Wikipedia:Simple talk

I think Nazi ghettos is quite short and could be merged with Ghettos in Europe during the Holocaust, which an editor has been working on recently. However, should there be a standalone list or should that be included within the main article for the topic? 2607:F140:6000:806A:C138:1965:393B:D295 (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jewish ghettos established by Nazi Germany, is English-wiki's article. The name is spot-on.--(En-wiki has one article.)--We have two articles (but they should be one).--It does not matter which name you choose (for now), because i expect to have a surprise (after a merge).--Now, if there were 'non-Nazi ghettos in Europe' during say, 1940-1945, then there is one title that maybe should not be the 'merge title'.--Good luck (and see ya after 'the' merge), cuz i'll be fixing other articles. 2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 (talk) 15:15, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. ✩ Dream Indigo ✩ 19:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we might also have an issue on naming here. Stalin established 'workj camps' (called 'Gulag), the first camp was built and opened 1918/1919. Most of them were established in the 1930s. Stalin died in 1953. They were used for regular and political prisoners (and perhaps targetet less of an 'ethnic group' than those in Germany. At the start of the war, about 1.5 million people were in these camps. S, likely we have a naming issue, do we want all 'labor camps', or only those of Nazi Germany? - I am not a hisotrian, and don't know if similar camps existed in other parts of the world. Eptalon (talk) 05:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Gulag was a network of (many) Penal colony, in the Soviet Union. Check if the Vorkuta "camp", was a work camp, or something worse.--Could one say that few people would bother to check if the worst of the Auschwitz camps, were work camps? 2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

"The origins of the town [,now city,] of Vorkuta are associated with Vorkutlag, one of the most notorious forced-labour camps of the Gulag", according to En-wiki. 2001:2020:30D:A266:B459:A45E:E830:8A74 (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:359:8A64:9C57:41AB:16B8:A663 /2001:2020:323:D3CA:446A:FEEC:D94A:7361Reply

I think we should focus this on a single page and it should be about the Nazi use of ghettos. fr33kman 16:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fine, user:fr33kman.--What should the name of that one article be?

Nazi Germany's ghettos, or

Jewish ghettos established by Nazi Germany.

("Nazi ghettos" is not crystal-clear about time or place, one might say.)

Of the three last-mentioned names, i "vote" for any of the two first ones. 2001:2020:4345:BC7E:113B:FC1F:C004:CEDC (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• I have redirected to Nazi ghettos.--Justification, en-wiki has an article called "List of Nazi concentration camps" - that is a Simple title. 2001:2020:4345:BC7E:9997:D541:B0EA:90AA (talk) 16:20, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The redirect has been undone, by a bot (some hours after the fact).--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:4359:E3C8:8463:67EE:292B:F09 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)/2001:2020:4359:E3C8:8463:67EE:292B:F09 (talk) 12:33, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Be bold. My edit of today, has edit-remark "See discussion at Simple Talk | Revert Good-faith edit | Undid revision ...".--Bold reading might be of more help today, than bold editing. 2001:2020:341:E598:E536:4693:5330:C3A9 (talk) 14:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

This template appears to be used as a base for creating navigational boxes for the current squads of football teams. The header in the resulting templates says "current squad". The issue is that the template was also used to create the following navboxes for teams' squads in individual seasons:

• Template:FC Liefering squad 2021/22
• Template:FC Liefering squad 2022/23
• Template:FC Red Bull Salzburg squad 2021/22
• Template:FC Red Bull Salzburg squad 2022/23
• Template:FC Red Bull Salzburg squad 2023/24

These are not intended to be for the current squads, but for the squads of specific seasons, so they shouldn't say "current squad".

I think we need to do one of the following:

• Create a new template to handle these so that they don't say "current year". (I don't suggest changing the existing template because we would lose that change if we update the template from enwiki.)
• Decide that we don't need these and eliminate them. For what it's worth, enwiki doesn't seem to have any "<team> squad <season>" templates. The five listed above are the only "<team> squad <season>" templates I could find here.

Pinging @Werner100359:, the creator of the five templates listed.

Thoughts? -- Auntof6 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bumping. -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:43, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Honestly I'm leaning towards option 2. TBH, I wouldn't be 100% opposed to the idea of something like this if it was just for continental/club-level international trophy (eg. FIFA Club World Cup) winning teams (See Template:Borussia Dortmund Squad 1997 Champions League, which I honestly forgot I made until typing this up), but seeing as these ones are for Red Bull Salzburg (one of the better Austrian teams of recent) and FC Liefering (Salzburg's reserve team), deletion would probably make the most sense. ShadowBallX (talk) 03:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have begun a policy proposal at Wikipedia:Inactive check users to prompt discussion of a new policy regarding inactive check users. Please use the associated talk page to discuss it. The current page is just a starting point and will change over time. Thank you for participating. fr33kman 16:09, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Fr33kman I know a few wikis where similar policies were proposed including globally if I remember, but there was a heavy opposition considering the nature of this tool. Primarily because marking a number of checks as a requirement to keep these tools will encourage rash and unnecessary checks. And secondarily, since the tools involve a lot more than just doing logged checks. Like, keeping other CUs in check, processing unblock requests, cross-wiki coordination, acting based on information shared among CUs in CUwiki and many more. BRP ^ever 17:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I acknowledge that there are problems with any policies of this nature but believe there must be a way to dissuade users getting the hat and then never or rarely using it. Just like the project needs active editors so to does the checkuser group need active CUs. If having any of the admin bits truly is "no big deal" then why hang onto a flag you never use. Non-admin editors already have issues regarding the admiration of admins , especially stewards, it is incumbent upon us to dissuade that sort of thinking. Volunteering to give up a hat because you never use it would show that having it in the first place truly was no biggie. However it's done, I see a problem and I seek an answer. fr33kman 18:31, 18 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Isn't the difficulty in convincing 25+ people that you should have the tool already a mechanism to dissuade users from getting the hat and not using it?- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:45, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

+1. The hat is so difficult to get in the first place that I'm not worried about hat collectors. Also, all of the problems with this on other wikis apply here. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed! I don't think we have a hat collector problem here. I greatly admire our admin pool and do not think people ask for tools they don't need. But to get the flag, be active for a while and then peter off is a problem. Getting the flag is difficult for a reason, the information we gather can be very dangerous as we all know what misuse can bring about. fr33kman 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is really about hat collectors. But if there's a concern about too many checkusers, you'd want to remove less active checkusers so you could replace them with more active ones. 73.170.137.168 (talk) 16:26, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, five checks in six months seems like a lot for a wiki of this size. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see two basic problems: Cu logs aren't public, so only a checkuser (or steward) can tell if I ran a check. Also, CUs also run other checks, about which they don't necessarily tell at WP:rfcu. Eptalon (talk) 13:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A quick look at the logs show who is active and who isn't. My main concern is the RfCU page and the checks that are done there. Brian and Vermont don't factor in because it's obvious that they are very active with the tools. If the inactive CUs were doing similar work that'd be fine and I wouldn't have an issue other than our mutually agreed statement for the need for help with the "public" side of the work we do. We'll always have more work going on in the background than at RfCU due to the nature of xwiki investigations. If inactive CUs want to use their tools doing background jobs then I'd welcome that. I'm talking about someone who uses it a few times a year. We do have a disproportionate number of CUs to admins and that's not going to change. With the spill over of problems coming at us from enwiki we just need help with the request pool. fr33kman 15:58, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The number of times a CU uses the tool per set period of time isn't really important. I'm just wondering how we can encourage colleagues to become more active or step down to allow someone else to take up the fight. Although five actions in six months is a trivial task to achieve . There is enough work to keep us all in an active state. fr33kman 16:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FusionSub, yes getting the hat is hard in the first place but with the ratio of actives to inactives I think it it doesn't dissuade inactivity. fr33kman 16:12, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Depends on how big of a possibility there was for the RfP to fail. An RfP like yours, where it was unanimous? I can see your point. But if you struggle to get it and only get it by 1 or 2 !votes, then I believe my point applies, since they put in a chunk of work to convince the wider community.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 10:53, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

(forgot to ping @Fr33kman).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 11:58, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@fenufanga mentioned the idea of a possible reelection of CUs. That would give the community a chance to hold CUs to account for their activity status without using a number of actions per year, which can easily be done in a week by a CU. With a reelection process the question can become one of quality rather than quantity. fr33kman 20:06, 19 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think we are okay. There is no crisis. Looking at the list of users Vermont and Bsad are pretty active, Eptalon and you are pretty responsive in RfCU, Djsasso and Operator are probably taking a break and will be back once ready since their general activity is low, and Peterdownunder is ready to step down if needed. We don't allow CU without admin bits, so I don't think such a drastic new process is needed. BRP ^ever 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not completely missing, I mostly am just a bit quieter than usual. But if a CU is needed am usually around to check. -Djsasso (talk) 19:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

While I do believe this could be a good idea, I have doubts that we can actually plan such a thing.

For example: WP:Oversight candidates explicitly mentions the plan to run oversighter elections, presumably similar to EN's election thingy. Such a plan didn't come into action and if we couldn't then with more active editors, then I have no reason to believe we can pull off such a system in our current wiki-landscape.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 14:03, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lopburi and Lopburi province.--In the future, one might look at "Lopburi" and "Lopburi (city)".--Good luck (while i fix other articles). 2001:2020:4341:A14B:70BA:C2E8:A97C:69C (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, they should be merged. My question is which title is better. I understand that you would prefer just "Lopburi" for the province, but "Lopburi province" might be better, to match the other Category:Provinces of Thailand. Batrachoseps (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Lopburi province - province. "Lopburi" - the city, if an article exists. 2001:2020:323:F202:5969:75C1:4FA4:2026 (talk) 21:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

They have been merged. Lopburi is redirected for now, but it can be made into an article if someone wants to make a separate article for the city. Batrachoseps (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Batrachoseps: The province article spells the city name "Lop Buri". Do we know which is correct? -- Auntof6 (talk) 22:04, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have no idea. It's transliterated from Thai so there may or may not be an "official" spelling. Some sources use "Lop Buri" (Bangkok Post Tourism Authority of Thailand); others use "Lopburi" (The Guardian AP News).

There was a discussion on English Wikipedia that decided to leave the spaces out of many Thai locations: en:Talk:Buriram#Requested moves. Batrachoseps (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

When The Guardian and AP News, concur - then that should be an okay choice, in many cases.--There is a saying, that transliterations from Thai to English, will always be wrong.--When it comes to Royal Thai General System of Transcription - 'your mileage might vary', when it comes to how useful it might feel. (Yeah, at least is is helpful, when it comes to how to pronounce the name Shinawatra (pronunciation, close to 'Sheenna-watt' / 'Shinnawatt') which does not follow the most general pronunciation rules. So, i would say that there is no official transcription that is largely followed by native speakers of British and American-English. 2001:2020:341:E598:192F:C475:5EED:160E (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

If someone is creating a lot of articles with titles (with transcriptions, such as "Pak Nam" or "Sri Racha") that might be more used by older generations, then consider letting those transcriptions pass for some months or a year or so. 2001:2020:341:E598:192F:C475:5EED:160E (talk) 17:24, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I created User:FusionSub/Seen over a week ago and I am wondering if there would be any opposition to moving it into Template-space.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Support Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 09:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No objection, but probably not as "Template:Seen". On enwiki, en:Template:Seen exists (as a redirect to en:Template:Read), but it's not quite the same as yours.

Also, please write doc for it if/when it goes to template space. Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6 Ok, I'll write that up later today (if I remember).- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6   Done.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 15:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FusionSub: Cool. I have the same notes as I did for Cactus's doc page:

• On the main template, put the first noinclude tag on the first line right after the main text, with no line break in between.
• In the doc page, you don't need to include the related templates section, or the empty related pages section.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6

1) On the main template? Is that not what I've already done, or is there something I'm misunderstanding?

2) Removed related pages but am probably going to keep the related templates section as it is generated by Template:Discussion templates and I believe that that should probably stay for convenience sake.

Thanks.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FusionSub:

1) Sorry, I guess what I said was ambiguous. You have the noinclude tag on a separate line. It should go on the same line as the text above it, so that there is no new line generated in the template output.

2) What I meant is that you don't need the "discussion templates" template. This new template is not part of that set, and doesn't need to be added to it.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah ok, I'll do both of that then.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 16:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

There were some
"List of country musicians from 'state in the United States']],
that were deleted some years ago.--Those, and List of country musicians from California, have little interest, to me.
("Never-ending" discussions about the meaning of 'from', is not my cup of tea.) However,
List of country musicians raised in Texas,
is a list that i might start.--If a person was raised in two or more states, then I am fine with just having that person in "Related pages", or (much less likely) section "Raised in different states".

List of country musicians from California, has some names that 'could end up on two lists'.--However, I am not planning on starting,
"List of country musicians raised in California".--Is there anything more to say then, except: if there are too many protests about "my" list, then it will get taken to AfD?--Remember also to give thanks to those who do a lot of work with categories. 2001:2020:341:DA4B:F071:D4FE:8575:D928 (talk) 23:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Kris Kristofferson (d. 2024), has 'always' been on the 'California list' (because he was raised there).--When any 'Texas list' gets created - then how does one avoid him being 'Listed on two similar lists'?

The following could be mentioned on 'the (upcoming) Texas list',

"* Kris Kristoffersen [not blue-linked]" ,see List of country musicians raised in California"

In that way, Kristoffersen 'is only on one list (California)' (and the few people that know that Kristoffersen was born in Texas, will find his name, and see which 'one list that Kristoffersen really belongs to'. Note: there is no list here called, "List of ... born in California").

"Raised in California", is part of topic "From Californa". (Would anyone argue "No", to that point?) 2001:2020:355:C958:1431:DC72:A783:3460 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2024 (UTC) / 02:35, 1 October 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:341:DA4B:F071:D4FE:8575:D928Reply

List of country musicians from Texas.

Please move this discussion to the talk pages about those article. (As long as the above link, remains a blue-link.) 2001:2020:355:C958:844A:668F:EAB3:62AA (talk) 03:20, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm a bit confused about what is Simple Wikipedia?? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't need a general explanation on what Wikipedia is; I have already made 10k+ edits on English Wikipedia. But, what's the difference between English Wikipedia and Simple Wikipedia? Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia:About tells you everything you need to know, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:51, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see now, Thanks! Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 00:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Vestrian24Bio No worries, In short we use simple words and simple/shorter sentences, If you were to compare say London with en:London they look substantially different, Apologies for not explaining the first time round I just assumed you had read that page first, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 01:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I plan to move User:Cactusisme/Replied to templates, any comments? Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 07:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cactusisme The png should probably be changed to the svg version as that is generally what is used in these types of templates.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@FusionSub Done Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 08:25, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I have no objections now.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 08:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the purpose of this template? -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:45, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6 The purpose of this template is so that when some mentions you in their talk page/admin noticeboard, and the place a thread of your talk page, you can use this so that they know you have replied. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 11:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cactusisme: Usually we just do that by pinging, like you just pinged me. But I guess it won't hurt anything. Just please write a doc page for it and categorize it appropriately. Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Alright Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 11:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6 I have written the docs. Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 12:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

here: User:Cactusisme/Replied/doc Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 12:39, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cactusisme: Thanks. A couple of notes:

• In the template, put the noinclude tag right after the text on the first line, with no new line in between.
• In the doc page, you don't need to include the related pages section, which I assume you copied from another doc page.

-- Auntof6 (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6   Done Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 10:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cactusisme: Not quite. Is it OK if I make a couple of changes? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:46, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6 Yes, sure Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 10:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK, done. Any questions about what I did? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Cactusisme: Sorry, forgot to ping you. -- Auntof6 (talk) 11:00, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Nope, thanks for the help!! Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ツ} 11:43, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there is a discussion going on about who can close GAs at Wikipedia talk:Proposed good articles#Clarification on closing. BRP ^ever 13:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I notice that "attempt" is on WP:BASIC while "try" is not. Both are on WP:VOA. While at https://www.lextutor.ca/cgi-bin/vp/comp/output.pl, "try" is level 1 and "attempt" is level 2. From my personal perspective, "try" seems simpler. Does this mean we should use "attempt" instead because we're trying to use only 850 words whenever possible? I was looking at Ryan Wesley Routh when I saw both words used. Batrachoseps (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

A thought of mine: "an attempt" - "two attempts" (and simple in many ways).

"a try" - "two tries" (and maybe not simple).--However, in spoken American-Engish (at least), 'try' arguably feels more simple to write, as a verb. 2001:2020:341:E598:E536:4693:5330:C3A9 (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've always assumed, or tried, to use any word as long as it's on one of the three lists. Does this question mean we should always and try to use most simple word we can? Because I could see problems with that such as with grammar and awkward wordings. fr33kman 04:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Be bold, and continue to write 'try'.--Then, anyone can come and change to,

"try (or attempt)".--Assumption-that-maybe-should-be-moved-toward-consensus: In many cases "try" will work at least as well as "attempt".--Another thing: Am i fine with an article, first using "attempt", and later in such article - using "try", "try" and "try"? Yeah, i probably will not lift a finger.--Yet another thing: One case that stands out, where i feel that "an attempt" is better than "a try"; Charles Lindbergh succeeded on the famous attempt to cross the Atlantic. 2001:2020:323:EFC5:40D3:BC0A:DD2B:F5F9 (talk) 05:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Batrachoseps: It's frustrating not to be able to know why words were or were not included on the list. It might be that "try" wasn't included because it has multiple meanings. -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's a good point. Try could mean to take a sample of something, or to hold a trial. Then there's the rugby meaning but that's probably derived from the normal meaning. I'll use attempt. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Would a 9-10 year old normally know the word "attempt"? I'm not around young kids much, so I'm not sure. Batrachoseps (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Batrachoseps: I don't know. I didn't mean not to use "try", just to give an idea of why it might not be on the list. Some words can be either simple or complex, depending on how they're used or their specific meaning. In this case, I think the meaning of "attempt" is simple enough. -- Auntof6 (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I see, thanks. Batrachoseps (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I checked with a teacher friend and she says the average 9-10 year old would definitely know the word attempt for sure. fr33kman 05:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Is there a template for the short description? I tried using Template:Short description, but it didn’t work.

I’m not a new editor, I edit on the English version and unfamiliar with Simple English. Tonkarooson (talk) 08:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Tonkarooson: That template has null content because we don't use short descriptions here.

If you'd like to know other things that are different here, have a look at this list I maintain of things that are different here. The list itself is not policy or guideline, but it links to some relevant policies and guidelines. If you have any questions about it, feel free to ask. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can I talk to somebody on here privately? It's about a falling out I had with several admins and editors on enwiki that got me blocked indefinitely and I'm  not discussing this on there for reasons I'm not gonna go into. 121.136.126.163 (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to write me a mail, I am open to discussion. Eptalon (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's about a group of users and admins attacking/insulting me and blocking me on enwiki 210.217.117.24 (talk) 20:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

We are not here to comment of enwiki's problems with thier users. They don't comment on our issues, we don't generally comment of their issues. Please email their admins mailing list instead of trying to get us to help you fight your case. fr33kman 21:41, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

The admins are not going to respond on any of the mailing lists

I wouldn't be coming to this page for help if they were responding to me 2601:C8:280:8000:747A:CFD:7DF7:7978 (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Administrator note: /64 is globally blocked as LTA. MathXplore (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Talk about a proxy chain.- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 06:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Administrator note: Special:Contributions/210.217.117.24 is another blocked proxy. MathXplore (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Administrator note: The IP editor is a blocked proxy. MathXplore (talk) 00:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Ah, at last someone who notices. XXBlackburnXx (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

\: .- FusionSub (Talk page) (Contributions) 09:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Could some people please make some comments on Talk:Ɓ? Thx fr33kman 13:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

In the infobox on Kallithea there are some stray characters right before and right after the images. I did a little investigation, but I couldn't find the problem and I can't keep looking at it right now. Maybe someone else would like to try...? -- Auntof6 (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Auntof6 I updated Template:Infobox Greek Dimos from en:Template:Infobox Greek place and it is now working correctly. Previously, our version of the template was not a wrapper of Template:Infobox settlement, but now it is. Batrachoseps (talk) 15:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Batrachoseps: Thanks! -- Auntof6 (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I made a WikiProject called WikiProject Gaming. You can join if you want! Thetree284 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having come across User:CheerfulJug whilst deleting the BLP page they were editing it occurred to me we may wish to alter Twinkle to have a single purpose notice template to address paid editing on this project. Personally, I find paid editing disturbing but that's just my opinion. Thoughts? fr33kman 21:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)Reply