have just been reading it more strictly than it was intended. Honestly, I think

Speedy deletion idea

[edit]

Hello, folks,

This is not a formal proposal, I just wanted to float an idea out here to see if it might have any support. I spend a lot of my time these days looking at and deleting expiring drafts and user pages that fit the CSD G13 guidelines. But what I see a lot of aren't drafts at all but what I like to term "Social media profile pages".

From the information supplied on the pages, here is the typical profile of the editors who set these up: They are mostly male, between the ages of 12 and about 30 (although most are under 21 years of age), in school or a first job, they typically include their name, date of birth, the names of their parents and siblings, the name of their school and home town/village and their hobbies or talents or what they'd like to do after education. Typically, the editors who set these pages up in draft space have between 1-3 edits in their whole editing career and they are all to set up "their page". It's very much like a profile page you'd see on Facebook or some other social media platform.

It doesn't seem logical to label these as G13 "drafts" because they aren't prose so much as a list of personal qualities or family facts and there is 0% chance of them becoming an article. Pages like these sometimes get tagged and deleted as CSD G11 "advertising/promotion" but they aren't like a pseudo-LinkedIn page, the editor isn't selling themselves or trying to publicize their career, they are mostly too young for that. The CSD criteria that seems closest is WP:NOTWEBHOST except instead of putting this information on their main User page, it's on a draft page with their name (or their pseudonym and it seems like so many young people invent pseudonyms now).

I see dozens of pages like these and I sense no bad intent here, it mostly seems like these young people do not understand what an encyclopedia is. These kids are often from developing countries and libraries probably don't have physical encyclopedias any more, Wikipedia probably just seems like a website where everyone has their own page. So, do you think there is a chance of a speedy deletion criteria for "personal profile pages" or autobiographies? I know that autobiographies are strongly discouraged but they aren't actually grounds for deletion. Or should we just let them expire on CSD G13 grounds and hope that these kids don't return one day to ask for them all to be restored? Thanks for reading through this, I welcome your feedback.

Note eros.com escort-galleries.com adultsearch.com tryst.link escortdirectory.com slixa.com tnaboard.com preferred411.com megapersonals.eu

To feast upon the fiery cells, To squash them in their full glory, To commit them to an open doorway, and push them into some forgotten story. The therapy has come full circle, Taken from my body that which I’d give away, Let it rob me of those nasty cells, So that the rest of me can feast on the good life that is to stay.

ↂ

"Inspiration is only the spark keeping the creative flame burning" Mary Theis

Liz Read! Talk! 00:00, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive296#Mass deletion of pages - question of protocol, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 141#RFC: Should Wikipedia have lists of transportation service destinations?, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 187#RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 140#Should Wikipedia have and maintain complete lists of airline destinations?, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Airports/Archive 15#Request for comments on the Airlines and destinations tables


Arabic

[edit]
  • The Arabic Language Proficiency Test (ALPT)[1] is a standardized Arabic proficiency test designed by Arabic Academy and endorsed by the Islamic Chamber of Commerce and Industry (ICCI). There are 56 member countries under ICCI that cover all 22 Arab countries as well as 34 countries in Africa and the Far East. The ALPT started in 2002 and measures the student's level of proficiency in Arabic. The ALPT has five sections: Listening Comprehension, Reading, Structure, Writing, Speaking.
  • Berlitz Language Institutes offer a competency test in reading, writing, speaking & listening assessing the proficiency in the Arabic language according to the CEFR benchmark.
  • Eton Institute offers its own "Arabic Language Competency Test" (ALCT), a 4-skills (reading, writing, speaking, listening) exam which generates a band-score result similar to the IELTS model, but for Arabic.
  • The AL-ARABIYYA-TEST[2] by the AL-ARABIYYA-INSTITUTE, is an Arabic language proficiency test conducted online that measures a learner's level according to the CEFR benchmark.
  • ACTFL OPIc
  • CIMA (Certificat International de Maîtrise en Arabe)[3] is a standardized Arabic proficiency test developed by the Institut du Monde Arabe in Paris, and is offered since 2018 in Paris (at the institute) and in several accredited centres around the world.
  • Avant Arabic Proficiency Test (APT) [4] is a monolingual language proficiency test in Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) created for native Arabic Speakers who need to function effectively in the Arabic speaking world.
  • ILA - Certificazione Lingua Araba.[5] Arabic proficiency test of the 'Centro Studi' of Milan (Italy).

Romanian

[edit]
  1. ^ "Language Tests in Egypt, Arabic Language Proficiency Test in Egypt". www.egypteducation.info. Archived from the original on 2021-08-13. Retrieved 2021-08-13.
  2. ^ "Arabisch Zertifikat online in den Stufen A1- C2 GER | TOAFL.COM". Archived from the original on 2022-07-02. Retrieved 2022-07-15.
  3. ^ "cima". Institut du monde arabe. August 31, 2018. Archived from the original on June 5, 2019. Retrieved June 5, 2019.
  4. ^ "Arabic Proficiency Test (APT)". Archived from the original on 2021-06-14. Retrieved 2021-06-14.
  5. ^ "ilà". Centro Studi. April 29, 2022. Archived from the original on May 17, 2022. Retrieved April 29, 2022.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Liz/sandbox&oldid=1242416789"