User talk:MarcoAurelio/Archives/2011-03

Hi!

Hola! How many votes need a user to became bureaucrat on a some little wiki with 8 admins, and with a inactive bureaucrat? Gracias! Memo18^{(contribs|talk|ro.wp(t))} 11:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If there's a bureaucrat, even if inactive, you should try to contact with him/her first. If those attempts became futile, then you should ask us at requests for permissions.

There are currently no hard rules on what the minimun requisites are but per longstanding practice we usually consider requests that passes the threshold of 10/15 votes in favour with 75% support over a week.

You should also consider if a bureaucrat is really needed in that wiki or stewards are enough help at that moment. Hope that this answer your questions. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 11:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Memo18^{(contribs|talk|ro.wp(t))} 11:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

PWB

{{tb|Talk:Pywikipediabot/weblinkchecker.py#Questions_from_BRFAs_and_elsewhere_on_English_Wikipedia}}   — Jeff G. ツ 02:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I see no specific messages directed to me. Could you please clarify? Thank you, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

You moved that page in this edit. I thought you might have some interest in its contents. Sorry if I was mistaken.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No problem. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 10:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

deleted page

Hi Dferg, i have deleted this page due to these reasons please see this, this and this. Whatever he has done on English Wikipedia he has done same thing on Nepali Wikipedia also to gain cheap popularity. But one of sysop of ne wiki do not want to delete and reverted the page. But i think uniform rule should be there, similar action should be taken as it is done on en Wikipedia. Please pay attention to this and suggest me on my talk page. --Bhawani 13:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

We do not decide which content is or it is not appropiate nor we decide which is relevant or which is not. If newiki thinks the article is appropiate we can't do nothing. Try to convince the local admin or start (if avalaible locally) a request for deletion of that article if you still think it is innapropiate. I see issues but I doubt we can do nothing here. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 11:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Now, we deleted, there is consensus of local community to delete it. Thanks -- Bhawani 13:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad the community could solve the issue. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 13:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe

This might be checkable? There was one on Commons yesterday doing the user page spam there so it suggests they have restarted this. Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

No apparent sleepers, but other data suggests relationship with spambot accounts that were active at meta a while ago. I have blocked it. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 21:43, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks :) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:54, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My pleasure. See list. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 10:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing on list yet? --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is; but not posted by my but by another steward. The thread is here. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 13:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

My usurpation request at Indonesian wiki

Hi, I have made a request for usurpation over a month ago at the Indonesian language Wikipedia. However after constant begging[1][2] both bureaucrats seem to completely ignore all usurpation requests even when other users reminded them of their duties[3]. The last request they fixed was on October 2010. -- Rafy 16:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay. I was inactive. Usurp request done. Thanks. --ivanlanin ♫ 17:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much IvanLanin. Rafy: I guess all is done now. You can unify the account by accessing Special:MergeAccount. Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 17:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you both. Now I can finally claim to be the sole owner of the username Rafy :D Rafy 18:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Vote counting

Hi! Regarding this: Since we count votes for RfCU, shouldn't the opposes be in their own section and numbered separately from the supports? After all, the policy only mentions a specific count for the support votes. Jafeluv 14:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I followed what seems to be the standard practice on meta cfr. Mike.lifeguard, Mardetanha and yours trully for example. I really have no objections whith segregation of support/oppose votes. If it is better, I'll change it back again. Thanks, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but you guys had no opposers! :D But no big deal, we can add the section back later anyway if it's needed. Jafeluv 14:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sovittu, kiitos ;) -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 15:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)