Wikibooks talk:Reading room/Administrative Assistance

Vandal reports?
Ooo shiny new page! Do the vandal reports go here now? Or from when? Does the "recent changes" link to vandalism need doing. -- Herby talk thyme 14:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Usage?
While asking questions, should people start making all those requests here and is this meant to replace the other pages or should transclusions be done? --darklama 14:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe. Less pages to watch for admins might be a good thing :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So is that merger or transclusion then? Should the first merge history request be for all the other pages? Then its just a mater of turning the other pages into redirects. BTW not sure the name really helps people know what its intended usage is. How about "Administrators' Help", "Requests for Help", "Request for Administrative Action", "Request for Administrative Help", "Staff Help", "Request Staff Help", etc. --darklama 15:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * See w:WP:AN. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So your trying to help Wikipedians too then? I was going to suggest "Staff Helpdesk" next as another name I just thought of to coincide with "Staff lounge". Nothing stopping this page from existing as a helpful redirect for Wikipedians. "Administrative noticeboard" on Wikipedia looks more like "Staff lounge" here from a quick look. --darklama 15:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It could be "staff desk" &mdash; User:Iamunknown 22:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Definitely not :). The WP version of the staff lounge is w:WP:VP. -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Checkuser requests
As we now have a rather fuller complement of Checkusers could we work out a way to make sure that all who need to be checked are? Understanding that Whitekinight would like to be notified of requests on his user talk page, I know Derbeth checks the Vandalism in Progress page BUT quite a few have been picked up and blocked by an admin and so don't get a mention on that page. Personally I tend to check the block log first thing and work on that. Would people like an acknowledgement that a check has been made? And if so where?

Thanks -- Herby talk thyme 12:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know when checks are being made since this system should be used somewhat sparingly. I am not sure where these checks could be listed though. Maybe at the admins' noticeboard? -within focus 02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue I was looking to resolve here was how folk would "request" a checkuser dig and a way of ensuring that none got missed by accident. On vandal ones I have done I have placed a message on the blocking admin's page acknowledging I have made the check.  If a block is the result, it and the reason, will be available for all to see.


 * As to use of checkuser rights the log of enquiries is available across Wikis so all those with the rights can see what is being done. There are really very few entries however equally it is clear that those with the rights will act on suspicion as well as requests.  I hope that it is quite clear that it would not be appropriate to divulge this information unless there was an issue that might be having an effect on us (such as sock puppetry).  Certainly if I found something as a result of such a check I would share it privately with other checkusers or admins/'crats if appropriate in the first instance to request views and advice. -- Herby  talk thyme 19:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Checkuser needs to be used quietly, privately, with considerable discretion, and above all rarely. We could come up with a public log of when it's done and why, but the wikimedia privacy policies wouldn't let us say who was checked and what we found. Would such a log be useful? -- SB_Johnny | talk 01:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * All of the Checkusers should keep tabs on each other, but I think in some cases it might not be detrimental to note that a Checkuser could be used in certain investigations. The outcome, when sensitive, would of course be kept under wraps. -within focus 00:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify, it's not that I need a special invitation or anything (although the attention is nice). I tend not to read VIP if the last edit to that page was made by an administrator. My thinking here is that 1), I have better things to do then read everything that ever happens, and 2) my fellow administrators can be trusted to quickly and ruthlessly destroy vandalism wherever it is found. Also, all vandals don't need to be checkuser'd, just vandals that appear to be coming from the same source. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Oversight of a sort
Testing my suspicion and following a test by Az1568 it is quite possible to remove edits to a page from "general" visibility (they can still be seen and restored by an admin only). To do so all you need do is delete the page and then selectively restore it leaving off the items not required. Ok it is rather more work but for now until we establish a real need it would pass for some instances? If you take a look at my user page history you (admins) will see 4 edits that have been "left off". -- Herby talk thyme 13:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ordering of posts on AN
I just juggled all the unchronological posts and made them all chronological. I figure that, since the noticeboard is not used often (and when it is, in short spurts), and most of the posts of late are non-topical (or, at least, they were never put in their topical subcategory), it is best to keep it like this. If someone feels like reverting me, go ahead...I wouldn't care. --Iamunknown 01:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

eh?
This page has a rather rediculous name now. Since I'm the "original author" of WB:AN, am I allowed to revert the name change? ;p -- SB_Johnny | PA! 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh nevermind, I just made the redirect :(. -- SB_Johnny | PA! 18:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Re moving content
Thanks for the quick reply! The reason I came here was because I got the message

'''You do not have permission to move this page, for the following reason: The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid. Please choose another name, or use the administrative assistance reading room to ask an administrator to help you with the move. Do not manually move the content by copying and pasting it; the page history must be moved along with the page text.'''

Copying content is fine with me - but the history gets lost, and only stays preserved with "Moves". Should I go ahead and copy the content, and make a note in the Talk page? --Thomas.haslwanter (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll contact one of the administrators around here to help you. --atcovi (talk) 15:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Which page is it you want moving? QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I can tell you are only moving part of the content, in which case the whole page cannot be moved. However, you don't need to bother copying the whole revision history to the Talk page. When you copy the content in the edit summary insert the permanent link URL to the page you copied from (by using the Permanent link option in the Tools section of the side bar menu visible on every page). This will provide a permanent link to where you got the content from and is sufficient for the license. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

--- OK, I have cleaned up the content, and (hopefully!) done it such that all the attribution information is still visible. So I have two questions left: 1) What to do with the original page

https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Sensory_Systems/NonPrimates&oldid=2750653

which was split into

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sensory_Systems/Arthropods

and

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Sensory_Systems/Other_Animals

Should the original page be deleted? Or is is just kept there without reference? I have put a comment into the corresponding Talk Page, with the relevant links.

2) Can someone please tell me what the option

"Re-review this revision"

at the bottom of each page is intended for? Since I can mark my own pages, would not everybody mark his pages as "good"? --Thomas.haslwanter (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I would change the original source page to a redirect to one of the two new pages so that the history is still available. As for Review this Revision, this is part of the FlaggedRevisions software. You can read more about it at Reviewer and WB:REVIEW. We really only use it to prevent vandalism appearing to users who aren't logged in on pages intended for younger readers and for anti-vandalism work. We trust people to flag their own pages appropriately! QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress and personal threats: User:Joesbread
This user is repeatedly re-adding an item which has been removed by admins, and further is sending me threats via wikimail. Chazz (talk) 01:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The above non-sense & pure rubbish, trash & garbage makes no sense at all because I am not adding nothing on this page, IM simply asking a question on this page's talk page, so it surely deserves to be here. Also Chazz emailed me & told me to get lost so I simply told him to get lost. He is overstepping his bounds, trying to look smart but self-contradicts himself ...
 * oh, me. A slanging match? I have never emailed you. If I had, you'd know my TLD, which is a little odd. The question posted has been repeatedly removed by admins, as the page history will show. The page history would also show several threats directed both at me and at others in the edit comments, except that many of those revisions have been removed as possibly actionable... but any admin can see them. Chazz (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I put in a steward request for this sockpuppet. This person is banned by the WMF, so you can just remove anything he posts without comment. Antandrus (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 30 July 2019 (UTC) (Brief followup - actually Plyrstar93 did -- I reported a different one.) Antandrus (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I was (and still am) being harassed by another editor over email who is now globally banned. Maybe this is related? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Highly likely -- is it this one? Is he trying to recruit someone to his side to fight the battle of eternal justice against some bad bad admins or stewards, and doing so in non-native, comma-spliced invective, while making hyperbolic claims about being a bunch of different people? Antandrus (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The WMF confirmed that the account from whom mail was sent to me was related to a banner WMF user but did not specify which one, and also said that user was spamming/abusing WMF as well but wasn't aware till now that they had an account here. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Um, lol. Yes, that's the one (see recent page history). Antandrus (discuss • contribs) 20:49, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Organic farming
Organic farming is defined as production of crop, animal, and other products without the use of synthetic chemical fertilizers and pesticides, transgenic species, or antibiotics and growth-enhancing steroids, or other chemicals. AG&#39;s UNITY (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Critical
About about a bot and how to kill it 2605:8600:3E4:8971:3963:B281:BAA1:A6E0 (discuss) 16:56, 3 August 2023 (UTC)