User talk:Yaris678/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RE: "Only warning messages"

Thanks for the help! I only started using that tool today. Is there a policy that says under what circumstances it is appropriate to use a level 4im warning template? Thanks! Rider ranger47 ^Talk 17:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page. Yaris678 (talk) 09:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Next meetups in North England

Hello. Would you be interested in attending one of the next wikimeets in the north of England? They will take place in:

• Leeds on 12th April 2015
• Manchester on 26th April 2015
• Liverpool on 24th May 2015

If you can make them, please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page!

If you want to receive future notifications about these wikimeets, then please add your name to the notification list (or remove it if you're already on the list and you don't want to receive future notifications!)

P.S. I know you've already signed up for the Manchester one, but fancy venturing farther afield too? ;-)

Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Mike,

I think I'm going to be busy on the 12th of April but at this early stage 24th of May looks good.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:39, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Footage

Thanks for editing the article! :-) I think it's now long enough to be nominated for a DYK entry. Would you be interested in doing a joint nomination? I'm wondering about something along the lines of "Did you know ... that The Footage, built in 1913-15 in Manchester, was once the largest cinema in the United Kingdom outside of London?", what do you think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. The only thing I'm wondering is if "The Footage" is the best title for the article. More of the article relates to the buildings original use as the Grosvenor Picture Palace. Yaris678 (talk) 21:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Good point, I've moved it to The Grosvenor Picture Palace. I stopped by earlier today to take some pictures of it (now in the article); I'll nominate it for DYK next. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK now at Template:Did you know nominations/The Grosvenor Picture Palace! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Grosvenor Picture Palace

Harrias ^talk 08:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Old vandalism

@Bazonka:@Mike Peel:@ColinFine: On Sunday, we were talking about finding old vandalism. How about this one from January 2008? Yaris678 (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea whether that is vandalism or not. --ColinFine (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Good find! Bazonka (talk) 21:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch! This was the vandalism I mentioned. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Karl Kellner

Relevant to Widnes because of the Kastner Kellner works. I have added what I could find about his industrial career which is not much.Peterrivington (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. I have clarified this on the page. Yaris678 (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC Notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

ForbiddenRocky (talk) 23:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Meetups in Liverpool and Manchester

See you there?

Hi there! Do you know that there will be meetups in Liverpool on the 27th of September and in Manchester on the 25th of October?

We have sent you this message because you signed up at meta:Meetup/Manchester. If you would rather not receive such messages on future, please remove your name from the list.

Yaris678 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Formatting Issue With Your (Automated) Messages

Just wanted to let you know that there appear to be formatting issues with your (automated) messages. Please take a look: User_talk:Kudpung#Meetups_in_Liverpool_and_Manchester. --JustBerry (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

You can actually see the formatting issue right on your talk page in between this section and the one above it. --JustBerry (talk) 01:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? The formatting looks fine to me. Are you talking about the fact that the image extends into the next message? This is standard wiki formatting. I suppose I could override that formatting using {{Clear}} template. Might be one to consider if I send out a similar message in future. Yaris678 (talk) 07:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Help us improve wikimeets by filling in the UK Wikimeet survey!

Hello! I'm running a survey to identify the best way to notify Wikimedians about upcoming UK wikimeets (informal, in-person social meetings of Wikimedians), and to see if we can improve UK wikimeets to make them accessible and attractive to more editors and readers. All questions are optional, and it will take about 10 minutes to complete. Please fill it in at:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/JJMNVVD

Thanks! Mike Peel (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 20:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Yaris678!

Happy New Year!

Yaris678,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 23:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Project WP:Personal acquaintances confirmations

Hello Yaris678! After Wikimania you registered for the Wikipedians' Personal Acquaintances project and were confirmed by two users who had met you in real life. As you still need a third confirmation before you can start confirming other fellow contributors by yourself, perhaps you would like to have a look at the full list of participants - you will know a lot of them! - and ask them to verify having met you, too. Also, Happy New Year! :) --.js^{[democracy needed]} 13:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Next meetups in North-West England

Hello. This is just to let you know that the next wikimeets in North-West England will take place in:

• Manchester on 23rd January 2016
• Liverpool on 27th February 2016

Please sign up on the relevant wikimeet page if you can make them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for protecting Annastacia Palaszczuk. I am not a great fan, but she should not be libelled. LynwoodF (talk) 14:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I've declined a few requests today, but that one was well founded an proportionate. Yaris678 (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Cate Blanchett protection...

...I don't know. The last really vandalising edits by Ips (besides the two I mentioned) were about 9 days ago. Pending changes perhaps, but semi? Seems I read the protection policy differently. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 14:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right. Semi is unnecessary. I have down-graded it to PC. Sorry about seeming to over-rule your decision. I was looking at it for a while and missed your post declining the request. Yaris678 (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't mind being overruled...that much ;). Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me

Hello Yaris678, I am new to this wiki, could you please tell me how do I protect a Wikipedia pageLuke de paul (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello Y. I work with the Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates helping to remove templates. The article Reverse racism is now in the cat. It looks like the reason is that when you extended the PC protection here you did not set a new expiry time. So you can a) go back and set one and update the template or b) if you want it permanently protected just change the info in the expiry field to indef. Either course of action will get that article out of the cat and would be of help. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 05:51, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention. I normally let bots add the protection template. Should I conclude that bots don't update existing protection templates, so I should do this manually? Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello again Y. Thanks for checking on this and I see you have already updated the template so thanks for that as well. To answer your question you are correct that bots do not update existing protection templates. For regular protections this isn't a problem as, most of the time, the existing protection has expired and the template has been removed before a new protection is applied. I see this most often with "pending changes" protections. Oftentimes they are (wisely) extended before the current protection has expired but the system that you use does not update the expiry time in the template. You can update them manually which would be helpful. I also catch these in my work with the category and update them but this one instance was different as your edit summary didn't mention a new expiry time and I didn't want to make any assumptions about what your intentions were. My years of editing here have taught me that it is better to ask then assume :-) Cheers and I hope that you have a pleasant weekend! MarnetteD|Talk 17:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Manchester Science Festival poster.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Manchester Science Festival poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks b-bot. The file has been superseded by File:Poster for the 2015 Manchester Science Festival.pdf and so is no longer used. I have deleted the file. Yaris678 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

82.132.247.245

You recently blocked 82.132.247.245 for "long term abuse". Based on what, please? The contributions page shows only two edits, one made last year, and seemingly good-faith, the other lacking a citation, but otherwise also good-faith. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Likewise 82.132.231.193, with only three edits, two from 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:17, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Andy,

Both of these blocks are part of a single range block.

See the discussion here and the history of that IP range here.

Yaris678 (talk) 09:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:*

2001:8A0:6CC4:5601:* is back evading block at Football in Portugal and other articles. SLBedit (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Mahfiruz and others

Hi. The dynamic ip has again for the Nth time readded the deleted content, a mix of unsourced claims, or of claims based on a blog, sometimes keeping the source so that the content appears sourced when in fact the source says the contrary, sometimes blatantly contradicting reliable sources of the article without explanation. What do you want me to do? Put this sentence on the diff or on the talk page before reverting, would be enough?--Phso2 (talk) 17:16, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

It's probably easiest to explain it more fully on the talk page and then, when you revert, give an edit summary like "unsourced and contradicting sources. See the talk page". Yaris678 (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. If it is OK for you, i will then revert, and call you back the next time the text is edited in the same fashion.--Phso2 (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Here you are. There is the same problem here with the same user: as soon as the page was unprotected the same multi-reverted unsourced content came back, including the usual source falsification on note 3.--Phso2 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Same user has now turned to new playgrounds [1], [2], [3]. No every contribution has been already added and reverted before this time for the second article, but the general pattern is always the same: addition of unsourced content often contradicting the sources, unability to even defend his/her point, source falsification etc. What can we do?--Phso2 (talk) 22:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Phso2:

Sorry for the delay - I don't have much time to be on wiki at the moment.

It looks like you have found quite a pattern. Looking at your recent edits, some of those reverts may be related too. This is bigger than the protection of one or two pages.

I recommend you use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Start a new thread there, describing the pattern that you see being repeated over several pages and give links to show the pages and edits you are talking about. This will bring it to the attention of a larger number of admins. They will probably ask you a few questions and decide between them what is the most appropriate course of action.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, I will do it when I find the time to make a proper statement.--Phso2 (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I, sorry I didn't notice you had responded on ANI. There is some surge of activity on Kösem Sultan currently, and on an lesser scale on [4] (not very very often, but on a very repetitive way). What do you think?--Phso2 (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC) PS: perhaps also Turhan Hatice Sultan

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Yaris678. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

• Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
• A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.

Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins

Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers

Hi Yaris678.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins).MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ravi Rishi

Hi, you protected a page which had incorrect information (Ravi rishi) - how do you undo the protection and correct the information? There were no criminal charges and you can look at the court documents and other media to see that. Every time I change that - computer undoes the change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.227.164.234 (talk) 19:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. The article does (now) say that the case was closed as there was insufficient evidence. I notice that a a request was recently made on the article's talk page, which was partly done. The responding editor removed the stuff about charges from the infobox.

If you want a change to stick in Wikipedia, it helps to make it as constructive as possible and explain the change in the edit summary.

Yaris678 (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Yaris678. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection policy RfC

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk (sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC))

Happy New Year Yaris678!

Happy New Year!

Yaris678,
Have a prosperous, productive and wonderful New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

--Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 11:56, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

American Academy of Financial Management

Dear Yarish, the AAFM article needs updating. Presently, the article is a combination of falsehoods that were printed by editors who were banned for COI issues. I will fix it again to a readable article that has citations and good and bad comments. Please take a second to monitor it from there. Thanks, Sprintnoodle (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Anari cheese

Hello. I see that recently someone asked for indef move protection of Anari cheese, which you applied per your reply and template. However, it seems you also fully edit-protected the article. I was curious if there was a reason for that, or if it was a misclick? ^Avic_ennasis @ 09:01, 22 Tevet 5777 / 09:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

My apologies. This was an error on my part. I intended only to move protect. I have now removed the edit protection. Yaris678 (talk) 12:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No problem. I thought it was a simply, honest mistake. Thanks for replying so quickly and taking care of it! ^Avic_ennasis @ 12:45, 22 Tevet 5777 / 12:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Desi protection

@Yaris678: Thanks for protecting the page, Desi but I thought "indefinite pending changes" would be more suitable for that page because it is both IP users and registered users who are acting as sockpuppets who are vandalizing the page. Yesterday, Whyyoudothis111111111 (talk · contribs) was the latest banned sockpuppet account of DesiKindInMahMind (talk · contribs) who was making the same edits. I appreciate your effort of protecting the page but registered users will still be able to edit it and since the problem involves sockpuppet users I don't think "semi-protection" will work in solving the problem. I was just wondering because the new registered users would be allowed access to the page as "auto-confirmed users", wouldn't they or have I got it wrong? Thanks in advance. (58.164.99.48 (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC))

Hi. Semi protection will prevent editing by very new accounts. See WP:AUTOCONFIRM. Occasionally, sockpuppets are created and do enough work to qualify, but these accounts are typically blocked as soon as they start to vandalise or POV-push. Yaris678 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. (121.220.76.204 (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC))

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes

NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67

Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
• Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
• Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news

• When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
• Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
• The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration

• The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries

• JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

---

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

List of Stuck in the Middle episodes

Thanks for your input here. In reading what the IP edit I reverted had put in, I think their word change was OK, too, but the IP is associated with sockpuppetry that has been going on for months (of the blocked User:Orchomen), and the general rule is to revert on the spot when it's the sock of a banned or blocked user. I and several other editors, including Amaury, IJBall, and Callmemirela, have essentially been wikistalked by this user, who doesn't know when to stop. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: FTR, I think only about half of Orchomen's "grammar" edits are actually "improvements", and his ratio of "improvement" edits to "just rubbish" edits has been declining lately in my opinion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Admin

Hi Yaris, is there any specific reason why you don't self-identify as an admin on your user page? Just curious. Not a criticism. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyphoidbomb,

The short answer is that I haven't done much to my user page since becoming an admin.

The slightly longer answer is that it does feel a bit like showing off. Or like I think I might win an argument over content based on the fact that I am an admin, rather than the quality of the argument I put forward.

That said, I can see an argument for mentioning it. As an admin, I am able to help people in ways that other users can't, so maybe I should make that clear.

Yaris678 (talk) 10:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, you satisfied my curiosity, so thank you for the kind indulgence. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

It's been three years, today.

Wishing Yaris678 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow. Three years. Still feels like I am a new admin. Thanks for the message. Yaris678 (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Happy admin anniversary! Hope you have a great day. Lepricavark (talk) 16:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Merge of Knowledge Cafe with World Café (conversational process)

Hi Yaris678 - thanks for posting a note on my page about the merging of the two pages. I was away and picked up your message a bit late, but I appreciated you letting me know. I think there are differences between the two processes, but perhaps not so much as to warrant separate articles. I noticed on the World Cafe page that there's an alert about the tone of the article, so I'm going to try to address this. Anyway, thanks for the message Fbell74 (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Desi page protection

@Yaris678: This is related in regards to the Desi page which you protected until July 26, 2019. I don't think it's really working as the latest edit to the page shows a registered user removing sourced information. I still think "indefinite pending changes" or even "Require administrator access only" would be more suitable for that page because it is both IP users and registered users who are vandalizing the page. (121.220.104.95 (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2017 (UTC))

Pending Changes protection would not help because the editor is autoconfirmed, i.e. has more than 4 edits and 10 days tenure. Full protection would be a massive over reaction. I suggest that you discuss the edit on the articles talk page. You can also revert the edit, if you want, but don't get drawn into an edit war. If the other editor is being unreasonable, other editors will help and admins may eventually block him/her. Stay civil, as this will make it more obvious which is the unreasonable party.

Yaris678 (talk)

@Yaris678: Thanks for replying and yes I would revert it but I'm not a registered user and at this moment I'm not interested in becoming one as of yet. Would you mind reverting the edit? I'm just following what the two sources state so I decided to bring it up. (110.149.134.29 (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC))

There are lots of good reasons to get an account, one of them is that you will be able to edit that page after 4 edits and 10 days.

Whether or not you create an account, you can discuss the edit on the talk page now. I notice that PAKHIGHWAY has started a discussion at Talk:Desi#Pakistanis are NOT Desi 2.0. Why don't you reply to that post?

Yaris678 (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks @Yari678: (110.148.124.207 (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC))

Assange RfC

I don't think your closing of the Assange RfC (here) accurately summarizes the responses, and I suggest you amend it. The argument made by most of those who oppose inclusion of Assange's statement in the lede is that including his statement would make his statement seem equivalent (in plausibility) to the statements of American intelligence agencies. The argument made by most of those who support inclusion of Assange's statement is that he is a central figure to the subject, and that his statement was widely reported on in the media. The balance is 16 (oppose) to 10 (support), which is hardly a ringing endorsement of either side. I think the fact that it's not closer to 0 - 26 is a sign of the extreme partisanship in this subject area, since including a widely reported statement by one of the key figures in the subject would normally be a no-brainer. -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Your summary above doesn't differ massively from what I said. I didn't mention the raw numbers or the partisanship - I agree with you on those points, but I don't see how that would change my closing statement. Yaris678 (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Peace Corps Director

Hi Yaris. I saw that you were active on the Talk page of Sargent Shriver (the first Peace Corps director) many years ago and was wondering if you had a minute to review some content for the page on another former Peace Corps Director Aaron S. Williams here. I am asking for review, because I have a COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Friend

Yaris678 is a friend of Gurch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.204.43 (talk) 10:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Are you referring to User:Gurch? I'm afraid I don't know him/her. Yaris678 (talk) 15:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protection to PC

Even if there haven't been many contributions lately, reducing semi-protection to PC as you did here is never a good idea since it can easily lead to IP/new account disruption sooner than it otherwise would have with semi-protection running its full course. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see disruption come back before the PC period ends. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Never a good idea? We will see if it is a good idea in this case. There was only two weeks left on the semi, so at some point it was going to get opened up IPs. If the we get disruption in that period, we can easily go back to semi. I know we don't want to be constantly changing protection levels, but I thought it was worth giving PC a try in this case. Yaris678 (talk) 09:12, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes never; reducing anything from semi-protection is basically asking for disruption, and is especially bad for pages with long histories of that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that article should be indefinitely semi-protected? If you aren't, I don't get your point. Yaris678 (talk) 08:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That would be much better. My point is that when something is semi-protected (particularly referring to limited periods of time), it shouldn't be cut short since it means IP/new account disruption can return sooner (which of course should be avoided). Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:05, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes, it does allow IPs and new accounts to disrupt if they want to. It also allows them to contribute productively, if they want to do that. Yaris678 (talk) 14:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protect

Can you semi-protect Hands (Mike Perry, Sabrina Carpenter and The Vamps song), Night & Day (The Vamps album), Funk Wav Bounces Vol. 1, I'm Not Alone, Eurythmics and Yeezus to persistent long-term abuse of Wikidesctruction vandal? 123.136.111.125 (talk) 12:21, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Spatial visualization ability

Hey! I've fulfilled your request at Spatial visualization ability way back in September 2015 for a more reliable source. The subject of the article has come up quite a bit recently in relation to Google's leaked 'anti-diversity' memo, and I think it's important that Wikipedia has a good article on the subject, so if you have any further suggestions I'd appreciate them. :) TheDragonFire (talk) 04:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd completely forgotten that I had edited that article!

No new suggestions to make, but there are still some inline tags in the article. I would be most concerned about the "citation needed" and the "not in citation given".

Yaris678 (talk) 18:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey

Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 20:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Yaris678. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Racial hygiene

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Please do not revert my removal of your edits again.

Further, I see no consensus on the talk page for the edits you made. I have asked there that you provide specific rationales for your removal of the information you did, clarifying why you think it is "off-topic". Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the point in this message. It might be best to keep the discussion on the article talk page. Yaris678 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Sexual Offenders in the Magic the Gathering Judges Program

I noticed that is section was taken away from the Magic the Gathering wiki page due to untrustworthy\poor sources, I think this second needs to be there (Assuming it has good sources and not vandalism). However, with a lock that is possible. Is there a circumstance this is section is being blocked because people within the community don't like who broke the story? Wizards of the Coast, Judges Program, Channel Fireball, etc have already released official statements on the matter.

—Terps2008 (talk • contribs) 00:38, 16 January 2018‎ (UTC)

I was the one who protected the page and I don't know who broke the story, so it is probably best to stay away from conspiracy theories about why the page was protected.

If this subject is covered by reliable sources, it is OK for it to be in the article. Your account has been around long enough that you will be able to edit the article. Of course, on a subject like this, different people will have different opinions on what is reliable and on the best way to summarise what the sources say. Therefore, it would be sensible to discuss the sources and what you think the article should say before adding anything to the article. Certainly, if you add something and it is removed, don't put it back - discuss it and see what other editors think should be said on the subject. The best way to start a discussion it is to start a new section at Talk:Magic: The Gathering and give link(s) to the source(s) you think are reliable.

One last thing, when you post a comment, add four tildes - ~~~~ - that adds a signature on the end of the comment, like my one below. The slightly different looking one above is one I added for you.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I will ping the admin's and see what they think, thank you for the advice! ~~~~

Weird, it does not look like it adds a signature? —Terps2008 (talk • contribs)

Page protection

Thanks for the page protection on Rashid Khan (Afghan cricketer) - it was next on my list to request at WP:RPP. Thanks again! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

No worries. TripleRoryFan got to RfPP first. Yaris678 (talk) 18:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Four years of adminship

Wishing Yaris678 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Chris Troutman (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Request Change to Breitbart

This less biased source refers to Breitbart as nationalist and populist, not far right. May I make the change? https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/10/conservative-media-face-a-post-bannon-landscape-335799 Campbell301 (talk) 12:29, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The description identifying Breitbart as "far right" shows political bias on the part of Wikipedia and needs to be edited. I agree with User:Campbell301. Dsnow3 15:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

RPP

Hi, I had requested protection for Royal Navy which you added, but the level is now "Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access". My understanding is that only requires 4 days and 10 edits to reach that level. Many of disruptive edits to that page are made by new 'throw away' accounts as opposed to using IP access. I had requested "Extended confirmed" or higher... is that possible? If so, could you upgrade the protection? If not, then I suppose I need to propose this a level of protection to be created and made a available. Where would I do that? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 07:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Wolf Child,

None of the throw-away accounts were autoconfirmed. Therefore, they wouldn't have been able to edit the page with the current protection level. If the page starts to get abused by autoconfirmed accounts, then we can upgrade the protection to extended-confirmed protection.

Yaris678 (talk) 07:40, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

RFC on microagression page

Hello Yaris678. There is an RfC on the microagression article talk page which might be of interest to you given your previous work on this page. - Pengortm (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Recent page move

Hi, I have been working on pages with incorrect ref formatting, and the following page List of lists of exoplanets, shows in the history that you recently moved it. I'm not sure what is going on with that page but it has 2 See also sections, 2 External links sections and 2 References sections. I don't know if it was like that before you moved it, or if it happened during the move. I was going to fix the cite errors, but I'm afraid I might screw it up worse. What do you think? Thanks-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That weirded me out for a bit. The page wasn't how I remembered... but I think I have worked out what is going on and fixed it.

The issues seems to be with transcluding sections from the article Exoplanet, and this change, which removes the <section end=detection /> tag. This means that the entire or the remainder of the article was transcluded.

I have made this change to the Exoplanet article, which has fixed the problem.

Yaris678 (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Yaris678. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Manchester meetup 36 - 9 June 2019

As you attended one of the previous two Manchester meetups and/or expressed an interest in being notified about future ones, this is a heads-up that I have started organising a meetup in Manchester on 9 June 2019 - details are at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. Please feel free to invite others with an interest in Wikimedia/Wikipedia to join us. Thryduulf (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Administrators must secure their accounts The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised. Use strong, unique passwords for your Wikipedia account and associated email Change your password now if your Wikipedia account password or email password is reused on another website, exposed, or weak Enable two-factor authentication now for improved security

View additional information

Why have I received this message? All administrators are receiving it. What prompted you to send this message? Recently, several Wikipedia admin accounts were compromised. The admin accounts were desysopped on an emergency basis. In the past, the Committee often resysopped admin accounts as a matter of course once the admin was back in control of their account. The committee has updated its guidelines. Admins may now be required to undergo a fresh Request for Adminship (RfA) after losing control of their account. What do I need to do? Only to follow the instructions in this message. Check that your password is unique (not reused across sites). Check that your password is strong (not simple or guessable). Enable Two-factor authentication (2FA), if you can, to create a second hurdle for attackers. How can I find out more about two-factor authentication (2FA)? You can find out more about 2FA at m:2FA.

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:50, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Manchester meetup - 9 June 2019

This is an invite to/reminder of the Manchester Meetup on 9 June 2019. Starting at about 1pm on Sunday 9 June in the Sir Ralph Abercombie, 35 Bootle Street, Manchester. Full details are on the Meta page at m:Meetup/Manchester/36. It would be useful if you could say whether you're likely to be coming so we have a rough idea of how many to people expect and how large a table to reserve. Thanks, and hope to see you there. Thryduulf (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)