Hi. Please enforce the global ban on Thekohser declared by Jimbo Wales in this edit. Thanks! — Jeff G. ツ 02:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Wikiquote:Administrators'_noticeboard#Global_ban_enforcement is a stronger thread than the original I was working with. — Jeff G. ツ 05:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] Looking through his edits I don't see any reason to ban him. Looking at the other wiki's you've posted this message on it seems many of them feel the same. I will not personally block any user without reason, regardless of who requests it. I find it notable that many of the admins at the other wiki's where you've requested this have responded similarly. Thenub314 (talk) 07:47, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] The moment he edits here I'll block him. He's totally unwelcome on any WMF wiki, as should be obvious to anyone familiar with the history here. — mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:~$  11:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] I will reverse any block made here simply for editing in a positive manner. There's a request at Meta, which is the only forum for a global ban that is appropriate. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] I agree that Thekosher's activities here don't really justify blocking him on Wikibooks, but if Mike decides to block him then I think it would be a mistake to reverse that. From what Thekosher has written elsewhere you can see why Jimbo and other Wikipedians have taken against him. Starting a wheel war would be such a disaster here, that the rest of us should just swallow our principles this time for the good of the project. Recent Runes (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] Beyond the possibility of a local block being implemented with no corresponding policy violation to justify it, a block here for actions on other wikis would seem to be against Mike's statement on his Meta page stating that steward actions would only be taken here in case of an emergency. -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:45, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] Please note the account has been locked globally to enforce the global ban. — mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:~$  20:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] Since the above the account was unlocked globally, then blocked locally at each wiki with an account by the steward Pathoschild in order to let individual wikis decide for themselves. German Wikipedia, Wikisource, and Wikinews have unblocked him.[1]. Guido den Broeder on Thekohser's talk page has requested an unblock. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[] I am not sure why Guido den Broeder is asking for an unblock of Thekohser, (assuming they are not the same person), but I think it is best if we let users ask to unblock themselves in general. Thenub314 (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[] Hallo I would like, if possible, to rename a book. I was the main author and need to change the name to reflect future use, however I have published links to pages in this book that I hope will still work when the book is renamed. Is this going to be possible and how can I achieve it? Thanks Hskeet (talk) 10:14, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[] You may use the move tab, by default it will leave behind a redirect that will automatically take users to the new book. If the book consists of many pages you may want to ask an administrator to do it for you, since our tools allow us to move all subpages of a given module. Unfortunately there is no way to protect the continued existence of these redirects indefinitely into the future for two reasons. One someone may come along and start a new book with the same title as your old book and over write the redirect in doing so. (Also there is a policy of deleting redirects are orphaned. Though placing a link in the discussion page of your book could prevent this.) So it is best if possible to update the links where ever you can. Thenub314 (talk) 10:23, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[] Thanks - I would like to go ahead and ask an administrator to make that change for me. The book is currently called Question Writer 3 Manual and I would like it changed to Question Writer Manual. Please let me know if there is anything I need to do Hskeet (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[] All the pages have been renamed, all the links have been adjusted and made relative, the tags have been corrected to improve the print version, and headings have been added to the collection now linked from the main page to divide the dynamic PDF into chapters. The only thing not done was to correct the fair-use rationales on the images to point to the new page locations, but they do so through the redirects that were left behind. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[] Thank you ever so much (even though I see now that I asked in the wrong place....Hskeet (talk) 08:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[] Now worries, you've got exactly the right place. The page on Renaming is for renaming user accounts and not books. Thenub314 (talk) 09:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[] (PS. Thanks for getting to this before me A) The account RealityBot (discuss · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log · block) probably isn't a bot, seeing that it has no userpage or user talk. If I'm right, shouldn't it be blocked indef? Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 14:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[] We have no policy that would call for that. Wikibooks:Bots doesn't mention anything related to a user having a bot-like name and vice versa and the non-policy Wikibooks:Blocking policy doesn't deal with usernames. Bots can run on Wikibooks without the bot flag and even without approval (assuming they aren't disruptive). Short of causing disruption, I can not justify a block at this time. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[] Also there was nothing harmful about the one existing edit under this account. Thenub314 (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[] Huh, really? In Wikipedia bot accounts don't have to end with -bot but non-bot accounts must not end with -bot. Also in Wikipedia non-approved bots can't be created as they don't have the bot flag. Sorry for my mistake; I'm still quite new here. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 10:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] No problem. Wikipedia tends to be rather high-strung about such things. If the account isn't editing, there's no deception. If they start contributing regularly, you might consider asking them to request at rename. — mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:~$  11:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[] OK, at this stage it seems to be editing like a bot would. However it should be provided with the bot flag. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 11:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[] We don't, however, hide edits for bots that have not been explicitly approved at WB:RFP. At minimum, I want to know who's operating it. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[] We seem to be having this conversation in two places. It doesn't look at all like a "bot editing" - the edits are far too infrequent to provide any evidence it is a bot. But regardless of that, bots do not get granted the bot flag without a proper discussion about the purpose and usage of the bot and that requires the operator to come forward and request the flag. There's no precedent, and I oppose creating one, of setting the bot flag just because an account name includes the three letters "bot". QU TalkQu 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[] Moved here Wikibooks:Reading_room/General#Enclosing_Programming_Code_in_Box --33rogers (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[] Is there an admin that have responsibilities here and in commons? I hask this because there seems to be a miscommunication on the information being provided. we happily promote the Commons project and its advantages to be used as a image repository that benefits all Wikimedia projects, we have changed out upload policy because of those benefits if someone is active there please make some effort to educate them about what we have done and that we still provide the means for users to use fair use images localy. See here Wikibooks:Requests for deletion#Using SPSS and PASW. --Panic (talk) 23:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[] Please move the book Linear Algebra to Linear Algebra: An Introduction to Mathematical Discourse. Discussion regarding this Wikibooks:Featured_books/Nominations#Linear_Algebra. Thanks. --33rogers (talk) 04:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[] I see no explicit request from Thenub314 on this other than discussion. In fact, several titles have been mentioned in the discussion. And if he's been undoing your revisions to the book, that makes me question if you're in a position to ask for a rename to a book he's been working on extensively. Thenub's comments indicate he feels the book's introduction adequately defines its scope and audience; this rename seems as though it'd just be to satisfy you. As for now, I've added {{book title|Linear Algebra|An Introduction to Mathematical Discourse}} to the front page, to provide a subtitle without bloating out every page's link length. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[] Coming up with a title that correctly gives the flavor of the book is difficult. I suppose I think something like Linear Algebra: An Introduction to Mathematical Discourse. This is what Thenub suggested. --33rogers (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[] Sometimes we just float ideas around to think about them or to get feedback. I don't see why Thenub's comment should be taken as a binding compromise. Furthermore, I question the point of bringing this to the Administrative Assistance room, given that it is an editorial decision and also that Thenub himself is an admin, so theoretically he could unilaterally move the book if he really felt a pressing need to do so. --Duplode (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[] For what it is worth, real life is quite busy right now, so bringing a name change request here makes good sense and I had told 33rogers at some point in the discussion. But as Duplode seems to have guessed, I don't I like my own suggestion all that much, it sounds very 19th century but I couldn't think of much better. I was kind of hoping it would spark some new idea, but I don't really mind having it there for the time being. For the moment, my opinion is that the book title template that Adrignola put in is perfect. It allows us to try out different things without having to move all the pages this way and that. And suggestions about the title are also still floating around, we should take Helder's suggestions just as seriously as my own. Maybe after we settle we can discuss a permanent move. Thenub314 (talk) 08:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[] (Never mind, I have just seen that the idea of bringing it here came from Thenub. Consider the strikeout I left in my post above as a public contrition for overzealousness.) --Duplode (talk) 16:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[] I'd like to make it clear that I'm not associated with User:Adrignolans. I highly doubt that this user's name is a coincidence. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:23, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[] Well, I'd support a vandalism only infinite account block - the contributions are all vandalism, and the attempt to impersonate you (by adding a block notice with an attempt to make the notice appear to come from your account) is clearly deserving of a block. One last chance to prove they aren't a full-time vandal, maybe. QU TalkQu 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[] It was telling that Adrignolans blanked Mikimeral's talk page, whom I had blocked indefinitely for vandalism. The playing with images on the user page in a similar manner led me to believe Adrignolans was a sock. Checkuser evidence has revealed it to be so and Adrignolans is now indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:38, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[] But that guy's only a kid in the first grade. (That's P2 to me.) Maybe if he promises not to do it again s/he can be unblocked? Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 10:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[] "But that guy's only a kid in the first grade". Unless you have personal knowledge, anything else could be made up. In any case, abuse of multiple accounts to avoid a block isn't allowed, so the second account won't be unblocked. The primary account has a two week block, after which the user can begin to edit again. QU TalkQu 10:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[] (Edit conflict with QU, forgive any repetition) Even if it were indefinite, a user can always request an unblock. But don't be too moved by the persons claims that they are in P2, with near certainty this is a deception. None of the P2 kids I am in contact with are really capable of sock puppeting, and some of the other edits I have seen form this user. (My daughter is in P2, so this set is non-empty) And if they are an especially precocious P2 age child, well... my parental skills say a time out is in order. Thenub314 (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[] I didn't mention it before, but after discussion with Mike.lifeguard and analysis of the original IP address the user used as not being a school address (where these might be multiple users), but rather a home address, additional accounts have been blocked as well as sockpuppets. The following list includes the above-mentioned accounts (note that I'm complying with the privacy policy by not disclosing the IP). User:Adrignolans User:JkaKPKGHSDg User:Kailsop1 User:Levdgrosavm Minsaniuop User:Mikimeral User:Nawilikigeo User:NiaoskfFR User:NiwokiBit Even though the originating IP may be dynamic, these accounts were created since April 16 and it's extremely unlikely that the IP changed hands eight times in that period and even less likely that you'd have eight people creating accounts at Wikibooks during that time. I believe it's also not a privacy violation to state that they used the exact same browser/OS/toolbars (that's visible with checkuser). -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[] The user tried to come over to NiwokiBit and cause trouble there. I blocked him before I noticed this. I thought I would leave a note on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[] Wikijunior:Ancient Civilizations/Mayans has a lot of vandalism lately. Suggest semi-protection. Kayau ( talk | email | contribs ) 01:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[] Semi-protected for a month. We'll see how that goes and determine whether a longer period is necessary. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[] Special:Contributions/173.64.187.31 is performing blatant vandalism and Special:Contributions/Jamesjr11111 appears to be the same person, requesting an admin look into giving a block. Xerol Oplan (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[] The IP and the user have both been blocked at this point and the vandalism reverted. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:42, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[]
{'wiki_source': 'wikibooks', 'other_info': "{'content_model': 'wikitext', 'language': 'en', 'title': 'Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2010/May', 'type': 'text'}"}