Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:30, 30 July 2013

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013

This week's article for improvement is
Medical prescription
The prescription symbol, ℞, as printed on the blister pack of a prescription drug
Please be bold and help improve it!

posted by Northamerica1000 12:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Please feel free to join the project! Also, I've added an opt-in section for those interested in receiving TAFI notifications on the project's main page, located here. Those that don't opt-in won't receive this message again. Also, a revised notification template has been created, located at Template:TAFI weekly selections notice. Northamerica1000 09:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

An Award

• :) Thanks doc. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandstein/Scientology

Dennis, in light of your statement and clarification there I was wondering how you feel about non-admins giving DS notices to individuals? Since that is at least currently allowed, would you have felt so strongly about what what happened here if a non-sysop had given those notices? (Granted, Sandstein went beyond what a non-sysop could do by actually issuing a sanction, but let's say that what happened had ended with this edit with a non-sysop giving the notice rather than Sandstein.) The reason I ask is that I've seriously considered giving notices in some cases that I've encountered doing DR, though I've never actually done it. You and I usually see eye to eye on matters like this and I was a little surprised seeing you take such a strong position about it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• What I felt strong about was throwing the sanctions around loosely. I wasn't aware that non-admin could give those, to be honest, since non-admin lack the ability to back up the threat with action. Like most functions, it doesn't bother me when sufficiently experienced non-admin do administrative duties. Admin aren't magically "right" about those things, although there is generally a higher degree of accountability with admin, via WP:adminacct and potential to lose the bit keeping them in check. I would trust your judgement over many admins, to be frank. For me, the key is to only use the arb sanction warning when there is clear and obvious need and the ability to explain why a traditional warning would be insufficient. In general, I think the admin corp (as a whole) is too quick to block, too quick to give strong warnings, and too slow to actually try talking with editors. Talking at them is easier, but less effective and can easily come across as being brutish. We need to be quick to block trolls/socks/vandals, but not so quick to threaten good faith editors who may just be caught up with frustration. This is the same reason I'm more inclined to protect an article than block two warriors even at 6RR. I think we have to take the time to explain first, outside of a template. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Your views make sense to me, Dennis. There is also an anomaly with non-admin posting of at least some of the DS templates because the template wording specifically states that the poster is an admin, although I guess that could be amended by the non-admin. See {{Uw-sanctions}}. - Sitush (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad I asked, Dennis, because I have viewed the notice as nothing more than that: a heads-up notice, not a warning, which can be given to anyone editing in a DS area. I probably wouldn't give it to anyone who wasn't doing something which is at least questionable but prior to this discussion neither would I have necessarily waited to use it as a last resort. I've said in that discussion that I'd rather see it as a pure notice, but I didn't say why. Sometimes in doing DR it's useful to shock the disputants into calming down so that DR can proceed relatively smoothly and that's especially true in DS areas. I've considered using the DS notice as a bomb for that purpose, but have never actually had to go that far. Perhaps, now, that was for the best. (And, as a side note, I was asked about putting on the asbestos britches again, but declined for the nonce at least. If my recent article gets a GA then maybe I'll give it a little more consideration. I was flattered by the request, however.) Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush: There's a |admin=no parameter for that template provided for that purpose. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, good spot, TransporterMan. I've not long since got out of bed and I've already learned something today ;) - Sitush (talk) 06:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you here. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Would it really hurt that much to read the formal written up sanctions, instead of the edit summary? FYI to you too. ★★King•Retrolord★★ 18:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• Think I will steer clear of that. I'm short on time (explained above) and there doesn't appear to be a shortage of participants. The terms of the topic ban and other issues surrounding my actions are pretty clear and don't really require me explaining them further. It is better that uninvolved admins take charge, as they have. I appreciate the notification, however. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • No problem. I think things have been resolved, at least for the moment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:56, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing articles

There's a big kerfuffle brewing about the quality of reviewing at AfC. I tried to do something about the quality of NPP a couple of years ago, and I'm also keeping a watchful eye over the work of Rollbackers. Then I just happened to notice something by coincidence at User talk:Eric Corbett#C.A. Peñarol that awoke my interest. I stopped nominating articles for GA a year or so ago as soon as I realised that some reviewers just do not have enough experience, while even the English of some of them is a very low standard (non native speakers). Add to that the fact that among younger users there are clear cases of 'GA mine, and I'll GA yours'. As always, 'maintenance' areas are a fatal attraction for new and/or younger users, and I find the suggestion made by Eric is excellent. Perhaps it would be interesting to raise an RfC on such an idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've been trying to learn that systems a bit and expected tit for tat approvals would be easy to do. I have two GAs and I barely consider myself qualified, so I would agree that is a good idea for a minimum standard, and would support a change but don't have time to draft the RFC. As I explain above, the FDA has decided to change some regulations that dramatically change our industry and we are scrambling to figure this out and trying to save some employee jobs in the process, so I'm going to be very scarce for a few weeks. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Since I'm usually the one who deals with crummy GAN reviews out at the roads projects (see my userpage) I'd support such a move. --Rschen7754 12:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My first GA was a very long article and although I was the major contributor, much of getting it up to pre-GA standard was teamwork. The reviewer was very strict and worked in an extremely professional manner by a well established editor. Another GAN - of an article of which I was the sole contributor - was passed after a few minor tweaks, by an editor (no longer active) who clearly lacked the required experience. It dented my illusion of the quality of GA reviews. Since I've never done any GA reviews myself (to lazy - too busy on other stuff, whatever) I don't think I should be the one to launch such an RfC, but I would be happy to co-craft it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If Eric becomes active again, he would be someone to have in the loop as he knows the system and the flaws better than most. It will be while before I will have the time, but I would agree that the credibility of the GA system is at stake thus it is worth the while to look at reforms. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Wizardman might be a good person to have on board too. --Rschen7754 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I've done a lot of work at AfC, a bit at GAN, not so much at NPP ... The principal problem with all three is people tend to rush through things and check noddy stuff like formatting, where factual accuracy and verifibility takes a back seat. Some people just need to remember it's not a race. AfC in particular has had real problems, much of which have been documented at ANI. Perhaps we could reuse the "reviewer" bit for GAN as well? Ritchie333 20:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I've personally avoided GAN, for much the same reasons at Ritchie, and I agree with his suggestion. I joined WP in large part hoping to raise the standards, and I'd be much more willing to participate in a rational project. But I'm not sure the standards needed are the same. In particular, should a GA reviewer have written a GA themselves? I never have. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've been a bit sheltered at GA I suppose, as Eric has been a part of each one I've been involved in, and he is a demanding task master, forcing me to do my homework before the GA. TBradley reviewed one and seemed perfectly qualified as well. Honestly, it would have been a lesser experience for me if they were just passing junk as GA, but my goal was the experience, not the pip. I do think a proper and slightly strict GA system would benefit the editors as much as the encyclopedia. More importantly, it would benefit the reader, who is the most important Wikipedian of them all. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

• In the media: Misplaced Pages flamewars

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Religion

• Discussion report: Partially disambiguated page names, page protection policy, and more

• News and notes: Wikivoyage turns ten, but where to now?; Misplaced Pages Zero expands into India

• Traffic report: Gleeless

• Featured content: Engineering and the arts

• Arbitration report: Infoboxes case opens

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Invercargill Airport

I added 2 references to the article. How many more do you think it will need until it's time for an editor to take down the maintenance tag?--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 07:35, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I removed it. Looks to have plenty of sources for the basics. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 07:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
• Thanks.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 08:38, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

To help you through the harsh American summer months. Anderson I'm Willing To Help 08:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

Shold this Be used in either ZM (New Zealand) or St Matthew's, Auckland?--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 20:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Not sure. Ask on the talk pages. Reading quickly, that is an interesting article and a heated topic, thus the talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Can I change my username and retain the same account

I am just getting tired of the moniker and it seems it is so popular even editors who don't have that actual user name want to use it. Can I just use my real name and get my username changed to that without starting a new account and losing my history?--Amadscientist (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked and the name is available (my real name that is).--Amadscientist (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Changing username has some Bureaucrats willing to help. As long as the name is available via SUL and you have less than 50k edits, changing user names is easy to do. I used to be User:Pharmboy before 2008, then I recaptured that old name to use as an alternate after the change, and to prevent impersonation. They will tell you that using your real name has some real world consequences, and will want to make sure you understand that. I don't regret using my real name, and think it makes me more accountable and slightly more careful in what I say and how I say it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 02:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't noticed it making me any more careful about what I say or how I say it, but welcome to the light side Amadscientist. Eric Corbett 03:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It did take a while for the full effect, and I didn't have others baiting me, so maybe that is the difference. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 03:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I think I'd probably be a little more like Eric in this manner. ;-)--Amadscientist (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a hard act to follow. Eric Corbett 03:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is very true......but I have a big mouth.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

block

Hi, I'm an OTRS volunteer. <redacted> Thought you might be interested to know that this account is operated by a PR firm, according to an OTRS ticket that came my way, asking for an explanation why a particular article was deleted. That might explain why those socks are so prolific. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Appreciate the note. I've known about that PR firm for about a year now, I just don't provide details onwiki. Arbcom is also aware of the situation. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Jupiter

Is This information i just recently added useful? Let me know what you think.--Anderson I'm Willing To Help 23:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Already replied in depth to the same request on my talk page. Anderson, there is no need to poll admins for every edit you make. if you are in doubt about one of contribs, discuss it on the article talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

archiving of Morning277 SPI

I had a comment to add to the 23 July report, but I see you've closed and archived that report. My comment:

Point Inside, CloudVelocity, Matthew Karatz and CoupFlip have been deleted under G5, but Ttc1964 (talk · contribs) was not blocked.

I notified Enigma15071987 about this report. Nonetheless, he/she is preparing to restore David Kiger.

—rybec 14:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• He was blocked, not sure why you don't see the block. No need to notify anyone about any report. Besides, I already blocked Enigma. I probably did a lot of stuff you haven't seen yet, I'm pretty fast with the buttons and had a few hours to clean up, archive and block this morning. If you expect to work with blocked editors/spi a bunch, consider adding this to your common.js file:

importScript('User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js');

It will instantly show you who is blocked and who isn't just by looking at their linked names. Exceedingly cool script.

Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for blocking Ttc1964 and Enigma15071987, and for the tip about the script, and for kicking so much ass. I started drafting my comment before you did that; didn't post it because I noticed Worldwide Express is related. —rybec 14:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If I had to bet my lunch money for a week, I would bet they are a sock, but they have so many other edits and the account is so old, I have to be cautious. I will try to do a full analysis of that account later today if time allows. They don't have tools to do this, it is a purely manual affair based solely on experience, so it takes some time with an account this active. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look at the contributions of the editors of the current incarnation of Worldwide Express, but except for the IP editors I didn't see anything that would raise a reasonable suspicion. I'm assuming that as an administrator you are able to look at the history of the deleted original article. —rybec 16:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is the edits of Anonymity32 that are most at play, and which have several characteristics that are consistent with the sock master. Again, there are many other edits, which only a handful of other socks have, and CU is all but completely useless for any Morning277 sock, so it takes some serious comparison. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 16:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment of 16:12 wasn't well-thought-out. I took another look and saw the Keller-Williams article and the one about the plastic surgeon. There are a bunch of articles related to Keller-Williams: Jay Papasan, KellerINK, Gary W. Keller, Dave Jenks and Keller Williams Realty. —rybec 16:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've looked pretty closely now, and there is no question that this is a paid editor, however, paid editing isn't against policy. What I don't see is a definitive link to Morning277. There may be some other links that are worth exploring, but so far it looks pretty clean. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you've closed my report already. Did you look at the part about the (RR) notation and the Sublimeharmony diff? It seems like strong evidence to me; I can find more instances in Sublimeharmony's sandbox if that would make a difference. —rybec 18:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I"ve reopened. That alone isn't strong enough to make the connection, but I will look yet more. I can't expand on why I think they aren't, but will look yet again once I get more time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for reconsidering! I revised my report so it shows the whole draft . There are a more of those notations in the draft than in that one diff. It is a little bit different from the usage in Anonymity32's draft because the notations are in the body rather than in the References section. —rybec 18:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice Interactive Group

The article was contributed by Anonymity32 but has been deleted. I'm curious to look at it for possible connections to Morning277. Would you be willing to temporarily undelete it? Should I be asking Postdlf instead? —rybec 20:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• 33 edits total, other than him, all are pretty known people except a few IPs, which are probably blocked editors but IPs aren't the concern here. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you for looking at it. —rybec 21:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

Did you know ... that since you expressed an opinion on the GA/DYK proposal last year, we invite you to contribute to a formal Request for Comment on the matter? Please see the proposal on its subpage here, or on the main DYK talk page. To add the discussion to your watchlist, click this link. Regards, Gilderien Chat|What I've done22:58, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, would you like to elaborate your rationale in the General Discussion section?--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 09:37, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

m:User:Rschen7754/Reports/Morning277

Hi! Would you mind commenting on the latest developments at the above page? Thanks! --Rschen7754 00:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• A little confused and a bit short of time tonight, I assume you are looking at global blocks and such? All those CU links are for meta, not enwp, so they have to be searched manually unless a report it done. You mentioned CU, but CU is not helpful for the majority of these, it is a purely manual affair. Are all the ones not marked "done" unblocked here at enwp and require behavioral comparison? If so, I can see about it tomorrow, but that will take a while to complete if all of those haven't been researched. I lost count of how many I've blocked, approaching 300 though... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm looking at the 2 new accounts that were found that may be related, Alexia Nelson and Carly Jepsen... trying to figure out if they're part of the same family. This is mostly to clean up the damage at other wikis, though not everyone handles paid editing the same way.
  • The ones not marked done are unblocked on some other wiki, but are blocked on enwp... sorry, I should have made that more clear. --Rschen7754 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • At first glance, I can see why you would be concerned. I will do a closer check tomorrow and file paperwork if necessary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Omdo again

Sorry - I know you're busy, and I can take it elsewhere if you prefer, but per , unfortunately he's editing just as previously, with no attention to the matters pointed out on his talk page. I left him this message today. There isn't really anything else I can do but seek assistance at this point. Begoon  06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I'm buried in FDA paperwork today and tomorrow doesn't look any better. This might best be handled with a short report with diffs filed at ANI as a much longer block is a real possibility. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)