User talk:Mu301/Archive 2016

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I guess...'ve returned for good now? Or just a short stop? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've had some personal issues that made it difficult to participate. I'm going to work on some small projects this semester and try to get back into regular editing. --mikeu talk 00:38, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great to know that a user from the old days are back :) I'm an "old" user too (Mabuabsdd, Draubb) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 00:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Congratulations on Curator! Your contributions are improving the project. --mikeu talk 03:38, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the compliment :) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:50, 2 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow, my watchlist has stuff on it all of a sudden! --SB_Johnny talk 13:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hehe. Drop by Wikiversity:Think tank for a blast from the past. --mikeu talk 18:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indefinite Block on an IP

I don't necessarily think that's a good idea, as someone else might use that IP later down the road that WANTS to contribute constructively. ( In my opinion, a 6 months - 2 year block would be sufficient, because the IP might be the IP of a user that wants to contribute productively (or maybe the IP might change, we don't know). Thanks (and remember, this is just my advice) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are too many inappropriate edits on multiple projects going back to last October. (I also blocked the ip on outreach: and hid revisions there, others have blocked for various times on wp, etc.) I'm waiting for some additional info from the Stewards to decide on the appropriate duration of the block. There is a cross-wiki pattern of unproductive contributions and lack of communication. For now, a good faith contributor can edit the talk page and request unblock. I would need to see some reassurance that the pattern won't continue. I'll review within 7 days, it is unlikely to stay indef. --mikeu talk 15:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to the appropriate duration, this is a bit of an edge case. The ip may be a public computer in a library, for example, which would argue for a shorter block like a month. However, the nature of the edits could be an attempt at posting info useful for w:Identity theft which is a very serious breach of Mediawiki policy. Even if that is not true, the editing has been disruptive. I would usually prefer to handle this through the abuse filter but the edits don't have enough in common to catch all of them. Part of the reason for the duration and message in the block it to flag this for admins on other projects that it needs to be looked at more carefully. This ip seems to have slipped through the cracks, hopping from project to project to persistently evade short blocks for the past couple of months. --mikeu talk 15:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The ip is now globally blocked. I've removed the local block as it is redundant. --mikeu talk 23:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, great. Thank you. ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 23:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocked Notices

Do you find blocked notices on spambot user pages adding value? I haven't bothered because there's no legitimate user to see the notice. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is probably a waste of time. In some cases where it looks like a person manually inserted spam it might have some slight effect, though I'll grant that it is unlikely. I don't think there is any point in us making the effort. I've also refrained from blocking ip addresses where the abuse filter succeeded in preventing edits. I don't think that it is a bad idea at all, it's just an unproductive use of my time if the filter is doing its job. --mikeu talk 18:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've been doing the IP blocking more as a personal experiment than for wiki protection. I wanted to identify the approximate number of bots under control. By blocking and forcing the controller to change addresses, I have a much better understanding of their botnet size and the approximate location of their victims. I have also seen the attacks reduced, but I don't know how much of that is block and how much is the filter working so they don't try anymore. If I were to guess, I'd say it's the filter. As the blocks expire, there are relatively few repeats. I may give up the block effort soon and focus on filtering. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:22, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's fascinating. Please let me know if you learn anything else from the experiment. I saw the blocks and jumped in to lend a hand thinking the activity was a problem. Then realized it wasn't worth the effort given that the filter was doing most of the work. --mikeu talk 20:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open Proxies

On a related note, I noticed that we have thousands of indef. blocked IP addresses from January 2007 as part of the Wikiversity:Open Proxies project. As far as I can tell, this is no longer necessary, based on meta:WikiProject on open proxies being a historical archive and meta:Category:Open proxies blocked on all participating projects existing. Any thoughts on whether to maintain these blocks locally? -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:57, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I imagine that some of the open proxies were abandoned long ago. Though there might still be some ISPs who tolerate abusive use of their hosting. I'm not sure how risky it would be. I tried to cross reference a couple of them but couldn't pin down if they were still legitimately blocked at wp. We don't seem to have indef blocked any proxy since 2012, which leads me to wonder how much of a problem it still is. Wikimedia has changed a lot since then and the cross-wiki abuse that gets globally locked now reduces that burden here. I find it odd that the ips blocked here are not also globally locked if they were such a problem. I suppose we could turn a few dozen on and see what happens? I'd also suggest that we change the proxy template to explain how to request unblock.
Have you seen User:Mu301Bot/Requests for unblock? If you watchlist the page you'll see when a request gets added to the category. It runs hourly.
FWIW, it looks like there are automated tools to detect them w:Wikipedia:Open_proxy_detection/Explanation But, a quick look shows much out of date information. --mikeu talk 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ip proxy unblock

Would it be possible to have your bot delete the IP talk page when the block is removed? I'm not going to be able to keep up on the deletes. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:19, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking we need to get more systematic about this. I think the talk page removal is secondary to the unblocking and have been focusing on the later. I would have to flag my bot as curator to enable deletion. I wanted to check how the community felt about that. But don't worry about my leftovers. I'll take care of it one way or another. I might have the bot replace the proxy template with speedy while we figure it out. --mikeu talk 03:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think I figured out a way to do it as tagged. I know I can loop through the backlinks for {{openproxy}} to find the pages that have it, and then check that user to see if their status is blocked. If not, then delete the page. But I would have the same problem of needing to flag the bot as curator for the deletions. Otherwise, I could have it generate deletion URLs. See User:Dave Braunschweig/sandbox for unblock links. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:42, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See User:Dave Braunschweig/sandbox. We can do them as a pair. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 04:00, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's a lot more efficient. We should discuss the curator flag with the community. The magnitude of this is quite large. In the past bot deletion has been controversial. Personally, I would be comfortable with it if there were some clear ground rules, ie. a limited scope task like just open proxy talk pages and/or limited time frame. The flag can be added and removed easily, if there is consensus to do so. I'm heading to work now but will look into this later. --mikeu talk 14:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another possibility would be to have a bot search for recent unblocks and change {{Openproxy}} to {{subst:Welcomeip}} and perhaps add to a category like Category:Unblocked OP. I don't much care if the pages exist, but the block notice really needs to be removed. Given the magnitude of blocks this could cut our time in half. --mikeu talk 00:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I ask...

...what is your opinion/view on blocking IPs because they are "proxies"? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suspect that the folks at meta will block them globally about as quick as we could, and global blocks are more effective in that it prevents an active proxy from hopping from project to project to evade a local block. The former policy was to block open proxies even if there were no edits. I disagree and think that temporary local blocks should only be used in cases where there is disruptive editing and not preemptively. The mediawiki wide system of blocking repeat offenders has changed significantly since the blocks that we removed were put in place. That sort of policy is no longer the best method. --mikeu talk 01:30, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that IP proxies should be blocked only when they disruptively edit :-) Is there any future plans on writing a policy about IP Proxies here at WV? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:36, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of the OPs that I've unblocked I've run across only one like Special:Contributions/ that are globally blocked for an extended time. I think the mediawiki wide policy is fine. --mikeu talk 01:57, 13 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reply to IRC

Thank you for the compliment. But, couldn't a request close if there aren't any objections to it? I believe I know what I'm doing in front of a pair of buttons, but after all: timing. If it's going to be halted, I have no problem with that, I have no rush to become one. (oh and thank you for the move) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 22:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has always been a requirement for a Probationary period mentor and then the mentor is the one who recommends (or not) the candidate for Full. "If any experienced custodians agree to mentor you and you agree to their mentorship, then you will be approved as a probationary custodian for a period of at least four weeks." [1] "Candidates that... have failed to secure a mentor within one week are archived as incomplete." [2] There are a number of archived requests that were closed with the comment "No custodians willing to mentor the user." It is perfectly acceptable to find a mentor first and then add your request to candidate page. Either method is fine.
As I said in irc, I think you are doing a good job. I have also been taking the time to explain why I've made certain decisions about blocks as a sort of "pre-mentorship." (But, I'm also trying to get caught up on tasks that were left unfinished while on wikibreak.) There are things I check for when blocking like cross-wiki abuse, revert vandalism on other projects, or alert an admin there. We're all in this together and I feel it is important to communicate with our sister project colleagues about issues that are occurring that might have an impact there. I also look for threats or libel in an edit or personally identifiable info which needs to be revision deleted. These cases are not always obvious or uncontroversial. The mentorship is really intended as a learning experience. Those who have used the tools for longer have seen rare activity that should be handled in a cautious way.
As you may have noticed I tend to take my time with certain things :) There is no rush to update the BOT policy, for example, and there are good reasons for moving slowly. In some cases it is better to give it a little thought before pushing the buttons. A sandbox edit might be a little spamish, but that doesn't necessarily warrant a block. Maybe a revert and {{welcome ip}} instead.
PS: the #wikiversity channel is for betawikiversity: But there is also #wikiversity-en for our project. I usually hang out in both, but mostly I watch out for requests for custodian action in -en. These channels are very little used today, but were once much more active. On occasion an admin from another project would alert us for cross-wiki vandalism. This is mostly done through other methods now. --mikeu talk 00:16, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Documentation template?

Is the {{documentation}} template no longer to be used here? Why did you delete it? It's still used by lots of templates. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm assuming this was a mistake? ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd say so. Can someone undelete it? :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 02:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it was a botched import. I deleted a few files by mistake. I though I had restored things but let me know if there is anything I missed. Sorry for the confusion. Also, if you see any odd messages try adding ?action=purge to the URL and refreshing as this will clear the cache and show the restored files. --mikeu talk
No worries. Could you please also import {{documentation subpage}}? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 04:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
YesY Done Please let me know if there is anything else that needs restoring. --mikeu talk 04:07, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. :) — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 06:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Astronomy Images

Just an FYI on duplicate astronomy images. Marshallsumter had problems with Commons deleting images and not providing an opportunity to recover them and put them here as Fair Use. So we haven't been removing duplicates lately. I haven't heard any complaints on other content, but it's probably better to leave the astronomy duplicates for now. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just worked on a handful of astro images, so I'm not sure which dup you are referring to. I moved three of my uploads to commons. I tagged this page File:Sicily - NASA orbital photo.jpg as speedy; I saw the note and didn't delete it in case the page was still needed for a bug report. This one appears to be a copyvio (or three) File:Betelgeuse PK.png. --mikeu talk 03:37, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you find any duplicates uploaded by Marshallsumter, it would be best to check with him before deleting. The rest can probably be deleted. For awhile I removed duplicates. Then there was discussion and agreement that the duplicates don't harm Wikiversity, so we were leaving them. Copyright violations are a different issue. They can sometimes be used as Fair Use, but would need to be tagged that way. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 03:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That all sounds good, The dups are fine with me. There are some uploads of mine from aeons ago that I would prefer at commons as I do a significant amount of cross wiki editing. It is more than just tagging fair use, but the missing attribution, licensing, and exemption doctrine rationale will have to wait for another day. I don't really have the energy to open that can of worms right now. --mikeu talk 04:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, I'm not surprised that Marshallsumter has had problems with deletions at Commons. From what I've seen of his expansive interpretation of fair use here he appears to be going beyond a reasonable reading of Foundation policy. Specifically, several of the provisions listed below. This is something that the community will eventually need to discuss at length, but as it is a rather large problem I suspect that we will need to approach this through several smaller steps over time. --mikeu talk 20:07, 30 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Wikiversity content that is used under the fair use doctrine is used as little as possible and only in order to attain a specific educational goal. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice. An entire copyrighted work is not used if a portion will suffice. Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/sample length is used when possible. Even low-resolution/fidelity or short samples cannot be used under the fair use doctrine at Wikiversity if such use allows for piracy or other re-use that will decrease the market value of the copyrighted work." —Exemption Doctrine Policy

Wikiversity:Year of Science 2016

I am not sure what your plans were for Wikiversity:Year of Science 2016. I tend to ramble, so feel free to move my recent contribution to the talk page.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 00:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In fact I moved it all to the talk page and went to do a rollback, only to discover that Atcovi performed an edit. I don't wan't to rever his edit without discussion.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I really like the ideas there. These are all great suggestions for improving wv. I'll add some info that more specifically addresses the improvement of science related resources. --mikeu talk 02:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the only edit was to add a single comma. I wouldn't worry about that. --mikeu talk 02:09, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry about that @Guy vandegrift :P (btw I'm interested in Wikiversity:Year of Science 2016) ---Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:23, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atcovi: No apology necessary. I was about to revert my own edits, and you "saved" them!--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 02:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]



This is John Garner. I have been adding to the Wikiversity Atlantis site from my work computer at the hospital. Sometimes I do not log in or I forget.

I have been registered under user name RAYLEIGH22 for quite some time. I also work on it at home from time to time.

At the present I am working in Medical Records. I have been a radiologic technologist since 1970 registered by the ARRT since 1972. I have teaching licenses for high school and I ran a radiologic technology program for 13 years.

I have always dabbled in science also having a BS and a MS in Physics. I have a PhD in educational administration. This is only one of my hobbies. But I do have a love for this science of geology, thanks, for helping me. I could not be getting around these sites and contributing without your help, and I could not be sharing this hypothesis regarding Atlantis without your help.

John Garner PhD RAYLEIGH22 (discuss) 13:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, and welcome! I'm happy to provide any help that I can. Let me know if you need anything. --mikeu talk 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


PlanetPhysics was a website that is no longer available. Last year someone who must have been a primary contributor provided a PlanetPhysics archive and asked that it be imported here. The problem with the archive was that it was only effectively available in LaTeX format. I did a bunch of research, found some LaTeX to Wiki conversion code, improved it as much as I had time for, and imported the 800 or so pages. Another user had agreed to review all of the pages after they were imported. Apparently that review was incomplete. The entire learning project likely needs review, but physics is not my area of expertise. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 23:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to join the board of First Journal of Science

After a communication with our other board member, I can now invite you to join the board of the First Journal of Science. As per this recent edit by Mikael Häggström, you might someday choose to recluse yourself from the board so you can be more active as a referee or contributor. But at the moment your insights are badly needed to get this thing off the ground. If you choose to accept this offer, go to First_Journal_of_Science/Editorial_board and add your name to the membership list.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 01:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I find the idea very interesting and would be willing to contribute. --mikeu talk 02:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your nomination of an article for FJS

Mike - As per our discussion I "nominated" the article on Alpha_Centaur. In order to illustrate the nomination procedure, I added your signature on your behalf. Delete immediately if you have any reservations. I "forged" your signature so that other editors would understand the process. The page is at First Journal of Science/Publishing. An opportunity to publicly discuss the nomination is at First Journal of Science/Editors which will soon contain a link to the article's submission talk page. Also, board meetings will be held at First Journal of Science/Editorial board/log. To keep that page short, place lengthy information, discussion, etc. at First Journal of Science/Editorial board/log/Mu301.

Finally, my communications with Mikael are complicated because they are cross-wiki (he does a lot on Wikipedia). If I sent recently you a messsage or you a comment, and you can't remember what page it was, or even which wiki, there is a "directory" at First Journal of Science/Editorial board that looks like this: Guy vandegrift T v: w: b: c: log.S. Click the individual letters to see what's up.--Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 12:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That all sounds good. I'm trying to multitask here by both improving wp for the Year of Science while also getting our journal launched. I need to give some thought to this process. I've made some suggestions to Centauri talk that might require substantial editing of 3 subsections. The article may be too unstable to review for a short time. I would not feel comfortable accepting the permalink until my concerns are addressed. This one is in the stage where I have "sent the manuscript back to the authors and requested that they resubmit a corrected version to our journal" when these issues are addressed. I'm also on wp often, so let me know if there are any pages to watchlist there. --mikeu talk 13:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First Journal of Science

Board meeting at First Journal of Science/Editorial board/log. Not urgent -Guy vandegrift (discusscontribs) 13:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Files with no machine-readable license

I was attempting to use commonshelper to move the first of our files in this category and found that the file is already on Commons with the exact same title: "File:-1--4tiles.png". The version here at File:-1--4tiles.png is an earlier version without an ellipse around the "+++". If this is true with all or nearly all of the other files in this category, using this first file as a test, would deleting this first file here cause the resource it appears in to now call the Commons file? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the file has the same exact name, then yes, deleting the local copy will cause the commons version to appear in all linked pages. You might have trouble undeleting here, if you needed to later, as the interface won't let you overwrite a global copy with a local one. --mikeu talk 02:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:01 Project Preparation.png

Attempts to delete this file have proved vexing. I've tried deleting this file twice now and I'm getting this very strange message, "Error deleting file: The file "mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/k/9/a/k9art0b8dzdhxjty717rlz46bliwu3z.png" is in an inconsistent state within the internal storage backends". Clues? I have deleted another file from the speedy delete category and another from Category:Files with no machine-readable license without a problem. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very weird. I successfully moved the file out of the way so that the commons version has now taken its place in our pages. But, I still can't delete the file either. We may have to file a bug report. The file itself is not such a big deal, but it indicates that there is an error somewhere. --mikeu talk 22:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only thing I've found so far unique to this file is this at the top of the file when opened with "Edit source": "* Wikiversity:Main Page --> Practical Arts and Sciences --> School of Project Management --> Project Management - A course in Project Management based on Mindmaps". I don't see why this should matter. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 22:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Get emails about Wikiversity Journal matters

Hi! As a fellow board member of Second Journal of Science, I think you may want to be included in the email list used to discuss matters related to the overall Wikiversity Journal project, including issues that affect both Second Journal of Science and Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. You can email me your preferred address if you're interested. Mikael Häggström (discusscontribs) 15:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YesY Done --mikeu talk 12:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mispelled a Link/Page :-(

I didn't want to bother you with such a tedious task but I have misspelled a title (sub-)page and it has been annoying me every time I see it... Here's the page: Pre-Late Egyptian Reconstruction/Templatic Class I: The i-Type Vacalizations and it should be vocalizations not vacalizations. Thank you for your time and patience and work on this site =).-- dannydiscuss 14:37, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

YesY Done I moved the page, but didn't leave a redirect. --mikeu talk 17:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome Back

Good to see you around! -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 17:49, 12 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]