User talk:Xeno

This user enjoys Viva Piñata and Viva Piñata: Trouble in Paradise.

Query

Hello, Xeno,

I just came across a curiosity and thought you might have an idea about it. You mass deleted a lot of geography stubs earlier today, I'm assuming through Twinkle's batch delete function. But when I went to do my regular check for broken redirects, as you can see here, there were 81 talk pages of redirects for the articles that you deleted. Just the talk pages. So, there must be a bug with Twinkle that, for some reason, it deleted those thousands of articles, the article talk pages and the redirects but not the redirect talk pages. Hmmmmmm. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, could you please finish what you started at User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess? Section 3 should have been deleted according to Alexis Jazz's deletion plan. Section 4 can also be deleted unless Alexis Jazz wants to work on it (which I do not recommend). Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes this can be done soon. I think Reywas92 also identified another set. I do wonder about these hat notes, whether I got lucky to land on one or there are more that need to be retained. Liz: I’m not sure about the twinkle bug, or maybe was a setting. I will look on my next batch and report the bug if needed. –xeno^talk 19:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you're trying to do. I'll try to make a list. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 08:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess/hatnotes — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:26, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess/hatnotes for new search results — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Creating redirects from these hatnotes could be automated, but not without consensus. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 16:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I probably wouldn’t create the ones to "villages or similar name", just anything where we took out a legitimate eventual disambig landing. –xeno^talk 20:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I'm still coming back to this. –xeno^talk 12:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        So I think I'm done blueing the ones from User:Alexis Reggae/Articles for locations oh my what a mess/hatnotes, let me know if you see any more than might need to be restored. A good way to sort them would be the hat target is not another mass-created article. Thank you for the list! –xeno^talk 00:52, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• ← Interested users (4nn1l2—Alexis Jazz—Fram—Hog Farm—Uncle G—Ymblanter) et al. have noted consensus for additional mass deletion: I'm fine to carry them out after I restore the hatnote content I inadvertently deleted in the previous batch, as long as the pages with relevant hatnotes are redirected and removed first (e.g. ANERT), or point me to the list and I will do that content work prior to deleting it (will take time). –xeno^talk 12:56, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Enter {{subst:ABADI}} when you want to create a redirect. Won't work for deleted redirects. For pages with multiple hatnotes I picked the first target. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• From User_talk:Ymblanter#Villages_in_Iran: Now I need to fix the links to the pages I just restored. –xeno^talk 17:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Done though I'm not sure what to do whether it should be left redlinks (if it's a real village) or removed (if it's a gas station, or farmer's field). In the meantime, I did these edits to fix up the backlink issue identified. Probably 4nn1l2 is best placed to answer. –xeno^talk 18:18, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xeno, I have no idea what made this article on a populated and legally recognized place (censusindia.gov.in#35597) deleted so can you please refund per WP:GEOLAND? Thank you, GSS ^💬 04:23, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry GSS seems there was parallel processing of the list I used. Restored! –xeno^talk 04:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay. Thank you so much. :) GSS ^💬 04:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a mess of the article history. I'll fix in the morning after coffee. Alexis Jazz did I trip over anyone other than Liz? –xeno^talk 04:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article at Bahua used to be about an Iranian abadi for which there was consensus to delete. I requested WP:CSD G6 so Bahua, Punjab could be moved in its place. It seems you restored the history for both the Iranian abadi and the village in Punjab as well as the history from 2006 which was prodded by Desertsky85451 on 12 October 2006‎. For historical reference, this was the whole article in 2006: Bahua, according to at least one chinese source, is supposed to have been the eponymous ancestor of the Uar component of the Alchoni. General Bahua was recruited by General Ban Yong (the son of Ban Chao) as part of his mercenaries in a campaign against the Huyan in 126. After the event there were centuries without significant reference to Pahua's army. You'll have to selectively delete the revisions for the abadi:

1. 20:16, 27 April 2021‎ Liz m 7,738 bytes 0‎ Liz moved page Bahua, Punjab to Bahua: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Mass deletion of Iranian abadis
2. 07:54, 27 April 2021‎ Alexis Jazz 1,859 bytes +112‎ Undid revision 1019894434 by John M Wolfson (talk) There's consensus to mass-delete these Carlossuarez46 stubs, making the village in India the only Bahua. User:Xeno, User:Ymblanter? Tag: Undo
3. 01:13, 26 April 2021‎ John M Wolfson 1,747 bytes −112‎ Decline speedy; I see no talkpage or other consensus that the Punjab village is the primary topic Tags: Manual revert Reverted
4. 12:50, 25 April 2021‎ Alexis Jazz 1,859 bytes +112‎ Requesting speedy deletion (CSD G6). Tags: Twinkle Reverted
5. 14:16, 8 December 2018‎ Kevinsam2 m 1,747 bytes +15‎ →‎References: clean up, replaced: {{coord missing}} → {{coord missing}} Tag: AWB
6. 14:24, 3 December 2017‎ JJMC89 bot 1,732 bytes −90‎ Remove unrecognized coordinate parameters. Use |coordinates={{coord}} instead. See Wikipedia:Coordinates in infoboxes. undo
7. 03:21, 12 February 2017‎ JarBot m 1,822 bytes +15‎ Bot:Add Iran's Portal undo
8. 15:06, 6 November 2016‎ GSS 1,807 bytes +39‎ WP:HAT undo
9. 23:51, 4 December 2012‎ Carlossuarez46 1,768 bytes +1,768‎ create

— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 05:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should be good now! Thank you both. –xeno^talk 16:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I did the rest of the 1372 resulting in 3260 deletions including erroneous immediately above. I checked "unlink backlinks" this time, it may be interesting to view and fix these pages: [1], seeing if any of these links are notability indicators for the deleted article. Let me know if anything needs to be restored. –xeno^talk 03:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Alexis Jazz: As birth place of Saʿd al-Dīn al-Ḥamuwayī, we may be able to source Bahrabad, Razavi Khorasan; Srnec are you sure that's the right Bahrabad and add sourcing? I've restored it (without prejudice). Some of these stubs are questionable. –xeno^talk 01:21, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Formerly Hi, I saw in like 2009 you move protected Sleep Deprivation for 6 months. I'm not sure why, but it's still protected. I don't see a reason to move it, but at the same time I don't see why it's still protected and believe pages shouldn't be protected unless it's necessary. Do you think it's appropriate to remove the protection at this time? Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 04:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better looked at en masse as "old move protections from prior to the edit filter"; NawlinWiki (who placed the present case and more): thoughts? –xeno^talk 12:38, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux: is this a useful demarcation? –xeno^talk 16:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any protection in force on Sleep Deprivation at all, I do see Sleep deprivation being move protected and in isolation agree with the requester above that this protection should be removed. As far as the larger issue, I do think that a report of articles with only indefinite admin-move protection, that has been there for a long time (esp over 10 years) would be a good thing to review en masse and likely reduce. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

xaosflux/Shadowrvn728: Hey deckers, I unprotected Sleep deprivation. There's an initial list of possible candidates meeting the criteria of move=sysop, edit=all at Special:PermanentLink/1020145753. –xeno^talk 12:59, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the query on that - don't suppose you have that in like quarry or somewhere where the protection date could be included too? Basically I'll propose removing any of those with ancient (e.g. 10+ year) protection over at AN unless. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic is my expert here: I think the protect log dates can be a little wonky to pull from the db. There might be a better way to pare the list, perhaps exclude things with "BLP" mention on it, etc. –xeno^talk 14:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic, ideally a table of: PAGENAME, EDIT PROTECTION LEVEL, MOVE PROTECTION LEVEL, LAST PROTECTION LOG DATE, LAST PROTECTION LOG REASON, LAST PROTECTING SYSOP, and possible "ISREDIRECT?" for these page would be nice, for the set of pages where (NS:0 && editprotection NOT sysop && moveprotection IS sysop). — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RAQ#‎Indefinite move-protections placed long ago on articles. —Cryptic 20:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Epic! Thank you. Now the question is: are we comfortable stepping those down all the way (probably not 100%; looking at the list); or should they be moved to the EC level first? –xeno^talk 20:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xeno: probably best asked at WP:AN - but FP-->SPP would probably be better than ECP; the abusefilter is a lot better these days. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

← Discussion ongoing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinitely move-protected articles, log of protection modifications starting from here. (Regarding the first entry: When unchecking the 'Unlock further protect options' when only move-protection is set, the intuitive state would be for the edit-protection to not be increased to match the previous page-move, but to remain as unset.) –xeno^talk 15:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wugapodes: I didn’t really have a well-thought out plan with regards to dividing up and signalling that items were checked. If you want, just grab one of the 500 blocks and copy to your sandbox. I know TheSandDoctor is working backwards through the 1000 set, so any of the year chunks should be fine! –xeno^talk 01:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the heads up. I grabbed the 2009-2010 lot and threw it up at User:Wugapodes/moveprotectreview — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Xeno (or others), do you still have OS? Could you take a look at the removed edits from Ona Zee c. 2016? I'm guessing that it's not related to page moves, but private info like names can be oversighted and if that's the case here I'd probably keep it protected. No way to know on my end. — Wug·a·po·des​ 08:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wugapodes: I handed back the eraser, and I’m also having trouble working out what happened there. Erring on the side of caution seems fine, though perhaps the protection should be re-applied with BLP as the reason? –xeno^talk 12:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They have a process there called "sweeping the wikivoyage:Travellers' pub” (where substantive discussions that occur on the Village pump get archived to the talk page of the relevant place) which I'll probably bring to the idea lab. WhatamIdoing: any thoughts on their process? (Is it unique? Does it scale?) –xeno^talk 20:36, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like their process, because it means that discussions are less likely to get "lost". We do some of this ourselves, with our {{Moved discussion to}} templates. However, it is more work, and I think it would be difficult to find a (single) home for many discussions here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It's been a few years since we spoke, but nice to see you are still around and editing !! I can't believe it was 12 years ago we put up those banners :¬)

I just dropped by to say hi, but was intrigued to see your top message and thought you might be interested in this.
It seems that even when we try to do something to change things, it ends up getting strangled ... that one only lasted 6 months before it was dead!
I only just found out that it was dead after a user asked me about a blank page there.

Very sad, I helped set up all the pages and some of the policy, then had to go away for a while and dropped out of the guides program.
So strange, as it had involvement from several of the WikiFoundation team trying to increase editor retention, I figured that was one project that would stay around for a few years! Chaosdruid (talk) 17:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chaosdruid, great to see you around too! I know the Growth team is about to deploy a test on EnWiki to try to increase editor retention. See: Wikipedia talk:Growth Team features#Potential plan for experimental deployment. As far as blasts from the past, I think wiki-adoption is still around in some form, at least. –xeno^talk 20:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh ... self reminder. Ched - read the WHOLE date. sorry? Thanks Xeno. — Ched (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, that explains it. I’ve been caught out by that, but it’s usually just for a year back, not 6 :p –xeno^talk 12:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ched, work-me encourages both of you to tell @JKlein (WMF) about this problem. Maybe we could get a little note at the top of each section that says something like "last comment six years ago"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021).

Administrator changes

Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes

Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news

• Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
• The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news

• The user group oversight will be renamed to suppress. This is for technical reasons. You can comment at T112147 if you have objections.

Arbitration

• The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

I'm mentally ill and can't help my actions. I shouldn't take it out on editing the encyclopedia in a disruptive manner. --Heymid (contribs) 22:32, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]