User talk:Max/Archive 2

Tech News

Thank you very much for contributing to the translations of Tech News this week. It is appreciated! You may also like (and be able) to help translate the regularly re-used strings (e.g. section headers), which are collected in Special:Translate/agg-Tech_News_templates. Thanks again! Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure – DreamRimmer ◆ 00:39, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Your RFBS

Your RFBS has been closed as successful and the account flag has been added. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) – DreamRimmer ■ 16:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Advanced Congratulations

DreamRimmer, Hi, Today is day you recieving global sysop privileges, so, I'm here to wish you congratulations for global privileges. --Warm Regards, Abhimanyu7  talk  04:53, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) – DreamRimmer ■ 12:22, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Bot

		The Bot Creator Barnstar
		For creating and maintaining many useful bots.--Cactus🌵 spiky ouch 13:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar, and thank you as well for all your contributions. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:21, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

a little token of thanks!

Hi DR, I don't find a good barnstar around to award you but words even though they are catchy are little, sometimes meaningless. Please take this little token of thanks in appreciation of all the contributions you have made, and those that you continue to make a difference with. Your contributions are make the contributions of others way easier. Thanks! _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 11:46, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Aafi: Thank you for your kind words, and I also appreciate everything you have been doing. :) – DreamRimmer ■ 13:41, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations, dear administrator!

Congratulations, DreamRimmer! You now have administrator rights on Meta-Wiki. Please take a moment to read the adminstrators' policy again and to add to your watchlist several related pages (in particular: Meta:Requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat and Meta:Requests for deletion) before launching yourself into administrator duties. Please keep an eye on the index of policies and guidelines and the local discussion forum too. Please note that while most actions done with administrator tools can be reversed by other administrators, some such as history merges or imports are not, or can only be undone in full or in part after a great amount of work, therefore you shall be extra careful when performing these type of actions. If you use IRC feel free to join the #wikimedia-metaconnect channel. You may also find our administrators' handbook useful for your day to day. Please check or add your entry to the list of administrators as well. Administrators are also allowed to subscribe to the metawiki-admins private mailing list. Subscription instructions can be found in the mailing list main page. Feel free to ask me any other administrator if you ever have any doubts or questions about the tools. Sincerely, M/ (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Global Rename checks

Hi @DreamRimmer. I am really amazed by your technical contributions and creation of several incredible scripts. I came across User:DreamRimmer/globalrenamechecks.js and had a thought that it should be by default available to every global renamer as a side gadget. I believe this could positively enhance our contributions as GRs because it is "terribly tedious" to check for history of logs. Would appreciate your input before I start a community thread around this. Thanks for your input in advance. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 16:04, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest, @Aafi. I have read the responses on the mailing list and am happy to offer any support. Please feel free to start a discussion and let me know if I can assist in any way. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:13, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Could you please help me with the links of the relevant images? I'd appreciate. _signed, Aafi ^(talk) 13:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Aafi: File:Global rename check rename history preview.png and File:Global rename check global block log preview.png. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:45, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi

I was recently usurped and use phabricator, how do I rename there? Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 03:32, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

You can request a Phabricator username change at mw:Talk:Phabricator/Help. Please be sure to include a link to your Phabricator profile. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:56, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Done can you take a look? Plutus 💬 🎃 — Fortune favors the curious 06:59, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Looks fine. – DreamRimmer ■ 07:05, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

viwki

Hey! I think gs can take action on non-controversial vandalism/spam, as decided by the community by consensus (you might not noticed). Also Administrators Noticeboard on viwiki top notice suggests to report in GSR in emergency. 🪶-TΛNBIRUZZΛMΛN (💬) 09:26, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

As per GS policy, GS can take action if fewer than three administrators have made a logged action within the past two months. In the opt-in proposal, they did not explicitly state that GS can act at any time on non-controversial requests, but they did include the line “Khi đang có bảo quản viên hoạt động”. I do not necessarily have an issue if you act, but sometimes when I see certain requests, I would decline them. In this case, since you were late and did not act in time, I went ahead and declined it. – DreamRimmer ■ 09:39, 13 September 2025 (UTC)

TA bot

Good day. Would you be interested in taking up Meta:Requests for bot status/DannyS712 bot? Currently there are 600-ish pages pending review and at least a quarter of it has no net changes. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 13:26, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

@Minorax: Sure, could you please provide more details about the task? I am fairly new to translation work. Although I have translated some pages, I have not dealt with translation admin functions yet, so I would appreciate a clearer idea of what is involved. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:07, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Noticed that User:DannyS712/TranslationBot already provides plenty of information, which should be enough to work on the code, but do share if you have anything new to add. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:25, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Essentially it's a bot that marks a translatable page for translation based that the current version B is the same as the last marked version A with no changes, be it in a translation unit or not. This should probably be check daily at a given hour, let's say 00:00 UTC. The only problem that you might face are subpages of Wiki Loves Living Heritage where ListeriaBot updates the pages with different content but the translatable portion of the pages are untouched. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:31, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I will work on the code and inform you once we are ready to file a bot request. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:45, 14 September 2025 (UTC)

Will it also be possible to add another feature to remove related markup if the page hasn't been added into the translation system and the last edit on that page is >180 days ago? Related markup includes <translate>...</translate>, <!--T:1--> & <tvar name=var>...</tvar>. Rationale being that these pages are likely to not conform to Meta:Internationalization guidelines and since the page has been left untouched for a long time, there really isn't a need to add it to the translation system. In my opinion, this feature should only be used in "Main", "Grants" & "Event" namespaces. If anyone wants to add it to the translation system, a simple undo of the bot action will suffice. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 14:25, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Minorax: I will work on implementing this suggestion once we are ready for the main workflow, most likely in the coming days. Could you guide me on the parameters to use? For example, when marking a page, which basic parameters are usually applied and which can be skipped? I am asking because I have not worked with this before and am not familiar with the current practice. You can refer to markfortranslation action parameters like translatetitle for reference. – DreamRimmer ■ 16:39, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Also pinging @Pppery, as I noticed they commented on previous bot request. I would like some clarity on what is considered identical in this context. For example, if a page in the translation system was vandalised and then reverted, the current version would be the same as the last marked version. Should the bot act only in such cases, or also when the changes are limited to whitespace or other minor, non-substantial edits? – DreamRimmer ■ 16:53, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

As I understood DannyS712's bot proposal it was only marking pages with no change at all for translation. Marking pages with trivial changes (for some definition of trivial) might be doable but I would require a clearer definition of what exactly is trivial to be comfortable with it. I oppose the idea of running a stale bot for translation pages; if there aren't enough people marking stuff for translation then the solution is to have more translation admins, not to pretend the problem doesn't exist. * Pppery * _{it has begun} 19:28, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I've considered your second point but having 400+ pages that are pending addition into the translation system throws me off. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 22:57, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

I have submitted a bot request. Its main task is to mark pages where the last marked revision is identical to the current revision, meaning there are no net changes in the pending edits. The stale-page functionality is not included for now, but I can add it later if needed. – DreamRimmer ■ 00:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Code work done. – DreamRimmer ■ 06:32, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hello DreamRimer, your bot request has closed as successful. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 18:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you :) – DreamRimmer ■ 12:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Spam blacklist

Did you purposely added this twice? Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 10:22, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Apologies, that was my mistake. It may have been caused by a poor network connection or because I accidentally clicked the confirmation button twice. – DreamRimmer ■ 10:27, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

No problem, happy editing! Plutus ^{💬 🎃} — Fortune favors the curious 10:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

User talk:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/temp.json

I meant to request for the user page's deletion rather than the talk page. Templates aren't rendered on JSON pages though, hence the talk page. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 13:02, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

That is done now. Reading the reason you gave, I thought you were trying to apply the user page deletion criteria like we do on English Wikipedia, haha. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:43, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Your signature

There is an extraneous hash sign that prevents the color from being recognized by the rendering engine: <span style="color:##5A4FCF;">. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:05, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks :) – DreamRimmer ■ 14:14, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Need a protection, deletion, or block on another language wiki

Hi, I'm an admin on the English Wikipedia but I have no rights on the Nigerian Pidgin Wikipedia at pcm.wikipedia.org. I'm also a VRT agent who came across this ticket describing (in Spanish) some possibly legally-actionable libel going on at https://pcm.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Lizardi - it appears to be an attack page, with the edit history showing an ongoing revert war lasting for days. The subject of the article wants it all deleted. Can you help?

The language looks illegible at first, but if you read it aloud, it sounds like English, so it can be understood. Anachronist (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

This page was indeed an attack, so I have deleted it and blocked the three users involved in the edit war and vandalism. – DreamRimmer ■ 01:16, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I have informed the subject. Anachronist (talk) 01:29, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Just noticed that the page was recreated - I have deleted it and protected the page for now. Ternera (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Archive bot

Why was this change necessary? In other words, wouldn't it be better to ask the bot maintainer for a fix? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 14:11, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

I have requested them privately to tweak the code to skip this timestamp, but they did not reply, and later Svartava reached out to their talk page with the same request and got no response, so I am using it as a temporary workaround, considering the operator is either not interested in our request or busy with other stuff. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:27, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I messaged, and Svartava commented. – DreamRimmer ■ 14:32, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

GS / GR requests

Hi DreamRimmer, just noticed your comment [1]: I was criticising your detailed questions for GAFH candidates. GAFH is a view-only permission where it's important to evaluate a candidate's trust – e.g. by checking if they already have trust from their local community – but not their ability to write more or less complex filters. With global filters applying to most wikis, it's important for local communities to be able to deal with potential false positives. That's why I'm pretty lenient with GAFH as long as a local admin is trusted.

That's different to GS / GR permissions which need a much higher level of trust because users can do a lot o damage (especially to smaller wikis) or cause conflicts like this one [2] if they don't respect a wiki's right to self-governance. Johannnes89 (talk) 07:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I truly welcome constructive criticism. In those two requests where I asked about regex and filters, the users were interested in creating filters for their local projects by taking ideas from existing filters, so I felt it was good to ask a few questions to check their understanding of the syntax. In some projects, even getting view-only access is very difficult and involves a lot of scrutiny, so I sometimes worry when people get it too easily globally just because they are sysops on a project. That said, everyone has their own perspective, and I have not opposed those requests even when the answers were not completely correct. I try not to bother anyone with unnecessary questions, but asking a few relevant questions helps make the requests feel more like a discussion rather than a vote. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

"In some projects, even getting view-only access is very difficult" – sysops always have view access to private filters, no matter which project? And why should the global community check a user's ability to create local filters on a wiki where they're sysop, isn't that something for their local community to do before granting them sysop / AFM permissions? That's of course different if we are talking about small projects without community oversight, but GAFH is typically requested by users with sysop permissions in one of the top 20 WMF wikis. Noting that only a few projects (enwiki, frwiki and probably <5 other) changed the default sysop permissions and require AFM for sysops in order to modify filters.

Anyway I appreciate your thought about not just voting, I believe we just have different standards for GAFH. I'm quite lenient with GAFH if a user can be trusted with access to private filters, because denying it to local sysops might lead to more projects opting out of global filters which would make them less effective.

I'm certainly happy if you want to ask questions for GR/GS candidates :) Johannnes89 (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

This may be because we have different standards for this permission, or maybe I am taking things too seriously, but I agree with what you said and will work on improving based on your feedback. I appreciate you taking the time to respond ;) – DreamRimmer ■ 13:17, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

GRN/Stats

Many thanks for this. It might seem like a small thing but imho it's a step to focus on quality over quantity. Best ;) --Superpes15 (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

It was the need of the hour. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:15, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Any chance you could reinstate the statistics showing the number of edits by renamer? It's nice to have some statistics. Leaderboard (talk) 11:48, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I saw comments from a few users, including Superpes, who were worried that renamers might approve requests carelessly just to improve their personal stats. That is why I removed it. I can put it back if both you and Superpes agree. – DreamRimmer ■ 13:03, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Superpes15 (since you asked for the removal) I don't get the benefit of removing a statistic. Is there any evidence that renamers are using that page to "improve their personal stats"? It's like claiming that people use Global statistics to improve their edit count... Leaderboard (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: (I didn't ask DreamRimmer directly for the removal, just talked about the usefulness of stats and now I noticed the removal, so please don't attribute to me actions that I didn't do or comment that I didn't make) This has been discussed during the years and there are several posts in the private ML about this, but in any case, rename statistics are imho meaningless and there's no need to have it. There's no activity monitoring, and the flag is maintained regardless of the number of renames. There are no reconfirmations and no comments on the activity. The only data that matters is the last rename processed (we should also see the rejected ones, but I'm afraid it's impossible to obtain this data). Even for new renamers, imho they need to know that there is no sort of "ranking", and it has no value whether a renamer makes 1 or 10,000 renames per year because only quality should count and there is no bot that continuously takes this into account. Anyone who wants numbers, even if I don't understand why, can always use xtools, didn't see the issue and I still don't understand why we should have this data on wiki (just my 2c) :) Superpes15 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Superpes15 Sure, but I haven't seen any evidence that renamers were being penalised for making too few renames. Regarding why have the statistics - because it's nice to see. That's it. It would also be useful for DreamRimmer to collate the number of renames per month, like what's done with, for example, CheckUser on loginwiki.

Some of us are just interested in the data - that doesn't mean that we're going to treat it as a race. What I'm seeing here is just reducing transparency for no reason. Leaderboard (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

@Leaderboard: This could be an interesting option, but don't see how this reduces the transparency, since everything is logged and if anyone is interested there is xtools, also renamers have not a minimum number of renames as requirement. LWCU stats have a sense, because the community can evaluate the activity of a steward in the process of reconfirmation, regarding a data that cannot be publicly disclosed and that most users couldn't see in any other way (unlike the renames, which as said are publicly logged). Just my humble 2c, I agree that it's nice to have statistics, but they should also be functional... Superpes15 (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I have received off-wiki messages from many renamers, and it seems the statistics are useful to them, so I will restore it. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:03, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. This confirms that many renamers consider that number important when imho that shouldn't happen. I'd have preferred there to be a public discussion regarding the possible removal or maintenance of that number but maybe we'll open it in future! Superpes15 (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I did not mean that Superpes said that specific thing directly to me. I noticed a few recent discussions about the poor quality of renames, including users’ comments on a recent RfC and an older comment by Superpes here, which is why I removed it. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:11, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Oh thanks, I didn't notice the reply there, was not pinged! By the way, I'm not against the stats (just to be clear), I'm against anything that could distract from the goal, which is to do the renames with the highest possible quality, that's all. If you think they are useful, you can leave them, but I simply don't see the usefulness (unlike other statistics that can be useful for example in a reconfirmation phase). Superpes15 (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Voting

Hi DreamRimmer, I'm sorry to bother you but I don't know who to ask this question. Just out of curiosity: Who can vote and who can not in for example RfA:s and stuff on Meta? I know I might not be able to vote just yet as I'm pretty new on Meta, but I just want to know. I can't find any policy for it here on Meta, so I'm asking you as we have had contact before and I don't know who else to ask. Affe2011 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Affe2011: No worries, feel free to message anytime if you need help. Just so you are aware, these are not formal votes but open discussions where anyone can share their comments. Usually, users just post support or oppose !votes without much explanation. SRGP and WM:RFA are the main venues where such requests are made, and anyone can participate by adding their !vote after evaluating the candidate. Some requests, like block exemption or two-factor authentication tester rights, usually do not need community !votes. – DreamRimmer ■ 12:05, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for answering. Svwp, my homewiki, have some pretty strict policies, so I just wanted to make sure. Affe2011 (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

EVM

Hi, I noticed a bug with the EVM script here if you want to take a look. It placed my support vote under the neutral section. Thanks! Ternera (talk) 14:56, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

@Ternera: I would not consider it a bug but a missing feature to handle CU and OS requests. EVM appends data in the request section, and in this case, the last line was a neutral heading, so it got appended after Neural. I will update the script to support this format in both request sections when I get some free time, either tomorrow or in the next few days. Until then, I will disable the script in both sections. – DreamRimmer ■ 15:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

But I thank you for reminding me ;) – DreamRimmer ■ 15:12, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Excellent! Just wanted to make you aware. Ternera (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

Special:Diff/29551328

Hope this makes sense :) --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 22:12, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Request for Page Restoration or Migration

Hello DreamRimmer,

Thank you for your work maintaining Meta-Wiki. My user page, User:MarkPaulJonesUKSUPP0725, was recently removed under G7 (“out of project scope”). I understand this rule, but the page was structured as a public-interest documentation index under Creative Commons — not a self-promotion or personal blog.

Could you please advise whether the content could be migrated to Wikimedia Commons (Documentation/Archives) or Wikidata (Q136681050 link) rather than deleted? It is part of a verified open-data record on human-rights and data-protection transparency.

I’m happy to edit or reformat it to comply fully with Meta policy.

Thank you for your time and guidance, — MarkPaulJonesUKSUPP0725 MarkPaulJonesUKSUPP0725 (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

@MarkPaulJonesUKSUPP0725: The content you added is not relevant to the Wikimedia movement, so I would not suggest moving it to any WMF project, as WMF sites only host content that aligns with their purpose. – DreamRimmer ■ 09:43, 1 November 2025 (UTC)

Delete page Salvatore Ambrosini

Hi, please delete this article because it clearly contains promotional content. The user who created it has already been globally blocked (see here), and it seems that no active admins are handling it at the moment. Thanks... ⭑Sophia𓂃.🖊 05:37, 2 November 2025 (UTC)