Wikidata:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive/2013/03

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

Template talk:Translation categories

Please check and apply proposed changes. --Kaganer (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

•  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Horisontal lists css-classes (for nav. templates)

Proposed import of hlist css-classes for unified design of navigationl trmplates. See MediaWiki_talk:Common.css#Hlist_classes. --Kaganer (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

adding code to MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css

Hi, in fa.wiki like en:MediaWiki:Group-sysop.css we have a code to highlight protected pages' background for sysops and when they want to edit protected page it's background will change to pink. In my opinion it will useful here

/* Protected pages have text area in light red, to prevent   */
/* accidental editing by admins who didn't notice the header */
.mw-textarea-protected, .ns-8 textarea {
    background:#FFDBDB;
}

Reza1615 (talk) 10:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

enwiki has it too, probably a good idea, though it won't work for items of curse. --Rschen7754 10:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Would be good to add.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Sounds useful. Ajraddatz (Talk) 12:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Reza1615 (talk) 16:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

New Tool

PropertyNames.js is a small tool that transforms the raw property IDs ('p21', 'p107', etc.) into useful and named links. It works well, in Contributions, Watchlist, history & diff pages. I was thinking if it should be a gadget, available for everyone. As per a previous request, I hope if there isn't already a similar tool... --Ricordisamoa 22:58, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyone replying? --Ricordisamoa 18:25, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

now system does the same! and it shows items and properties' name in contribution page also for proposing new tool please add your request on Wikidata talk:Tools ▬ Reza1615 / T 09:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

«system does the same»?!? Please explain. --Ricordisamoa 13:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

now in user contribution you can see the label of properties▬ Reza1615 / T 16:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

spambot user experience

I'm attempting to add a list of code repositories related to the development of bots for editing wikidata/wikipedia in the molecular biology domain. It would be on the mb task force page but the spambot goes off every time I try to add an external link. So two requests: 1) would you please let me add the links to, for example https://bitbucket.org/sulab/pygenewiki and 2) It would be very helpful if, in the message that is posted to users who are presumed to be spammers, you provided a direct link to the appropriate administrator/discussion page. I am not unfamiliar with wiki editing (though I'm not expert) and I found it challenging to navigate from there to here (assuming this is even the right place). A simple link would be very useful and would help to avoid the loss of newbie users who get mislabeled as spammers (already quite a turn off..) Genewiki123 (talk)

Sorry about that. I've exempted you from the filter. We'll try and update the message to be a bit more helpful, since this is our first false positive. Let us know if you need any other help :) Legoktm (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Promotion-only accounts

Hey y'all. I just indeffed Special:DeletedContributions/GetSKRILLA ENT (User talk:GetSKRILLA ENT for those of you who can't see that) for spam/promotion. I went to #wikimedia-stewards^connect since I suspected that the account might be a spambot; however, Lego and Jasper said they thought it was much more likely a human spammer, which I now concur with, and advised me to bring it up here. In short: I stand by the block, since the account had an obvious promotional username that matched its (albeit brief) editing history; I'm not sure if I would've held off on blocking and given a warning first if I'd thought it was definitely a person, but I don't particularly feel like I've done the project any great harm by blocking this guy. That said, I recognize that we don't currently have a policy forbidding promotional usernames, and I welcome review of this block by my fellow administrators (especially those of you who've been doing this for more than a few days ), as well as discussion of what username blocking policy, if any, we should have. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 01:37, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The block was fine, it was a single-purpose account if not a bot. Ajraddatz (Talk) 13:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of the footer

Could anyone help with my edit request at MediaWiki talk:Wikidata-copyright/ja? It is a simple word replacement that is uncontroversial. --whym (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done▬ Reza1615 / T 09:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Plaese review all requests of Category:Wikidata protected edit requests. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Doing… --Wiki13 _talk 15:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. I only left the MediaWiki:Common.css, as I saw the request for which the template was added was already done? --Wiki13 _talk 16:06, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't kown if MediaWiki:Common.css was already done, but Bene* already removed the template. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

New edit request

Plaese review all requests of Category:Wikidata protected edit requests. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done▬ Reza1615 / T 09:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Villagepump/is

Please create these two MediaWiki pages with the following content:

1. MediaWiki:Villagepump/is: Potturinn
2. Mediawiki:Villagepump-url/is: Wikidata:Potturinn

--Snaevar (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done▬ Reza1615 / T 19:22, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Requests for permissions for Bots

please check Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot. now only 3-4 admins are active there.▬ Reza1615 / T 19:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Sysop rights on test-repo to test abusefilter

Hi, I just spoke with Silke on IRC about getting sysop rights on the test-repo to test AbuseFilter rules before deploying them on the live wiki. So if you want the rights to test out, please add your username below and I'll send them to Silke in a few days. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Legoktm
• Reza1615
• PinkAmpersand Though I'm clearly great at the AbuseFilter, and don't need any supervision.
• Iste Praetor per PinkAmpersand :D
• Vogone
• Bene*
• Riley Huntley

User:Ricordisamoa/DeletionHelper.js

Thanks User:Ricordisamoa he developed new tool for helping admins for delete items:

1. at the Wikidata:Requests for deletions page if any links are blue it will check that item's links and if they are green with (empty) label it means that item is empty.
2. After deleting by clicking on [‌mark as done‌] we can sign by {{Done}}~~‌~~

if no one is oppose I will active it as admin's gadget▬ Reza1615 / T 16:14, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

That's good tool!-- DangSunM (T · C) 16:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done now it is a gadget :)▬ Reza1615 / T 08:10, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Change datatype of a property

I make a stupid error: when I have created the property galaxy morphological type, I used the item datatype, not the new string one! Is it possible to change it? Thank you very much! --Paperoastro (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not possible to change it. You have to create a new property. I will delete this one now. --Stryn (talk) 22:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Done! thank you very much! --Paperoastro (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rotor and Rotor (electric)

Hi,

There is a problem since the interwiki have been moved to wikidata with these two articles. In most language Rotor is a disambiguation page listing all the variant use of that term while Rotor (electric), and other equivalent in other languages, is describing the particular use of Rotor in electric motor and generator. However in Wikidata, there is two entries with the same name for the two of them confusing interwiki switches. I have modified both wikidata Rotor to reflect the correct link but I'm not completely sure I succeeded.

I found that I could add a description under the title but is still very confusing to me. Would someone explain this double entries with the same name problem, Please!

Pierre cb data (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Recover a property

Since there is consensus to use Type of astronomical object property, I ask, if it is possible, to recover it. Thank you very much! --Paperoastro (talk) 15:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Property:P60 has been undeleted. Legoktm (talk) 00:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Paperoastro (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

merge and delete

hello. please merge Q4033816 with Q5075219 and delete Q5603314, Q6449993, Q6441948. Thanks Amir (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

•  Done by Legoktm and me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop FuzzyBot!

Hello, please stop FuzzyBot! It replaces translated texts in the translations by English text! It must not change the translations! In the translation tool the translated text is not replaced, only on the translated pages. The changed messages should marked by red background color on the translated pages, as up to now. Now nobody sees that something has been changed. Even the percentage remains 100% although some messages are suddenly in English now. Regards, --Michawiki (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: See e.g. Upper Sorbian translation of Wikidata:Introduction, the first paragraph under Časowy plan za wuwiće wikidata: "The first phase (interwiki links) provides ...". --Michawiki (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

If FuzzyBot does anything wrong it is always translation admin's fault. Furthermore, this bot acts via an extension. Thus, it would not be that senseful to stop it. Regards, Vogone talk 22:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

And where can I see which translation admin has started FuzzyBot? --Michawiki (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You can see it here. Regards, Vogone talk 23:24, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Problems with displaying differences between different versions with the links found on my contributionslist

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 45821

When displaying url's like: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q284855&diff=10487065&oldid=5406710 everything works pretty fine, while when trying to display the same content on https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q284855&diff=prev&oldid=10487065 which I got when going to the list of my contributiouns: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Robby and click there on the text diff in the line: 12:15, 9 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+12)‎ . . Mersch (Q284855) ‎ (‎Added site-specific [nlwiki] link: Mersch (gemeente)) (top)

I notice this behaviour for any diff in my contributionslist.

--Robby (talk) 11:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes this is a known bug and not because any administrator has deleted anything. Legoktm (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. Is there an easy way to find all the known bugs of wikidata? (At least I did not manage to find such a list)Robby (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

[1] and [2]. Legoktm (talk) 13:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm preparing a script to fix this (until a better solution is found). --Ricordisamoa 18:21, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Now there's DiffFixer! --Ricordisamoa 23:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

DeletionHelper

Let's try the new version? Comment, please!

New features:

• Shows whether one or more sitelinks have been removed from items (only non-deleted ones) and by whom, and provides a direct link to the diff page
• Automatically compiles the edit summary with a link to the section (a more concise edit summary) (from this request)
• add a spinner until the page is saved (originally by Bene*)

(+ some minor bugfixes; everything's currently experimental)

Coming soon:

• Where are, at the moment, the sitelinks that have been removed from the items (useful to track transfers)

--Ricordisamoa 18:48, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, let's try it. Why not? Vogone talk 19:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Questions: Page always need to reload after the item is deleted? Otherwise "mark as done" don't appear? Why "mark as done" appears on some items, which are already marked as done? --Stryn (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it checks for sections that don't contain the templates {{Done}} or {{Deleted}} either, independently if the item is effectively deleted or not. Probably, if you see "mark as done" on items that already have {{Done}} or {{Deleted}} (not simply "done" or "deleted"), it's a cache problem: refresh the page; if not, report what happens. --Ricordisamoa 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed that by not calling another ajax request but simply check the html code of the page. It works fine as far as I can see. --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 22:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

old talkpages

Hey,
how to handle old talkpages [3] - in my opinion they can be deleted. Conny (talk) 07:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC).

Yup,  Done. Thanks, Legoktm (talk) 08:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned talk pages

Orphaned Wikidata talk pages that are probaly safe to delete.--Lam-ang (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Deleted, thanks for reminding. --Stryn (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Import a gadget

I want to import a gadget in Wikidata. It is a clock that shows the local time of user's computer. The gadget is this es:MediaWiki:Gadget-LocalLiveClock.js. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer if we had some consensus before importing it as a gadget here. — Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Do we really? It seems like a rather simple gadget that people might find useful. We probably shouldn't install every single user-script as a gadget, but for ones that people are accustomed to I see no harm in importing them. Legoktm (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Then do we import it? --Vivaelcelta (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

We have UTC live clock gadget in wikidata and I don't know how local clock can be useful because every OSs (windows, mac, linux ,...) has local live clock at their taskbar. in my opinion it seems useless.▬ Reza1615 / T 08:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

But, with this gadget every user can use his time (UTC+1, UTC+9, UTC-6, ...) --Vivaelcelta (talk) 08:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Gagets are used for popular tools. In every wikis we have many tools which are used by few users and they import them to their common.js. when everyone has watch or clock in their computer why they should crowded their wikipage with this gadget? you can use this gadget by importing it in your common.js or vector.js ▬ Reza1615 / T 08:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Because this gadget is used for purger pages. --Vivaelcelta (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

UTC clock do the same▬ Reza1615 / T 09:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:YmGJ

I reverted some vandalism [4][5][6] in Q801 by User:YmGJ. The user should probably receive a warning or something.

BTW, is there some standard way of reporting vandalism or is it done like this?

Silver hr (talk) 01:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, the user seems to have just entered in a description in the wrong language - if that's the case, it isn't vandalism. For future reference, this is all we currently have for vandalism reports, although we may need to setup a dedicated process in the future.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Please take a closer look at the diffs. In the first edit, the user changed the label from "Israel" to "Mierda", which is Spanish for "shit". In the second edit, the user changed the description to "Centrada En El Lugar Estupido", which Google Translate tells me means "Stupid Centered Place". In the third edit, the user deleted the "official language" = "Hebrew" statement. I think this is quite obviously vandalism, and not accidental or good faith edits. Silver hr (talk) 04:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Template:uw-vandalism3 would be used here - next offense can result in a block.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Warned by PinkAmpersand--Ymblanter (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism of item Q76

Q76 was vandalised by User:98.220.61.74 (contributions) starting with this edit is there a page that I can report this at? Allen4names (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

At this stage, we only have this page. User warned.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Allen4names (talk) 05:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Item Q7018510

Hello. Please delete Q7018510, as I created it by mistake, there is another item already exists about the same template.--Avocato (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Will do, in the future please use WD:RFD. Legoktm (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I already did it :P --Stryn (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks.--Avocato (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bug report

Clicking on my contribs, and then on the "diff" link for the recent contribution to Q217939 got me the message: "The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found, named "Q217939" (revision#: 11211850). This is usually caused by following an outdated diff or history link to a page that has been deleted. If this is not the case, you may have found a bug in the software. Please report this to an administrator, making note of the URL." The URL in question is https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q217939&diff=prev&oldid=11211850. I hope that helps. It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 16:12, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Known bug. Bugzilla:45821. --Stryn (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

DiffFixer can (temporarily) fix this bug. --Ricordisamoa 19:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Why not making this a default gadget for now? --Leyo 19:47, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

It works quite well, honestly, but I'm going to make several improvements at the moment. --Ricordisamoa 21:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Ich habe über Nacht bei 5 von ca 220 beobachteten Seiten die Zurücksetzung des labels und aller zusätzlichen eingegebenen Angaben/Datensätze...--Kresspahl (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Potential bug in the software

Tracked in Bugzilla
Bug 45821
Resolved fixed

Going to this diff produces a bug result, the standard "The database did not find the text of a page that it should have found..." error. I'm not sure why, since it's what happens if you go to Special:Contributions/Nyttend and click the "diff" link at

06:24, 3 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+53)‎ . . Salt Creek Township, Pickaway County, Ohio (Q5919915) ‎ (‎Added site-specific [viwiki] link: Saltcreek, Quận Pickaway, Ohio)

The message reminds me that I should report this to admins, but if someone got this result at en:wp and reported it to administrators, I'd be thoroughly confused, as well as confident that my admin tools wouldn't help me resolve the problem. Should it perhaps be sent to the developers? Finally, note that I'm still forced to edit in Firefox, since IE8 isn't working. Nyttend (talk) 04:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it should be sent to developers - I get the error too, and it's unlikely to be browser-based.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This is a known bug. Legoktm (talk) 04:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

abuse filter tags

I am seeing edit summaries that include abuse filter tags, but they don't say "Tag: " and they're not in italics or whatever, like the tags I am used to seeing. As a result it's confusing: did the editor actually leave this edit summary (no, but it looks that way). If one does not understand that it's a tag added by the system, they are less likely to investigate the edit. Example: Special:AbuseFilter/13 -- in this history, "Unexpected value for gender" does not say "tag" or anything. Can this be improved? (Also, a separate question: does one have to be an admin to help with the abuse filter?) Espeso (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I have added "tag" prefix. The italics is a css modification which we can add if we want. You need to be a sysop to actually edit a filter, but if you have any suggestions just poke an admin (or leave it here) and we can implement it. I think the only filters that are hidden is the spambot links one and the english bad words one. Legoktm (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

BLP

I have semi-protected Q935879 on the basis that unsupportable controversial assertions about a living person was added, citing en:WP:BLP. Because our information is used on Wikipedias, I believe this protection was justified, even though we do not actually have a BLP policy on Wikidata at this time. I'm looking for feedback on my action here, and what kind of policy we should have - I'm thinking that we should have a policy against unsupportable statements in items for living people, "unsupportable" meaning not cited in any Wikipedia interwiki-linked article, though I'm also looking for suggestions here.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I (an enwiki admin) think that Wikidata:Use common sense applies here - any issue which could lead to real-world problems for someone needs to be dealt with, and BLP is clearly such an issue. Od Mishehu (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, common-sense would justify admin actions, but I also feel that having a policy page would serve well to make users aware of the implications of BLP.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:51, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

It's worth stating that in the absence of a local policy, there's always the Board resolution. Philippe (WMF) (talk) 17:25, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If someone wanted to, I'd be fine with summarizing the board resolution on a page here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 17:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd add Wikidata-specific information to it, like what constitutes acceptable sourcing for living peoples' entries (until we can get our sourcing interface to work).--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

ElphiBot

It's creating lots of items for user pages... --Ricordisamoa 01:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you show me some examples, please? Regards, Vogone talk 01:20, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I found two: Q6971614, Q6971238 --LadyInGrey (talk) 01:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've always interpreted that userboxes are ok since some projects keep them in Template space, and others keep them in userspace? Kinda like how most projects have "WikiProjects" in Project: space, but simplewp has them in userspace. Legoktm (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Many of them can be found here (from ar.wiki) --Ricordisamoa 01:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

User boxes may be an unusual exception, but simple User pages are explicitly excluded from Wikidata in the notability guidelines. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I nominated for deletion only items of userpages, not subpages or userboxes. --Ricordisamoa 20:04, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I deleted the ones you nominated. I also deleted all the other ar.Wikipedia User pages in the list you provided. many of them were actually non-notable people getting round the notability criteria by making articles in User space (such as this). I'll make the bot's owner aware of this discussion. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

OK! --Ricordisamoa 20:15, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

the bot has been stop. I'll run it only on articles and categories.عباس ☢ 21:08, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Elph :) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war...

...between me and Ayack on Q450675 with Property:P244 --Ricordisamoa 21:00, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's an edit war if he reverted you only once. Please discuss this on the talk page to reach a result. Regards, Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 21:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

...between Ludo29 and 23PowerZ/Wester (+possibly myself) on Q39 (see Talk:Q39). --  Docu  at 05:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a need for administrative action, although I will keep an eye. It hasn't escalated to a full-out edit war yet.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

So we should let Ludo29 keep reverting everybody else? --  Docu  at 05:06, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If he keeps making reverts, and others keep reverting him, the page can be protective. But if Ludo29 in particular is edit warring, he may be blocked. With just two reverts at the moment, though, I don't think any action is needed for now.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

If you look through the history of the page, he reverted at least 4 times or more .. --  Docu  at 05:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I meant, he only made two reverts today. However, I have issued him a warning in both French and English to stop reverting.--Jasper Deng (talk) 05:16, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but my english is not very fluent. I present references about this point, Docu refuse to read them...

The problem with this entry is the following :

Lot of persons think that CH have 4 official languages, but - as it was written in the constitution - the statut of Romansh is very perticular. No official as fr, de or it. Just oficial for persons who speak this language. I live in this country since many years. Romansh is not my native language, so for me, Romansh is not an official language. So we can't say that Romansh is a official language as de, fr or it. But this particular statut is present in the CH constitution. Why Docu refuse to read it ? I don't know...

So, very particular statut fot rm. And some people thinks that rm has the same statut that de, fr and it. That's why some people read this entry and thinking that romansh missing. So, this entry need to have a disclaimer to said For the statut of romansh, please to see the talk page before complete this page.

And thanks to Docu. How you lying about this problem is very funny. The only edit-war is between you and me. 23PowerZ or Wester has just made one edith on this entry. Probably they never saw the discussion on the talk page. The two only persons have made reverts are you and me.

So, for finding a solution of this problem. Can we add a disclaimer at the top of this entry ; to invite other contributors to read talk page ? Ludo29 (talk) 10:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you simply disagree with most other contributors and Wikipedia (e.g. the Romansh Wikipedia infobox on Switzerland). In any case, I think it's good that you consider inviting other contributors to the talk page, but maybe you should do so before and instead of reverting them .. --  Docu  at 17:59, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata is/will be designed to represent different opinions. Currently the main problem to solve this disagreement is that the source-thing is not fully developed. It should be possible to have both opinions in the item, if they are sourced. --Sk!d (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

@Docu. « I think you simply disagree with most other contributors and Wikipedia. » And ? I'm agree with contributors of Wikipédia (french Wikipédia said the same things than me, I'm not the author of article), I'm disagree with others. But it's not the problem. We have to use external references to build our articles. Wikipedia should not be a reference to Wikipedia.

About this problem, I prsent the swiss constitution as a reference, Docu presents Wikipédia as a reference. The problem is here...

« I think it's good that you consider inviting other contributors to the talk page ». Please, stop lying. Who create the talk page of Q39 to discuss about that ? Me. Who invite you to discuss about that on your talk page ? Me. So I consider your invitation as an insult. Ludo29 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sk!d. The mainproblem is that Docu refuse to use external refrences for this entry. And I don't talk blog or personal website, I talk official website of Swiss confederation. Ludo29 (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about the fact that you and a few other editors were reverting each others' edits rather than attempting to achieve a consensus first. The content dispute itself is not an administrator's issue - please take the rest of the discussion to the talk page. Keep discussion civil too - accusing the other side of lying doesn't help resolve the dispute.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Advertise Wikidata:Requests for comment/Opting out of Global sysops in the sitenotice

Could anyone add this request for comment to the sitenotice per Wikidata:Requests for comment/Opting out of Global sysops#Discussion? I've already voted there, so I won't do it myself. Thanks and regards --Iste (D) 11:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I would do that. Does anybody have objections? --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 11:49, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Please stop vandalism on page Russia

Please somebody stop continuing destructive edits on page Russia (Q159) (changing right demonym for Russia) and maybe hide these useless edits from public. --TarzanASG (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

This is your bot, you're responsible for all edits it makes. This doesn't appear to be something that should be revision deleted.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

No, this is not his bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

The bot operator is edit-warring with his bot, so I guess he is aware of the problem. I do not see anything which needs to be rev-deleted, and I hope Amir will take the situation under control soon.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:29, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all:I'm really sorry for vandalizing. I'm pywikipediabot developer and I'm working on running bots on Wikidata, you can see my code commits here and I'm trying to make it possible adding references via bots so I had to do so many test edits but I can't do it on non-main ns pages or sandbox so i chose Russia but I changed my test edits on another (and less important) page Q1918044. Sorry againAmir (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Why you don't use Q4115189 ? --ValterVB (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I tried that page but i don't why the doesn't load for meAmir (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It's done now. You can read mw:Manual:Pywikipediabot/Wikidata#Changing or creating claims/statements Amir (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

There is a Wikidata Testwiki with the newer code for wikidata (see http://wikidata-test-repo.wikimedia.de/wiki/Testwiki:Main_Page). It would be nice if you would use this wikidata repository for testing next time. --Sk!d (talk) 02:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I was using test repo when wikidata.org was not live [7] but when wikidata became live sometimes API of these sites became so much different that the bot worked on test but didn't work on wikidata so i withdrawn using test repo :( Amir (talk) 20:33, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Help pages unification

Please delete help pages, currently listed at the Category:Wikidata:Deletion (for renaming old translated versions into unified pagenames). Also please rename two protected pages - see Help talk:Inhaltsverzeichnis and Help talk:Spis treści for details. Thanks! --Kaganer (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done all. --Stryn (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Please also delete Help:Contents/tr by these same reason. --Kaganer (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. --Stryn (talk) 18:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with inter-language links

Hi, on the Danish page [[:da:Morild|] the link to English is Milky seas effect, but that is not the right phenomenon. Milky sea effect is (as far as I know) only the kind of bioluminescence where huge bodies of water at sea is glowing, while morild is mostly (but not only) use as the phenomena of a glowing surf along the cost line. However there is no matching English wiki that fits. Bioluminescence is already on both Danish and English wikis, and is a broader phenomenon. Should Morild still link to Milky sea effect?

OxygenBlueDansk (talk) 15:55, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Spambot

Dogatv: block and delete all of these. --Ricordisamoa 02:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:28, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot

Hello, User:ElphiBot has created tons of items linked to userspace of Arabic WP(Q7541755, Q7546109, Q7521295, Q7486459, Q7484874, Q7485012, Q7498814, Q7486717, Q7509609, Q7485772, Q7483542, Q7480589, Q7486710, Q7481400,Q7486911) please delete these items and I don't why this bot who doesn't know this little (and very important) thing about WD must be approved.... Amir (talk) 03:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted all of these listed and left the operator a note asking him to stop his bot. — Hazard-SJ  ✈  04:41, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem solved--عباس ☢ 16:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

As Hazard said in your talk page, you must request for approval again. BTW: don't bring your friends from ar.wp to vote. Thanks Amir (talk) 00:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please fulfill this edit request. Thanks. --Ricordisamoa 01:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Vogone talk 01:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Mediawiki... translation

edit request -Create this page :

1. MediaWiki:Gadget-section-wikidata/bn - উইকিউপাত্ত - কেন্দ্রীয়
2. MediaWiki:Gadget-slurpInterwiki/bn - slurpInterwiki:উইকিপিডিয়া থেকে আন্তঃউইকি আমদানি।

Thanks --Leemo⋓ 17:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Done. Ajraddatz (Talk) 18:12, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Q8131783

already exists here. Please delete. Aviados (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. For deletion requests, please use WD:RFD. Regards, Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 19:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Creation summary bug

Hey all. I just noticed that the MediaWiki message used in creation summaries wasn't being parsed, presumably because the message currently used by the edit interface for those summaries (MediaWiki:Wikibase-item-summary-wbcreate-new) didn't exist. That is to say, it was showing up as →wb-create-item:2, en or something like that. I assume, then, that the devs changed the message that is used (seeing as the only other conclusion I can think of is that someone Oversighted the message), but didn't copy over the i18n. So: a) If I screwed something up here, somebody please revert it; and b) If someone can find the message that was used in the past, and copy the language subpages, that'd be great. Also, does a bug need to be filed on this change? It's a bit odd that the message was changed at all.

Oh, and, on a sidenote, it occurred to me that "[en] values"/"[fr] values"/etc. is a pretty ugly way to phrase things, so I also threw in some pretty {{#language}} parser function magic. Thoughts? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

CheckUser request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus for a 1 week block. Leemon2010 has already been warned if he continues sockpuppeting, he will get indefinitely blocked. Techman224^Talk 04:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

---

Between Leemon2010, candidate for adminship, and BD24, registered today. --Ricordisamoa 15:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong place for requesting CU actions. Please go to m:SRCU. Regards, Vogone talk 15:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a request there. --Ricordisamoa 15:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Confirmed!

Should we consider valid BD24's votes on RfPs? --Ricordisamoa 19:32, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As they don't change any results, I don't think they need to be marked as invalid. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 19:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, but in any case his votes did not change the overall outcome of those RfPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I remove Leemon2010's autopatrol flag and rollbacker flag. I think We can't trust him anymore. But i'm not sure block for Leemon2010--DangSunM (talk) 19:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted this action as there is a pending discussion about that below. Regards, Vogone talk 19:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Actions taken, sanctions for master?

The results confirmed BD24 (talk • contribs • logs) and Curiouss Artist (talk • contribs • logs) to be sockpuppets of User:Leemon2010, and both have been blocked indefinitely. Since this is one of our first sockpuppetry cases, I would like feedback on whether the master should be sanctioned (I'm thinking of a 1-week block and removal of rollback), and the blockage of the two sockpuppets.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would block all confirmed accounts except the main account. Removal of rollback would not make that much sense in my opinion because fighting against vandalism has absolutely nithing to do with sockpuppetry. I am not sure whether we should give a penalty block as blocks shouldn't be punishment in my opionion. Blocking the sockpuppets might be enough, as the user helps with the improvement of Wikidata. Regards, Vogone talk 19:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

On enwiki, blocks of the sockmaster deter the further creation of other socks by attaching an autoblock trigger to the main account. Autopatrolled and rollback require trust, and IMO socking is a big breach of community trust. Socks have been blocked already.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I had already blocked Leemon2010 for 1 week, as I thought this would be uncontroversial. I still think a block for period of 1 week or even more would be appropriate, as it may be useful to give Leemon2010 some time to think about his behaviour. Additionally, I think it might encourage other editors to try sockpuppets as well if we don't take any sanctions. Regards --Iste (D) 19:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(2xconflicted) (I replaced the SPs' userpages with a notice) I would mind if Leemon2010 gets blocked, because he could be an active editor; but the multiple use of sockpuppets to alter an important RfP makes me doubt of his trustfulness. Let's ask him an opinion. --Ricordisamoa 19:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, he should issue a statement. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 19:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left him a note on his talk page about this discussion.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(conflicted) I think first time We don't need to block main account. But We need to Caution to him. but If him made sockpuppets again, I think we need to block them.--DangSunM (talk) 19:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The longer he is blocked the fewer useful contributions we get. We would only harm ourselves if we block a user for a long time. I can understand that some users don't trust him anymore but why prohibit contributions then? Blocking him for this ill-considered action would be a punishment for us. Regards, Vogone talk 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

As Iste said, if we don't take any sanctions, it would encourage other users to edit with sockpuppets. He should take a small break. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:03, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Why should it encourage others? The sanction was the CU and it showed, that creating sockpuppets isn't secure. This would be a reason for me not to create sockpuppets. Regards, Vogone talk 20:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

No, there wasn't any sanction so far. If we don't block him at least for a week, other users might think the worst thing that could happen if they use multiple accounts is that the sockpuppets get blocked. Lukas²³ ^talk in German ^Contribs 20:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, they also lose a lot of community trust which is even worse than getting blocked for a week. That is a very high risk. Regards, Vogone talk 20:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever we decide, if he does it again, it should be indefinite. --Rschen7754 20:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If we're going to not block for the first batch, we better be sure to leave a stern warning and also be sure to block hard for the second batch. Leniency is fine, but not if it happens again. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Regards, Vogone talk 20:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

If we now allow Leemon2010 to continue editing as if nothing had happened, he might fail to see that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable, so he might be more likely to create sockpuppets again. Regards --Iste (D) 20:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

He lost almost all of his community trust. In my opinion, this is not "editing as if nothing had happened" and I am really sorry for him if he uses sockpuppets again because he would probably get project banned then (see above). Regards, Vogone talk 20:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: "If we now allow Leemon2010 to continue editing as if nothing had happened, he might fail to see that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable" - hence my suggestion of a strongly worded warning. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• At this point, I don't think that a block is needed, but certainly a strong warning and an indef. block if it happens again. I also agree with Vogone - he isn't getting away from this consequence-free. Would anyone support an RfA of his if one was opened now? Probably not. He has lost all trust. As for removing the rollback flag, I don't really care. Rollback isn't something to worry too much about, it's just a button. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't filed the CU request... maybe 8 voting sockpuppets, and ...?! --Ricordisamoa 21:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

To me, in this case a block sounds like retaliation. Let us separate two things. First, their contribution to Q and P spaces were ok, at least nobody ever complained. Second, the problem was using socks to vote, which is a clear breach of a (probably unwritten) policy. I would rather think of a topic ban or smth for votes, where their actions were problematic, and in any case a strongly worded warning would be in place.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding a block, if it's going to be a block, let it be a week (and, of course, indefinite for the sock accounts). The behavior shouldn't be encouraged, but the block shouldn't be punitive for just it being on record. If he socks again, obviously an indefinite block on the main account is desired. For this though, a week sends a message that it is very inappropriate to sock for voting. If we don't block, and then go into an indefinite block if he does it again, it doesn't teach him anything and doesn't help anyone. It's the equivalent of giving someone a slap on the wrist, with the threat of a guillotine for another offense. To actually reinforce his behavior so that he doesn't continue, a lengthy time-out is probably necessary. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  I would love to avoid using blocks as punishment like what you just described. Blocks should (IMO) be technical actions for preventing abuse, and in the case you described it would only serve as some form of retributive justice. I doubt that a week-long block initiated days after the fact would help anything, other than perhaps dissuade the user from coming back and trying to make positive contributions in the future. Ajraddatz (Talk) 01:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

  I agree this. I don't think that block is a good idea. He is not a trusted here anymore, and it's a big penalty for him. --Stryn (talk) 07:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left Leemon a note, trying to draw from the general sentiments here. I welcome others to comment – I'm somewhat disturbed to his lack of response to this matter, and think it's importatnt that he understand that this is something we all take rather seriously. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 03:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to note that Leemon2010 is active at the English Wikipedia, where he has requested the file mover bit. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:13, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

How is that relevant? Regards, Vogone talk 16:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just noting that he is active somewhere (and added where I saw him), so he may be ignoring us if he hasn't answered. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There's also en:WP:HATSHOP to keep in mind. Actually, though, it turns out that no one ever removed the autoblock from the BD24 block, so Leemon hasn't been able to edit until I removed it on his request a few minutes ago. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

There are so many hat collectors on Wikimedia that it's hardly even worth mentioning them any more. One can only hope that people give up as they get refused for permissions over and over and over again... but again, blocking for it is really more of a punishment than anything else, thus dissuading them from ever contributing productively. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(I randomly came across this from the checkuser requests page on Meta, in case you're wondering) - I quite agree with Ajraddatz; also "hat collecting" is something new users are generally a bit unimmunized to, so that shouldn't be taken as sth too bad. I guess Leemon2010 will have understood that he can't get away with sockpuppeting in order to make the support for his position appear greater than it is (and other users will surely noticed as well, as can be seen from the fact that the community was so alert to request a CU after only one vote); and it's also clear that a second try to do this won't do him too well. But for now, he has been admonished, so (in my opinion) he can keep the possibility to edit constructively and also his rather rights like rollback, which aren't affected by RFA sock-voting. As he has so far been contributing constructively, there shouldn't be a reason to prevent him from doing so now, for a mistake which he hopefully won't repeat. --MF-W 00:47, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Mainly the short contributions' history of BD24 (a newbie simply doesn't vote on a clearly unsuccessful RfP) led me to request that CU, I didn't think of good faith, I was simply surprised and doubtful. --Ricordisamoa 02:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Policy

I've recently created Wikidata:Sock puppetry so we can create a policy there. Feel free to add everything you think should be mentioned. --Bene* ^t_a^l_k 20:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I have expanded the policy, and am seeking feedback before it can be proposed to go into effect.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The policy looks good so far. Might need a bit more about actions taken against sockpuppets/masters, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Found the paragraph suggesting what actions in terms of blocking - also looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It looks to me that the policy defines two accounts which only edit in Q and P spaces and which belong to the same person as sockpuppetry unless explicitly declared. I do not see why it is needed. Clearly voting from socks, would it be a RfP or a property proposal or whatever is not acceptable, but why just simple editing is not acceptable?--Ymblanter (talk) 22:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, the fact that they technically are making a false impression on the community is improper. There's no reason not to declare legitimate alternate accounts. We may want to make an exception for en:WP:CLEANSTART or en:WP:VANISH (provided of course that we have consensus for one or both of those on Wikidata), but besides that I don't see making an exception to the requirement of declaring accounts.--Jasper Deng (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The policy looks good thus far, but yes, at some point we may want to address certain issues like a clean start. For a beginning policy, it's probably better to just specify as using two undeclared accounts is sockpuppetry, and then then !vote on addition exceptions later as they pop up. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have started Wikidata:Requests for comment/Sock puppetry. Everyone feel free to comment how you wish. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Formal discussion of rights removal

WD:RFP#Requests for removal of rights. That way the discussion of sockpuppetry policy and blocking him or not can continue here, while the future of his rollback privileges can be discussed independently. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Resolution

I'm not seeing a consensus to block the user up there, the discussion here seems to have petered out, and the rights discussion whether he should have rollback is moving along elsehwere. Would anyone be against closing this thread? --Izno (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Proposal

Check this. --Ricordisamoa 21:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Now Zolo supports this, too. --Ricordisamoa 23:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Global sysops

The RFC has closed. Could an admin please remove the notice from the watchlist and sitenotice? Thank you. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:15, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Lukas took care of the sitenotice, I got the watchlist.

On a related tangent, please see WT:Administrators#Global sysops for followup to the RFC. --Izno (talk) 17:48, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks twice for handling my request and for the notice. I will try to collaborate on that discussion as much as possible. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 04:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Uncaught SyntaxError: Unexpected token :

MediaWiki:Gadget-properties.js: please insert a comma before the "id" translation. Thanks. --Ricordisamoa 13:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done Vogone talk 15:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please create MediaWiki:Gadget-AuthorityControl/it with the following text:

AuthorityControl: Fornisce un collegamento a vari strumenti di Controllo di Autorità (VIAF, GND, ecc.) per elementi Wikidata che posseggono le relative proprietà.

Thanks. --Ricordisamoa 09:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done. Regards --Iste (D) 09:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Regards --Ricordisamoa 09:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism technique

Hello all, today i noticed a very weak activity in bots edits. I discovered that my bot crashed because of a \ at the end of an english label. This technique has been used to mislead bots because it is often interpreted as a special character ( in sql for instance ). Is is possible to trap this kind of vandalism at edition or the fatest as possible after vandalism ? Regards --Thieol (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Might not be vandalism, but carelessness. The \ is right over the enter key... Sven Manguard Wha? 22:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello, sven. It is vandalism. Please see Q1363963 history log. --Thieol (talk) 17:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, it might be a completely correct label in some cases, while a bot not handling escape characters correctly might even be dangerous in some situations. Better fix the bots than try to prevent label changes. --YMS (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are right bots should be corrected and that was the purpose of my warning. However, all the times I saw a backslash in a description was due to vandalism. Maybe it could be a way to detect potential vandalism. --Thieol (talk) 17:30, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

See this

Special:Contributions/Yuyu sy!?! --Ricordisamoa 09:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain the problems? From a brief perusal, I didn't see anything too wrong... --Izno (talk) 16:35, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Well:

• this edit is promotional and uncorrect there;
• this edit doesn't really make sense, then he self-reverted it;
• he set an unexisting file... --Ricordisamoa 17:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I'll warn the user. Another admin may see fit to do more and they have my permission to do so. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 28 March 2013 (UTC)