Write a new message. I will reply on this page, under your post. This talk page is automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 28 days are automatically archived to User talk:Arthur Rubin/Archive 2024 . Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 22, April-May 2017

• New and expanded research accounts
• Global branches update
• Spotlight: OCLC Partnership
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if the community at DMOZ would be interested in joining the Wikimedia Movement? I bet we could get support for such a proposal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple factors involved. I can say it's being discussed in the new internal fora, but I don't think the operational models are compatible. The admin team is negotiating with AOL for access to internal DMOZ status not available to the general public, and the "DMOZ contract" may prohibit release of that data to the general public. Also, the COI model is completely different from that mandated here by the Foundation. For example, I would have been permitted to list my own website if I made the connection known to the "meta" editors. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DMOZ content is under a CC BY license so it is movement compatible.

With respect to COI, you can try to list your own website on WP as long as you disclose your relationship aswell. Here on Wikipedia you are allowed to hire someone to write a WP article about you or your business even.

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:07, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:124.106.241.36, who you blocked recently, using the word 'evasion'. Can you say any more? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: The IP is changing "English" to "British" whenever it appears in a description. I think that makes him/her close enough to the editor indef-blocked for doing that to count as block evasion. They share other characteristics, as well. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As you participated in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Proposal: One-way IBAN on Godsy towards Legacypac, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing IBAN between Godsy and Legacypac. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of templating is wholly inappropriate. As an administrator, you should know that. Cassianto^Talk 16:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cassianto: You realize WP:DTTR is an essay, don't you? I would rather he stop making edits in violation of policy and consensus, and edit-warring to keep them in. I would prefer that he stop editing 2017 unless he can get consensus, but he has violated WP:3RR, and I'll file an WP:AN3 report when I get to my desktop, if I have to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Rubin, where to begin. (a) DTTR, (b) INVOLVED (c) a war takes more than one side, did you warn the other editor(s)? (d) the situation was resolved, once again another admin action that's completely unnecessary (e) you clearly misunderstand SEAOFBLUE, there's no need to deliberately link to a redirect there (f) Where did I violate 3RR? Diffs please. Honestly, you should know much better. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, an essay it might be, but it's also worth noting that to adhere to DTTR means you'll be acting with respect towards the other editor of long standing. Something you clearly know nothing about. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome of your report and all the other places you've mentioned me, please now leave me alone, I don't want to be pinged by you, I don't want you to talk on my behalf, and if you need an admin action to be conducted, please get someone else to do it. You are not welcome anywhere near me any longer as it's clear to me that you cannot conduct yourself as a neutral admin. There are many other, more able admins who can deal with this kind of thing without all the infractions you've made in the in the past 36 hours. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our main idea is to show that newly proposed shape (as evolution of older ideas) is practically applicable and feasible for computer science. Therefore I'd like somehow to stress, that new shapes can represent Base-256 numerals using single and consistent characters. As our idea was reviewed and published in IJCSET, I believe it is not "madeup" and has as much reliable source as ideas proposed by other computer scientists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valdis.vitolins (talk • contribs) 10:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Valdis.vitolins: I may have been wrong to say it is not "reliable", but it seems uninteresting. I left your comment in Hexadecimal; I'll complete moving it to the top along with the previous failed proposal.

If you are Valdis, it's inappropriate for you to add the material, per WP:COI. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've now started stalking my edits. I'll add it to the list of admin abuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have shown lack of understanding of WP:RY; why should I believe you understand categorization? As for specifics: not everything with "Institute" in its name is an institute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're stalking my edits with no good reason. As I said, this is noted and added to the list of your misdemeanours. Abuse of your position as an admin is not to be taken lightly. Please do something constructive instead. As for "lack of understanding of RY", are you therefore stalking the edits of all the other editors who have commented against the current way RY works? Or just me? Are you going to undo your lop-sided admin action at the RY guideline or do we need to report you for that as well? P.S. for clarification "Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport in the UK" is an institute whether you like it or not. That there are more refined categories is not in dispute, but claiming my categorisation to be erroneous is yet another false accusation. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:55, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

Hi Arthur, Apologies for the "lovely" edit summary this afternoon - In short a couple of the editors there had already discussed and argued at length above my RFC and in turn one editor was blocked so I didn't want my RFC going the same way, I have no objections to discussions and debates but I didn't appreciate the RFC going from discussions to what I believe was more or less baiting so I wanted the whole thing hatted so that way they could take their issues somewhere else but regardless of all that I shouldn't of got so pissed off with you so my apologies for that,
Happy editing :), –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting for all these diffs where I have purportedly lied about guidelines. I have requested them from you four or five times now. You are supposedly an admin, you should know better. If I don't get them today then I will redact your accusations. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:49, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your lie that WP:RY is not a guideline applicable to 2017 is still present in Talk:2017. If you will strike that, I will strike my comment. If you redact my comment, without redacting ALL your related (that is, following) comments at Talk:2017, I will recommend you be blocked. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing my revision of the article, I found no instance in which I purported false information. Consequently, I will be reverting the article back to the condition in which I left it. However, per your reasonable request, I will provide a credible, external source (via an in-text citation) to substantiate my claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixkennedy (talk • contribs) 16:56, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]