Revision as of 02:51, 1 May 2006

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Tasks

The following backlogs require the attention of one or more editors.
NPOV disputes, Images on Commons, Overpopulated categories and Copyright Problems.

General

Daniel Brandt's team, 'Misplaced Pages Watch'

I reverted some deletion vandalism at Vincent Gallo and posted appropriate warnings on the IP's talk page. I then received these replies. High points: 1)user claims to have access to 100+ Penn State University IPs, and thus can never really be blocked, and 2)s/he is "part of Daniel Brandt's team, 'Misplaced Pages Watch', and our eventual goal to get Misplaced Pages privately edited. It will happen some day soon, trust me. Jimmy Wales will cave some day soon enough." S/he has left similar messages on other pages. It's point #2 that's particulary troubling. However unlikely it is that there's some sort of organized effort to sabotage Misplaced Pages, we should all know about it. --Fang Aili 01:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

If he keeps coming back, block the whole range, with a note that university staff should contact the blocking admin to discussion the reason for the block. Universities, unlike most ISPs, are very responsive when blocked. Raul654 01:18, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

With threats like that, I'd contact the university right away. We can't tolerate bullshit like that. Werdna648/_C\ 23:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

They do realise that the "private editors" would ultimately end up being, um... the very people they want to get rid of? Alphax  07:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Contact the univesity immediately per Werdna. They'll probably crack down quickly and nicely. JoshuaZ 04:32, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking as a grad school employee, I agree. The IP people will think of such folk as a security threat. --CTSWyneken 03:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A possible end to Squidward vandalism

Over the last few weeks, while I was supposed to be on break :) , I have been receiving multiple e-mails from Squidward. After many messages back and forth (the current total is 50), we have come to some terms (I have not promised him anything, before you think I've been pretending to act on wikipedia's behalf.) He has stated that if his name was removed from the vandalism in progress page, as well as the links to other sites (he claims that we have implicated other people, "The Indianna Chess Club" for example) that all the attacks will cease. We could, alternately, delete the whole page, this is something he has been asking for which I thought a bit much, what do you think? I've also been receiving some angry e-mails from other parties whose sites have been implicated here. Apparently the names on this page, have particularly incited him, and I have his word (a vandals word yes, but I am inclined to believe him) that the attacks will stop.

From the e-mail exchange I've come to understand a bit about the background of his vandalist contributions. He started out as a 'normal' editor, but was branded as a vandal from the start. He saw himself as mistreated, and over-reacted to this by becoming what we know as the Squidward vandal.

In my humble opinion, those terms are reasonable and we have little to lose, however, it may be viewed as "giving in". What does everybody think? Banez 22:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Protect the encyclopedia. If the vandalism stops its worth removing it, if not it isn't. (usual not an admin disclaimer) Prodego 23:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think it really matters. His vandal attacks stop within seconds; the vandalism is reverted within a minute nowadays. But I suppose that's a reason in itself to take him of WP:LTA. --Rory096 23:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think you would take it off WP:LTA as long as the subject still attempts to vandalize. i.e. WOW is still on WP:LTA but he is usually blocked in seconds Prodego 23:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

If the user stops vandalising, there's no need for an Long term abuse page at all. I see no reason not to delete it in that case. We welcome all contributors, so helping them join the project isn't "giving in". :) // Pathoschild (_admin / ) 23:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. —Prodego 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

(4-time edit conflicted) Misplaced Pages should not "give in" to anybody, espically a vandal. Perhaps after six months of non-activity it could be archived. But for now, if the vandalism continues, there is no reason to remove the entry. The more open proxies that we get, the better. These attacks, while a nuisance, are easy to clean up and give us many IP addresses to block that could have been used for other types of vandalism. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Well a show of good faith is always helpful, if Squidward continues, we just put it back. Prodego 23:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

It isnt so much deleting the page (that was an option), he actually wants the name and links removed. Banez 23:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Six months is far too long, in my opinion; that'd be a significant fraction of Misplaced Pages's entire history. Perhaps delete after three weeks of inactivity, and remove the offending information immediately? We're not "giving in" by doing so; the LTA page is intended only to track vandalism. At the point vandalism stops, the page becomes useless. As Prodego says, assume good faith. // Pathoschild (_admin / ) 23:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I was just throwing out a number, the time really doesn't matter, just as long as it stopped. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 23:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

We will have to wait and see what happens, but Squidward does appear to have grown tired of it all, and wants an end. Banez 23:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There was a fresh Squidward attack today. -- Curps 17:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure of that, your bot has, shall we say... issues--64.12.116.200 02:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

We do not negotiate with vandals and trolls, that being said if he's willing to stop then I'd suggest blanking and protecting the page which I think is a fair compromise and is also more GFDL sound since deleting things on request would if nothing else violate the GFDL and is a bad precedent. Pegasus1138 ---- 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I just went ahead and blanked it, on the assumption that he is going to stop. (Can't hurt to try.) If he attacks again, restore it. Ashibaka tock 23:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, since there was just another attack, I'm going to go ahead and restore it.--Shanel 19:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Squidward claims that his IP is huge and shared by many, and that he hasnt done any further attacks...Oh well, who knows... Banez 19:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That statement just proves that Squidward is trying to screw with us. There was indeed an attack, after the page was blanked, and it was in classic Squidward style. --lightdarkness 21:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I have come to that conclusion. I've got tired of getting 30 ranting e-mails a night from him, but yet he still insists that that attack which looked so much like him wasnt in fact him...I can't say I'm not a little skeptical. Banez 06:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple answer to that - send em and email stating that any further emails from em will be considered public, and you will forward them(without reading them) to wikien-l. Wait a bit for the wikien-l admins to request that you stop forwarding them, and then simply delete the emails. Simple enough. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I have a question regarding this topic. I have reverted tons of squidward vandalism from multiple users. And, when checking the pages for those users, many have been said to be computer programs designed to vandalize. Do you guys think that this is one person? There is so much squidward junk. I don't see how it can possibly be one person. Also, if it were one person how could he have so many IP adreses? I don't understand how stopping one squidward vandal will stop them all. Can someone please explain this to me. Thnaks. Tobyk777 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PRODs

Hi everyone, WP:PROD is now policy and sometimes I get the feeling I'm the only person actually going through and deleting the PRODs that have been around for five days. There's a big ole mama backlog at http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/queries/en_proposed_deletion, including some that I can't delete because I was the PRODder myself. Little help, please! Thanks, Angr (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That list is deceptive, I just checked it and most of the red items have already been deleted. This display may be the result of replication lag. — xaosflux 12:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried maintaining that once but got extremely fed up because of the problem Xaosflux mentioned. I'd like to help, but there are things I can do on Misplaced Pages that are just as useful and less frustrating. --Sam Blanning 12:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there no way of finding PRODs due for deletion that actually works? I clicked on some at random from the Interiot list just now - not just the bottom three - and two had already been deleted, while one had had its PROD tag removed. Hell, I was about to post this, then I did it again - all three were fairly near the top of the reds, and all three had been deleted already. That is not good odds for someone who wants to spend their time productively. I'm wondering how this became official policy. --Sam Blanning 23:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Any enterprising editor can feel free to leave the {{prod}} tag on, then also add a CSD tag to get these worked as a band-aid solution. — xaosflux 02:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I also gave up on trying to delete PRODs because there was no reliable up to date list of which articles were ready for deletion. Each link I clicked the article had already been deleted or deprodded. Seemed like a waste of time. --kingboyk 03:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we make a bot that automatically adds articles that are past their prod time to the CSD list? That way we could consolidate it all to one clearing house. BrokenSegue 15:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with making such a bot. When I first became an admin, I was chastised multiple times for deleting articles that did not fit CSD criteria. CSD'ing all old PRODs would result in lots of admins all of the sudden speedily deleting articles against policy. In fact, when I scan through CAT:CSD, I routinely find articles marked as CSD that shouldn't be. When I find such an article, I either AFD it or PROD it. PROD should be used to remove all anti-process CSDs, not add to them. --M@thwiz2020 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your objection on the specifics, but the basic idea is a pretty good one I think. How about a new category containing articles which have been PRODed for 5 days? --kingboyk 15:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• At present, the backlog is gone. Everything below Swami Devvrat has been dealt with. Until the replication lag clears up, I wonder if it might not be easiest just to leave a manual note somewhere about where an admin working the list left off? Joyous | Talk 16:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help you, but sometimes on my computer this page take an age to load! *Sigh*. Kilo-Lima| 13:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone brought this up with the software developers? --CTSWyneken 11:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested deletion of pages in my (former) userspace.

Hello. This is User:Blu Aardvark, and I would like to request the deletion of the following pages in my userspace. (I'd tag them as speedy, but I wouldn't be able to tag them with my original account, which could potentially cause confusion for the admins who clean up speedy deletion candidates)

User:Blu Aardvark/On Wheels! User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes User:Blu Aardvark/Workspace User:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes/Saved from death User talk:Blu Aardvark/Sandbox User talk:Blu Aardvark/Userboxes

In addition, I would like for my userpage, User:Blu Aardvark, to be purged, as there is some personal information in the history that I would like removed. Thank you. --72.160.80.78 01:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This now-blocked user has gone on multiple vandalism sprees, and spent weeks harassing multiple user (myself, Musicallinguist, Slimvirgin, Nicholas Turnbull, 'etc). He put his personal information out there of his own free will, and now that he's decided to act badly, I suspect he doesn't want anyone googling his name to find out about his misbehavior. I don't see why we should be doing him any favors. Raul654 01:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I've deleted all the user subpages, but not the main userpage itself. The tag about indef block needs to remain as a record. Hopefully this is an acceptable move. Harro5 01:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what I intended by "purge". I would appreciate it if the history of the page was removed. The tag should certainly remain. --72.160.80.78 01:47, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed the information prior to being blocked. The reason I want it completely gone now is because users such as Malber are re-publishing the information in several locations, and that is not acceptable. I did add it of my own free will, true, but that was because I was attempting to foster accountabilty, when I thought that Misplaced Pages was still a decent place. As it turns out, it just became troll food, and that's why I want it gone. --72.160.80.78 01:38, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and lies do not become you Raul. I've only gone on ONE vandalism spree, after enduring a multitude of abuses from you, NicholasTurnbull, and several other editors. I was wrong in doing so, true, and I recognize that. That's the only "vandalism spree" I have ever gone on, despite what summaries you use when blocking thousands of potential contributors by instating range blocks on 72.160.1.1/16. I've toyed with your userpage and NicholasTurnbull's userpage, but that is not the same as a "vandalism spree". I also have not at all harrassed Musical Linguist. She just happened to be the user most frequently watching your talk/userpages when I went a'trollin'. As for SlimVirgin, I have given her a fully sincere apology, and have not harrased her since then. --72.160.80.78 02:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I was counting your sprees on en, meta, and commons - the three that we know of - seperately. If you want to count them as a single one, that's your buisness -- I, for one, do not. Raul654 02:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• Now Raul is starting in on the trolling and republishing this info. I want it gone, and I want action taken against Malber and Raul654. --72.160.85.60 23:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Incorrect. The comment I made "republishing this info" was made two days before Blu put in the request for that page to be deleted. Nor was it gratitious - I was making the point that if he should get his ranged blocked again, that the complaint against his ISP (being written by other legit users on that range who get blocked) would contain the personal information he freely posted to his user page. Raul654 00:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This user thinks that there should be no consequences for his actions and his reputation should not be tarnished. I should hope that the Misplaced Pages administrators would show him that he's sadly mistaken. -- Malber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view his user page should be deleted. The punishment has not included "not to delete his user page". Mind that no one is going to question the punishment. -- Vít Zvánovec 10:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cap_j

I am blocking Cap_j (talk · contribs) for 24 hours pending review by other admins. Cap_j has been involved in a long standing editing dispute in the Shotokan article, where a concensus of editors have continuously reverted his edits for the most part. I responded to this complaint on the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, in which Southwick (talk · contribs) stated that "Cap_j has sent links to our discussion on Shotokan to my Department administrator at Michigan State University, where I am employed. This is outrageous behavior. My life as an editor on Misplaced Pages has nothing to do with my academic career. Something needs to be done." I asked Southwick if he could provide proof to me that this occurred and he has. I can provide the evidence, but I am trying to protect the emails of those involved. User:Wsiegmund is on my watchlisted editors and I saw that he was also involved in this situation in a mediative role. Cap_j posted this email evidence in which he claims that Southwick contacted him directly and wrote:

"I received the following note from Ron: Subject: Misplaced Pages Date: Tue, 11 Apr 2006 09:48:12 -0400 From: "Southwick, Ron" Please do not take this outside the Misplaced Pages. You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here. Thanks, Ron"

I questioned Cap_j about this email and told him I needed verification. I also subsequently recieved a copy of the email that Southwick had sent by way of email to me. In the version that Southwick provided, the wording "You do not know who you are messing with. Feel free to contact me here." does not exist. I asked Cap_j to send me the copy he recieved and the address to Cap_j is different than the address that Southwick actually used to email Cap_j...the times of transmission are also different. In a nutshell, Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment in regards to an editing dispute in Misplaced Pages...that is the primary reason for the block. Secondarily, Cap_j misrepresented an email that Southwick had sent to him, when questioned by myself and by Wsiegmund. Without being unilateral, I request further advisement, and I also want to point out that I am rather itchy about this off wiki harassment as of late, but regardless of that, I am inclined to permanblock Cap_j for his actions.--MONGO 05:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I support a permablock if Cap_j did indeed contact Southwick's place of employment. Ral315 (talk) 08:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In many ways I was just as pigheaded about this as CapJ. I did not realize that this could get so overblown and go beyond Misplaced Pages. I have learned a lot from this and apologize to those who had to go through it, including CapJ. ron Southwick 14:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I also support a permablock. There is no excuse for that, and falsifying the info just makes it more dastardly. --Syrthiss 14:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Cap_j (talk · contribs) and his IP 137.207.80.163 (talk · contribs) which was established based on this edit and editing history.--MONGO 00:35, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, I was under the impression that we don't indefinitely block an IP address unless its an open proxy. JoshuaZ 13:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright status

Can another administrator, preferably someone with experience with image copyright tags, take a look at (warning: image is graphic) Image:Jfkautopsy.jpg? The uploader, Gpscholar (who has received several warning messages from OrphanBot already) has tagged it as public domain and gives this as his summary: http://www.celebritymorgue.com -- this is a photograph of President Kennedy's corpse, taken at his autopsy and is, as such, in the public domain. However, the photo has the website's name in the corner, and when I visited the website, it does not provide any source information and also says Copyright 2005, which makes me doubt that the photo is really public domain. All in all, the image triggered my "red flag" instinct, so I've gone ahead and removed it from the John F. Kennedy article, which the uploader added it to. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look at this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the website rotten.com states they "collects images and information from many sources to present the viewer with a truly unpleasant experience." In this case, the question is what source did they get this from? For JFK, they state "The autopsy pictures, taken at Bethesda Naval Hospital on November 22, 1963." I think it's safe to assume they were taken by government employees there. Now, what context was the picture used in the article. Being graphic as it is, I know we allow such pictures, but I personally don't think this picture is essential in illustrating his assassination in the main John F. Kennedy article. On the other hand, it's more directly pertinent to the John F. Kennedy assassination article. -Kmf164 (talk | contribs) 16:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply! I agree that the inclusion of the pictures is a separate topic. I'm just wondering, given that the image has the site's name in the corner and that the site does say copyright 2005, that the image does qualify as pd? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Sure. celebritymorgue.com didn't take the picture, so they can't copyright it. They can put their watermark on it, and they can stick a copyright notice on their web site, but that doesn't matter. If it was really taken by US Navy doctors during the autopsy (seems likely) then it would be {{PD-USGov}}. User:dbenbenn 17:12, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't believe[REDACTED] can or should host a version of the photo with the "copyright celebritymorgue.com" watermark on it, either. (Even if the copyright claim is invalid.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think there's an official policy on that somewhere. Can't find the long version right now, but there's a short note at Misplaced Pages:Image use policy#Rules of thumb. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just crop off the top part with the website's name on it? Or just cover it up with a black rectangle? enochlau (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

There's a better version of the image here and it does not have a copyright notice. -- Kjkolb 10:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've replaced it with the image Kjkolb linked to. Angr (talk • contribs) 10:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also put the image into John F. Kennedy assassination, but User:Mytwocents keeps removing it, insisting it isn't public domain at all. Angr (talk • contribs) 08:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

My IP is being repeatedly blocked because of vandals and keeps stopping me from editing at inoppurtune times, help would be appreciated--Gw099 01:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

155.232.250.51 is a shared IP, which has repeatedly been blocked, preventing me from editing. Please help. --moxon 09:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

But you are editting now, and the block log shows that IP to never have been directly blocked. --pgk 10:39, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and every other time I try I get:

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Freakofnurture for the following reason (see our blocking policy): "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "206514901". The reason given for 206514901's block is: "please contact an administrator for verification purposes, as described on this page"."

Your IP address is 155.232.250.51...

I wouldn't complain for nothing! --moxon 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not (you are still editting though), but I'm not psychic either. I will remove the autoblocks outstanding for that user name. --17:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

New(?) vandalism problem - partial rvv

I've lately seen a vandalism which has seriously messed up two literary articles (the most recent Hamlet), in which an anon vandal made a series of changes, some valid, some not; but since the vandalisms were spread out (and sometimes another person would make a valid edit in between them), an admin would come along, revert the latest vandalism or the latest few vandalisms, but not all the vandalism the anon had done. After awhile, the vandalism would tend to stand because a casual admin wouldn't even realize it has been done.

The most recent case I saw, on Hamlet, had the same vandal make a sprinkle of short valid edits, but removed two entire sections at two different times, without explanation. An admin caught the most recent and reverted two edits, but missed the earlier vandalism, which removed the section "Hamlet as a character." It was a very extensive section, and had a dead internal link to it, so I explored to see why it was removed, and then discovered the vandalisms.

So my point is: When you see a vandalism, especially on an article that's not watched closely (like literary vs. political) see what other edits the same editor has made. Otherwise we may lose valuable material for a period of time (with Hamlet it was a month) or for good. -- Cecropia 19:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent reminder; in general, one person who's vandalised will tend to vandalise more. Checking the contributions of the user is an excellent way of catching more vandalism. Always be vigilent. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:55, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This is part of a broader problem for prominent articles: there are so many edits nowadays that if a bit of vandalism slips under the radar it is quickly buried under a mountain of new edits. And then one day you read a particular article and notice a nonsequitur or bit of nonsense or a truncated sentence, it is a major time-consuming archaeological expedition to try to recover the original valid text out of the last few thousand edits (far easier just to remove the damaged text than to fix it). I have seen such damage in major articles like Oprah Winfrey and Osama bin Laden that persisted for weeks or months.

You'd think this would be less of a problem for prominent articles that so many people have on their watchlists, but in fact it's often worse precisely because of the very high editing rate, and the fact that what people are watching is usually only the latest diff and nothing more. -- Curps 22:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD closure

I have closed this AfD: Personal rapid transit/UniModal, which as nominator I would not ordinarily do, but Fresheneesz (talk · contribs) first removed the "silly" AfD header, then chastised me for using AfD instead of the article Talk page which he asserts is the normal place to debate deletion, then created a "vote here" section which for some unaccountable reason accumulated a lot of "do not delete" input from anonymous or no-other-history accounts, on the basis of which he stated: The vote unanimously acted to not delete this page, therefore I have removed the tag. So he removed the AfD tag again and put this at the top: With a unanimous vote of disagreement by many many more people than I thought cared (see below) - this discussion is closed. Article will not be deleted and I'll remove the tag now. Fresheneesz 07:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC). Note that unanimous in this case means including only the "vote here" section and and ignoring prior input from User:Lar, myself, User:Avidor and User:Lurker. In other words, there is unanimity qamong those who agree with him, provided we ignore those who do not.

So I have gone back and looked at the AfD debate. I have summarised the inputs here: Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal. 2d/2m/1k. Since I was nominator and will also accept merge, I have merged what little is verifiable and redirected to personal rapid transit.

Reading the input, at least one of the people who "voted" in the "vote" section is actively engaged in political lobbying for PRT. As you will see from the personal rapid transit article, this is a largely untried concept, and the Unimodal system, subject of this artivcle, has no objective existence in reality at all: it is the dream of one Douglas Malewicki, who acknowledged that as yet "there ain't no such thing". Unlike some other PRT schemes this has not even made it to prototype yet, but it is still being used to "sell" PRT (sometimes to the detriment of more conventional transit systems). Malewicki is clearly trying to attract investors, as the website makes plain. Unimodal (aka SkyTran) is the system illustrated in the PRT article, with an image released by malewicki for use on WP. It is unrepresentative of any of the current projects in prototype.

Sorry to ramble. I am posting it here because I expect some fallout, and I will admit to a moderate level of irritation at Fresheneesz - if you're going to start asserting that AfD can't be started before there is discussion on Talk, it's best not to round that off by trying to turn AfD into a vote, which it is not, and then ignoring all input other than the vote, to say nothing of twice removing the AfD tag. I venture to suggest that I may have participated in one or two more AfD debates than he has. Just zis Guy you know? 09:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You're a bad, bad man. I venture to suggest that you should be slapped with a trout. And they want to dead-min me when there are wild cards like you going around merging things. Close looks ok to me, even with you bringing it here after you've done it, Mr. Get-forgiveness-not-permission.
brenneman 09:36, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am indeed a wicked rouge admin. To clarify, I closed it rather than relisting or coming here because it was a mess and needed fixing. Maybe I should have come here and asked someone else to fix it, mind ;-) Just zis Guy you know? 15:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you did the right thing. First of all, we establish policies to keep[REDACTED] workable, and if people diagree, they can go to the appropriate places to discuss that and change those policies. The place of action is ot the place to solve those. Second of all, many of the votes where either sockpuppetry or meat puppetry, and I think you did the correct thing. You might have considered to ask here that someone closes it. KimvdLinde 09:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Considering that you closed a debate in a way which ran contary to your opinion of what ought to be done (deletion), I see no problem whatsoever with you closing this as a merge. It looks like the right thing to do based on the debate even. Thanks for bringing it here to gain input when you are a bit uncertain. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

mid string insert, check date: I'd like to note that the "merge" was not unlike a delete. Almost nothing was merged, and most of it was in fact deleted. Fresheneesz 03:17, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that in future you post here asking for help, or ask a friend with sysop rights to close for you. I don't think you've done anything counter to the spirit of the rules, but it wouldn't have been too difficult to obey the letter, since it seems so many of us agree with the final course of action. Next time. moink 18:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Um... endorse closure? ;) Stifle (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is evidence that JzG is sympathetic to Avidor and his views. There is also evidence that JzG is acting at the behest of Avidor's anti-PRT political motivations. Therefore, any unilateral decision made by JzG on deleting a PRT page is very suspect and should be examined closely. A Transportation Enthusiast 04:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Since I have been accused by both sides of being biased towards the other, I would suggest this assertion does not stand up. It is interesting that my decision to close as merge (which was against my preferred solution) is considered problematic, but Freshneesz's own purported closure ignoring all inputs other than the new and anon users in his own "vote here" section is apparently fine. For the record I don't mind havi ng this sent to WP:DRV or running a second debate. I do mind having a promotional article on a fictional product which is being pushed by politicians in several places. WP:NOT a soapbox. Just zis Guy you know? 09:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Skytran is not fictional, and the mere fact that you continue to say that it is, is proof positive that you are sympathetic to User:Avidor's extremist views on this issue. Skytran is a proposed system grounded in scientific analysis and fact, and you are killing it based on the words of a single editor whose best argument against it is that it's not actively being built. Neither he nor you nor anyone else has presented one iota of evidence that anything in Skytran is "fictional" yet you continue to say it. JzG, I've asked you repeatedly to cease editing PRT pages because your self-professed admiration for Avidor and his cartoons has clouded your judgement, and yet you continue to make detrimental changes to these articles. Please cease your activity on the PRT pages or I will ask for formal arbitration. A Transportation Enthusiast 21:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Not fictional? Really? Then the article's complete failure to detail all the installations of this technology was a significant failure which undoubtedly contributed to the fact that the AfD showed a clear consensus not to have a separate article. Where are the installations? VCan we see some photographs of them? Or at least of the test track?

As to admiring Avidor - well, as a cyclist and sustainable transport enthusiast how could I not enjoy Roadkill Bill? But that doesn't mean I agree with Avidor on every issue. As I have stated several times, I am a graduate engineer and a big fan of all forms of alternative transportation. The personal rapid transit article is, I venture to suggest, considerably better as a result of the changes I have made. All ofwhich is completely irrelevant to the closure of this AfD. I voted delete, but I closed against that view. That is in stark contrast to Freshneesz, who invented his own process in defiance of WP:DP and chose to take the inputof the friends who, it must be suspected, he invited along, rather than the established editors who had contributed within the supported framework of AfD. In fact, Freshneesz excluded their input and pretended there was unanimity to keep. If you look on my Talk page you will see that I have chosen to ignore most of Avidor's comments. Althoguh I am well-known for assuming good faith well beyond the usual limits, I still consider Ken's views as representing an extreme. By the same token, your views are also not neutral (nobody is ever truly neutral). Ken is open about his bisases, you assert bias on the par tof others but I have not seen yo acknowledge your own biases. PRT is an untried concept. Unimodal is an untried implementation of an untried concept. As I say, where are the pictures? Just zis Guy you know? 21:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, the *vote* was unanimous - but the consensus was simply "don't delete". Also, only 1 person wanted merge other than you JzG. I did *not* discount peoples opinions. If the vote went against the discussion that went on above it, I would not have tried closing the deal myself. You however, *did* discount people. Tell me who exactly on that page wanted to merge it, I counted 3 - you, avidor and 1 other person (after delete failed, Avidor jumped on the merge boat). Fresheneesz 19:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per Stifle, this is absurd. Not Guy's actions, Fresheneesz' assertions of improper procedure, after having tried (and failed) to circumvent procedure himself. KillerChihuahua 11:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

delete history

Could someone help me delete my user page's history? (I am a registered user but not an administrator.)

Situation: I recently found about 50 userboxes and put them all on my userpage. But afterwards I decided they were too dangerous so I deleted them all except three. But the history of them is still there. Could someone delete the history for me? I'm worried about protecting my personal information. Jonathan File:Canada flag 300.png 15:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Martin 16:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Jonathan File:Canada flag 300.png 23:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Request

• PLEASE delete my name from User talk:Gamaliel his talk page. I have posted a request that he do so, however, it has not been done. I also would like Admin to delete this account and all contributions. I do not want my name associated with Misplaced Pages, I am considering it "publishing" of personal information. EMN 17:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

(moved from top of this page) Kimchi.sg | talk 18:18, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

If you have posted on his talk page he has every right to keep your comments and your signature {presumably inserted with ~~~~) on his talk page, also accounts are never deleted and indeed cannot be deleted per the terms of the GFDL once they have made contributions. Pegasus1138 ---- 18:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

That's understandable, between Gamaliel and the other user--I have not been involved with their conversation about me. They are "talking" about me on a page that's viewable by the public, if they want to investigate me and my activities, I would ask that they correspond between each other through private e-mail. It's only fair. EMN 19:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

They have every right to talk about you on one of their talk pages and I actually think it's better that they're doing it where it can be seen rather than behind your back and you can't really expect to be able to dicate where people talk. I also fail to see how it is unfair to you the method that they are using. Pegasus1138 ---- 19:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny, I would have removed it had Eric been patient enough for me to get home from work and act upon his request. But while I was away from WP his brain apparently melted. Now I'm certainly not going to remove it without an apology for his racist remarks. Gamaliel 21:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages's number one enemy?" You're not even in the top ten, Norcross. User:Zoe| 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative editor

A minor problem over there, Davebrooky (talk · contribs) is pretty insistent on external links to large numbers of minor software products. I've reverted it a few times in the past, but they keep coming back. Davebrooky has now added the following to the start of the article:

Quote from WP:NOT 'There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages'. Therefore please link to internal articles where they exist, and only to external articles where there are not internal ones (e.g. because the application is in alpha). Administrators have raised concern about this page, so please leave this note here for the moment. Please also expand the article, so that it does not fall foul of any 'merely a list' criteria.

Quite aside fromt he problem of self-reference in main space, I think most of us would recognise that linking to external sites for software which is in alpha is certainly not good. I have recommended that internal links are included where they exist, and other software is discussed in prose in the article body if it has some unique or particularly innovative features which need to be discussed. Just zis Guy you know? 21:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Misplaced Pages is not a link farm, and I don't see how the links are benefiting the article at all. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I also moved the article since most of them seem to self-describe as collaborative editors (without the real-time). Just zis Guy you know? 15:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

CubsFan2006 adding magzine covers

I am concerned about User:CubsFan2006 adding numerous magazine covers to athelete's article (contributions) in possible violation of fair use. User has been warned numerous times on talk page, but continues to revert and add these images. --mtz206 12:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The Game (game) and its AFD

I made the rather unwise step of closing this AFD with a simple vote count, when there is nothing simple whatsoever about the AFD. I have reverted my closure and added notices to the article and talk page about the matter. I would like two or three uninvolved admins to go and investigate this discussion and state what result they believe has arisen from the discussion, ideally without viewing the history of the page to avoid prejudice. Thanks. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Looks like no consensus at first rough inspection. - Mailer Diablo 13:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've favoured deleting this article for a while, and I might as well repeat my reasoning here:

1. The last in-process AfD closed as 'delete'.
2. Deletion review endorsed the closure despite the lack of numerical consensus, based on the lack of verifiability.
3. The argument for overturning the results of these discussions was an article in a Belgian newspaper. Very few people who 'voted' for deletion beforehand were convinced by the article into supporting its retention (for reasons discussed elsewhere). Most of the people who claimed to be convinced by the article appeared to be the same people who were happy not to have any sources at all.
4. Therefore, with little sign of significant numbers of people changing their minds, the discussion should have been closed the same as the last one.

Good luck in finding two or three uninvolved admins. Are there any left? :-) --Sam Blanning 13:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was uninvolved until about 5 minutes ago.... - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• It seems as though there is a rough correlation between time on Misplaced Pages and desire to delete this article. However, with WP:BITE in mind and no evidence of sock/meatpuppetry, it seems that a significant number of people find the newspaper article to be enough evidence of verifiability. When in doubt, we don't delete. I would have closed as no consensus. (ESkog) 13:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Not me, for sure. For the record I endorse deletion (per last AfD and DRV) as unsourced & unverifiable. Just zis Guy you know? 13:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• WP:V has a flaw. Misplaced Pages is not allowed to be the first source to report on a fact; we have to wait until some other source that is deemed a verification source has already reported on it. We should not have to wait until there is a single "good enough" source. Having some number of Google hits should be good enough to say "yes, this is verifiable", even if none of those hits are good enough on their own to merit verifiability. What that "some number of hits" should be may need to be left up to interpretation. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • So you are saying all that a small but determined group of trolls needs to do to place Misplaced Pages's good name on a hoax is to create enough blog and chat page mentions to the hoax? A large number of Google hits is reason for a journalist or academic to begin an investigation of the subject, not verification that the subject exists as reported. News agencies and university departments are in a position to perform independent fact checking required to determine if the hits represent a true cross section of society or are just a smoke screen created by a handful of pranksters that know how to automate the process of spamming bulletin boards and usenet newsgroups. --Allen3  14:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • That's why I'm saying that the "some number of hits" may need to be left up to interpretation. If there's X number of Google hits, but they can all be traced down to a handful of blogs, then it ain't good. However, if there's X number of legitimate hits, a large number of which are truely unique, shouldn't that be good enough verification? Perhaps something never becomes notable enough for a journalist or academic to begin investigation of a subject. Does that mean that the phenomena is not at all verifiable? Certainly not. Must Misplaced Pages wait until a journalist or academic has published something before we have an article about it? Certainly not, if there is some other reasonable level of verifiability. The Game (game) is a perfect case in point for this. I played it about two years ago, then wondered if Misplaced Pages had any information on it. Sure enough, the basic rules were here. Will The Game ever merit a journalist or academic write up? As just one of many social games, it may never get enough attention from the "standard" verification sources. This doesn't mean we can't verify it. Perhaps we can have a multi-tiered verification scheme: verified by journalistic/academic sources, verified by preponderance of data, and unverified (therefore deletable). - UtherSRG (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That is only a "flaw" if you don't understand what Misplaced Pages is supposed to be for. This is an encyclopaedia, not a blog. Just zis Guy you know? 14:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. It's not a flaw by any stretch of the imagination. That is exactly what the policy is for. - Taxman 14:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • No, I do understand that. That doesn't mean the definition of "verifiable" isn't flawed. There are many ways to verify something's existence. Misplaced Pages's definition is designed to weed out self-promotion and self-publication, but in the process it also weeds out legitimate phenomena that may take years before our current allowable verification sources to notice. We have the power and responsibility as a collaborative effort to examine all possible sources and determine verifiability. Strictly following the existing "legitimate" sources doesn't allow us to react to data from other sources that, en masse, are legitimate even if individually those sources are not sufficient for verification. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• In an encycloaedia, nothign is included unless it can be verified from secondary sources. The fact that a worldwide trawl for sources by a website set up specifically ot save this article could only find one mention in one Dutch language newspaper speaks volumes. We don't allow "teh Intarwebs" as a source fo good reasons; there are to many blogs of no provable authority. All people have to do is to cite one book on games which mentions this game. None has yet been cited. Much energy has been devoted to argufying, but no proper citations exist. Just zis Guy you know? 21:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• • I'm in favor of keeping the article and even I find the above ridiculous. Misplaced Pages should not report on new things. See WP:NOR, google hits are more an indication of notability than verifiability. Furthermore, AfDs are not the location to create new policy. (And as someone who spent a lot of time in the AfD arguing for it being kept based on the belgian newspaper, it is highly annoying to have all these bad arguments for keeping being brought up, since it contributes to a deletionary reaction. If one doesn't have a policy/guidelines based reason for keeping something, you should probably not say it). JoshuaZ 15:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Why would it be OR to say "These x thousands of Google hits describe phenomena XYZ" any more than "This book describes phenomena XYZ"? Why would it be OR to say "These Y Google hits contradict those X Google hits" any more than "This book contradicts that book"? - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Because until we have reliable sources discussing it we can't be sure that it's covered neutrally. Just zis Guy you know? 15:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
        • Let me put this another way. What is the purpose of verifiability? Is it to say "this data is verified, you can trust us, don't bother with the man behind the curtain", or is it to say "this data is verifiable, you can prove it yourself". I posit that it's the latter; we don't verify, we provide access to verification. Journalistic and academic write ups are certainly and will remain the dominant vehicle for verification, but any legitimate level of multi-source data should be a sufficient vehicle for the reader to judge whether the article provides the right information, of if the article needs to be editted or removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• While it may have been justifiable before to delete the article over a lack of consensus by invoking WP:V, the source makes it not at all clear now that WP:V can be invoked. This is more verified than most articles we have. Why not go with the result of the AfD this time, which is (as it's always been on this issue) "no consensus, so keep"? Trying to overrule the AfD again will simply create more hostility and another deletion review, and won't solve anything. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • That there are other, even worse articles is never a reason to retain this one. It is a reason to go and fix the others. Drive standards up, not down. -Splash 15:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I'm uninvolved, give me a while to look at it. Prodego 17:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• I remember this was up for AfD awhile ago. I find it hard to google it since "the game" is like calling a book "the book", googleing it produces links to every game.I think that Stifle did the right thing, but thats my opinion only. By the way, everyone in this thread and AfD has lost "The Game". Mike _{(T C)} 17:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• Well, it is notable, but it also not verifiable, so I thought I'd say Delete. But then I decided to check something, and found Bullshit (game), which is unsourced, possibly unverifiable. WP:V is a very poorly enforced policy. The language of a source doesn't matter, but is it a notable source, a trustworthy source? Ultimately, I think 'The Game' needs better sources, and should have an {{Unreferenced}} tag added. Give it a week, and if there are still no sources then, delete it. However that is a rather odd way to close an AFD, and since the article has been around for some time and still no source, I lean towards Delete. Prodego 17:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • • Poor example. Bullshit (under its bowdlerized name, "I Doubt It") is described in Albert H. Morehead's Official Rules of Card Games, now in approximately its zillionth printing since the 1940s, which is probably the single most authoritative reference work on card games in North America. "The Game"... not so much. --phh (/_c) 18:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is however a different game that goes by that name at least in the UK.Geni 07:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

After new close

I looked into the newspaper source, I am now inclined to close as "No consensus". Prodego 18:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Closed as no consensus, breaking what I said on my RFA about controversial AFDs, but.... Prodego 18:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

  Just be prepared to explain about the decision you have made, whether contraverisal or not. - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  Christ in a sidecar. Can I at least ask that you puts a bit more verbage in? - brenneman 02:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  Err... verbage? Prodego 02:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  I think he wants more action verbs in your description of your decision process. "looked"..."inclined"...closed"...they don't tell a very interesting story. I'd like to see something like "Hearing news of this deletion controversy, I rushed to the appropriate pages and pored over the evidence. Both sides presented quite convincing arguments, and I racked my brain but I could find no way to reconcile them.", etc. (Either that or he typoed verbiage and is asking for a longer description of your decision, but I like the first version better.)-Polotet 03:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

And I have now deleted it because an AfD cannot vote to overturn policy. User:Zoe| 03:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Err, AfDs exist solely to interpret policy. If all admins were allowed to make deletions based on their personal interpretation of policy, AfDs wouldn't exist. ~ PseudoSudo 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is a genuine policy disagreement here, whether or not the Belgian newspaper source meets WP:V. This isn't about some out of policy decision on an AfD but a lack of consensus as to how to interpret policy. JoshuaZ 03:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

And speedy deletion can't be used to zealously enforce novel interpretations of policy. Phil Sandifer 18:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have listed it on DRV, again. Kotepho 04:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't believe were spending this much time on such an inane topic. JoshuaZ 04:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If we are deleting articles that have been kept via AfD because of policy, there is something wrong with the policy. I think this deletion was in bad judgement and should be speedy recreated. VegaDark 05:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Its slightly more complicated than that. The issue at hand is how to interpret policy. Zoe who interprets WP:V as not being satisfied by this source insists that since she has policy on her side (or so she thinks) the AfD result is irrelevant. She might have been correct if the AfD had gone against policy. But because the issue is precisely how to interpret policy, her actions are incorrect. JoshuaZ 05:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, however, I feel that even if one does think that this page violates policy, it still shouldn't be deleted since it passed AfD. I think that something in the system is wrong if we are deleting a page that was voted to be kept in the eyes of the contributors because of a policy. VegaDark 05:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I very much disagree (though I also disagree with Zoe's deletion). Sometimes, AFD is wrong. Sometimes consensus is wrong. It is of the utmost importance that everything in the encyclopedia be verifiable, and no matter how many people vote keep on something that isn't verifiable, I believe that deleting it is the right decision. We're writing an encyclopedia here, and while process should be respected and generally followed, product is always ultimately the more important of the two.-Polotet 06:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

My comment is taking into account the assumption that the vast majority of users will vote in accordance with their own interpretation of policy, which in this case says that the page was in accordance with WP:V and the page should stay. VegaDark 06:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'd like that to be true, many of the keep and delete votes were for pretty inane reasons, and a significant segment of both looked like they were just staying the course as their main reason for their votes and comments rathers than for any policy based decision. The policy matters almost got lost in the shuffle. JoshuaZ 06:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure at this point if we're really arguing or if we're just misunderstanding each other a bit, but I'll clarify what my opinion is. My experience is that AFDs and their voters will not always fully consider important policies like WP:V. For example, see all the fuss about HAI2U and List of shock sites, as well as many other examples. My suspicion is that at least some of the people voting keep in the The Game AFD would have voted exactly the same way without a verifiable source. While I'll certainly agree that the deletion of the article was wrong in this case, as there is an article which clearly backs up the WP:V claims, I won't agree that AFD always correctly interprets WP:V and that WP:V needs to change if it's leading to the deletion of articles kept by AFD.-Polotet 06:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC) (edit conflict with User:JoshuaZ and he says most of what I'm saying except he says it better)

Would someone explain to me how this is unverifiable? I can find LJ communities devoted to it, websites devoted to it, multiple posts to LJs over the course of months to the effect of "I lost the game." I am aware of people who play the game. There is clearly a game. What the hell standard of verifiability is being used here? Phil Sandifer 06:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

While I'm inclined to agree with you that verifiability even without the Belgian article should be clear in this particular case, allowing stuff on LJ to push an article past WP:V seems to me to set a rather dangerous precedent.-Polotet 06:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources and Misplaced Pages:No original research exclude most of the sources you're citing, Phil. The Belgian newspaper is the closest, it seems. If a bunch of people on LJ (or elsewhere on "teh Internets") start talking about something, that doesn't suddenly make it encyclopedic. -GTBacchus 06:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoa. That's a novel interpretation of verifiability. It is transparently verifiable that the game exists and is played, and that this is not a hoax being perpetuated on Misplaced Pages. The existence of a LJ community, among other things, is very obviously sufficient for this claim. Verifiability is not notability. Phil Sandifer 17:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Novel? I thought it was standard. Read the first paragraph of our policy, WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth. This means that we only publish material that is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. So... I really don't think I'm going out on a limb here. I'm not disputing that The Game exists (heck, I'm playing it - and losing as long as this keeps popping up on my watchlist), I just dispute that information about it is verifiable with reference to reliable, published sources. LJ != WP:RS -GTBacchus 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What's interesting there is that the link to "reliable sources" is not nearly so publication-obsessed. Which is as it should be. Phil Sandifer 18:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether it's "publication-obsessed" or not, it's pretty explicitly clear that "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources," and, "Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources." I would say LiveJournal is blatantly of that category of sources. -GTBacchus 18:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we please not get into other sourcing again, please? The last two AfDs were full of claims about sources that didn't meet WP:V and WP:RS and I think a result of those claims was that the more legitimate source arguments got tainted by association. JoshuaZ 06:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Aw, but I love having the same argument over and over again in a variety of different places.-Polotet 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm retreading tired old paths. I'm new to this controversy, and baffled that Phil Sandifer seems never to have read the first sentence of WP:V. -GTBacchus 17:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Stale AfD for Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High-C

The AfD at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/High-C was started on April 12. It's now April 20, and it hasn't been closed yet. I think the debate has pretty much run its course at this point, complete with excessive legalism. In any case, it's been around longer than the 5-day period for AfD articles. Could an admin take a look at this and close it? Thanks. --Elkman - 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

High-C? We have no article by that name... Just zis Guy you know? 14:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Troublesome edits from 207.99.90.253

207.99.90.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s edit history is a mixture of clear vandalism, semi-literate bogus edits that might or might not be vandalism, and some apparently ok edits that probably ought to be fact-checked. Common theme is the Delbarton school. My guess is that the IP address is a shared terminal or proxy at the school being used by multiple students. The troublesomeness is that blocking a multiple-user address isn't so attractive. Phr 16:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to mark administrators like featured articles

Please see relevant discussion at . --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 16:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this really an admin?

Recently, I came across the user page Khant zaw aung (talk · contribs). He says he's an admin, but I have my doubts, because his user page only excists for one day. So I looked him up as a sysop on Special:Listusers, and look, nothing comes up. So I could now leave a message that he isn't, but, I don't know how he would respond. Does anyone know how to handle this? color probe _RCP 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he copied Stifle's userpage as his own. Flattery, I guess. Sure, he shouldn't be saying he's an admin, though. Friday (talk) 18:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. I left him a (hopefully friendly) note explaining the situation. Friday (talk) 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. color probe _RCP 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Well, it might be a GFDL violation because he hasn't credited me, but I'm more amused than angry. I added a userbox to celebrate. Stifle (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and WP:LA is the place to check if a user is an sysop or otherwise. - Mailer Diablo 01:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wrong, anybody can edit that page, or they can forget to edit it, so it will probably be inaccurate most of the time. Please refer to Special:Listusers/sysop if you really need to check on some username. — Apr. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

A "clueless newbie" wouldn't copy an administrator's userpage onto his own. Or even know how to for that matter. I'm sorry Stifle, but if you do the category math at the bottom of your page, the intersection is exactly one. You're a unique editor (I mean that in a good way), that's all I got to say. That and some of you folks aren't thinking in realistic terms. — Apr. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

Actually, I had someone copy my page a bit ago (I should check on that, actually) but they were nice enough to leave a big note at the top saying they were just using it as a template, and that it was not accurate. I personally consider it flattering. Essjay 20:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Luka Jačov

User:Luka Jačov has been soliciting votes on IRC for two weeks now. Today, he's trying to solicit votes on Misplaced Pages:Deletion Review#Dis-Connection over an AfD he lost. --VKokielov 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I was alerted by VKokielov on IRC just a few minutes about this, and I told him to post it here. If more of this (vote solicitation) happens, I'll block for disruption. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 19:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ashur Soro

This has got to be one of the most f***ed-up AfDs ever... I can't make head nor tail of it. Bottom line is, the AfD has not been closed but the article has been deleted. Can someone take a look at this? Herostratus 19:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Spectre deleted it as recreated content, it seems: see this diff. I closed the AFD on the basis that it had been speedily deleted--feel free to revert me if that was the wrong decision.-Polotet 21:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Er, OK, whatever... but it appears that Ashur Soro is the Bishop of Seattle of the Assyrian Church of the East, whatever that is, according to this page on what appears to be the official Vatican website... so I'm surprised that his page was ever deleted in the first place, seems like he would be at least marginally notable... but I don't know... the AfD indicated that, for some reason, he is either loathed or adored by some... perhaps better that he rest in peace among the deleted, I don't think I wanna see another AfD like that one... Herostratus 07:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism and uncooperation of an admin

I was wondering what to do about actions I consider as vandalism done by an administrator. User:JzG put up the article on SkyTran (links to old article) up for deletion, but when I called for a vote it was a unanimous vote of around 8 people I think. Some may have been sockpuppets (that has been claimed, but I don't know how to determine that), but in any case JzG took the fail of his proposition to mean that he would merge the article into another article. This basically means he redirected it to PRT, without much merge (only merging a sentence or two out of a large article). I don't know what I can do about an admin, which is why I'm asking here. If anyone could help with this situation, it would be much appreciated. Fresheneesz 23:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because User:JzG is an administrator doesn't mean that you need to find another administrator to discuss editing with him or her. If you are having an editorial disagreement, please talk it out. If anything, the fact that the user has been given adminship likely means that they are going to be reasonable when it comes to working out the best way forward for an article. Jkelly 23:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You can revert it. JzG was just following WP:BOLD. However, discussing the matter on Talk:Personal rapid transit might be better. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the AfD in question: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Personal rapid transit/UniModal. See also #AfD closure above. --bainer (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I actually did already read the AfD closure thing above, but I fail to see why a merge follows from the failed deletion proposal... Is it an action that doesn't require discussion and a vote? User:fresheneesz 68.6.112.70 01:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

He already has reverted it, twice. The fact remains that the balance of input from editors with an edit history (even including the bogus "vote here" section) was for there not to be a separate article. We don't usually have articles promoting fictional commercial products, and I can't see why we should make an exception here. Just zis Guy you know? 09:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not an exception if theres no rule. Besides, there are plenty of articles on fictional universes, characters, stories, etc. Its a *theory* not a fantasy. What is the downside to keeping the article? Fresheneesz 09:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not a theory, it's a commercial proposition which has (as yet) no objective reality but for which the proposer is trying to achieve funding and support. There is a difference. Nobody is trying to attract investors to make the Firebolt - and even that is a redirect althoguh I venture to suggest that rather more people have heard of it.

Well I suppose it depends on your definition of theory, but its a proposal at least, and one that many people are intereseted in. The firebolt, however, is not a proposal.. so I don't really see the point of your example. If there was enough detailed information about the firebolt to warrent its own page (like the amount that SkyTran has), then I would think it would have its own page. 68.6.112.70 18:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, merging does not inherently require discussion before-hand. However, as with all actions, it should be discussed if it becomes controversial. Superm401 - Talk 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and i've merged without discussion plenty of times - however it was 100% obvious that people wanted this as a stand alone article - and I myself have called for discussion more than once (well more than 3 or 4 times actually). User:JzG doesn't seem to think that discussion is neccessary even tho many people disagree with him. This is my complaint. Fresheneesz 20:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually it was 100% obvious that people didn't want this as a stand-alone article. I brought the AfD closure here for review, and that backed up my judgment on this. The people who "voted" in your ad-hoc "vote here" section (AfD is not a vote) were all new or unregistered users, which appear to be the result of external vote solicitation. To discount such input is normal in closing AfDs. Especially when they admit to a political vested interest, as one did. The close went against my preferred action (delete). As stated before, we typically do not have articles on promoting hypothetical products; this is an encyclopaedia, not a place for making investment pitches. Skytran does not exist in any meaningful sense - there is no prototype, let alone any implementation. The discussion in PRT is more than adequate to encyclopaedically cover one man's pipe dream. Just zis Guy you know? 17:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

JzG, you *didn't* merge. How much info did you take from SkyTran and put it in PRT? Like 2 sentences. Thats not a merge. And I don't understand why "external vote solicitation" matters. If people care enough to solicit votes, thats perfectly legit.

If you had *actually* merged significant amounts of info, then I wouldn't be complaining here so much - but you didn't. You went through with deleteing it, and redirect it to PRT. Why can't we discus this more before doing that merge? Fresheneesz 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Most of it was already in there (including the picture). I left out the fiction and speculation - it has taken forever to get the speculation and fiction out of the article as it is. Difficult though it may be for you to accept, I spent some time readong through it and looking for verifiable information to include. And no, encouraging your friends along to AfDs (especially if they are not active editors already) is not "perfectly legit", it is viewed in a very poor light. Just zis Guy you know? 20:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Just zis Guy you know? may be one of the best Wikipedian here, alive. I trust him, so I will not listen to the other complaints about him. He is a good Admin. --StabiloBoss 21:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

So, StabiloBoss, you're saying that you support JzG without looking at the happpenings.. or circumstances... ? I one to trust people too, but blindly supporting someone seems a bit.. closed minded.

JzG, your "merge" was so short I can post it here:

"Its assumptions of capacities are based on these speeds and on half-second headways, and includes many other hypothetical features such as speech recognition. Malewicki freely acknowledges that this is at present a paper concept, and no prototype yet exists."

I really wouldn't say thats much of a merge. You can obviously argue that most of the SkyTran article was "fiction", but I beg to differ. Most of the SkyTran article was information on the design *idea*. Why is that sort of information un-fit for wikipedia? You deleted hundreds of lines of information - without moving to personal rapid transit. Fresheneesz 03:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I trust him to be one of the best wikipedian ever. By no means I will not change my mind. --StabiloBoss 21:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, StabiloBoss, but this is an argument about the deletion or undeletion of a page. We aren't arguing the integrity or trustworthiness of either me or JzG. I really just want a merge or delete to be discussed before happening. The discussion that was had wasn't about merging, and there are more people than just me that don't want SkyTran merged with PRT. If you want you can support his descision if you could kindly look at the history of the deleted article. Thanks. Fresheneesz 22:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This, at least the protection as a redirect, was improper. --SPUI (T - C - RFC - Curpsbot problems) 11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Gastrich

I assert that Jason_Gastrich (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) has exhausted the community's patience (see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jason Gastrich, Category:Misplaced Pages:Sock puppets of Jason Gastrich, and Category:Misplaced Pages:Suspected sockpuppets of Jason Gastrich), and have taken the liberty of blocking him indefinitely as a community ban. Stifle (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse decision. - Mailer Diablo 01:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• I thought this decision had already been made. What gives? — Apr. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>
• I thought he was indef banned. But honestly who cares if someone else indef bans him again since it changes nothing. Mike _{(T C)} 02:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
  • He was banned for a year by Arb Com. Incidentally, I'm not an admin but I also concur. JoshuaZ 02:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
    • You're a member of the community so your view counts. - brenneman 04:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I know, but the last time I concurred in a similar context, someone got the mistaken view that I was an admin, so just thought I'd be clear in this case. JoshuaZ 04:22, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

  Comment: I saw that - 1) there is a cure for your "unconscionable pretenses of Adminship" (tongue firmly in cheek) , you know, become an Admin! and 2) with people like the accuser running around posting, you'll get your Rouge Admin badge in no time (the editor in question accused JoshuaZ of false pretenses, disruption, misleading him to gain compliance, etc. All the standard cries and protests.) KillerChihuahua 11:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

  Ok, I get the point, I think your the third person whose made a comment about me becoming an admin in the last 48 hours. I'll probably run in a week or two after a few things are settled. JoshuaZ 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Shoulder-to-shoulder (also non-admin) support on this one Deizio 08:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• More in Harrow than in Ongar, support. Just zis Guy you know? 12:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support, given his continued sockpuppeting after a one-year ban was issued. Superm401 - Talk 18:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I see no evidence that he gives a toss about consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 21:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• Support, given that Gastrich has never contributed anything but time-wastage and hearburn, continued to disrupt and create socks for that purpose post-Arbcom, and shows no signs of ever doing anything else. KillerChihuahua 11:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal bombing

A vandal has bombed the O RLY? article with a gazillion pics of the "orly owl" and I can't seem to get rid of it. Looks like advanced vandalism to me; can any admins help us out with this? Thanks in advance. Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Never mind, it's fixed. Thanks anyways. :) Buchanan-Hermit™..SCREAM!!!.... 23:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If this happens in the future, try going to the article URL with "?action=purge" added to the end. It will clear both Misplaced Pages's and your browser's caches. Superm401 - Talk 18:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking of User:Prasi90

I have been asked by Prasi90 to unblock him/her. For background, this user has been indefinitely blocked by MONGO for alleged legal threats, as well as personal attacks etc. and has a very chequered history, with many abusive edits. This user also edited from an IP address, which is also blocked.

Prasi90 claims to have left this bad behaviour behind and wants the ability to edit constructively on Misplaced Pages once more. Earlier this month, there was a discussion on this page about Prasi90 accepting a probation and mentorship by Hamster Sandwich. Although Hamster Sandwich is on a Wikibreak at the moment, Prasi90 is still keen to enter into a mentorship arrangement.

I have refused to unblock Prasi90 against the wishes of MONGO and NSLE unless there is overwhelming support for the unblock in discussions on the matter (i.e. here), and unless a replacement mentor volunteers for the position. Otherwise, I will not unblock Prasi90. Please add your thoughts on the matter. - Mark 05:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC) (Edited 07:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC) by Mark to point out the legal threat is disputed)

I am always for reform rather than blocking. My AC duties leave me no time to act as a mentor myself unfortunately however I support the idea. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:10, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

After reading the link given above, and seeing a similar mentorship case that fell flat of it its face, I must recommend: "fuck process, ban time-wasting trolls". — Apr. 21, '06 <freakofnur_xture|talk>

I recomend leaving the block in effect. His history is clear edvidence of intolerable behavior for the wikipedian community, and he's been given many chances. Given his circumstances, there's little reasoning to unblock. I'm making the assumption of good faith, but it seems he would rather be unblocked merely because he doesn't want to be blocked. And he also games the system. When he is blocked and his page protected from trolling, he sends massive amounts of e-mails to subvert concensus. -Zero 06:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As the admin most aware of this editors history, I have to sadly conclude that at this time, I see little evidence that he/she has any intention of contributing in a positive manner to this forum. I strongly urge that the block remain in place and not make myself and others drag this over to arbcom in which, the same end result will likely take place. Without providing links for the 4th or 5th time in explaination of the reasons for the block, I encourage all to visit the talk pages and block logs for Prasi90 and his/her IP...Prasi90 (talk · contribs), 202.177.246.3 (talk · contribs) and I bring this series of comments from his talk page as further rationale.

Here Prasi90, using his IP 202.177.246.3 refers to Americans as Nazis calls U.S. troops neo-nazis and in article space "perverted,sadistic mentality of American troops and Americans in general", he blanked the article on the United States here to post his commentary vandalized the same article earlier redirects the Category on the United States to Sudan and more vandalism,. Prasi90 with his IP login asks how to make a template "anti-American", there is a whole series of edits made from his IP to Prasi90 userpage , , , . With the IP account, he states that the victims of 9/11 are "clearly rotting in hell" in article space and when I first stumbled into him was after he added this lovely comment to my watchlisted article September 11, 2001 attacksAmericans being roasted to death even as they leap toward certain death-Kodak Moments. Ip then insults one editor on his usertalk about his sexual orientation. IP adds information to the Rfc filed against Prasi90 . Using his Prasi90 account, editor again calls Americans neo Nazis tells another editor he has a mental deficiency...oh the list goes on and on. I haven't even touched the rather hard warnings he gave some vandals that they would be blocked and yet didn't do even one vandalism revert that I could find. There is a series of opposition votes on Rfa's that served no purpose aside from disruption. There have been numerous threatening emails to myself and other editors and he has been asked to stop. I asked him why he posted a user:vandal template on his userpage and he lied and told me that he was reflecting that he was a student at the university of Idaho and I ran three IP checks on his IP and they all came back as India. Anyway, a look at the block logs for the IP and for Prasi90 demonstrate that this editor has been blocked by numerous admins and has been released from those blocks prior to their expiration after apologizing, only to return to the same disruptive editing pattern. I've listed maybe 30% of the edits that clearly demostrate this editor has disrupted, has vandalized, has harassed and has trolled his way around Misplaced Pages.--MONGO 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Block, and it's a freakin shame that editors can't be respectful towards american soldiers. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 06:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User asked me to post links to this and this as samples drafted to prove good intentions. Wow, my first job delivering stuff in a while, no comment as to the block itself shall come from me -- Tawker 07:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would rather have problem users where we can see them rather than hiding behind sock accounts, so would cautiously support an unblock and mentorship. Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, his IP is blocked so he can't currently create sock accounts. I can see no justification for bothering to offer mentorship just because he was forced by others to demonstrate his planned contributions. It's a smokescreen in my opinion and there have been numerous other editors that have produced far superior work and then still were banned due to violating policies. With the hundreds of new accounts that open everyday, I think our tie is better spent nuturing these newbies than wasting time trying to help a prolific vandal become a useful contributor, especially based on the severity of the disruption this editor has caused. Prasi90's block seems like a no-brainer to me.--MONGO 13:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This is what I wrote on April 6 on this page:

I've never encountered Prasi90 before, but his clear pattern of abuse, apology and recidivism, and the rather low quality and quantity of his article contributions in the time he has edited Misplaced Pages, suggest to me that he's a permanent block candidate. I've no idea why Hamster Sandwich thinks that mentorship will turn this editor into a useful contributor, but as long as it's understood that we'll stand for absolutely no more nonsense, I don't see any great harm that can be done by letting him give Prasi90 one last chance.

If Hamster is on a wikibreak and nobody else is willing to undertake mentorship, this editor should definitely not be unblocked. --Tony Sidaway 13:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The user has already been given a number of second chances, from what I've seen merely from having MONGO's talkpage watchlisted. Prasi will promise reform anytime, and so far it has meant nothing. He mounted a big campaign on IRC the other day for getting unblocked, and was told by me and others that his only option was to get MONGO himself to unblock him, we wouldn't touch it. We should stick with this. MONGO knows the case in detail, and AFAIC he had very good reasons for the block. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC).

I'm offering to take up the mentorship, if anyone wants... --Sunfazer 20:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I would prefer an admin to so, but not mandatory. Post the standards you offer to Prasi90 and I'll unprotect his usertalk so he can respond.--MONGO 23:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunfazer, I'm elated to see your offer for mentorship, but you're still revatively new to the wiki. I would suggest that a more experiencd wikipedian take on a mentorship, if at all. -Zero 07:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Copy vio, blocking of User:Ghirlandajo

Ghirla made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Gross-J%C3%A4gersdorf&diff=49437984&oldid=49437431 which is clear a copy violation from the internet links that I've provided on talk page. I suggest him to stop and to Admins to block him. Thank you. --Deutsche 13:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This account is a sock of permabanned user:Bonaparte, who has used such accusations to troll before. Please check User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry and block as speedily as possible. --Ghirla 13:25, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Ghirlandajo Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) makes articles by copy violations. Is this allowed here? --Deutsche 13:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

They are not copyvios. I have blocked Deutsche for 24 hours for inappropriate use of the copyvio tag and it is likely that Ghirla's concern is legitimate. Can someone with checkuser (or someone who knows more about Bonaparte) please check if Deutsche is a sock, and if so, extend my block of 24 hours to one of 24 years? Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sadly (because I like Bonaparte) I am pretty sure it's a sock. Not much to add, really. Just zis Guy you know? 20:58, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The sites given as the source of the content are mirrors of Misplaced Pages, in case anyone is wondering why it is not a copyright violation. -- Kjkolb 06:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/William Grammer

Could another admin do the kind thing and close this AfD debate? It says userfy and delete—but what is the exact point of doing this. Userfy the article and then delete? It's a big oxymoron! Thanks, Kilo-Lima| 18:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I userfied the article, and redirected from William Grammer to the article on his film, which still exists and mentions him. Jkelly 18:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Probably, this means userfy the article then delete the redirect, which I thought was implied by userfy itself. Superm401 - Talk 18:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Iranian metal

I want to bring this page to your attention because User:Khashayar Karimi is attempting to delete this article through a method I suppoose is not proper. He linked it to a deleted page (because of copyvio) and then put an RfD on it. I warned him about it and mentioned it to bring it up to AfD and reverted his changes twice. Never the less he keeps restoring it; most recently it was restored by a new user User:Wikiouslover whose only change this is (aside from his user page). I suspect this to be the same person. Please check this out; thanx Spearhead 19:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've also been directed to this page, as it contains a section that is an entire list of external links. Keep that in mind when reverting blanking.⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 08:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kash seems to want the page renamed Metal in Iran, something he could now do as the existin MiI page has been deleted. However, there is really nothing in the article, and no evidence that this "scene" is really notable or contains notable (WP:MUSIC friendly) bands. A merge with Iranian rock and alternative music has been suggested and would probably be a good idea, especially to attract new editors to the topic. Also noted the sock suspicion on the relevant userpage. Deizio 15:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:'the JPS

This account ('the JPS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) impersonates User:The JPS. His first edits were to redirect his user and user talk pages to The JPS pages. The user has done some minor sneaky vandalism. Nobody caught it or warned him. Please take appropriate actions. Renata 23:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:AFC/T needs to be unmoved

It looks like someone accidentally moved Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/Today to Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/ (with the /). This is going to wreak havoc on the AFC system. Because the move put a redirect on the /Today page, it's going to take divine intervention to fix this. Requesting Administrator assistance to fix the page. Thanks -- ShinmaWa 04:02, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

New remedy in the case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Xed 2

For continued personal attacks, Xed is placed indefinitely on personal attack parole. If, in the judgement of any sysop, Xed has breached this ruling, he may be briefly blocked should he make personal attacks, for up to a month in the case of repeat offenses.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 05:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for review of User:Cantus edits/behaviour and corrective actions

Earlier, the above noted user – (contributions) – was sanctioned and restricted by the ArbCom. However, Cantus persists in:

• editing articles (recently) from which C. is banned: e.g., developed country;
• editing articles or insinuating changes into them without discussion or edit summaries, or labelling corrections as rvv: e.g., List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by population;
• over the course of weeks, reverting to prior article versions that adhere to some ineffable personal standard and without justification: e.g. List of countries by GDP (PPP), List of countries by total area
• moving articles to prior locales – viz. List of countries and outlying territories by area/List of countries by total area – being warned about carte blanche changes, and (recently, in response) rehashing my warning and taunting me with an arguable personal attack (e.g., I'm not sanctioned and have not been, as C. has noted)

As an editor of some of these articles, and not necessarily a policeman of them, I find Cantus' behaviour wholly frustrating and counterproductive. And, despite prior sanction and warnings, it doesn't seem that Cantus is either willing or able to modify his behaviour. I request that this editor's behaviour be reviewed and, as prescribed in the ArbCom ruling, that some corrective actions be taken; in the very least, the article recently moved (point 4) should be returned to its prior locale. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Take this to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement. Cheers, Blackcap (talk) 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Great: I've copied the above entry there. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

(Copied from ArbCom enforcement page...)

During this block, the following anon IPs have reverted articles (and selectively, I might add) to versions supported solely by the above user and without discussion nor consensus (but with summaries):

• 200.120.183.182
• 200.120.180.45

I believe these are sockpuppets of this user ... for which C. was also sanctioned by the ArbCom regarding (remedy 4). This is untenable. I'm unsure how to proceed; however, this behaviour – which I'm led to believe is all from same user and not just coincidence – requires further investigation and that added corrective measures be contemplated if necessary. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE: A recent sockpuppet request has confirmed the above anon IPs were used by Cantus to edit while blocked. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Article editing bans on Instantnood

Because of Instantnood's recent disruptive editing, I'm implementing the following article bans under remedy 3 "Instantnood placed on Probation" and enforcement measure 1 ("Procedure for banning in Probation") of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3. As is my usual practice with arbitration bans, I am making limited term bans rather than the full probation term bans that are permitted under the arbitration ruling.

• List of bridges two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Macao, China two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Hong Kong national football team two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• District Council of Hong Kong two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Guangzhou two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• Community of Portuguese Language Countries two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• East Asian Tigers two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006
• I'm lovin' it two weeks, ban ends 14:00 UTC 6 May, 2006

The message is that Instantnood is still far too aggressive in his edits and he needs to revert less, discuss more and respect other people's opinions. --Tony Sidaway 14:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Extra eyes, faith in the system

Hi all. I'm currently involved in a mediation case with Ardenn (stemming from notices on WP:AN/I and WP:AN3 related to the Wikitruth article), and I'd really appreciate if some other admins could keep an eye on the case. I don't want to drag anyone else into this, but it's very difficult to keep track of everything that's happening.

• My immediate concerns:
  • Whether blocking WCityMike was warranted. Earl Andrew blocked him for 24 hours, Pgk unblocked him shortly thereafter.
  • WCityMike has lost patience and is considering going to the ArbCom.
  • Ardenn's escalation of the issue, and how we can quickly find a solution.
• Users directly involved:
  • Ardenn (talk • contribs • logs)
  • WCityMike (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Mdd4696 (talk • contribs • logs)
  • 128.226.198.45 (talk • contribs • logs)
• Users indirectly involved:
  • Gnetwerker (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Earl_Andrew (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Pgk (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Fasten (talk • contribs • logs)
• Otherwise involved:
  • Grace_Note (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Commander_Keane (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Zsinj (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Noosphere (talk • contribs • logs)
  • Jord (talk • contribs • logs)
• Mediation cabal:
  • 2006-04-21 MDD4696
  • 2006-04-22 Noosphere
• Request for mediation:
  • Gnetwerker

~MDD4696 16:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

To note I unblocked the user not based on if the block would have been a valid 3RR block but on the basis that the block came some 24 hours after the last activity in the 3RR, the blocking policy is quite clear that blocking is prevantative not punative, so given that the disruptive activity had long since ceased, and the issue was being perused through other means (mediation) such a block could only be seen as punative. --pgk 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Chinamanjoe

I am trying to shed light on so called facts given on this website which clearly are not true. Chinamanjoe has been spreading lies throughout this website and it is quite easy to prove that he is lying. He claims to be the great-nephew of Annie Besant, however if he were he would be over 90 years old. However on the Justin Besant page, (Chinamanjoe is Justin Besant) he makes not that he is a high school student with a few albums recently put out. There is no possible way that these two facts could both be true. Also, all of his albums are named things like Stuart or Nubice, which are both inside jokes from his high school. When searching up Justin Besant on google, you will find that the only records of him are on sites which are self-editable such as[REDACTED] and last.fm. There are also recent pictures of him on his last.fm website which will help support my claims. Chinamanjoe has also been deleting talk from the discussion pages in order to keep these truths about him from being put out. He is continually deleting all evidence that proves that he is not who he claims he is. He has also tried to spread his lies and prevent the escape of the truth on other pages such as Neil Young, Stevie Wonder, Zuma and The Cortez Trio. His edits to these pages and to the Justin Besant page should all be deleted as they have no truth to them. Thank you. Yofoxyman 19:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Try discussing the issue with him on his talk page or the talk pages of the relevant articles. If that fails, try dispute resolution. This noticeboard isn't the place for content disputes (see here). Blackcap (talk) 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

True. but this doesn't look like a content dispute. It looks much more like an attempt to add nonsense to the Misplaced Pages. And that is a matter worth putting on this page. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, seems like a content problem to me. But even if it isn't, he should try to discuss first. Neither of them have anything on their talk pages but welcomings and vandalism warnings, and that says a lot. If someone has a problem, the first step isn't to come to a NB, but to try and work it out on their own. Blackcap (talk) 20:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I had presented this issue on many of the talk pages however Chinamanjoe was continually deleting it. This is not a content issue, it is a load of ninsense and a kid just trying to get his name on this site as many times as possible. Yofoxyman 22:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Which is a content dispute, neh? Look, the one edit you've made to his talk page is essentially harrassment and vandalism. Try to talk to him with a measured, reasonable tone, and he might listen. If not, try dispute resolution. Blackcap (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I was also posting about the validity of his material on the different pages which he had vandalized. Look, I know him personally, he's full of crap here. Yofoxyman 22:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you know him personally, perhaps you'd like to take it up with him personally, over a beer or a carton of milk? If not, then take it up with him on his talk page - the sensible thing to do would be to leave a trail of evidence for others to see, noting with proof the crimes of the other party. Swinging by here as a first port of call and shouting "foul" won't force others to do research into him, it'll force others to do research into you. Work the system, don't play it. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been talking to him and he refuses to get rid of it and he refuses to stop deleting my messages on the talk pages. So it's enough. I'd also like to point out that he re-added his page after it was deleted by the admin. Yofoxyman 00:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Non English language pages that redirect to other pages?

I recently deleted a series of non-English language pages that were just redirects to existing pages, and were listed in CSD. These were all marked with {{notenglish}}, and I assumed that A2 applies to them. Now, Cool Cat (talk · contribs) requested undeletion of the pages, arguing that It is common practice to use redirects to link official names of the organisations, places, tv shows, games, etc to the article with the most comon english name.. I want to know whether non-English language redirects are allowed in the English[REDACTED] (an example would be イノセンス 攻殻機動隊. The CSD page is not clear about what to do about this. Thanks. --Ragib 20:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I deleted some of these too. I was using the CS rather than the CSD. This is the English[REDACTED] - non-English links are what interwiki linking is for. If you are looking for Korea in Korean, try the Korean wikipedia. Besides, we have enough problems making sure English language articles and redirects are NPOV and not slanderous without this. The problem with redirects esp in non-latin languages, is that, few editors would be able to read them, and so there would be little chance of problematic redirects being caught. We could be redirecting God->George Bush, or someone's name->asshole and never know. I'd say delete all but the most obvious ones. However, perhaps this is not the forum for this debate. Can someone point to a better place, existing policy or debate, or open up a centralised discussion. --Doc 20:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The body of each article, preferably in its first paragraph, should list all common names by which its subject is known. When the native name is written in a non-Latin alphabet this representation should be included along with Latin alphabet transliterations and English alphabet transliterations. For example, the Beijing article should mention that the city is also known as Peking, and that both names are transliterations of the name 北京. It is also useful to have multiple redirects to the main article, for example Sverige is a redirect to Sweden. If there is a significant number of alternative names or forms it may be helpful to keep only the most common two or three in the first paragraph and a list of them in a separate section to avoid cluttering the lead; see Freyr for an example of this.

Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(use_English)

Sadly, the naming conventions are not well organized and they generally deal with how the main article should be titled. Some country specific MoS pages also make the same suggestion. There is even Category:Redirects_from_alternate_languages.

I see no real reason to delete them. Often things are named something unrelated in English and just because someone is searching for it in a different language does not mean they are looking for an article in that language. Kotepho 20:36, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are cheap. Stifle (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I also deleted a fair percentage of these, using CSD-R3 (stretched somewhat). I also put the {adminbacklog} tag up to call in reinforcements to help with the deleting. However, an unwritten rule of CSD should be that Speedy Deletes are used for things that are assumed to be non-contraversial to everyone (except perhaps the original creator). When I was told that this wasn't a non-contraversial matter, I undeleted all of my own deletes. I'd happily delete them all again, but feel that clarification is now required. As such, it's best to undelete now and debate the matter, then delete again afterward; possibly the only time you'll hear me say that as generally I believe in delete-and-perhaps-recreate-better (with caveats on this entire policy that I won't go into here so please don't judge).

I think that we need to decide where a line lies - if Pokemon is likely to be searched for as "ポケモン", then that redirect should exist. But there's little or no need to redirect "英語" to "English", if nothing else than because the result will be an article in English that the searcher won't understand (the Pokeman searcher may be looking for what ポケモン means on the packet their game/toy/card/something came in, after all). In other words, a redirect to a Proper Noun is, er, proper. A redirect to a simple noun (or a verb etc) is useless.

But, as Stifle says, redirects are cheap: perhaps the Redirect speedy criteria need to be (gulp) a bit more, well, set in stone?

I feel so unclean. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 21:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I undid the deletions for now, but this needs to be resolved in a clear cut manner: either we allow non-English redirects, or not allow them. The policy should be clear on this. Thanks. --Ragib 23:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe any harm is done with rediretcs. Presenting a redirect for the cyrilic writing for Moscow or Kanji writing of Tokyo in my view is good practice. --Cool Cat 10:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Redirects are good for other purposes, such as getting hits on google for your article. I made such a redirect on Atacul de noapte, so that Ro people will have it easier to find the English article if they google the name. --Candide, or Optimism 11:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so can I assume we have a consensus on non western language redirects for proper names? --Ragib 02:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think so, yes. With the caveat that the names ought to be mentioned in the article (to make bogus redirects as mentioned by Doc above easier to catch). —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

At WP:PNT, I often redirect duplicate articles with foreign-language titles to the corresponding English-language title. Of course I tag them {{R from alternate language}}. I don't think foreign-language redirects should ever be speedily deleted unless the deleting admin understands the redirect and knows that it is inappropriate; at least the redirect should be given the chance to have a speaker of the language look at it first. For example, we could make a rule that you should ask at WP:PNT whether a foreign-looking redirect makes sense. Kusma (討論) 14:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:PP

I have been removing a number of outdated listings...admins, please update this as you protect or unprotect articles. Consider adding User:Voice_of_All/Useful#Protection_JS to your monobook if you hate doing the paperwork...either way, just try to keep this updated.Voice-of-All 20:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yofoxyman

This user has vandalised various pages including Neil Young, Annie Besant, Cortez Trio, among others. He has made personal attacks against various users, including myself, and vandalised a series of talk pages. He has been warned multiple times by various users, but has ignored all warnings. I do not know who he is, but he seems to be out to get me (as seen by his posts above) and other users such as Johnleemk. I have been trying to avoid getting into an edit war, but vandalism is not acceptable on[REDACTED] so I revert it. I have never delt with such large scale vandalism before and am not sure how to handle it. Any help would be appreciated. Chinamanjoe 23:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is all pretty much a lie. We know each other pretty well as we go to high school together. And the vandalism he is refering to his posting on the talk pages of various websites the truth about his posts. I wouldn't want some kid doing a project on somewhere to think that he inspired a "popular Canadian band" , when in reality it's just three kids playing at a high school music night. Chinamanjoe has been trying to spread rediculous things like this on various pages mentioned above and I was just trying to say that these things weren't true on the talk pages. Chinamanjoe had no right to delete them just because it was exposing him for the fraud he is. Yofoxyman 00:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who takes a look at the history will quickly come to the conclusion that it is Chinamanjoe who is behaving badly here with his deletion of questions from talk pages and his refusal to discuss his edits. While Yofoxyman's edits have been characterised as personal attacks, they are really accusations rather than simple attacks. And a little research appears to prove them justified. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

SimonRibeiro (talk · contribs)

Another user asked me to take a look at the contributions of SimonRibeiro (talk · contribs), informing me that he seemed to be using Misplaced Pages as a platform for his political candidacy, creating articles on himself, his family, and several entries linked to from his "biography" in the article he created on himself and in his user page. I went through his contributions and found several copyvios and deleted them, as well as many inappropriate dictionary definitions that had already been tagged as speedies, and accordingly deleted them. I've left him a message on his user talk page but would appreciate feedback and help on the rest of his contributions, including the article he created on himself: Simon Ribeiro, and his user page, a direct copy of that, as well as the remaining articles that aren't deleted yet, such as Joanne D'Amato, Gerardo Ribeiro, Armand Paul D'Amato, Illinois State Representative John D'Amico and Universal Retirement. All of them are either family members or terms linked to in the article he created about himself. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I have placed the article Simon Ribeiro on Afd. Joyous | Talk 01:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Joanne D'Amato has been listed for speedy speedily deleted, Universal Retirement prodded and Gerardo Ribeiro tagged as not verified and wikify. Armand Paul D'Amato should probably be AfD'd to complete the set... I've tagged it for verification and removed chuff about the nn relatives.Deizio 12:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the response! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Template:User muslim

What happened here? It seems to have been created about an hour ago as an anti-Muslim attack userbox, yet a great many users, most of them apparently Muslims, include it on their pages. --Carnildo 03:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The deletion log shows that the template, in proper, valid, non-troll form, was only vandalized today by 86.138.96.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Therefore, it was not new, and it was used as a valid userbox by the users who included it in their user pages. Thanks. --Ragib 03:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus, the most recent defacement was done by Anarchy, Inc. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems to be the same anon from UK. --Ragib 03:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

My fault, I misread what had happened with the template. It is now restored to the version prior to the recent vandalism. Cheers TigerShark 03:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the vandalism again earlier today and left a message with Anarchy, Inc.. The user subsequently re-inserted the vandalism, so I've followed this up with a 24-hour block. Leithp 15:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

WP:HIRE

...or, more specifically, the MfD for WP:HIRE. A number of users have pointed out (correctly, I believe) that an MfD isn't the right procedure for discussing the merits of a proposal. If that's the case, is it necessary to wait out the MfD, or can an admin move the proposal to a straw poll, or RfC, or whatever the right place for it is? Just curious. Tijuana Brass 03:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, what a singularly useless MFD. I've closed it so people can get back to debating whether to accept/reject the proposal. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the major issue that it was brought to MFD (a foolish move in my opinion) was that one of the people who supported it stated that since it was a noticeboard and not a policy or guideline proposal it couldn't be rejected in the standard way which is the wrong way to look at it since any page can be rejected and therefore ruled as perpetually inactive which so far is why the jobs page is still inactive. Pegasus1138 ---- 08:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. If it's not used for a lengthy length of time, the "kept for historical purposes" tag can be put on it. --Woohookitty 11:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Cantus blocked for one month for evading an arbcom ban through sockery

See this notice for details. This is an invocation of remedy 2 and enforcement clause 1.1 in the case Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cantus 3 after a checkuser request returned a confirmation that Cantus had socked. --Tony Sidaway 16:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the correct term is sockpuppetry not sockery. Nice use of language though. Pegasus1138 ---- 23:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

And the use of "sock" as a verb is interesting. Sock it to 'em! —BorgHunter (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Wait till it makes it way to dictionaries! --Cool Cat 07:14, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism on Blog:CMS

An anonymous editor has been coming in and replacing the last paragraph of the article, which focuses on criticism, with borderline personal attacks and glowing advertising statements; see (the four bolded links are a 3RR violation from 19 April that slipped past me, the last link actually spans two edits). He has also vandalized the user pages of myself and another editor who has reverted his changes; see . The editor has edited from a variety of IP addresses originating from Eurotel in the Czech Republic, which can be seen in the diffs above. Coincidentally, the primary Blog:CMS developer is also Czech. æle ✆ 2006-04-23t20:30z

Semi-protected. ~MDD4696 21:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Mr. Eric Ventress and User:This is nice

Do Mr. Eric Ventress and This is nice look like accounts created solely to attack Eric Ventress to anyone else? Would indefinate blocks be appropriate here? ~MDD4696 02:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts board

Could an admin please take a look at the three reverts board when they have a minute? In particular, User:JedRothwell has rved 6 times on one article and no admin has looked at it yet despite multiple requests on the board (Yeah, it was only posted about 3 hours ago, but I'm slightly impatient (sorry)). JoshuaZ 02:25, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Kelly Martin's block of User:Rory096

• 18:02, 23 April 2006 - User:Sceptre (for reasons unknown to me) reverts {{prod}} breaking the Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion system.
• 18:12, 23 April 2006 - User:Rory096 starts substituting the templates without discussion, however at this moment a message in big red letters displayed on each article currently prodded states that {{prod}} should be substituted.
• 19:01, 23 April 2006 - User:Kelly Martin blocks User:Rory096 for substituting {{prod}} on a large number of articles.
• 19:06, 23 April 2006 - User:Sceptre undoes his edit to {{prod}}. This does not repair the system, however.
• 22:05, 23 April 2006 - User:R. Koot decides to switch to the {{dated prod}} system, which we hadn't done until now because it would break the system for five days (but this has already happened at this point). There already was a consensus to eventually switch to {{dated prod}} and to cause the least amount of trouble switching this needed to happen as soon as possible after Sceptre broke the system.
• 00:30, 24 April 2006 - User:Rory096 continues substituting the {{prod}} templates and correcting the dates of the {{dated prod}} templates. (Note that at this time all the pages which are prodded agian show a big red message requesting people to substitute them template.)
• 00:56, 24 April 2006 - User:Kelly Martin blocks Rory096 again, claiming there is no consensus for this change. She is wrong here.

What it all boils down to is that due to Sceptre editing the template the system will be broken for the next five days (even if the toolserver comes back online before that time) unless we substitute all the {{prod}} templates and correct the dates on the {{dated prod}} templates. There seems to be a consensus for this at Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion for this. I'm afraid Kelly Martin fails to understand the situation here. In this light Rory096's block seems extremely unfair and unjustified. I requested her to unblock him and appologize for this misunderstanding but has not answered my latest e-mail. —Ruud 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is NOT a consensus for these changes to {{prod}}; I've seen significant evidence of edit warring and several admins have expressed concern about the recent changes. I strongly urge that the entire situation be left alone until a true consensus emerges. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring? Could you provide some diffs of that? Which admins have expressed there concerns? Have you even read Misplaced Pages talk:Proposed deletion? Most people say they would prefer {{dated prod}}, no one opposes it. Proposed deletions can't be left alone. We either have to keep it working (and {{dated prod}} is the only way we can keep it working right now) or suspend the process. Again there is a clear consensus on the talk page for the former. —Ruud 03:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Also understand that these are not changes but repairs. After Sceptre edited the template there was no longer a choice between {{prod}} or {{dated prod}}. Our options were just reduced to {{dated prod}} or no WP:PROD at all, so by urging to leave it alone you are also making a choice (for which there clearly is no consensus). This may all be a nasty situation, but in no way warranting a block of anyone. People are trying to keep Misplaced Pages running smoothly and you treat them like vandals. —Ruud 04:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sceptre initially reverted the template because there was a discussion in #wikipedia about how it wasn't working. He reverted it to the dated system and Rory started subst the template to get the dates in. Sceptre then reverted his initial change as a result of Rory's initial block. When R. Koot decided to revert back to the dated prod, I don't see what was wrong with Rory fixing the templates. At this point in time, he was actually benefiting WP. Perhaps there is something I'm missing. Pepsidrinka 03:41, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rory096 actually broke the template when he started subst'ing in without the correct date. I've rolled back all of his "today" substs and am letting Tawkerbot tag them with the correct date. Once the bot is done, its probally safe to unblock but the block was the right thing to do -- Tawker 07:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the first block, but after that block he actually corrected the dates, doing manually what your bot just did automatically, making the second block unfair and baseless. —Ruud 15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't we just keep it in place and use it when the toolserver comes back within a week or so. I reverted prod once on benon's request, as every single prod page was giving me this huge subst notice which was breaking it. We could use a bot to to check the date when the prod was added but it's going to be a fairly big pain in the ass if we're going back to one system or another. (most of the code I should be able to nab from Tawkerbot2, it might bot be as big of a deal as I think) -- Tawker 04:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Rory has requested use of AWB (he was removed from the approved user list by Kelly Martin), should it be reinstated? Prodego 01:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like Rory was doing what he (and apparently others) thought was the consensus decision... which was also what the template itself specifically instructed. I haven't kept up with the whole 'broken prod' mess but there was obviously a good deal of confusion. Some people are still suggesting that what Rory was doing was beneficial or, at worst, only that Tawker's bot could have done the same thing more efficiently if Rory hadn't been doing it manually. Trying to 'fix' something and other people subsequently deciding to 'fix' it a different way doesn't seem like any kind of 'bad act' to me. --CBDunkerson 11:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Kelly was wrong here. She has not provided any evidence that there was a dispute over Rory's actions (diffs, someone else confirming, etc.) and diffs and the PROD talk page testify that there was support for Rory's action. As I see it, the block was simply and planinly incorrect, unless Kelly or someone else can provide such evidence. JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:48, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Squamish, British Columbia

There's a user who, with several obvious socks, has been (once or twice per day) editing the Squamish, British Columbia article, primarily to change the use of "Squamish Nation" to "Squamish Nation (Indian Band)" and related edits. Recently he has taken to using socks which seem to indicate adminship. See

• Misplaced Pages Indian Name Control (talk • contribs)
• Indian Name Control (talk • contribs) (whose talk page says "I am da offical admin.")
• Qromenov (talk • contribs) (who put up an incomplete RfA some time ago)
• 207.81.122.3 (talk • contribs) For completeness, the IP he sometimes uses.

The Squamish article was also a major issue with (now-blocked) HD 123321 (talk • contribs • 123321 page moves • block user • 123321 block log), who may be the originator of the socks. Thanks, --TeaDrinker 05:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo

The arbitration committee has enacted a temporary injunction in this case. It reads: "Due to continued disruption Terryeo is banned from editing articles related to Dianetics or Scientology pending resolution of this request." Please ensure it is adhered to. Thank you. On behalf of the arbcom, Johnleemk | Talk 15:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Alienus and WP:NPA

I have blocked User:Alienus for 72 hours for repeated, ongoing, egregious personal attacks and disruption on WP:AN/3RR. This user has severe issues understanding what it means to be civil, and has received many, many warnings about personal attacks -- far more than most other users. This latest series of incidents is full of personal attacks, but the best one so far is "Your edits suck and so do you," .

Since I have a history with this user (he has alternately accused me, incorrectly, of being a member of a "Christian cabal" or "Jewish cabal," depending on which content dispute he's involved in at any given moment), I'm posting this block here for review. Nandesuka 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Because of past disagreements between Nandesuka and Alienus over the content of circumcision related articles, in my opinion it is inappropriate for Nandesuka to use his position as an administrator to block Alienus. In the interest of fairness, Nandesuka should excuse himself from any administrative action involving Alienus.

Also in the interest of fairness it should be noted that Alienus edited the offending comment cited by Nandesuka when he realized that that it had been posted. -- DanBlackham 20:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

If it were a content dispute, I'd agree, but this is user conduct, on pages that are totally unrelated to circumcision. I think that Nandesuka was right to raise the issue here, since as he points out he has a history with Alienus, but as far as I can tell his actions were appropriate.

I am inclined to wonder, incidentally, how many admins have had the luxury of avoiding Alienus' hostility. I suspect that they are few in number. Jakew 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I too agree with N. I'll also point out that DB is hardly neutral in this: check his contribs . Spot any patterns relating to A? William M. Connolley 21:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Nor is Jake neutral in this. Anyone who is familiar with the debate over elective, non-therapeutic circumcision outside of Misplaced Pages will recognize Jake Waskett as a very active and dedicated circumcision advocate. -- DanBlackham 07:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You know, many anti-circumcision activists have made this claim, but none have ever been able to show me a single example where I have ever a) advised a prospective parent to circumcise, or b) said that circumcision is advisable in general. Interesting. Do feel free to discuss this further on my talk page. Jakew 11:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The conflicts usually start out as a content dispute, then when an editor like Alienus responses in an intemperate way, the focus changes to the user's conduct. People's attention is thus distracted from the real source of disagreement which is content.

In my opinion the analysis by Michael Glass of the problems with the circumcision related articles is accurate. The items in point six are particularly relevant. "If the first editor protests in a way that is at all intemperate, the hostile editor invokes all the Wiki rules about incivility." -- DanBlackham 07:18, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I also completly agree with Nandesku's actions. I don't think N is involved any more than anyone else that has come into contact with Alienus. This user is so rude and uncivil that it is probable that anyone that has edited on the same page as him will encounter some of his innappropriate comments. In this case it was perfectly appropriate to act as Nandesku did.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Aucaman

The arbitration committee has enacted a temporary injunction in this case. It reads: "Until the conclusion of this arbitration, Aucaman is placed on standard revert parole. He may not make more than one content revert per article per day. Should he revert excessively, he may be briefly banned, up to a week for repeated violations." Please ensure it is adhered to. Thank you. On behalf of the arbcom, Johnleemk | Talk 16:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea It seems to be a bit of a mess, can some one please help sort it out. From the looks of it a new AfD discussion has been added on to a old non-closed discussion.--blue520 16:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the second AFD to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea (2nd nomination). Hope this helps! --lightdarkness 19:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry there still are problems, the AfD notice on Phrenicea still points to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea rather than the new Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Phrenicea (2nd nomination) and two users have placed discussions on the older AfD since the two were split.--blue520 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Problem solved. Thank you, Lightdarkness for helping.--blue520 14:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandal - The wcw wrestling 2008

This new user, The wcw wrestling 2008 | Talk has been adding nonsense to professional wrestling articles for the past six hours - please ban him. TheNewMinistry 20:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. Ral315 (talk) 01:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd admin behaviour at Cuba article

I'll just lay this out in point form for you:

1. One of your admin reverted a change with no comment. rv
2. The admin reversion was immidiatly undone, You are supposed to be an administrator! Remember, I'm not a "communist" --we can discuss this, my changes follow policy!.
3. I then added my image File:408px-Che.jpg.
4. Finally, your admin locked the page, ] and reverted it all (my image included!) ]
5. So far, there has been no efforts at discussion. But I did recently leave a message at the admins userpage, so give it time

Also Note: The previous time this admin sponsored a revert war (after welcoming me by calling me a coward/sock puppet , the admin brought this up (). Now I still have no hard feelings, but this admin is really standing in the way of fixing up the article. I understand in the admin's world view, Castro represents things that I can't understand... I just want someone to help out here. (disclosure: the anon involved is me)

Please and thank you, Mystork 20:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• Since he was also involved in editing the page, it was likely not appropriate for PMA to protect the page. I'm also not sure why he felt the need to roll back to his version while the page was protected, as it seems a bit petty. However I would advise against making substantial changes to contentious articles without testing for disagreement on the talk page. The actual content of his edits seems quite reasonable, but he probably should not have mixed in admin tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to be able to defend myself but i am going to be mostly wikiaway in the next week due to chronic health problem treatment - ask 172 or Adam Carr to find out that i am a good editor and Adam has said that i mean well - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:BruceHallman&diff=49461797&oldid=49459999 PMA 04:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

No real need to defend yourself...based on his edits I assume that Mystork is probably not a super-easy-to-get-along-with kind of guy. But it would probably be better to leave protection (at least protection related to content disputes) for uninvolved admins. Cheers, Christopher Parham (talk) 05:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting this out Christopher, PMA Mystork 00:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have to disagree here PMA violated #1 & #2 of the protection policy and should have to defend his actions. A uninvolved admin should have been asked to step in, the page should NOT have been reverted, and PMA should NOT have protected the page himself. Users are expected to respect policy and admins should also respect policy. Mike _{(T C)} 18:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

List of National Basketball League (Australia) venues

User:Jcuk has done a bang up job bringing this list in line with style and policy, AfD nom withdrawn and I'd be grateful if someone would close the (no-consensus bound) debate. Deizio 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

AfDs are often closed when the nomination is withdrawn, but not when other users have commented in favour of deletion. Leave a note on the AfD that the page was rewritten after some people had commented, so the closer knows to give less weight to early comments, and then just let time run its course. --bainer (talk) 07:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

help undoing a move

There was a fairly stable article titled American liberalism. Somebody moved it to American social liberalism and then moved it again to Social liberalism (United States). On the talk page, several people opposed the move and nobody supported it when it turned out that the person who made the move had not bothered to fix redirects. (I was willing to go along with it, but have now joined the others who oppose the move.) I tried to move the article back, but it wouldn't move because of the double redirect. So, I'm afraid I made matters worse by trying to move American liberalism to American liberalism scratch, to free up the name for the article to move back. That didn't work. I read some advice in "help" and now realize that I should have moved the article back one step at a time, but apparently it is too late for that now, though I have managed to move it back from Social liberalism (United States) to American social liberalism. There it sits.

Since the main article on liberalism links to the article American liberalism I think that title is the most stable. If you are willing to help by moving American social liberalism back to American liberalism, and delete American liberalism scratch, American social liberalism, and Social liberalism (United States), I will take on the job of fixing all the links.

Thanks. Rick Norwood 23:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything should be fixed now. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/ClassicSciFi.com

Would anyone please close this AfD? It's been way over 5 days, I am afraid it was overlooked. Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 04:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For some reason Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 April 17 was missing from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Old. I've rectified that, and relisted the debate you came here about as it had only two contributors. If there's a few more deletes it can be closed (currently 3). --kingboyk 04:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

...and deleted. --kingboyk 05:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nothing like a short cancelation of a new opening night! What a theatre! <G> FrankB 05:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Lol! You snooze, you lose. Sorry about that :) --kingboyk 05:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Suicidal user

Apparently this is the place to report people discussing on Misplaced Pages their intentions to commit suicide. The most recent such person is The Hypnotist (talk · contribs). Pay particular attention to his edits to Talk:Suicide, Talk:Mass suicide, and Talk:Potassium cyanide. moink 04:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't entertain this. His own talk page and some previous edits have shown a tendency towards vandalism and trolling. Based on the ministerial training I've received, posting "Hey, I've got cyanide" messages on Misplaced Pages would be pretty atypical warning signs for a person seriously considering suicide. Not to sound callous, but I don't take this guy seriously, and both the extent of intervention available via Misplaced Pages and its impact is negligable. A link to an outside website should suffice; let's not play into a troll's hands. Tijuana Brass 05:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that his edits in the past have been less than stellar, although some of them (e.g. the whole thing with the Stimulism article, see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Stimulism) seem more confused than bad faith. But just because someone is a vandal or confused doesn't mean they can't be suicidal. moink 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's warn him with a {{suicide3}} right away, maybe? LOL!! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 05:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

STOP! This is your last warning! Do not commit suicide here. You'll make a mess! HAHAHAHAHA - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 06:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm altogether concerned that this has become "the place to report people discussing on Misplaced Pages their intentions to commit suicide" (I readily recognize that perhaps Moink offers that description sardonically, and I'd certainly concur with that spirit); one's discussing his/her prospective suicide ought only to be dealt with as any other vandalism. Where disruption to the project occurs (e.g., when a user inserts extraneous comments into mainspace or consumes talk page space with wholly irrelevant comments), a user should surely be blocked; where disruption does not occur (e.g., when a user simply posts comments apropos of an imminent suicide on his/her user page to no deleterious end ), nothing should be done. Having followed the discussion last week with respect to this issue, I'm reasonably sure my position doesn't have a great deal of support here, but I thought it ought to be noted that we are here to write an encyclopedia (cf., to insinuate ourselves into the lives of other editors where the primary object is not the expansion of the 'pedia). Joe 06:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, and to view it from a practical standpoint for the "suicidal user," if they're genuinely looking for help online, it seems very, very unlikely that they're going to do so by coming to Misplaced Pages to pore over an article on suicide. This is not a self-help site, and if someone's able to find their way to an article in Misplaced Pages, they're able to use Google to look up a resource that's actually helpful. I think this is a good example of Misplaced Pages:Don't stuff beans up your nose... don't give vandals the impression that they can eat up resources by claiming that they're suicidal. It's not just an issue of "this is disruptive to Misplaced Pages," it's one of vandals manipulating concern to get attention. Tijuana Brass 06:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I missed the discussion last week (where is it? I just looked for it and couldn't find it), and I think we've got a responsibility to do more than ignore this. I also don't like the notion of dismissing suicidal talk just because someone has been trollish in the past. I'm not saying that someone couldn't make claims of suicidal ideation in order to stir up trouble or get attention, but I'd rather err on the side of responsibility — better to feed a troll a bit than have someone commit suicide on our watch. Besides the moral questions, imagine the headlines if it turned out to be genuine: "Misplaced Pages ignored suicidal teen's pleas for help" and the like.

I'm also not so sure that someone who's suicidal wouldn't look here. They might also look in more "useful" locations, but since Misplaced Pages has become such a universal tool it's not inconceivable that someone might look here first. The Misplaced Pages page suicide does come up on the first page if you type "suicide" into Google; it's not the top of the list, but it's there.

All that said, I also recognize that most of us can't do anything more than the sensible comments moink has already left on The Hypnotist's talk page; could we get an idea of where he is with a whois search? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the attention for an unheeded response posted to Misplaced Pages — which would be the same as if it were posted onto a blog, or MySpace, or Facebook, or whatever — would be slight in comparison to that drawn to an article like suicide methods. Tijuana Brass 06:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The last time this happened it was immediately passed over to the Foundation. I think the same should happen here. (If it turns out to be a spoof, he should get a long block; if it isn't a spoof we have a moral duty to do something). --kingboyk 06:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:BEANS to be largely irrelevant here; even as we don't want to encourage trolls and vandals, we ought to react in the same way to a "suicide threat" by a user whom we know to be serious as to one by a user whom we are certain is trolling (perhaps we would suggest a block in the latter case, inasmuch as the intent is to disrupt, but, of course, the former also tends to disrupt when expressed on multiple pages); scilicet, we ought to do nothing (for reasons I attempt to explain below, in response to Tijuana's template). Joe 04:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) There was a similar case sometime earlier this year or late last year, if I recall correctly. We're here to build an encyclopedia, and I think we just pointed the guy to some other site (perhaps it was a counselling site or something...). We should do the same here, and not waste rescources and energy on one user with claims. Anyone can make claims. NSLE _(T+C) at 06:39 UTC (2006-04-25)

More like, road to hell is paved with good obsessions. Misplaced Pages does not have a counseling service. Any personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to[REDACTED] comunity as a hole.

Maybe this might make a nice addition to WP:NOT?

--Cool Cat 07:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Think a short template would be practical... something along the lines of "WP:NOT for med/mental problems, see WebMD, etc."? Then, if they keep going, {{personalproblems2}} could refer them to User talk:Crzrussian. Guarantee they won't come back after that. Tijuana Brass 07:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You are joking right?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This humor seems grossly inappropriate to me. I agree that Misplaced Pages isn't a suicide prevention / general selfhelp service, and certainly agree that potentially suicidal users should be pointed to another, appropriate, external resource / service. I do disagree with, for example, the concept that "personal problems of users are only personal problems of users and hence is of no concern to[REDACTED] comunity as a hole." (sic) I'll keep this focused at a purely project level and suggest that, at least, it is my hope that the community would be concerned if an editor was lost to the project through suicide. There's a whole wide world out there for mocking fellow humans - this discussion doesn't seem to be contributing to a better encyclopedia, IMVHO. And, as user:kingboyk points out, we have a moral duty to do something. Colonel Tom 11:31, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Then find someone with cheackuser to grab the IP then contact the ISP. We don't know who this person is or where they live so there is nothing else we can do.Geni 14:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

To get this in before somebody tells us to discuss it somewhere more appropriate... all joking aside, I'm fairly certain that all of the editors above would upset if an editor committed suicide. However, the likelihood of someone coming onto Misplaced Pages to declare their serious, immediate intention of taking their own life is beyond remote. Based on my somewhat limited knowledge, when a person has a serious intention of suicide, they will begin to manifest by speaking to friends and family rather than strangers online. More importantly, they don't do so by tagging obnoxious comments onto talk pages with happy faces on them . Part of the reason that you may be misunderstanding some of the responses above as callous is because this is a easy to spot case of a vandal looking for attention — it wouldn't be the first time he's tried .

I'm not sure how much experience you've had dealing with vandals, but they'll do pretty much anything for a laugh... faking suicidal tendencies wouldn't be that far up the list compared to other things that have gone down here. If one starts to pick up that he can start getting attention from editors that rush to every suicide claim, trying to track down their IP and call their provider, he's gonna do it again. On a practical level, there's nothing an editor can really do other than refer them to a self-help site, but like I said above, if they got here, they can get there. Since there still seems to be some users concerned, though, here's a template that you can use in such a case. Looks like this:

Template:Suicidehelp

Just type {{suicidehelp}} onto their talk page.Tijuana Brass 14:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine that I'd be particularly distraught over the loss of any particular editor, and I surely hope the community writ large (and even any given editor) wouldn't be upset over my committing suicide. I, in any case, oppose our apprehending a moral duty (as a matter of policy; certainly individual editors may act, generally, as they wish in this respect) to intercede, and think it altogether inappropriate for us to offer, on a template, an external link to what is plainly an advocacy site (even as most may think the POV for which the site advocates--viz., that one oughtn't to kill him/herself--to be the "correct" view with respect to suicide). This relates, I suppose, to the discussion currently underway apropos of WP: NOT EVIL, and, I think, at the end of the day, the concerns that militate against our adopting that proposed guideline militate against our having an advocacy template here; we are here to write an encyclopedia, from which we may then benefit, and not to inculcate morals under color of policy. If one wants to express on his/her talk page the view that suicide is wrong or should be looked upon with disfavor, especially by those contemplating killing themselves, that's fine (at least if one believes user pages may contain expressions of such sentiments; I, as I've expressed elsewhere, believe that the use of user pages to express personal beliefs is beneficial, rather than harmful, to the project), but I don't think it at all appropriate that we should have a template that responds to a user's querying talk pages and the like about suicide. Joe 04:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

As I mention on the templates for deletion vote page, I think we should keep an NPOV version of {{suicidehelp}}, and that it should be similar to the "Resources for dealing with suicidal thoughts' section of Template:Suicide. Also, WP:BEANS does not apply here, I don't think people will commit suicide "just to try it." - PatrickFisher 03:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The beans reference was not for people committing suicide because an editor on Misplaced Pages suggested it. It was about giving the idea that a vandal claiming suicide could get other editor's attention. Tijuana Brass 03:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Policy towards deleting user:talk pages

I think it is necesary to come up with a concensus for this.

Talk pages exist as a means to comunicate with others. User talk pages are also an excelent source of evidence for arbitration cases as well as rfcs.

Hence I feel it is inaproporate to delete user talk pages even if the user leaves the project (such leaves are often temporary).

--Cool Cat 07:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about a user deleting their own talk page, or a user deleting someone else's page? If a user is leaving the project then there's no harm in them deleting their user page or user talk page. If it is actually needed for an arbitration request, it can be undeleted then, just ask one of the admins at Category:User undeletion. --bainer (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think user talk pages should be deleted under any circumstances, and most particularly I don't it's proper to delete one's own user talk page. It seems to me to fall under the same category as using blocking privileges to enforce your own Wikibreak, which is strictly prohibited. I can easily see people leaving the project (with the serious intention of going away for good) during a particularly nasty exchange, deleting their userpage, then coming back sometime later and 'forgetting' to restore it. Similarly, I do seem to recall that in several past arbitrations, an admin's deletion of their own user talk page (during one nasty exchange or another, granted, and after they'd said things they'd obviously rather unsay) became one of the central issues against them. Basically, if an admin wants to leave the project, I see no reason why they can't settle for merely blanking their user and talk pages like anyone else... permanently deleting other users' legitimate comments strikes me as something to be avoided and discouraged whenever possible. --Aquillion 09:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with prohibition of deleting user pages. Every one has a right to decide about his pages. Just blanking is not enough. Otherwise everyone should be warned: "If you post anything even on your own page, it cannot be deleted." -- Vít Zvánovec 10:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

That warning is inherent to everything added to Misplaced Pages, and is indeed presented to you before every edit; that's part of what it means when it says that "you agree to license your contributions under the GFDL." No one has the automatic right to utterly retract anything that they add to Misplaced Pages, even on their own talk pages; it is not even within a normal user's capabilities to permanently delete their talk page. Indeed, a normal user who requested that one of their submissions or comments be hard-deleted simply because they desired it would (rightfully) be laughed off of whatever forum they requested it on. Granted, admins are given the ability to "permanently" delete things under a limited subset of circumstances in order to help run the encyclopedia, but I see nothing in the rules that would extend this to grant them the discretionary ability to delete their own talk pages, nor any reason why it should be extended to grant them that right. Deleting your own talk page has nothing to do with the maintenance or smooth functioning of the encyclopedia, which is supposed to be the sole purpose of an admin's abilities, and goes against the principals of openness and respect for the comments of others, both of which are essential to Misplaced Pages's functioning. --Aquillion 11:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is obvious that a normal user cannot delete his or her page by himself or herself. But the petition for that should be done without reluctance. Has anybody to be forced to have personal attacs on his or her own talk page?

GFDL was always meant for encyclopedical articles, not for my personal data I post at my page. Your attitude is a great endangering of privacy. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

+ Some addition: In my view there is a great difference between real name users and pseudonyms. If I were three years ago with my current knowledge, I would never choose my real name login again. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal information is a special case. Users can always have personal information about themselves specifically excised, provided it isn't already common knowledge. (You could get your username changed, by the way; I know of at least one other longstanding user who had his name changed for that reason.) I should note in passing, though, that I was talking about the wholesale deletion of user:talk pages, not the user pages themselves or the removal of specific troublesome edits; the issue with deleting user:talk pages is that it invariably involves deleting the comments of numerous other users, which is normally against policy. We do it when deleting an article, sure, but in that case the discussions are unlikely to remain relevant. With a user's talk page, though, they remain relevant for, at the very least, as long as the flesh-and-blood user those comments were directed to could conceivably continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. --Aquillion 03:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk pages should not be deleted. User pages may be deleted. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Somebody needs reigns

A relative newbie user talk: Wrc60 , User talk:202.40.210.246, and User talk:85.165.205.144 has a ton of pages 'Inuse' (Note Group), has used at least two IP's, and forgotten (???) his account name or password or something. Most of these (20?) are generaly boilerplate and very much effectively empty. He was working on 1973 this evening earlier. I left him a couple of notes but he'd apparently just shut down for the night. FrankB 08:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Some of them have been tagged for weeks! {{inuse}} is supposed to be for a couple of hours at most; {{underconstruction}} isn't really appropriate for this kind of time span either. He does appear to be working on them albeit very slowly, and they could be useful articles, so perhaps the best solution would be to remove the tags and add a stub template instead? --kingboyk 08:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd gotten that far, but I needed my beauty rest (Trust Me!). I figure one reason he's done this is because of all the fancy interlinking, which if they were in sandbox mode would require him to then fix those cross links once the articles were moved to article space. I'll do five or so, if a few others will take on as many, he can't get too resentful. Best regards, FrankB 15:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done 5 and tagged em with {{Autoracing-stub}} instead of {{inuse}}. --kingboyk 15:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Help needed to fix c+p move

Quantum mysticism was moved to Quantum metaphysics by User:H0riz0n, but it appears to have been done by a cut and paste, instead of a move, wiping out the history, (and the resulting redirect is mis-formed). I dropped a note to the user about it, but admin intervention is needed to sort out the history issues, etc, and is probably easier to fix before anyone else edits the target article. Regards, MartinRe 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to User:FreplySpang for fixing the original article, however it appears that a different, second user has renamed the page to yet another title, making the same mistake, so the history is now scattered over three articles! (the talk page history for the original article wasn't merged, was this was just an oversight?)

Three pages in question are: Quantum metaphysics, Quantum mysticism and Quantum pseudo-mysticism if any admin feels like getting this back into order again! Regards, MartinRe 22:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What joy. Sorry for missing the talk page history - that was indeed an oversight. I'll go look at these articles now. FreplySpang (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this, I know it's a little messy to fix. (I don't even have anything to do with the article myself, just happened across it by chance!) Cheers, MartinRe 23:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's done. I redirected two of the names to Quantum metaphysics because that's where the article history happened to be. If anyone wants to check this, I'd appreciate it. FreplySpang (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory needs closing

No one has bothered to close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cycle theory (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was initially posted April 5 2005. Maybe it fell off an AfD log or something. Sandstein 13:59, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, it has apparently fallen off the AFD list. I am therefore adding it to today's list so that we are assured of giving it a full 5 days worth of visible discussion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:15, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Account suspensions

I was browsing through the administrator's reading list and came across this page, as it is the very first one. This page seems to be very inactive and has basically been replaced by WP:AN and WP:ANI, among other pages. There has been talk in the past of adding a {{historical}} tag to this page (see Wikipedia_talk:Account_suspensions#Does_anyone_actually_use_this.3F). Are there any objections to making this a historical page, and perhaps removing it from the reading list? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I still use it, and would like to continue doing so. El_C 20:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why not use AN/I, RFI, etc., which all get much more traffic? I mean, the last few edits on that page reach into February. Snoutwood (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Those pages are always hundreds of kb — whenever Misplaced Pages is slow (often) it can be unmanagable (RFI is NA). El_C 21:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Is there a way to filter Autoblocks by the blocking user?

I want to check which autoblocks have been generated on the basis of blocks I have made, but can't find a way to filter the list (search filters on the blocked user not the blocking admin). Can anybody help? Cheers TigerShark 22:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

DPSingh banned

Since his arbitration case, DPSingh (talk · contribs) has violated his ruling and been blocked, and then created a whole host of sockpuppets to violate his article ban, and just be generally disruptive and uncivil. See most recent socks at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_CheckUser#Rajput_case.

For continued violation of his article ban for edit warring and incivility using sockpuppets, DPSingh is banned from editing Misplaced Pages for one year.

Passed 6 to 0 at 23:03, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

This has not yet been officially implemented. Can someone implement this? --69.117.7.63 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done; DPSingh (talk · contribs) has been blocked for one year. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Newtons Fourth Law of KinoDynamics

Would anyone please close or relist this AfD? It has been open since the 7th of April, that is a bit more than the normal five days. By the looks of it was removed accidentally from the April 7 Log when another AfD was listed.--blue520 02:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Closed now. Titoxd 02:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Adil Abdul-Mahdi

I moved this page from Adel Abdul-Mahdi. The internet spells his name both ways. For instance, CBS spells it Adil however, FORBES spells it Adel . Futhermore, some spell the last name with a hypen, some without. Is the page where it is right now okay? I added the redirects that I thought were necessary Thanks! OSU80 03:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

There are a few double redirects left: see Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Adil_Abdul-Mahdi to find them. Otherwise, looks good to me. KillerChihuahua 03:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

What to do with this user?

User:The_Chosen_One has made no edits other than to set up a user page which is a copy of the Anakin Skywalker article. At minimum, the categories need to be modified so that it doesn't show up in the relevant article cats, but I'm not sure what should be done or why the user did this. JoshuaZ 04:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this a problem? If a Misplaced Pages user wants to copy parts of an article onto their user or talk pages--I don't see why this would be a problem. Almost Famous 05:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes maybe he just hasn't had a chance to write any articles yet. But maybe...just maybe..this user is actually Anakin Skywalker. You probably don't want to offend him just in case.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 09:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Harry Potter and the Willy On Wheels of Fire

I guess you know what to do. Srikeit 09:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Curps got it before you even posted here ;) Petros471 09:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious, is THE willy on wheels really active or are these just his imitators? Srikeit 09:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

(P.S Hey I just found out the above post (i.e the first one) was my 2500th edit! Well thats gonna look good on my milestones column "Reported Willy on Wheels sockpuppet to admin noticeboard" :-D )

With a "phenomenon" such as WoW has become, it is likely that there are many vandals who enjoy imitating this meme. The ones with the obvious usernames aren't, incidentally, the dangerous ones as they are blocked long before they get move privileges; they're just here to be funny and waste a microsecond of Curps's time. (ESkog) 16:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

And a microsecond is all it takes, too. Curps is amazing in his ability to block multiple vandals faster than a speeding bullet, leap tall buildings with a single bound, ... ok, I don't know if he's stronger than a locomotive. Still very impressive. KillerChihuahua 21:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I have to admit I once thought he was a bot. He isn't a bot, is he? :) --kingboyk 02:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There was an outcry on this very page a while back about his bot being given sysop priviledges (i.e., running under his own name). So he's part bot part human. You'll have to look at the edit/log summaries to tell. :-) Kimchi.sg | talk 07:17, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there something similar to the RC patrol tools for new users, one that lets vandal fighters redflag certain words or phrases in new usernames as they're created so it'll be called to their attention and they can investigate? --Aquillion 09:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Lupin's vandal fighter does that? New users do show up in RC after all. Kimchi.sg | talk 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Who is "Misplaced Pages" this time (Mark Taylor (politician) and WP in the news)?

According to Georgia Public Broadcasting this morning, "the Internet encyclopedia Misplaced Pages has traced a change to the biography of Lieutenant Governor candidate Mark Taylor inserting his son's drunken driving arrest to the office of his opponent, Cathy Cox. The insertion of the tragic event was uncivil." Ok, now Georgia Public Broadcasting has a highly political ownership that is very close to one political party (Mark Taylor's) (Republican). What I want to know is who is this 'Misplaced Pages' who traced the change? I saw no request on WP:AN or WP:AN/I. Did an admin do this? Did Jimbo? We're in the news, and we appear to be taking sides, as the news copy makes it sound like we condemn the change or characterize it as "incivil." If we're being hijacked, we need to make a disclaimer/explanation. Geogre 11:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: I and Gmaxwell have written on the article's talk page, but the mystery remains. Who is "Misplaced Pages" in this context? It sounds for all the world like a ... a fib, let's say... that's in that news report, and I suggest that someone from the Foundation clarify the thing with the news drones of Georgia, lest they make us a greater part of their political strife. Geogre 13:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Update: about 5 minutes ago on CNN's "The Situation Room", one of the blog reporters claimed this was confirmed by "Misplaced Pages founder Jimmy Wales". Can anyone confirm this, or is this just a silly blog reporter making a claim they don't think will ever be checked? (ESkog) 20:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

An Atlanta Journal-Constitution article states that Jimmy told the Associated Press that it had been traced. I assume checkuser was used. FCYTravis 21:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If that's true, it would have been nice if the wp:an had been warned that we were about to get dragged into it again. (And why, exactly, are we doing checkuser requests on articles like that? Doesn't that, if true, open the door to every single unhappy reader demanding to know the location of every single displeasing edit? Doesn't that chill contributors in general?) I'm sincerely hoping that it's not true and hope that folks bring it up on the mailing list and cross-post Jimbo's response here. Geogre 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I struck through my statement because I believe it's wrong. If an unregistered user inserted the information, only a whois request would be needed to determine basic information about the location of the IP address. FCYTravis 22:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It is also interesting to contemplate whether Misplaced Pages has any effective privacy policy left. Is there any circumstance left under which we will not release the identity of an editor to the press? If this person had used an ID rather than an IP, would we still ferret them out and announce their location? - Nunh-huh 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

If a member of a political campaign edits the encyclopedia with the intent to use its articles as political weaponry, then absolutely they should be ferreted out and exposed. FCYTravis 22:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that means: anytime anyone edits a political article in a way we don't like, we will investigate them to determine if they are a campaign worker carelessly working from their office. I'm not so sure that's desirable. - Nunh-huh 23:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

We are the 💕 anyone can edit, not the 💕 anyone can edit without fear of any reprecussions for actions they may commit which tend to damage the encyclopedia. FCYTravis 23:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That would be a good argument for requiring users to register, edit under their actual names, and display their e-mail addresses prominently. I'm think inflicting real world invasions of privacy any time someone complains would be rather a bad policy. - Nunh-huh 00:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Please! I'm the original worry wart when it comes to political edits and Misplaced Pages as a campaign tool, but this case is quite different. The editor resolved to an IP at her office (her being Cathy Cox), and the edits were embarrassing but true information. I'm not for either politician, as I haven't made up my mind about whom I support in the race, but, as much as I fear (and as often as I sang songs of woe about the coming use of Misplaced Pages in politics), it's one thing to say "We will revert any political usage of Misplaced Pages and protect pages that are being used for campaigning" or "We will put disclaimers on pages indicating that our open editorial policy renders them unstable" and quite another to say, "We will tell anyone who asks how to use WHOIS." I don't object to Mark Taylor's office running WHOIS or reading the History tab. I object to "Misplaced Pages confirms that the edits came from Cathy Cox's office." It turns out that such was not the case, quite. It appears that Jimbo was asked to confirm that a given change was the insertion and that WHOIS did give a particular ownership. I guess I would have preferred his saying, "That appears to be the case" or "You have read the history correctly" and overtly tried not to give the newspapers grounds for saying "Misplaced Pages says," and, of course, the Georgia Public Radio newswriters made things much worse. It's a game of telephone by the time it gets to their hacks, but I do wish we weren't confirming or appearing to assent to searching out the origins of non-libelous edits. Geogre 02:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Names of languages in "Other languages"

I asked this at WP:VPT over an hour and a half ago and haven't gotten answer, so I'll try here. I'm an admin and can alter MediaWiki pages. How do I correct the name of a language displayed in the "Other languages" box? MediaWiki:Otherlanguages isn't it. Angr (talk • contribs) 13:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You cannot. Live MediaWiki has to be changed by develepers. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocking numerical user names

Is there any clear policy concerning blocking numerical user names? User:160490 is blocked, User:159753 is not, User:30021190 is blocked, User:16836054 is not. -- Vít Zvánovec 15:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages:Username#Inappropriate usernames just says, "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers", but not specifically a number sequence (especially if the number might be significant to a group of people). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but what is the difference between 160490 and 159753; 30021190 and 16836054? -- Vít Zvánovec 19:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The only differences I noted was that 159753 is a long time user (possibly before the number restriction went in) and 16836054 may just have been overlooked when they registered. --Syrthiss 19:13, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Then this policy lacks any clarity. I will propose its change in liberal way. Together with kingboyk I don't have any problem with any of the user names I have mentioned. -- Vít Zvánovec 07:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

The point of that clause is to prevent confusing usernames. Usernames of larger numbers are hard to recognize and remember, so, for future cases, usernames like the cited examples should probably be blocked. ~MDD4696 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Rather ironic that these words should be spoken by Mdd4696 and Zzyzx11 isn't it?! Both look like "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" to me. That said, I personally don't have a problem with any of the user names mentioned. --kingboyk 02:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, my user name is not random. It is named after the Zzyzx page :-) Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Blimey. Live and learn. What about the number 11? Are there 10 more Zzyzx's who registered ahead of you? :) --kingboyk 03:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it was the rationale. But in practice, where is the difference between 30021190 and 16836054? -- Vít Zvánovec 09:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Truthfully, 30021190 doesn't look so random to me... it's a fairly easy-to-remember number with a lot of repeated digits, and likely had some meaning to its user. I think username blocking for randomness should be limited to situations where there is strong reason to believe that a username is genuinely random; at the very least, admins should ask before blocking on grounds of randomness, to determine whether the name in question is genuinely random, or if it just refers to something they don't know about. As noted above, Zzyzx11 could easily have been blocked on joining by a careless admin who didn't bother to ask about the name. --Aquillion 09:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically they don't even need to ask (although it's always nice of course) - "Random or apparently random sequences of letters and numbers" --kingboyk 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Actaully, I started editing on Misplaced Pages long before that policy clause was put in place. As I recall, it was instituted because there was a vandal bot that was randomly creating usernames with random characters. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

That sounds rather complicated. Why all the huge bureaucracy with it? Why not be liberal? Is 16836054 offending somene? Let's discuss it on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)#Proposal to repeal last point of No inflammatory usernames in WP:U. -- Vít Zvánovec 10:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be changed to only apply if there is a suspicion that the account was created by a bot (unlikely now, don't they use captchas) or is to be used for disruption? --kingboyk 05:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice. Should I alter my proposal? -- Vít Zvánovec 08:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

User:John Reid

It seems that a user has taken exception to something I've said or done; his complaints are rather incoherent so I can't say more. He has expressed himself a number of times on my user page; an admin thoughtfully placed it under semi-protection. Now this annoyed user, via a succession of socks, has turned to my talk. A number of admins have taken time out from their busy rounds to stem the tide. I apologize for any inconvenience.

I'd like to suggest that so long as this user confines himself to experimentation on my user page he is not a danger to the community. I'm sure we would all rather see him better directed, perhaps away from the project entirely; but it may be most efficient to permit him to enjoy himself on one page in this project that is of little or no concern to anybody. I don't consider my user page to be any sort of showplace; it's merely a collection of useful links. History provides me with usable versions on demand; this user's expressions are a minor inconvenience even to me. Meanwhile he expends his energies harmlessly.

I would appreciate if admins who notice such play be sure to add each new sock to the appropriate category. However, I'd prefer my user page not be protected and, for that matter, that no admin take time to revert changes to it. I'm sure I appreciate the attention but it's really not needed. Thank you. John Reid 17:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Prodego 03:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. John Reid 19:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Office of International Treasury Control

The edit warring on this article was getting out of hand yesterday. I was informed on my talk page about this by an anon ip editor. On reviewing the AfD the article had gone through (resulting in no consensus) the discussion leant towards it being moved to OITC fraud, which I did last night. The edit warring continued for a while on both pages, eventually ending with 3rr by both parties for which I blocked both editors for 11 hours. Both appeared to accept this positively but edits to the article today (and absence of same to talk page) show no attempts in talking it out.

The anon claims it is all a big hoax, the named editor(s) claim it is genuine and that the wiki is being used for defamatory purposes. There has already been some mention of liturgation by the named users. I have moved the talk that was posted on my talk page to the article's talk page. I would like (a) more experienced admin(s) who knows their way round these points better than I to take a look at both the article and the talk page, and give me some idea what needs doing from here. Thanks. --Alf 18:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Further talk from both editors my page today;

OITC Fraud

Alf, I am wondering what to do about the persistent vandalism and menaces directed agaist the above mentioned article and against the authors of the original article thereby filed. I would not initiate another persistent copy and paste, but I would be thankful if this issue can be referred to someone at Wiki.

I and some friends have worked hard in the article, furnishing as many sources as possible and in general giving hard and verifiable facts. The people from the OITC only fill up the same recycled paragraphs they have used before in their dealings. Can something be done? Thanks in advance for your reply.

I just wanted to note that I removed a subthread of this here since it contained blatant legal threats, baseless legal threats but still legal threats. Pegasus1138 ---- 15:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

AfD Closure

Would appreciate it if an esteemed sysop closed Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/EarthCore (Podcast novel). I have withdrawn my nomination, and the only other two votes are "delete per nom". Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD. Crazy Russian intends to move & tidy article, in collaboration with another editor. _└/_talk 19:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Fucking vandals

No, seriously, fuck is vandalised a lot (who'd have thought?). Should we semiprot, do you think? Just zis Guy you know? 22:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. ~MDD4696 22:57, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say no. its 3-4 vandal edits a day. Frankly, that's not much. --Woohookitty 06:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

And it's probably on around 300 watchlists... Sasquatch t|c 05:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Toolbox

Can the Welcome template be modified to include a copy of the toolbox and wiki-links, so that new Wikipedians will not burden you guys with questions, such as this: "Where do I go to report a vandal ?' or, "The website went down, why did this happen ?" ? I have all of the wiki-links and tools that may prove useful to new Wikipedians. Martial Law 03:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What I'm asking is this: Can a copy of the Wiki-links and toolbox found on my userpage be placed in the "Welcome" template, so that future new arrivals will know where to go. Martial Law 03:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

The intent is to lighten the load on WP:AN Martial Law 04:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC) :)

What's this got to do with WP:AN? --pgk 07:05, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to propose any changes to the template, you should do so at Template talk:Welcome. --bainer (talk) 07:24, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Psycho marky

You may want to take a look at his user page. The last time I looked, he had put a user box there that read "This user has probably banged your wife/girlfriend or Ex". I'm not sure if that is acceptable content for a user page. - Conrad Devonshire 03:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

It is somewhat distasteful, but seeing as it's not horribly offensive, I've just politely asked him if he would remove two of them. ~MDD4696 05:21, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd be separately concerned that the user has done nothing but edit their userpage in the 6 days they've been here. JoshuaZ 05:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

New Template created regarding "Original Research"

Greetings Misplaced Pages Administrators, I'm posting this announcement here with hope that those who tend to be the most experienced and involved with Misplaced Pages might make a suggestion or two on how a template I've created might be improved.

I've always liked how with Template:Facts {{facts}} () concerned editors are able to pinpoint to fellow editors (particularly those newly editing on a given article) a specific spot of contention in a given article. Following this same model I created Template:Or {{or}} (). For those who might have the time to do so, please review the template and make a suggestion or two on its talk page or just be bold and edit to improve it. Thanks! Netscott 08:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Scary Movie 5

This has been recreated after an AFD, with the edit comment "I'm going to keep doing this forever". I wouldn't like to speedy this myself, as I was involved in the heated AFD discussion, and in fact I'd suggest a merge-redirect is a better option than deletion (see also Hulk 2 and Terminator 4). — sjorford (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever is done, the page should be protected to prevent continued crap. JoshuaZ 19:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with JoshuaZ. -- Kjkolb 10:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism

Where are you guys??! - Glen _C (Stollery) 15:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Backlog now cleared (multi admin effort). Petros471 15:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Guy Bannister

IP's 65.202.223.13, 66.28.239.163 (twice) and 24.90.8.50 have been vandalising the Life of Agony article by inserting random references to "Guy Bannister". Does Guy have the hots for this band in particular or has he popped up anywhere else? Deizio 15:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Ignoring serious vandalism?

I just listed 207.193.136.7 on the Administrator intervention against vandalism list for, after 10 previous warnings, changing the copyright tag of my picture to Salvador A. Lopez. In my eyes, attributing a copyrighted image to a false author is a serious offence, certainly as the history of this user shows that it's not an accident. However, administrator Prodego removed my alert without taking action, stating rm 207.193.136.7, old vandal, may not be vandalism. Could someone please explain this? Nick Mks 18:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

If a vandal is operating infrequently enough to be easily reverted, then a block isn't necessary. If you really want an answer I suggest that you contact Prodego directly. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. However, I see that Syrthiss has already taken the necessary steps. And for the record, I don't blame Prodego for anything, I just was wondering what was going on. Nick Mks 19:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not much for blocking people, in this case since the vandalism was pretty old, and there was none after it, a block seemed unnecessary, after all blocks are "preventative rather than punitive." (my favorite quote ;-) ) Prodego 19:29, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Requesting verification of a new PD tag

Having had many occasions over the past several months to use images taken and published in Cuba during the 1960's, and having searched in vain for a specific PD tag to cover these cases, I decided today to create one, i.e. Template:PD-Cuba. However, since I am not a copyright attorney or specialist in such matters, I would like to have Template:PD-Cuba reviewed by someone who is to make sure that my understanding that, because Cuba did not sign the Berne Convention until 20 February 1997, images taken and published in Cuba before that date are in the public domain. Not knowing where else to place this request, I decided to post it here ... Polaris999 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags Jkelly 18:51, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!! Polaris999 18:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/KJV

This arbitration case is now claused. SimonP is cautioned to respond appropriately to the expressed community consensus.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 23:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Stale AfD: SNS News

The AfD for this article is stale. I bring it to your attention in case you're interested in closing it. -- cmh 01:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a nonsense article worthy of speedy to me. And also, someone moved the page while it was on AfD. --Ragib 01:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. Ral315 (talk) 03:14, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Stale DYKs

Any admins interested in updating this. There is a bit of a backlog building up. Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

History Analysis

For those interested, I have developed a quick history page analysis script. You can click here to get it or ask me for info about the history analysis JS script. This will also allow for me to easily create a "my edit summary" usage tab, for those of you with editcountitis. Thanks! Voice-of-All 04:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

A functions was previously not copied over. Should be fixed now.Voice-of-All 06:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock User:GoldToeMarionette

It appears that the blocking Admin, User:Hall_Monitor, has left Misplaced Pages, since they have not edited in a month. Emails to this Admin went unreturned. Please Unblock User:GoldToeMarionette. The basis for blocking the account is that the account is a sockpuppet. Per WP:SOCK simply being a sockpuppet is not a violation of Misplaced Pages Policy. It is simply uncool. Please unblock the account because there was no policy violation and users should not be blocked for being uncool. Thank you for your time. Zappada 05:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:RFAr (against User:PoolGuy) on why this should not be granted. --Nlu (talk) 08:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

See also User:GoldToeMarionette itself. Also, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser/Archive/March 2006. --Nlu (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, anyone who is familiar with the situation is invited to comment on the RfAr. --Nlu (talk) 08:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

3RR violations - can they be undone?

I have a question. Assuming I revert four times on an article within twenty four hours and then I realize I have violated the 3RR and undo my last revert (by reverting myself), will I get blocked? The policy doesn't specify this. Telex 10:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't block you, personally, and if I had blocked you without knowing of the self-revert, and you told me about it, I would unblock. I would say that it's not in the policy because it's a very rare occurrence, and when it does happen admins should be expected to use their common sense. Technically a 3RR block would still be valid, though I would guess that most admins would show leniency - but not showing leniency would not be a just cause to start filing 'admin abuse' RFCs. If that happened, it would be best to leave an edit summary clearly explaining what you're doing. --Sam Blanning 11:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't revert war. The second revert is an indication that somethign is wrong; take it to Talk sooner rather than later. Just zis Guy you know? 11:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Concur, WP:3RR shouldn't be seen as a permission to revert 3 times in 24 hours, it means don't edit war. --pgk 20:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Massive deletions, please help

Dear Admins, I have encountered a series of massive deletions by one editor called User:Tlf-t4pa. He is deleting whole sections (or the entire article) on pages related to Priory of Sion, Knight Templars, Pierre Plantard, all without any explanation either in edit summaries or talk pages. Only one edit out of many seemed to be justifiable. He even deleted chunks from talk pages. Can anyone please step in and stop this? Cheers, Str1977 13:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Final warning issued. --Sam Blanning 14:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, he's stopped for now. I've been watching him since I dropped the {{bv}} on him originally, and was going to indef block if he didn't start listening to reason. --Syrthiss 14:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Long-term abuse of Viv Nicholson

In the past week alone, there have been around 15 reversions of anon vandalism (originating all over the place) with no significant content additions (see week-long diff) on Viv Nicholson. Would it be improper to have it semi-protected for now? Are there policies that dictate how long? Alternatively, what would be the proper course of action? Thanks, dewet|✉ 18:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of personal information that's been sitting around for a while

A user has asked me if he can have some personal information deleted from a talk page archive, which he regrets leaving. The trouble is that he made the edits in question months ago and never removed it, and the archive contains many more edits on top of it, all containing the personal information. So far as I can see the only way to delete the personal information altogether is to edit the page to remove it, then delete all the revisions leading up to it. Would that be acceptable? It's a talk page archive rather than an article, so would the signatures be sufficient to avoid breaking the GFDL? --Sam Blanning 18:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Contacting schools Re:School IP vandalism

Schools seem to produce a rather large amount of vandalism- rather than just issuing numerous short blocks I was wondering if there was a better way? I am willing to try long term blocks in conjunction with school contact for the most persistent cases (I think Hall Monitor used this tactic before disappearing?), but I want to hear about any previous experience from more experienced admins first. Has anyone ever tried to contact schools regarding vandalism from their computers? If so what response did you get? Any other general advice on dealing with school vandalism other than the usual revert-warn-block routine? Petros471 19:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This has come up on the noticeboard before, and as I remember, contacting schools gets extremely good responses. I can't think of any specific cases though, sadly. I'll go peruse the archives and see if I can find something on it. Snoutwood (talk) 19:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the one Essjay's talking about below. I know there's more, and I've only heard of good results coming from contacting ISPs/schools/etc. I remember someone, I think it was Lucky, saying that AOL of all people is very responsive. Snoutwood (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I had success contacting the Miami-Dade County Schools via phone; User:Psy guy has also noted success contacting schools. I considered starting a project to investigate and contact schools to report abuse, but it would require a number of people being involved, and I never saw enough support to feel comfortable setting up a system. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 19:48, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush
Viewing article modification statistics (from the 250 edits shown on this page):
20% quick reverts (any) (50 edit(s))
14.4% probable reverts of vandalism (36 edit(s))
User statistics for these edits:
0% IP/anon edits (0 edit(s))
25.6% likely new user edits (64 edit(s))
58.4% likely older user edits (non-admin/bot) (146 edit(s))
14% administrator edits (35 edit(s))
2% bot edits (5 edit(s))
Time range:
21 approximate day(s) of edits on this page
Most recent edit on: 17hr (UTC) -- 29, April, 2006
Oldest edit on: 19hr (UTC) -- 8, April, 2006
Averages:
63.2% edit summary usage
11.955 edit(s) per day (since last active)
2.391 revert(s) per day (since last active)
1 : 0.25 regular edit to revert ratio (RE:RV)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards