1,959,135 Pages

Administrators... Edit

How do you become an administrator? Is it possible to become one even if you're thirteen years old? Please do tell me because I would appreciate it greatly! Thanks

User Page
Administrators are users that have additional capabilities beyond what the normal user has. For instance, we can protect pages from modification, delete pages, ban users and have a few extra tools available to us. However, giving away these capabilities to anyone is generally not a good idea. So far, all the administrators have spent a great deal of time and effort helping with the site, enough to be noticed by the site's creator. They are generally very active and have earned a level of respect in the community. In addition, they have demonstrated a level of helpfulness, consistency, knowledge, and self control that warrants the additional power they have. So it is possible for a 13 year old to be an administrator, but it is highly unlikely.
- teknomunk (talk,E) 20:14, 21 May 2007 (EDT)
I take that as a no. So what if I prove myself to be very hardworking, quick with learning new concepts, and interested in the work I would be doing? But I warn you, I probably won't be able to for about a week and a half because that's when school gets out. Just until then, I won't be able to as easily because of school work and projects. It's important to me to get straight A's, but I currently have a B that I probably won't be able to turn into an A. Oh, well.
Crazeeflootgrrl 21:11, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
If you prove to be hard-working, then it is much more likely to happen. But it would only happen after you have proven yourself. Who knows what will happen...
- teknomunk (talk,E) 22:48, 1 June 2007 (EDT)
Okay. So I will officially start working on it around June 15, and I will try to do some things before then. Deal?
Crazeeflootgrrl 11:18, 2 June 2007 (EDT)

I was thinking... Edit

...that we could add a subpage that allows LyricWikians to request to be an administrator while others can support, oppose, or be neutral to that request? Just a thought. Θ Sean gorter Θtalk|Esperanza 04:22, 31 January 2008 (EST)

The only thing I think us non-Administrators-who-are-interested-in-doing-more want is to be able to delete pages. It is possible to give people this power without making them administrators. That is about all I would want. :-) --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 04:53, 31 January 2008 (EST)
I'm quite happy with the existing method of current administrators recommending people based on their effort and contributions. I can see a potential for abuse otherwise—it wouldn't be a stretch for someone to make a few contributions for show, recommend themselves as an admin, and then use their new abilities for various undesirable causes (such as self-importance, promoting themselves or other musicians, indulging in a power trip, or even laying the foundation for a hostile attack of the site).
I think our admins have proven that they exercise good judgement and make wise decisions. I feel like we users are in good hands, and I see no reason to change that.
—  jF 22:23, 31 January 2008 (EST)
I totally agree. No need to promote people without admin consensus. However, I'm just saying that there can be tweeners: people with delete power and people with blocking power. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 00:26, 1 February 2008 (EST)


Can someone who is an experienced editor here check my edits? If I was right by creating redirects out of duplicate song pages, I'll continue doing it. Annie 20:18, 29 May 2008 (EDT)

Looks likes you're doing good work. Keep it up! --WillMak050389 21:44, 29 May 2008 (EDT)
Thanks! Annie 16:30, 2 June 2008 (EDT)

Requests for protection / semi-protection Edit

Greetings! I'm relatively new here, and I was wondering if there was a page to go to to make a request for semi-protection or protection of an article? By semi-protection I'm referring to protection only against anonymous (IP address) edits. (The page in question is Disturbed:Inside The Fire which I would want semi-protected since folks don't seem to want to use the talk page). Thanks! --Lordebon 16:47, 27 June 2008 (EDT)

You were looking for LyricWiki:Requests for page protection (which is admittedly hard to find). I will mark the page as protected for a few months. --Åqúàŧĩkī - É - Ŧ 21:42, 27 June 2008 (EDT)
It was hard to find mainly because it was set up in LyricWiki namespace and wasn't categorised. I looked at similar pages and set this up now in Category namespace, (like Category:Requests For Moves)  ♫Яєdxx Actions Words 02:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you lose your Adminship? Edit

I was just noticing that TrevorP (talkcontribs) at the six month mark, LoganK (talkcontribs) is at the one year mark, and Bagel7 (talkcontribs) is that the two year mark since last they edited anything. Is there any participation quota that must be met to stay an admin, or is it for life? --Aquatiki - T - E 16:44, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

It might be worth cleaning them out... not sure. I have a feeling TrevorP is still around and interested, just not coming in as often. I'm pretty sure Bagel lost interest though. To answer the question though, there is no formal method for losing adminship... we haven't de-admined anyone yet.
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 16:55, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Maybe I could go ahead and try to contact these three via email ... ? --Aquatiki - T - E 22:31, 17 August 2008 (EDT)
Has anything been done with this?
- teknomunk (talk,E,,A) 23:53, 25 August 2008 (EDT)
I haven't, mainly 'cause Sean didn't answer me and I don't know those guys. Since there are multiple bureaucrats now, and you've been here much longer, do you want to Munk (or Sean)? --Aquatiki - T - E 00:46, 26 August 2008 (EDT)

Action Requested Edit

Dear Sirs (and Ma'am), Clipchen is doing bad pagenames again. I wanted to bring this to your attention and request a possible block of this user (time span left up to your decision) --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   15:48, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This was taken care of by 6x9 - RD

Updated Edit

I have today updated the list to reflect the fact that KingNee and Aqua feel unable to participate as much at the present time, team a has done a disappearing act and taken Mischko with him and Frontway has returned.  Яєdxx Actions Words 12:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: Changed my mind on moving KingNee. It didn't seem right as he is still contributing regularly...

Behind Enemy Lines Edit

I just happened to be in here to post a new song, and noticed an unregistered user had posted a new band and song with TWO misspellings (epic fail). I tried to fix it but don't work in here enough - someone else will have to.

It was posted as the band "Behind Ememy Lines" and the song "Devestated" That should of course be "Behind Enemy Lines" performing "Devastated"

Fixed. Thanks for the info!
-Sean Colombo 11:14, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Münchener Freiheit Edit

I have just been browsing this group, and there are several problems.

  1. Diana has only the German lyrics. Surely, for completeness, someone should add the English lyrics?

  2. Solang' Man Träume Noch Leben Kann also appears under the incorrect titles Solang Man Träume Noch Leben Kann (missing apostrophe), So Lang' Man Träume Noch Leben Kann (spurious space inserted into first word) and Solang' Man Trume Noch Leben Kann (missing ä), and possibly others. None of these have the full album information. They should be merged and the spurious ones deleted or redirected to the first one; this may require editing of the {{Song}} template, which appears to allow only up to three albums, but this song appears not only on Fantasie but on three or four compilations (that I know of).

  3. Category:Songs by Münchener Freiheit is a mess; all entries (over 200 of them) are categorised under M, drastically reducing the usefulness of this category. I think all the pages in this category need a {{DEFAULTSORT:}} tag, for instance {{DEFAULTSORT:Diana}}, so that the Diana page would thus be sorted under D (as it should be) instead of M.

RobertATfm (talk) 14:56, March 24, 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about the "spurious space" in So lang' man Träume noch leben kann? Have you seen backcovers of all the ExtLink16 "Fantasie" releases (mc/lp/cd)? I'm not German, thus can't be sure if that's a mistake, but when this "mistake" is repeated on all releases, I suspect that it was intentional. In such case it should be left unchanged, to meet original authorial titling. --Senvaikis (talk) 11:50, March 25, 2015 (UTC)

LW:Administrators pageEdit

I notice that Licht blocked an IP that edited the LW:Administrators page and protected it. Why did he protect it? The IP asked a genuine question for content being on the page and I don't think their intentions were bad (he made several other useful edits). Licht could have went on their talk page and responded to them instead of blocking them entirely. I find this kind of extreme. I'm unprotecting it for now because it seems rather mean-spirited that Licht ignored their question entirely, when they specified in the edit summary that they would stop if their question was answered. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:29, December 1, 2015 (UTC)

The Busy Body who logged in from a southern state should have known better than touch that page. Licht took appropriate action. For historical accuracy past admins may be indicated on that page, no admin took umbrage at such indication. cheers --ES (talk) 23:01, December 1, 2015 (UTC)
Makes sense. I'm not against having the former admins listed (I'm all for it, actually), I just wish that Licht would have communicated with the IP instead of blocking it immediately, that's all. I feel like it gives us a bad rep if we're just blocking immediately without answering people's questions. But good point, IPs shouldn't touch admin-related pages. Otherwise the IP was making OK edits. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)00:29, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
I answered them in my first revert's edit comment. So what you're basically saying is this: It is mean-spirited to block an anon who was told that it was not up to them to decide, who then re-reverts admin edits and threatens to go on violating the wiki spirit unless they get another answer? Seriously, Nic? m(  · Lichtweber talk service  05:32, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

(post edit conflict)

Licht did answer (in kind, in edit comment:"Not for you to decide")
Next time another Southern Man meddles with that page, I'll wait for your action, after I protect the page. tia --ES (talk) 05:50, December 2, 2015 (UTC)
...and considering that the same editor then logged in from another IP in the same establishment... --ES (talk) 06:10, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

(indent reset) Having reviewed the edit history of this incident, I agree with Lichtweber. The IP editor's first edit, although probably in good faith, was bad, and the revert's edit summary said so; so the second edit was vandalism. Hence the second block, at least, was justified; and instead of just blocking, I would have blocked If the Southern Man really just wants to know why a former admin is listed on the page, that is why articles have talk pages. — RobertATfm (talk) 17:21, December 2, 2015 (UTC)

Very sorry if I've offended you, Licht. Basically the main thing that got to me here was that the IP's question was ignored. Like I said, it makes us look bad if we're not answering questions and blocking people on the spot. But moreso, I've had experience with that in the past, and I know how it feels to be ignored, especially when you're left hanging on a question. That's why this stood out to me, is all.
Personally I don't see how the IP was vandalizing. Sure, Licht told him/her that it wasn't up to them to decide, but he didn't exactly tell them why the former admin was supposed to be there. There's a valid reason for it to be there, so it should have been stated despite it not being up to the IP. That way, they understand why. Due to it not have being stated, I can understand the IP's persistence in this scenario.
I'm really exhausted right now, so apologies if this didn't come out right or anything I said on this talk page offended anyone, namely Licht. Just thought I'd put my two cents into this. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)03:37, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
What is the IP's unanswered question, Nic? Their first action was editing a page whose content they hadn't grasped Please see section 3 of page's TOC: Former Admins. --ES (talk) 13:48, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
Their unanswered question was "if this is a current list of admins, why do former admins matter?". Yes, Licht told him it wasn't up to him to decide, and you're saying it's simply something he didn't grasp, but it doesn't make sense to me why we couldn't have just told the IP why it should be there so he could grasp it and understand it. Ignoring the IP's question's just made them even more upset, I'd imagine, and they persisted because of it.
I don't really know why I chose to chime in on this since we have IPs come in and mess with our pages fairly regularly. I guess this just stood out to me because I found it relatable, is all. I don't agree with the IP at all, but I do know what it's like to be ignored. I'll drop the subject now. XxTimberlakexx (talk) (contribs)21:40, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
IP used a fishy argument, that's what you fell for.
I had a similar (but silent) disagreement with Licht while this Southern episode was unfolding. Some IP vanadlized some pages, I blocked them for a week, Licht reapplied the block for a day, upon expiry of day block, vandal comes back doing same old act. I blocked for a month... see my block log, in case I made LW look bad &-/--ES (talk) 23:47, December 3, 2015 (UTC)