The University of South Australia's survey thing is over; please remove it from the sitenotice. Fetchcomms (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Done Thenub314 (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC) I thought I'd point out a situation similar to the PSY* accounts in the past. We have three new accounts created recently: Cfo4kids Cfo4you Cfo4u All have created userpages with the only content being their username. Maybe I'm paranoid, but I feel it's always suspicious when I see things like that. That's often the behavior seen by sockpuppeteers with bad intentions, so if this is a class project they should really seek out a different naming convention. – Adrignola talk 13:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC) This notice is being cross-posted to the major administrators noticeboard (incidents or alerts) style pages on all the major projects. Earlier today, a w:User:Meepsheep2 was blocked on the English Wikipedia. Apparently in reprisal, he vandalized a major template on English Wiktionary with a fake fundraising banner that he photoshopped. Someone reported it on IRC, and we blocked him quite quickly for this time of night, but we want you to be on the lookout for future similar incidents. Please help keep an eye on major templates for vandalism specifically related to the fundraiser banners, and if they occur, globally lock their accounts (if you do not have that access, please block them locally on the wiki they vandalized, and then find someone on IRC who can globally lock the account). Stewards can assist with this. I know you guys all watch the high value templates anyway, and I'm not asking you to do anything different with those. I'm specifically referring to incidents that spoof the fundraising banners. Please keep an extra careful eye out for those, and take the extra step of globally locking the account to prevent future recurrences of this specific kind of vandalism. Please send any questions to drosenthal (at) wikimedia.org, or use my English Wikipedia User Talk page as I cannot respond locally on all projects. ⇒DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 07:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC) It is particularly distracting to have admins change the locations of new pages while they are still under construction. In case there is any doubt about my intended complaint, I refer to two changes to my work in connection with Browser Settings and The CSS Cascade. Might it not be obvious that the author who starts such pages will have opinions as to his own intentions for them? There is a time for redirection, and no doubt a polite way of going about it! It is not in the middle of the initial writing, and certainly not when the page is marked as under construction! Armchair (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC) I agree with you. I have moved pages at times myself without prior discussion, and I think what has happened lately, from what I have seen, is a bit too much even by my own standards. I had suspected that some pages which were moved recently were all intended to be part of one book rather than intended as part of multiple existing books myself. Instead of moving things around further or back, I left messages on discussion pages when I have noticed the moves and thought the move was questionable. OTOH I can also understand how someone can think the initial writing is over with, even if its not because I have made that mistake before. Most anyone can move pages, for that reason I think this isn't problem unique/specific to admins. --darklama 16:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Browser Font Settings remains in place and was never moved. The CSS Cascade was moved to a very opportune location at Cascading Style Sheets/Inheritance Rules which was previously a red link in that book's contents. I moved it back but heavily suggest making it part of Cascading Style Sheets. Adding User Styles to Internet Explorer 8 was such a narrowly-scoped topic and we did not have a book to match up with Using Firefox for the other major browser in use today, so Internet Explorer/Adding User Styles invites further expansion on the topic by others. Ideally the new location would make it easier for readers to find the content while also adding valuable content to incomplete books. Such a move does not prevent work on the page; the redirect was left and not suppressed so as to not create confusion as to where the page went. These pages very much appear to be intended as standalone tutorials with no contents page, much as NHS Optical Benefits in the UK has been for some time, when they could be part of something much larger. – Adrignola talk 22:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC) All true, but in the main caused by nearly every new "book" being started as a set of separate pages and not in a book structure by new editors (i.e., people starting books without looking at any of the existing content or reading any of the help). That's not a criticism of those people, just an observation of the root cause. I can't see that moving a page is that impolite, especially if a redirect is left behind, it's just being bold. QU TalkQu 23:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
{'wiki_source': 'wikibooks', 'other_info': "{'content_model': 'wikitext', 'language': 'en', 'title': 'Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2010/December', 'type': 'text'}"}