Wikiversity:Request custodian action
 |
Welcome
Wikiversity support staff are trusted users who have access to technical features (such as protecting and deleting pages, blocking users, and undoing these actions) that help with maintenance of Wikiversity.
|
| Custodian requests | Entries |
|---|---|
| Purge cache | |
| Edit protected page | 0 |
| Speedy deletion | 29 |
| Expired prods | 2 |
| Requests for Deletion | 6 |
| Unblock requests | 0 |
| Possible copyvio | 0 |
| History merge | 0 |
Templates borked
notice to Jtneill. It looks like at least one or more of the template imports from Wikipedia that Jtneill made yesterday broke the collapse template and possibly more. Once I realized the possible extent of this, I decided to bring this here and not just work on this alone. This might require custodial tools to fix, and it also might require expertise that I don't have. Enjoy! (I give evidence for the broken template on User talk:Jtneill, the place linked.) --Abd 18:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed the collapse template problem with [1]. That might not be optimal, and there might be other problems. But at least collapse works now. You know, I just gotta collapse sometimes. --Abd 18:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Abd, for alerting and fixing. Sorry about that. Yes, looks like the WV version must be working slightly differently from the WP version, even though I had imported updates to both {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} from WP. It would be nice if they worked the same way to also prevent this from happening in future? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- The collapse template uses Template:Navbox, and the WV version is different from the Wikipedia version. See Template:Navbox-test, the differences can be seen by comparing the two versions in History. That, or some other included template, directly or indirectly, might be the problem. Handle with care! Changes to oft-used templates should be tested first, with dummy template names (as I did with Template:Collapse bottom-test before making the change. If I had time, I'd probably be able to figure out what's happening, I do see some clues. But I don't have time, and there are others active with more template experience than I. --Abd 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I think templates do tend to differ across projects. My guess is jtneill checked "include all templates" when importing a page, which imported templates Wikiversity already had along with it. I think Wikipedia templates especially tend to have a lot of dependencies that are eventually simplified at other projects because they don't have the people who know how to make sense of it to maintain the templates as-is. --�darklama� 01:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
- The collapse template uses Template:Navbox, and the WV version is different from the Wikipedia version. See Template:Navbox-test, the differences can be seen by comparing the two versions in History. That, or some other included template, directly or indirectly, might be the problem. Handle with care! Changes to oft-used templates should be tested first, with dummy template names (as I did with Template:Collapse bottom-test before making the change. If I had time, I'd probably be able to figure out what's happening, I do see some clues. But I don't have time, and there are others active with more template experience than I. --Abd 23:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Abd, for alerting and fixing. Sorry about that. Yes, looks like the WV version must be working slightly differently from the WP version, even though I had imported updates to both {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} from WP. It would be nice if they worked the same way to also prevent this from happening in future? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 20:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just passing, and in the remote chance that this is at all helpful, I based the Template:cot and Template:cob in my MW installation originally on the WV code (because it was simpler than WP). So if you've lost track of the code, looking at [2] or [3] and their histories might help "fill in any gaps". I don't think this version actually uses Template:Navbox (see [4]), unless I'm missing it, but it does use the CSS classes "navbox" and "NavHead" etc from MediaWiki:Common.css/Collapse.css (although even that doesn't seem essential to functionality - I don't have all that CSS on that subpage, just some stuff for div.NavHead and a.NavToggle in my common.css) - It also relies on the Javascript at MediaWiki:Navigation.js (which is edited on my installation to give a slightly different "collapse button" wording/style) Begoon 04:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Continued incivility by Ottava Rima, after warning, block request
Ottava Rima (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account)
[5] Ottava Rima's edit summary: (Undo revision 837811 by Abd (talk) Policy need consensus first, any claim something without clear consensus is a policy is, by definition, vandalism)
On the talk page, Ottava had brought up a series of irrelevancies and incivilities:
- "The page is policy, it's long been so labelled" This page, even though it was labelled such by a banned user, was never made policy and never officially consented to by the community. The RfCs above were about that and still didn't pass. We have a process, and things don't happen because you someone claims they are true. Abd was banned on Meta for such magical rethinking of policy and concepts of what is true or not, and he lost his bid for adminship on such behavior. The community even agreed before to topic ban him from discussions such as this even though the admin refused to enforce it. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
- This was a gratuitous diversion from the topic under civil discussion, the issue of custodians and email, and a possible change to the policy back to what had originally been written. The statement of mine that Ottava quoted as "magical thinking" was simply the truth. The page was labelled policy, it represented, accurately, actual practice (except where Ottava violated it!), and the designation had stood for four years. Ottava apparently believes that policy is only created through some explicit and very formal process, and he's argued tendentiously elsewhere about this, railing against administrators and stewards because they did something not explicitly allowed in formal policy.
History of the Custodianship policy status
|
|---|
|
- Thenub314, apparently unfamiliar with the history, seems to have believed Ottava's misrepresentations, and made the change again to "proposal." Because this has been discussed before, because the page does reflect long-standing actual practice (and prior criticism of the policy was mostly about small details, I reverted, with "See Talk," and then Ottava reverted with the "vandalism" claim in the summary of the edit linked above. The only major disagreements with the policy were the attempts by Ottava to remove inactive custodians and gut mentored custodianship, this year, through the RfCs he mentions, and those were explicitly attempts to amend the policy, not referenda on approving it.
- The second half of Ottava's post quoted above is a personal attack, completely irrelevant to the issue being discussed. as well as highly misleading.
- After reverting my restoration of the long-standing policy template, Ottava again attacked me for "clear vandalism" on the Talk page, suggesting I be blocked, long-term, for disruption.
- See Ottava's block log here. (From the earliest block, you can see where his enmity for me arose. His extreme reactions, including unblocking himself and attempting to hide the block log entries, eventually led to his desysopping.)
- Having avoided possible sanctions from a pending Community Review by ceasing his editing, Ottava eventually returned to do two things: welcome users, and argue tendentiously, disruptively, and uncivilly, mostly to attack me and anyone who expresses support for me, particularly if new. He has been warned many times. See his most recent block, which was over his focus on "on 'taking down' someone who has historically been [his] rival."
- He sometimes stops in response to warnings, but never admits error, see this strong warning, where his final comment is, essentially, "I'm right." He continued to repeat, on-wiki, the uncivil (and wrong) claim he had made. He could have been blocked for that alone.
- Given extensive prior warnings combined with continued blatant and unnecessary incivility, please block. If he continues editing here, a Community Review will be necessary. Were he here to improve resources, it might be worth it. He's not. --Abd 03:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Given my own involvement I will personally abstain from acting. But I do want to comment that I found none of Ottava's recent comments any less civil then comments you've made about me, wikilayering, blocking for political reasons, violating policy etc. In follow up you asked me to view the statements you made as either your opinion or fact, and you could equally well view these comments with detachment you seemed to expect from me. Got it? Thenub314 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- No, I don't get it. Above, I cite specific statements, specific warnings, including a claim that I should be blocked for "vandalism," including continued attack on a newbie after warning, and you have cited nothing clear. I'm not the issue here. If I've been uncivil to you, or anyone, I should be warned, preferably by someone neutral, and blocked if I improperly continue, per WV:Blocking policy, and that has nothing to do with Ottava. If I'm a monster, it doesn't make his behavior acceptable.--Abd 05:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Given my own involvement I will personally abstain from acting. But I do want to comment that I found none of Ottava's recent comments any less civil then comments you've made about me, wikilayering, blocking for political reasons, violating policy etc. In follow up you asked me to view the statements you made as either your opinion or fact, and you could equally well view these comments with detachment you seemed to expect from me. Got it? Thenub314 04:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Suggestion of editing restrictions for Abd
- I'd rather we imposed specific sanctions on Abd to prevent him disrupting Wikiversity rather than going for the nuclear option. In particular:
- Abd should be topic banned from editing policies. If he wants a policy to be changed, he should request that other editors make his proposed changes on the talk page of the policy.
- There should be a total interaction ban between Ottava Rima and Abd.
- Any breach of the above editing restrictions should be dealt with by a 24h block.
- Abd should be reminded that "walls of text" can be considered disruptive. He should attempt to limit the length of his comments to a few lines.
I think this would pretty much sort our current issues with Abd's editing. --Simone 14:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
Support --Simone 14:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)- Support - This was proposed before and passed, but never enforced. If it was enforced long ago 90% of the problems of this community right now probably would have never turned into problems. The interaction ban was added later - it wouldn't work - Abd has attempted to change many important policies and other matters which affect everyone in the community. I have been here for 3 years and working in every single area here. I have a connection to all of those pages long before Abd, and Abd's only actions have been in attempts to change policy or the encouraging of banned users to continue the actions that got them banned. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. Big surprise? Evidence behind this suggestion? And is RCA a page to be used to decide a ban? Normally, that would take a Community Review, this is a page to request custodian action, i.e., things that can properly be done ad hoc, such as a short block for incivility. It is not a community discussion page, though certain people tend to use it that way. I've even done it myself, fallen into discussion here.... Uh, where did I attempt to "change" policy other than through seeking consensus? --Abd 19:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Discussion
Well I see Abd and Ottava Rima both think editing privileges need to be revoked or restricted again. I suggest both be blocked on the grounds that Wikiversity's mission is best achieved when participants aim for mutual understanding and focus on solutions, and concerns like this are best resolved through discussion with the other person first. I suggest both of them remain blocked until demonstrated they mutually understand each other, and they come up with a solution for working together that they both agree with, instead of having custodians or the community get involved. --�darklama� 16:19, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Done. This seems to be the most reasonable suggestion made on this page. --SB_Johnny talk 20:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Darklama, please address the point of the request here. Evidence was provided of total disregard of warnings, with the kind of monomaniacal attack that SB_Johnny mentioned. I've not harassed Ottava; the example that was considered harassment, in SBJ's earlier comment, was a suggestion to him that he be more careful about welcoming users, to look at the contributions. I was surprised to see his response, and I didn't repeat that. Ottava is not here to work on resources, nor to improve this community, that's become obvious. He is here for revenge. I asked for a block, only after he attacked, once again, with no attention from custodians who had warned him, suggesting I should be long-term blocked, that's cited above. This request did not come out of the blue, and it's actually brief compared to what could be shown. I'm suggesting that a custodian might avoid the need for a Community Review, that's all, if the custodian sees the matter as sufficiently obvious. Otherwise, there was a CR closed because Ottava had stopped editing. Should it be re-opened? If I've been disruptive, I should be warned and sanctioned if necessary. But, I'd hope, this would be based on *actual evidence*, not just loud claims. --Abd 19:22, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Really? So we should allow people to edit war on a policy to claim a false consensus? How does that make any sense? Thenub already pointed out that Abd was wrong, and SB Johnny pointed that out before. That is two admin who previously told Abd to stop, which makes my pointing out that Abd is acting inappropriately the correct course of action. Your statement is, by definition, wheeling against that. Why have you been doing that quite a bit lately? - Admin have already taken action/made a statement then you act as if they haven't. That is really, really odd. Then there is your premise that Abd is capable of working anywhere here, which has been demonstrated constantly not to be true. I have actually provided content and did most of the organization and cleanup around here. Abd has verified that he is just here to disrupt, and even his welcoming was a political game that disappeared as soon as his adminship. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Great everyone is satisfied with how custodians responded, why is any further action requested or supported here then? -- darklama 16:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- ...What? No one is satisfied by Abd's actions. He repeatedly over many months insisted on making a page that was never consented to by the community as a policy to be labelled as a policy, and continues his walls of text and "it is a policy because I determined it so" approach. He reported me for being "incivil" because I said labeling something as something it clearly is not is vandalism. On every other Wiki, labeling a page as a "policy" when it is not a policy is vandalism, reverted, and the person blocked. Why this is suddenly not true on Wikiversity is baffling. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Policies started on Wikipedia with no votes. Some started here with no voting. "repeatedly over many months" refers to, I think, two edits separated by six months, and the first one obviously stood -- and it was discussed. Yes, Ottava was uncivil in calling "vandalism" an edit that supported the status quo on a page that had been labelled policy for four years. Even if Ottava were correct, such an edit could not be vandalism, and that kind of polemic is not to be tolerated. Blocked for reverting to the status quo? Why? Because it's "wrong," i.e, because Ottava says it's wrong? This isn't over the content position, and it's not about his revert itself. It's over the incivility, and that set of comments was just one very immediate example. Are more needed? There is enough reported there to justify some sanction, I have no doubt about that. Ottava has always justified his incivility by insisting that he's right. --Abd 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Status quo" does not mean community consensus nor not vandalism. There are plenty of pages on Wikipedia that say "penis" on them for over a year and yet it is removed as vandalism. There are certain things that are never acceptable no matter how long they have been present. Declaring something a policy without any community consensus to do that is one of those things. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Policies started on Wikipedia with no votes. Some started here with no voting. "repeatedly over many months" refers to, I think, two edits separated by six months, and the first one obviously stood -- and it was discussed. Yes, Ottava was uncivil in calling "vandalism" an edit that supported the status quo on a page that had been labelled policy for four years. Even if Ottava were correct, such an edit could not be vandalism, and that kind of polemic is not to be tolerated. Blocked for reverting to the status quo? Why? Because it's "wrong," i.e, because Ottava says it's wrong? This isn't over the content position, and it's not about his revert itself. It's over the incivility, and that set of comments was just one very immediate example. Are more needed? There is enough reported there to justify some sanction, I have no doubt about that. Ottava has always justified his incivility by insisting that he's right. --Abd 19:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- ...What? No one is satisfied by Abd's actions. He repeatedly over many months insisted on making a page that was never consented to by the community as a policy to be labelled as a policy, and continues his walls of text and "it is a policy because I determined it so" approach. He reported me for being "incivil" because I said labeling something as something it clearly is not is vandalism. On every other Wiki, labeling a page as a "policy" when it is not a policy is vandalism, reverted, and the person blocked. Why this is suddenly not true on Wikiversity is baffling. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- Great everyone is satisfied with how custodians responded, why is any further action requested or supported here then? -- darklama 16:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
- A note - as pointed out on IRC that I might not have been clear - when I mentioned "wheel warring", I was referring to 2 admin who previously determined that the custodianship "policy" was not yet a policy and reverted Abd before. By saying Darklama would be "wheel warring" was if he was to think that Abd wasn't committing an act of vandalism by labeling a page as a policy when it was never approved by the community as that. I do not know if Darklama actually will go that way, but it is an implication in the original post about blocking me. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Block request
Perhaps a block for user 204.27.57.77 (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account) again? He already has a rather long block log - his last block was 1 month. Trijnstel 17:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- FYI, I noticed this IP is an open proxy, therefore I globally blocked it for 1 year. Trijnstel 17:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Okay. I've blocked it locally for three months. Thanks for your assistance, Trijnstel! Mathonius 17:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Navigation Popups Gadget
Hi.
- The version of the Navigation Popups Gadget (in preferences) installed here is very old (2007) and doesn't work properly for me - diffs/history don't pop up when hovered. (Google Chrome, at least).
- I tested a more recent copy which I've been using in my MediaWiki installation, tested using User:Begoon/vector.css and User:Begoon/vector.js, (it's the only thing in those 2 pages at the moment) and it seems to be working fine here.
- (The version in my user js also has a fix to stop it annoyingly popping up on the edit toolbar - so is not identical to any WP version.)
- To fix it for everyone, you would need to update MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.js and MediaWiki:Gadget-popups.css - which I can't do because its in the MW namespace, and only sysops can edit that namespace. Begoon - talk 13:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I can make those edits, but I'd like to wait a little before doing so. What's the simplest snippet of code we can use to fix the problem? Your .js files look substantially different...I'm not sure if we should substitute the entire piece of code over to Wikiversity until we've tested it more. --HappyCamper 16:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- OK, well looks like another custodian is being bold and updating things from Wikipedia right now. Cheers. --HappyCamper 16:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- I have updated to the latest version at Wikipedia. diffs/history work when hovered now (Firefox, at least). -- darklama 18:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Wow - thanks for doing that so quickly - it works great as far as I can see - cool. The "annoyance" I mentioned above was that the Navpop will "pop" over the links like "Special Characters" and some custom toolbars in the edit toolbar, while you are editing a page, with a useless pop up link. This can hide the buttons below if you're clumsy like me. The diff for where I fixed that in my copy is [7] - which basically turns off PopUps in edit mode. It's not much of an issue, though, so if you prefer to keep the base code in line with WP, that would probably make more sense for code management - I can always hack that behaviour in my user js - it's really a user preference anyway. Thanks again. Begoon - talk 00:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer to make the code more manageable by reducing its complexity, 240KB is rather large for one Gadget. -- darklama 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- :-) I can understand that... It is a very complex gadget though, when you consider how much it provides. It works perfectly now, and very useful. (the edit form hack doesn't work in my user js, but it's a very minor thing - I'm living with it - not worth any extra effort for a tiny niggle. I guess the problem with simplifying the gadget base code (aside from the effort in doing so) would be that once you "fork" it from the WP code, you need to maintain the "fork" as an extra task, when it inevitably needs updating one day because a new "skin" becomes default, or the base MW code necessitates changes to the gadget. (or copy the new "WP" version and "simplify" all over again...:-)) Begoon - talk 01:29, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- I would prefer to make the code more manageable by reducing its complexity, 240KB is rather large for one Gadget. -- darklama 01:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Page: The Beatles
This is linkspam, needs deleting. No Beatles songs have been released by copyright holders for free online streaming/download.
- Refer: [8] for similar incident.
thanks Begoon - talk 07:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Nuked. --HappyCamper 10:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks :) Begoon - talk 14:13, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
How to Meditate
Dear Sir/Madam
I am currently developing the article 'How to Meditate'. I expect to spend a little time on it and what I am hoping is it might enjoy some protection from editing by others. Meditation is a specialist topic subject to a great deal of conflicting opinions. I have been practising meditation for about 45 years and I would like to use Wikiversity as a suitable platform to present the topic in a non sectarian and logical way. I am quite agreeable if people wish to add their thoughts and experience to my offering but that they do not have the capacity to alter and edit my text. Meditation is a difficult thing and greatly misunderstood. I am hoping to clarify things, as much as I am able. My fear is there are plenty of individuals who would take my efforts as their opportunity to promote their own 'brand'. I am seeking to produce an article which rises above such.
Please look at what I have uploaded so far and let me know.
Sincerely
Marcus Zerbini (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Marcus Zerbini (talk • contribs) .)
- Thanks for the note and good luck with your work. Unfortunately there is not way to protect pages so that just you can edit. As a technical matter it is not possible to do what your asking with the software as it is. Collaboration is at the heart of the project, so it is unclear that it would be in the projects interests to set such a precedent. This is a rather a moot point, as we uanble as it is. Thenub314 22:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Request certification of NEW accounts
Hi all custodians,
In Spring 2012, I will be teaching 2 courses: One undergraduate course with possibly well above 100 students, and one advanced graduate course EGM 6322 Spring 2012 with a much smaller number of students.
I appreciate if a custodian could certify the new accounts relatively quickly enough so students can begin to use their accounts and to upload files.
In particular, I created the account EGM 6322 Spring 2012 more than 2 weeks ago, back on 1 Dec 2011, but it still has not been certified. Past experience indicated that it took only a few days (2,3 days, at most 4 days) for a new account to be certified by a custodian.
I will create the course wiki for the undergraduate course EGM 4313 Spring 2012 soon.
Thanks,
Egm6321.f11 12:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
I just checked the class roll for the undergraduate course EGM 4313 Spring 2012: It currently has 163 students registered.
Egm6321.f11 12:37, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I could possibly help here, but I'm not aware of any sort of special certification procedure for your accounts. What was done in the past for you? --HappyCamper 19:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for certifying EGM 4313 Spring 2012 quickly. could you also certify EGM 6322 Spring 2012, which has been opened for more than 2 weeks already... ? thanks. i called what you just did "certification", but maybe you use a different terminology for the same action. Egm4313.s12 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- Ah, OK I see. I think I know what is going on. What you mean by certification is just our standard method for greeting new users on Wikiversity. We'll definitely continue to welcome your students on Wikiversity whenever we see them. That message, however, doesn't have any bearing on whether the account can upload files. Whenever a new account is made on Wikiversity I think there is a grace period of 4 days and 10 edits before a user can upload files. The captcha should go away after that point. --HappyCamper 04:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
ok, great. now i understand the process. before i associated the greeting message with the ability to upload after 4 days. but your explanation clarifies the process. i now have a better explanation to students. Egm4313.s12 11:36, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Deletion request
Please delete User:Onlineservice (it's blatant spam) and perhaps block the user Onlineservice (talk • email • contribs • stats • logs • global account). Thanks! Trijnstel 00:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- One more: User:Hygeia. Trijnstel 00:16, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks. --HappyCamper 01:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
And much more speedy deletion requests (everything is spam):
- BMI Calculator: Helps You Achieve The Perfect Shape
- User:Bmiindexchartwomen
- Identifying The BMI Index: How It Assists To Keep You In Good Shape
- Psychic Reading- How to Perform Psychic Readings
- Breakdown of www.psychicreviewonline.com
- User:Thebestpsychicreviewonline
- A Virtual Software For Projecting Based On Online Psychic Ratings
- Find Your Current Psychic Studying Using Dependable Testimonials
- How To Get The Particular Reliability Of The Online Psychic Viewer?
- Discovering Legit Online Psychic Viewers
Trijnstel 19:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks Trijnstel. --HappyCamper 20:30, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
Unblock requests
User talk:Abd and User talk:Ottava Rima have outstanding unblock requests. Custodian input could be helpful in resolving these requests. User talk:Poetlister is another outstanding unblock request. Please feel free to discuss here or on the respective talk pages. Sincerely, James -- Jtneill - Talk - c 01:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
�Comment Poetlister would be, if unblocked, still not able to edit as his account is globally locked (along with all other socks and per consensus on Meta). Poetlister1 is not locked though. Trijnstel 16:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Deletion requests
Hi. Please delete Mooreandrewpage and User:Mooreandrew2411 because of crosswiki spam (the account is already globally locked). Trijnstel 14:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- Done, thanks for the report. Mathonius 15:31, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
There's a typo in this system message. The <tt> before "in your learning resource" should be </tt>. Adambro 19:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- done, thanks. --SB_Johnny talk 20:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
On Template:Pp-meta, please replace Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates with Category:Wikiversity pages with incorrect protection templates so that the correct category is used. Thanks. Adambro 16:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
- OK I think it is done. --HappyCamper 19:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)