User talk:Izno

Main Page styles.css
Hi sorry to disturb you on your wikibreak. I just want to ask a question about styles.css file (sorry I'm still a learner). I'm an admin on niawp (the only one who knows how to edit the main page) and the community agreed that we simplify the Main Page maintenance by being as close as possible to enwp while keeping it appealing for the eyes of the target readers.

I already spring cleaned the niawp Main Page, but I see that you put the enwp styles.css file in the project namespace (Wikipedia:Main Page/styles.css). How to do that? When I created such styles.css file in the project namespace, it's not recognised as css styles but as a normal page. Thank you. slaia  talk  11:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Either create it in template namespace and move it to the Project namespace, or use Special:ChangeContentModel to change the content model of the page to sanitized-css. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Pppery This might be something to add to WP:TemplateStyles, since it's not the first time I've seen a question like this. Will need to note the special case for user space TemplateStyles, which requires some help from an int admin. Izno (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you a lot. slaia   talk  07:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Article alerts box help
Hi, I know you've worked on Template:Article alerts box, but isn't the template supposed to show article alerts as a listing? I've checked the backlinks and it's just showing the line that they'll be generated shortly. I don't know how to fix this, could you help? --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:51, 7 January 2024 (UTC)


 * @Funandtrvl, not right now. Please ask at WP:VPT to see if assistance can be provided. Izno (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Does anyone know how to change the RefToolbar so that it is compatible with sfn?. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 06:50, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Account as a sockpuppet of an IP
Hi there, this account (AyunaKawai) seems to be a sock of this IP. Will this hold water on WP:SPI? I'm not entirely sure what the original sockmaster account is. John Yunshire (talk) 03:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)


 * This IP seems to enforce his own peremptory to frame other IPs as sock puppets who have disagreements with his interested topics, which demonstrate in his frequent reversion in specific themed topics even the edits were in good faiths, reverted by him with no sensible explanation and abusing the reporting mechanism by framing opponents as sock puppets. AyunaKawai (talk) 03:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Abusive sock is back
See Sockpuppet investigations/Observer1989. Thanks. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:05, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Reminding. Your help is still needed. Thanks Ratnahastin  (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You will need to find someone else to help you. Izno (talk) 03:28, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Wrapping fmbox
Hi, re - why not add mw-parser-output to the ? This would eliminate the need for a wrapper div. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It must be a wrapper div, because TemplateStyles CSS is  with only one kind of exception, which this case does not meet. Izno (talk) 18:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a plan for Template:Memory types/styles.css?
Do you have a plan for Memory types/styles.css? I poked through the talk page and the template's history, but I did not find any mention of it or implementation of it. If it is not needed, you could put Db-g7 on it (I think this works on CSS pages, but I'm not sure), or I could take it to TFD. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:24, 22 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Jonesey95 removed somewhere in the meantime. I have no issue G7ing it. Izno (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just trying to keep Template space tidy. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Moosstore
Hi Izno, you closed this SPI earlier. Can you please merge this case to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lithuaniaball2? The days-of-the-year vandalism in Lithuanian is as WP:DUCKy as it gets to WP:LTA/LB2.  Prodraxis  ( talk ) 17:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @Prodraxis, I am not a clerk or a current CU, so I cannot. You will need to request it on WT:SPI. Izno (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

ARCA clarification
Hey,

Reaching out to you here as I'm cognisant of the word limits at ARCA. Are there specific diffs in the filing I made at AE that you think are out of scope of ARBATC, as it was written in 2017? It seems to me as though you're implying that the filing I made is partially out of scope, but I can't quite figure out why you think that? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Sideswipe9th, I slightly may have possibly not at all checked every diff for it being in scope exactly when I wrote the ARCA up. That said, the specific page being edited, and the specific dispute spawned at AN(I?) as a result, isn't in the set of AT/MOS pages, nor a change proposal for them living elsewhere, but instead an essay/information page living elsewhere about how MOS functions. (The original dispute's locus was on the talk pages of AT and MOS, which is why I think I have it in my head considered it to be scoped as such.) This is the quality that makes me less certain the diffs in the present filing are in scope for the 2017 wording. I am definitely more concerned about the 2023 filing either way. Izno (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * the specific dispute spawned at AN(I?) as a result, isn't in the set of AT/MOS pages There were two disputes at AN recently. The first was about the capitalisation of NFL draft article titles, and a rather contentious RfC. The second was about Manual of Style extended FAQ. When selecting diffs, I deliberately excluded the former, as I felt that was out of scope per your clarification at Tamzin's AE report. The second though I did select diffs from, as I felt that was a discussion on the MOS and its content, as at the time it was linked to on MOS:FAQ having only been removed on after the AN discussion started. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed there have been two. I'm referencing the latter also, as the former I think clearly fits into the clarification of "page names of specific pages" in the 2017 wording as you also believe. I haven't said anything at the present AE largely because I think the 2017's broadly construed probably does reasonably include the MOSXFAQ despite my uncertainty. My parenthetical above was about the actual originating case in the early 2010s. Izno (talk) 04:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I think I understand where you're coming from now :) Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Friday musa
Hi @Izno. Hope this message finds you well. I write to you with respect to the Indefinite blockage set to User:Friday musa's account on the English Wikipedia. I am appealing not just on his behalf but on the behalf of the Tyap Wikimedians User Group to unblock his account as this posseses a big setback to our operations as an affiliate. Please review your stance on his account status and remove the indefinite block set on it. Thanks and warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 13:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Greetings again, @Izno. I am back again to ask for your permission to begin a thread asking for a review of Friday musa's account block at WP:XRV. If you don't think this is necessary, please help unblock his account. I am appealing to your understanding as the leader of my affiliate to please act swiftly to save my user group the troubles. We have invested so much effort in growing this young group and we must obtain financial support from the Foundation to drive our activities. The person blocked is an active participant and co-signatory to the account of our organization. This sudden block on his account is threatening the progress we have made thus far. I once again appeal to your understanding to do what is just and reasonable. Warm regards, Kambai Akau (talk) 23:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC).
 * @Kambai Akau, 1) We do not take third party appeals. It is only the person who is blocked's responsibility to appeal. 2) As such, Friday musa is not limited in the number of appeals he may make. This is what 331dot suggests when he says Please tell us in your own words, in a new request what Wikipedia's license is, what copyright is, and describe how to properly use copyrighted content on Wikipedia. in the decline of the previous appeal. You should encourage Friday musa to appeal again. I have already said my piece. 3) Whether your affiliate is in good or bad standing is not my concern. If they are to edit English Wikipedia, the users who have a membership in it must understand our policies and guidelines, whether or not they are a member of any other organization that does work in the Wikimedia movement.
 * As an FYI, you and others in the affiliate group should understand WP:Meatpuppetry and WP:Canvassing. They are guidelines to take care with when you are editing as part of a larger group. Izno (talk) 00:02, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Izno, I indeed understand your position. I will encourage him to do the necessary. We shall also do our best to better understand and educate our community on WP:Meatpuppetry and WP:Canvassing. Thanks for your time. Kambai Akau (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Concern about a new report
Hello Izno, I've come here after noticing something here. Could you please inform me who is managing the sockpuppet accounts here? Additionally, has the issue of sockpuppetry within group two been resolved? I was about to submit a report regarding a user involved, but I'm unsure about the identity of the sockpuppet manager in group one and whether the sockpuppetry in group two has been confirmed. Regards. Imperial [AFCND]  19:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @ImperialAficionado I think you mean master, not manager. I do not really understand what you're asking or how I can best clarify what I already said at that SPI. What more do you want? Be very specific about your questions, particularly using specific names. Izno (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you can lay a brief summary of your new report and I can suggest where you should file that, since I think that is your primary question. Izno (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant the sockmaster. I noticed that the suspects were divided into two groups, but upon further investigation, I found some similarities between group one and group two. These similarities were evident in their editing patterns, as well as in some external cases. Would you mind if I share some external links here for reference? The external links include Instagram and YouTube, as I've been closely following this matter due to its interesting nature. Imperial  [AFCND]  06:57, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The Instagram handle provided by Shakib ul hassan here, @manik.edits_, which is similar to the accounts in group 1, namely ManikSharma8969 and Manik69, initially raised suspicions for me. However, I dismissed this as mere coincidence. Yet, upon encountering the report about Jonharojjashi, I decided to investigate further by searching these names on social media platforms. To my surprise, . Given that RagedBrahmin, Manik69, and ManikSharma8969 were already identified as the same user, this additional similarity heightened my suspicion. Moreover, what intensified my doubt was comparing the userpage of RagedBrahmin with one of the articles created by Shakib ul hassan . I have came across multiple instances, where the edits of confirmed socks having similarity with Shakib ul hassan. I find it difficult to believe that all these connections are merely coincidental.  Imperial  [AFCND]  08:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @ImperialAficionado, please review the rules in WP:OUTING regarding connecting identities that have not been established onwiki. Where relevant to a sock investigation, you should contact a CheckUser privately instead.
 * Given that I was possilikely with technical data, your report is sufficient to convince me that the user is a sock of that group. I've now blocked both of the accounts in group 2. Izno (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I sincerely apologize for my actions. I was unaware of the existence of such a rule. Thank you for taking the time to investigate this matter. Regards. Imperial  [AFCND]  23:50, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Style templates
Hey, the following templates are ones you created and are unused:
 * Template:Announcements/New featured content/styles.css
 * Template:Archives/styles.css
 * Template:POTD row/styles.css

Any plans for them or should I send them to TfD? Gonnym (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gonnym if the question is "are any of these experiments", then no. If the question is "when will these be used", IDK. I could implement the first today, and the second months from now, but the third depends on social effort I haven't been willing to expend. You can just as easily ask if I want to csd-author them you know... Izno (talk) 22:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:


 * Proposal 2, initiated by, provides for the addition of a text box at Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
 * Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by and, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
 * Proposal 5, initiated by, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
 * Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
 * Proposal 7, initiated by, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
 * Proposal 9b, initiated by, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
 * Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by, , and , respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
 * Proposal 13, initiated by, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
 * Proposal 14, initiated by, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
 * Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by and, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
 * Proposal 16e, initiated by, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
 * Proposal 17, initiated by, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
 * Proposal 18, initiated by, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
 * Proposal 24, initiated by, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
 * Proposal 25, initiated by, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
 * Proposal 27, initiated by, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
 * Proposal 28, initiated by, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

EC Confirmed access removed? Why?
I noticed you removed my extended confirm access, why is this? I haven’t even edited any extended confirm articles that I recall. I apologize for any perceived wrongdoing, but can you explain? Thanks. LoneWolf803 (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @LoneWolf803, you quite clearly gamed achieving the permission. You may re-request it at WP:PERM/EC after several hundred more productive edits. Izno (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Er, wait, I see the contributions on WP:VPT that you're having issues. My mistake. I will reinstate in good faith. Izno (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Again I apologize for any confusion and/or time wasted. LoneWolf803 (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Unblocking of Zuck28
Hello Izno, request you to respond to my question of 6th March at User talk:Zuck28. I pinged you there again on 8th March. Otherwise, you may want to discuss here. Jay 💬 06:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007
Question for you - you didn't happen to look for other accounts when you handled this SPI a few days ago, did you? There's another account that has overlapping time periods of editing but not too much interaction. Another editor poked me on my talk page, and honestly I'm not totally convinced this other account is a sock but enough in the back of my head I thought I'd ask you here. If you didn't, I'm going to keep an eye and see if another SB2007 sock pokes up there head (and from history, they should) on the off chance they are getting fancy enough to split editing articles across multiple accounts. Thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, election articles (for just about any country) tend to pull some very, very strident editors, don't they?  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, nevermind, pretty sure the newest sock popped up yesterday, SPI created on it with CU check requested.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hello Izno, could you temporarily ECP 2024 Indian general election in Tamil Nadu till April 19th, that's when the election gets over., who is the reported at this SPI is now disruptively edit-warring with multiple editors to restore the content added by previous socks. This was one of the most targeted articles by this sock-master. Thanks. - SUN EYE 1  19:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Suneye1, I'd suggest requesting protections at WP:RFPP, possibly for the whole batch, if you're looking for ECP. Izno (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted your changes at Anatomy of a template
I reverted your changes over on Anatomy of a template as they broke the documentation there. Perhaps were you doing a mass edit of some sort? I'd check if any other pages were broken in that edit. Ergzay (talk) 11:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

March music
Thank you for your support for a MoS change, saying: "I generally applaud this attempt to add support in the MOS for infoboxes." It could be so simple. - Bach music for Easter! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Nen007
Editor is likely now LOUTSOCKing. Several of the same pages edited after the block. CNMall41 (talk) 04:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)


 * That particular IP's edits were all before the block. But yes, I did notice in several cases that an IP had started the articles that ultimately got moved by this account into the main space. The range I looked at was a /16, and I'm not inclined to make blocks that wide. (There are a few admins who will.) Izno (talk) 04:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

MariaJaydHicky sock
Hi Izno. I noticed that you were the admin who blocked User:LaCienega Bouldevardez last year for being a MariaJaydHicky sockpuppet. I believe we have another MJH sock with. That editor added a genre to the first article LaCienega Bouldevardez edited (Christina Milian (album)), performed a revert on that article , and immediately after registering has come out adding genres/reverting editors disputing those genres on the article for Beyoncé's new album: , ,.  Ss  112   12:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I just noticed the wikibreak template at the top of your talk page. Maybe you could take a look at this?  Ss   112   12:11, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Update: They've now clearly broken 3RR as in addition to the above they have made two more reverts:, (the last is a manual revert of this). Kepin' it FUNKY has also tried to claim here that they are the inactive account User:My love is love, who was well known for bringing Beyoncé articles to GA status. I see no evidence that user ever edit warred so I very much doubt this. The user also told me earlier on their talk page they were unregistered for years; nothing until now that I've accused them of being a sockpuppet about previously having an account. They've previously used this "I lost my old password" tactic here.  Ss   112   13:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Ss112 Indeffed and all current edits reverted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Extensive sockpuppetry
Hi, can you get Sockpuppet investigations/Srimonbanik2007 sorted please? It's a WP:DUCK case but Sockpuppet Investigations is jammed with cases so it isn't being attended to. The sockpuppeteer is very high activity, in the past he has raked over 1k edits in a week so this isn't sustainable if it takes over a week. Many of the articles will also need extended protection. MrMkG (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations
-- John of Reading (talk) 06:46, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Xerox 1200
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Xerox 1200, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Izno&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1220614492 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Xerox_1200&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1220614492%7CXerox%201200%5D%5D Ask for help])

Good articles/styles.css
Hello Izno. Can we change #d8ffd8 to a darker color in Good articles/styles.css? In dark mode, the header font is white and cannot be seen against this background color. An example of this color may be seen at the Philosophy or Religion level 3 headers on the page Good articles/Philosophy and religion. The level 2 header color and the Contents color on that page also have white font but those background colors are dark enough. By the way, I was the one who decided on this #d8ffd8 color on these pages years ago. I am glad that you improved GA to use this stylesheet. 20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC) Prhartcom (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Maybe to #00a000 ? Prhartcom (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * @Prhartcom, I've fixed this (for now?) by adding text colors to the relevant stylesheets (WP:Good articles/Summary/styles.css and WP:Good articles/styles.css). There's still an issue with  aka "self links" but I'm going to leave that for someone else to chase...
 * I don't particularly care what is done here, I'm just the one who made it easier to change all of this in one spot.
 * To be really blunt (not at you), it is hard to find acceptable colors when you have a gradient and when you also have to balance light and dark mode theming, so sometimes just doing the one color is easier. Especially since we can't flip the green to another color deliberately (unless we want to make it all transparent/inherit in dark mode which is another choice, see e.g. Module:Documentation/styles.css). Izno (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Changing to black text is good here; it did fix this. You are right about that theme balance. Thanks for all your GA efforts. Prhartcom (talk) 21:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

SAQ as CTOP
Hi! Can you point me to where that was decided? Also, I remember seeing a "list of former CTOP" or similar at one point, but I can't find it again. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @Gråbergs Gråa Sång, . Changes to any specific case are also logged on the case itself. I have also seen the former list but can't point to it. IznoPublic (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

you reverted my "how to stylize points on GeoJSON?" question on village pump technical
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AVillage_pump_%28technical%29&oldid=prev&diff=1222272641

Your edit reason was "wrong page". Where do you suppose the right page is?

Every time I've had an issue with using GeoJSON on wikipedia I've posted on village pump technical and have gotten the help I sought. Examples:


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&diff=prev&oldid=1160439936
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&diff=prev&oldid=1154864271
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)&diff=prev&oldid=1146486024

The subject line notwithstanding, in-so-far as I know, this is an issue with how wikipedia is incorporating GeoJSON into its pages. Like if it was an issue with GeoJSON, specifically, stackoverflow would probably be a better place to get support, but I'm not convinced that this is a specifically a GeoJSON issue. I don't believe LeafletJS (which can make use of GeoJSON as well) even looks at the "properties" key. tbh idk that the "properties" key wherein I'm setting the styles is a GeoJSON thing or a wikipedia thing.

I mean, superficially, that style stuff looks like SVG attributes but the fact is that that style stuff *isn't* in an SVG. Maybe wikipedia is making use of SVG's to render GeoJSON but at that point that makes it sound like a wikipedia issue. And if it's a wikipedia issue then that would make wikipedia (vs stackoverflow) the best place to ask questions about how to do stuff on wikipedia.

So, again, I ask, where do you suppose the right page for that question is?

I can just revert your reversion but I'd rather not get into an edit war.

For the time being I've just removed the map from the article I had added it to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Antelope_Canyon&diff=prev&oldid=1222278738

I will refrain from making any further mapping related contributions to wikipedia until this issue is sorted out. TerraFrost (talk) 00:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You posted to the talk page of the technical village pump. Izno moved your thread to the technical village pump, the same location where you previously sought assistance. isaacl (talk) 00:55, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, that makes sense. Well I feel dumb now lol. Thanks for the explanation! TerraFrost (talk) 01:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Editor Just Blocked
Hello,

Forgive me if only administrators are meant to comment on this subject. I have no stake or interest in this debate. It does seem to me based on the article history, that the main editor that the accused was arguing with did not in fact, read the article and was mistaken. I agree that what the accused wanted to add doesn't sound neutral, but it seems to be, strictly speaking, accurate. The other editor accused him of not reading the article despite not doing so himself. Again, per the definition of "ignorant" as being without knowledge, that appears to be accurate. He did not call the other person "stupid," or something. The other seemed to have "started it."

TanRabbitry (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Izno
 * Here is what I mean: the supposedly insulted editor, after having claimed (apparently wrongly) that the now blocked editor was incorrect, said this, "anyone with an attention span long enough to read the entire lead rather than just the opening paragraph will come across the phrase 'gross negligence.'" The irony of course is he didn't do that himself. While the response was not exactly polite, I don't think it can be construed as an attack. Thank you,
 * TanRabbitry (talk) 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Mister Hundred Thousand
I MADE SIX FIGURES OF EDITS AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS CRAPPY CSS IMAGE MACRO

I'm too lazy to fix this HTML and make the text show up in the right place, but you've made 100,000 wikipedia edits so maybe you are willing to do it yourself ;^) jp×g🗯️ 07:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on Ernestine Ygnacio-De Soto
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Ernestine Ygnacio-De Soto, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Izno&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1224063252 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
 * A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ernestine_Ygnacio-De_Soto&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1224063252%7CErnestine%20Ygnacio-De%20Soto%5D%5D Ask for help])

2008FAR
Thank you for blocking this account as a sock. I've been monitoring the page Hazrat Shahjalal International Airport for some time. In addition to, which is currently blocked until May 22, I would assume that this account is also a sock of and possibly other accounts going back to 2019, some of which are related to  this SPI. I also suspect that the most recent accounts may be related to long-term IP disruption going back to July 2023, most recently rangeblocked at until July. Johnj1995 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Volleyball res 51 template.
Hi, I see you were a person who edited the res 51 volleyball template. So I wanted to if you had any idea how to put a attendance section (either permanent or optional) in it because I have struggled to do it? ILoveSport2006 (talk) 19:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @ILoveSport2006, please avoid posting the same question in multiple places (WP:MULTI). What is the exact name of the template, and/or please provide a link. Izno (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * But I didn't know who would know how to do it. That's why. The link is this: Template:Vb res 51 ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

User: Bigboss19923
Hello, I see you have partially blocked. However, they seem to be taking no notice having twice inserted unsourced information on the Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks. They seem to take no notice ofrequests on their Talk page, perhaps a full block is necessary for a while? Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 10:54, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

*Many thanks for all your help. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:36, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Navbox history
Maybe not out of a hat, how about moving the history to the Declaration of Independence as a good choice as the U.S. is in its 250th year celebrations, thanks. But will losing the links also remove the navboxes from their pages? did a good job in placing the navboxes, will dividing them now remove them? Randy Kryn (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Randy Kryn, as I said, the history cannot (and should not) be moved. A redirect is the most reasonable end result. I have no objection to a different hat being selected.
 * But will losing the links also remove the navboxes from their pages I do not understand this question. Izno (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Moving the name United States Declaration of Independence to Historical American Documents would then save the complete history. Woondensuperman moved all of the pages almost perfectly, but on individual signers pages, say James Madison, he didn't have to add anything, they were added to the pages automatically (I think). I don't understand how that came about, probably the renamings, which wouldn't be changed by the separation. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @Randy Kryn It would be inappropriate to WP:HMERGE here for multiple reasons, which is what you appear to be asking for with such a move, and I'm declining to do so accordingly. Izno (talk) 03:17, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link and explanation. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:26, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

"nix custom color"
Special:Diff/1225361019 - why? Primefac (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Primefac, overall objective is to support the new native dark mode. The grey in this template looked close enough to the base color scheme (which already has a color flip). Someone can come up with a reasonable color scheme if they want in TemplateStyles that accurately reflects the narrow distinction from the base color scheme, as I did in the pending template. Izno (talk) 15:25, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, makes sense. I don't really mind either way, just thought it was an odd edit summary. Thanks for the explanation. Primefac (talk) 15:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for removing Template:Date from a few places I've unknowingly been adding them too
I was under the impression that we should use Template:Date across Wikipedia in all articles. However, the template's docs clearly mention it's supposed to be used by other templates and not in articles. Do you know why?

Skratata69 (talk) 09:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Skratata69, I would guess that there's an expectation that people know how to add a date, and that they always add it in a MOS appropriate fashion. The template allows quite a bit of laziness and ambiguity. MOS appropriate fashion also allows the variety of tools that work with dates to work as expected. I have definitely found more than a few instances where I would not want it used.
 * It looks like the original suggestion to use it only outside mainspace was added in 2008, which was later strengthened in 2014. It looks like there was some churn even at that early age of Wikipedia about the use of the template, see e.g. Template:Date/doc. I suspect these are a large concern for general use in the mainspace... Izno (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Removed request at WP:RFHM
Could you explain why you have removed my request from WP:RFHM with no action? GTrang (talk) 23:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @GTrang it basically appears to be disruption for some point that I cannot intuit. It is both not appropriate for the main requests page due to it requesting a difference in how that works and on the merits it is also not appropriate as we do not merge archives back into non-archives without significant reason.
 * If you really think that is an idea worth pursuing, feel free to propose it at the talk page instead. Izno (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your SPI close
Regarding your close of Sockpuppet investigations/Jengaboot, as you can see from Special:Contributions/Austin613 reactivated 7 hours after you closed the SPI and Austin613 even indicated that no sockpuppets were found. They paused editing right when the SPI case was opened despite editing for six hours then. It would be good to have a definitive result.  starship .paint  (RUN) 04:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Starship.paint you can reopen it if you want Izno (talk) 04:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Done, thank you.  starship .paint  (RUN) 04:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Cite Grove 2001
I think that the correct thing is to follow the suggestion of some participants at Templates for discussion/Log/2024 May 30 to merge Template:Cite NewGrove2001 into Template:Cite Grove 2001 because the latter is a proper wrapper template. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I participated at that TfD, and (maybe unsurprisingly) think the consensus was misread in the close. Easy enough mistake to make, since it appears that Gonnym changed their mind but never struck or altered anything in their initial post, Xover neither bolded anything nor visually separated their comment from the one above it, and I used non-standard terminology having not seen this kind of situation previously. Folly Mox (talk) 12:20, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Michael Bednarek, I picked the template that had higher use – replacing 2 uses as opposed to 50+ is generally less disruptive in multiple ways – and then said "migrate the functionality of the other to that one". It was decidedly not a misread as I did see Gonnym's later comment (@Folly Mox) but instead a deliberate choice with the comments that were offered, since no one offered a opinion on which name should be picked, only on how the remaining template works (notably, to use Module:Template wrapper). If someone wants to change the name later, someone can RM or even just have the other template G6 moved over. In all, this felt like it could have been a WP:BOLD merge instead of a TFD.... Izno (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I have completed the merge. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure, that's fair. Thanks for the explanation 🙏🏽 Folly Mox (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nilpriyo/Archive
I do not want to open another SPI for this as I think a quick look would suffice. This was open awaiting more behavioral evidence which wasn't provided in a timely manner. Now, there is more that is head scratching and quacking. User Nilpriyo just created Ashtami (Bengali TV series) which is an alternative disambiguation to Ashtami (TV series) which was obviously done to avoid detection given the deletion discussion in May. The editor interaction looks like more than FANCRUFCT as well. The same couple of users are editing the exact same pages which appears to be a coordinated effort and possibly UPE. CNMall41 (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note that Nilpriyo was the original creator of Ashtami (TV series) and the discussion on their talk page when it was moved to draft space is still present so they are well aware when they created the alternative disambiguation. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * And they just created Mon Dite Chai (TV series) despite it being recently closed after a deletion discussion as a redirect. They created it under a disambiguation that was different to avoid detection. Reported to ARV but adding this to the evidence would show obvious DUCK or MEAT. Let me know if this is enough to check or if I should go ahead and file a new SPI. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @CNMall41, I'm not very convinced after looking at this, TBH. I get what you're seeing, but I also see what Vanamonde sees there from an admin perspective. I'll be busy for a bit, so you're probably going to want to take it up elsewhere regardless. Sorry it took me a week to get to this. Izno (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

User:Izno1
Hi, just to let you know that there now is a user:Izno1 whose every mainspace edit has been reverted. Perhaps needs blocking? Fram (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Fram, you can report to any of the typical places if you believe the actions fit. Doesn't appear to be a case of deliberate impersonation. Izno (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Module:RFX report
Hey @Izno hopefully you are fine. I Want to add this module and it's sub modules in to the bnwiki. Um my question is what I need to change in the module so that it works in the bnwiki? R1F4T (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @R1F4T, please use Module talk:RFX report for assistance with this question. I will be busy for the foreseeable future. Izno (talk) 16:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @R1F4T I'll be happy to help you figure this out. Lets continue this conversation on my talk page. Sohom ( talk ) 16:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Sohom Datta thanks R1F4T (talk) 16:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

About your block of Nickaline
It appears that the editor has at least two ducks: 2804:14D:AC85:4AC4:BCFB:E81B:33C1:B185 & 177.100.230.10.  –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:17, 28 June 2024 (UTC)


 * @Skywatcher68, see User talk:Nickaline. I am additionally unavailable at this time for admin actions. IznoPublic (talk) 08:08, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of star systems within 20–25 light-years for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of star systems within 20–25 light-years is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/List of star systems within 20–25 light-years (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Hekerui (talk) 12:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Your bot edits
Regarding this edit and what might or might not be thousands more edits from Iznobot that wind up on my watchlist: I've had a lot of conversations with PresN at FLC over the years, so if you're going to edit every page that he or anyone else has ever edited that has that particular text, that might or might not add a huge number of edits to my watch list. For now, I'll just wait and see what happens, and hide all bot edits from my watchlist. Maybe it won't be a problem, I don't know yet. - Dank (push to talk) 17:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * @Dank, the task is now already done. The issue was introduced fairly recently. Izno (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thx. - Dank (push to talk) 18:52, 21 July 2024 (UTC)