Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:48, 10 November 2008

Homepage Talk DYK Sandbox Email Me! Guestbook Article Traffic WP Policies Vandalism Levels

I will reply to all messages new on this page, so be sure to add it to your watchlist if you post here. I may also send you a {{talkback}} template, but that's not guaranteed. Also remember to post your messages at the bottom of the talk page . . .Thanks, Flewis

Number of times this page has been vandalized: Only 59 times so far. . .

15 January 2025
From the editors: Looking back, looking forward Traffic report: The most viewed articles of 2024 In the media: Will you be targeted? Technology report: New Calculator template brings interactivity at last Essay: Meet the Canadian who holds the longest editing streak on Misplaced Pages Opinion: Reflections one score hence News and notes: It's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life for me... and I'm feeling free Serendipity: What we've left behind, and where we want to go next Op-ed: Elon Musk and the right on Misplaced Pages In focus: Twenty years of The Signpost: What did it take? Arbitration report: Analyzing commonalities of some contentious topics Humour: How to make friends on Misplaced Pages
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Change water to oil

You are not Chinese. You don't know how important this event is. If this article should be deleted, why does Dihydrogen monoxide hoax exist? Dihydrogen monoxide hoax is only a joke! In developed countries, incidents such as "Change water to oil" is nothing at all because people have better science knowlege. However, in China of 1980s, few people have enough knowledge about conservation of elements. Don't always think things in your way. Alonso McLaren (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can provide some reliable sources, the article may be deleted because of verifiability and original research concerns. This article also shows the subject in a negative light, which potentially violates WP:BLP - if that is the case, then the article may be placed for speedy deletion as a BLP violation. Notability here is also a big issue, with a Google search yielding no results whatsoever. --Flewis 10:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What about the new version? It is impossible to find it on Google indeed. But you can search "水变油" in http://www.baidu.com http://www.baidu.com/s?wd=%CB%AE%B1%E4%D3%CD Alonso McLaren (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC) You put so much "citation needed". How can I explain? This is a translation from Chinese wikipedia.Alonso McLaren (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC) Don't proclaim yourself as a policeman of Misplaced Pages just like the USA does in the world.Alonso McLaren (talk) 11:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The English Misplaced Pages differs from Chinese Misplaced Pages in the sense that here, all claims/assertions require a source for verification (See WP:CITE for more info on this matter). The problem with this article, is that it simply contains too many unverified claims. I found a couple of sources in Chinese, but those alone may not be enough to keep the article.--Flewis 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You had better send this article to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 8 ‎and let others to discuss, instead of judging by yourself.Alonso McLaren (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC).

Hey there Flewis, I just stumbled across the article Change water to oil. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I think anyone can remove Prod tags from articles, even if they created them... It's only speedy tags that article creators shouldn't remove. Perhaps you should consider nominating the article for deletion? Cheers Nouse4aname (talk) 11:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I've placed the article up for AFD here if you're interested. . .--Flewis 11:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. For what it's worth, I agree with your reasoning, and have expressed my opinion at the AfD. It's a shame that we can't find any sources, as it seems like an interesting topic, I kind of hope some can be found! Have a good day! Nouse4aname (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkback

Follow-up to old ANI thread

My final (rather long) post here (now archived) didn't get any response there, so as I said there I am following up on people's talk pages to try and clarify what will happen in future cases, and then I'm moving on. Are you happy to agree that snowball deletes are not needed for suspected hoax articles, and that they should be allowed to run the full length of time at an AfD debate? Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that AFD's should be allowed to run for at least 24 hours in such cases. Indeed, I proposed re-opening the debate, however in this particular case, the community (via ANI) raised no objections in deleting the article, so it seemed to be an 'obvious' (if I may say so) candidate for deletion. I do agree that the AFD was handled rather hastily, however no-one seems to have any regrets over the deletion and as yet, no-one has found sources contradicting the allegations - a sure sign that the article was, in fact a hoax. --Flewis 12:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm not disputing that people think the article is a hoax. My point about AfD and speedy deletions stands regardless of whether it was a hoax or not. The point is that AfD has a wider range of article editors reading it than ANI. You (I think) asked for Civil War experts and people who would know about 19th century African-American lawyers, but you were asking that question in the wrong venue. ANI regulars are unlikely to know that. There was also no link from the AfD to the longer ANI debate. The other point is that someone had asked at the MILHIST US Civil War taskforce, but only one person replied there, and they said the article has been deleted, so the process fell down there as well. Would you agree that it looks bad when someone asks at a WikiProject for opinions on something, and then the article gets deleted before anyone at that project has a chance to offer an opinion? My point is, and always has been, that if this had turned out to be a genuine article, we might have missed something that others would have spotted. Hence the need for a full debate. I'm not even sure that 24 hours is enough, though I will concede that a snowball delete after less than five days might be OK. But only if the sources have been thoroughly debunked. There is a different between a snowball delete based on the initial (flawed) comment by the nominator, and a snowball delete after several different sources have been checked. There are some people that think even if something isn't a hoax, that it is OK to delete and then undelete if someone later spots something, but there is no reason to bypass the checks and balances - there are reasons why those checks and balances are there: the years of experience some people (not me) have had in deletion debates. Carcharoth (talk) 19:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously, I would be happy to re-open the debate on this article to assuage any any doubts (I didn't post to ANI mindlessly!). Otherwise, in general AFD should generally run the entire length, unless the article warrants a speedy deletion. In this situation the length of the AFD was debatable, but as a couple of editors mentioned on ANI - there is no point arguing over it any longer unless you're prepared to re-open the AFD discussion. In my opinion the hoax creator acted with premeditation - continued hyperbole and time-wasting following the deletion of his/her article is exactly what they had in mind. . .--Flewis 23:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And as I said, one day someone will insert a not-really-a-hoax, and celebrate when that gets deleted early because it was dressed up to look like a hoax when it wasn't. That is why hoax debates should be allowed to run the full length of time and treated dispassionately - when done well, there is no way initially to tell if something is a hoax or not, and I'd prefer to err on the side of caution, rather than delete something too early. If it is a hoax, it will still end up deleted. If it is not, then the full five days gives people a chance to work out what is going on. I made all these points at the ANI thread, so quite why I'm repeating them here, I don't know. Did you read what I said at the ANI thread? I'm sure you did, so no need to answer that. But I hope the points I am making are getting acrosss. Trust AfD to get the right result after five days. There is no need to pre-empt that process in the case of suspected hoaxes. Carcharoth (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes I read through your entire post, however I didn't feel the need for discussing this situation any further. I didn't close the AFD debate, nor did I delete the article, so I'm unable to justify the early closure on behalf of the admin, however often in such cases, it is helpful to use common sense and delete the article if it is a clear hoax. Once again I agree that in the future such debates should be handled less hastily, however in this case I'm sure that the article was in fact a hoax and I see no need for any further excessive loquaciousness. --Flewis 02:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi there. I've just removed some speedy tags which you've placed on several articles, because I don't think they meet the relevant criteria.

• John J. O'Connor (mathematician), a mathematician who runs a possibly significant website
• Guido karp, numerous significant credits and two "Music Photographer of the Year" awards (whatever that may be)
• Baleshwar Rai Chief secretary of Goa, while I'm not familiar with the details of Goan politics, this sounds like a significant post, and it cites a good source
• Camp Curtis Not a person, organisation or website (though on closer examination it's a copyvio of this)

Please be more careful about speedy tagging, as this is the sort of thing which is guaranteed to put new contributors off Misplaced Pages. CSD#A7 was introduced to allow us to deal quickly with "vanity" articles about blatantly non-notable people. "Joe Bloggs is a schoolboy at Somewhere High School. He supports Manchester United" - that kind of thing. I don't think any of these articles can be compared with that sort of thing. Hence A7 doesn't require proof that an article meets a strict interpretation of our vague and contradictory notability guidelines, just some sort of reasonable claim which might plausibly merit inclusion. Not that I'm not saying that I think all these articles should definitely be kept, just that I don't think they meet the criteria of being obviously hopeless, and that they should be sent to prod or AfD to give more experienced editors the chance to look at them, and possibly fix them, first. Iain99 12:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Of the articles listed above, one has currently been deleted and two are up for AFD. The CSD on Guido karp however was an error on my behalf, owing to the fact that at the time that I had speedied, it contained absolutely no external sources or inline citations and no incoming links (generally a sure-fire way of judging notability). Whether or not tagging borderline-notable articles for speedy deletion is a violation of Wp:Bite, one thing is certain - that if these are articles are not tagged (rightly or wrongly) they tend to slip through the cracks and go unnoticed for months or even years. I generally do tag for CSD with caution, and if the Speedy-deletion is declined I report the article to AFD to allow the community to decide. To conclude, I am human, and our-kind tend to make mistakes every so often - this has turned out to be one of them. All I can do is apologize and notify you that In the future I will tag with increased caution. Thanks for the concern --Flewis 12:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Nexus

Flewis. There are many bullshit entries on the NexusTK page. I was simply trying to correct them, having been a player of the game for 8+ years now, I know my shit.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.185.99 (talk • contribs)

"Knowing your shit" without providing sources constitutes "original research". In any case, removing content without an explanation is the easiest way to get someone on RC Patrol to revert your edits :) - if your into that stuff, that is. --Flewis 14:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Kindly see my edit . I only deleted un-sourced info that formed WP::THESIS as per There has not a single international attack by any Sikh extremist group in the past twenty years and neither is any such group active in any NATO country. The war on terror does not add up and neither does Sikhism tag. And i only removed blogs which are not reliable sources. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.96.132.21 (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct - I see my error. Significant removal of content from an ip is usually reverted due to the preconceived notion that they are vandalizing. I urge you to create an account to avoid any further accidental-vandalism-reverts. Thanks once again for the message --Flewis 14:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Flewis

Hey there Flewis, how are you today? Had to throw any vandals in Wikiprison yet? :) DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have, but they keep breaking out! I'm looking for a maximum-security solution, but as yet, nothing is working. On a separate issue, I see that like me, you love fighting vandalism on wikipedia. Have you thought about installing Twinkle - its an easy wiki feature that allows you to revert vandalism in the blink of an eye. Try and give it a go. Once you get hooked, you'll never go back :) --Flewis 15:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried and despite one of the Admins created the monobook.js page, i cant seem to bypass the cache on Firefox (I've done what it said), Any ideas? As for the vandalism bit, i'm not that good because i just read through the Misplaced Pages page about Vandalism and it seems the things i think are vandalism..... aren't. You got SR2 on X360? Everyone on my list is on GoW2 and won't come join me. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To bypass you cache on Firefox hold down Ctrl+Shift+R - (twinkle doesn't work with IE) or delete your browsing history, restart Firefox and re-log in. You'll know that Twinkle has been activated once you see extra tabs at the very top of the page. Also, a great way to start of reverting vandalism is with the Lupin Anti-vandal Tool. Install that in you monobook.js page and see how you go. On a side note, I don't have an Xbox :( - but PC isn't really that bad! Cheers --Flewis 15:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Lol, from your last comment i'm guessing you get bored on your PC... Join the Microsoft Revolution and get an Xbox then lol. Much better than the Playstation 3 in my opinion because of the fact that the NXE (well, parts of it) come out on 19th November and that's gunna be awesome. You considering getting a Games Console? DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've always been an Xbox fan, 'just never got around to buying one!--Flewis 15:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

They're not that expensive now. 20GB Xbox 360 Premium is about £170.00 (GBP) in GAME...... Or are you a bit lazy and cba to go buy it? lol. If you got a other half, get him/her to get it :P DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Guess Im a little lazy :) - just can't be stuffed by a new console now. Thanks for the advice anyway - I'm logging off, real-life intervenes. . . --Flewis 15:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Gah! The monobook.js thing still won't *beep*ing work (Sorry for the language). I've restarted Firefox, I've re-logged in, I've done the buttons.......and still nothing's happening... DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC) ---- You can ignore that now, it seems to be working now. Thank you and have a nice day. DJ MeXsTa (talk) 15:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Guestbook

		The Original Barnstar
		For being the twenty-fifth person to sign my guestbook, and for complimenting my userpage. Ollie Fury Contribs 15:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Flewis 15:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh extremism

Hi Flewis, thank you for reverting the edit, unfortunately its been vandalized again, but I will reset it. Thanks again for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 19:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Flewis, the article is getting vandalised and I feel Extremists may be bullying some admins with limited knowledge into being cowed and deleting the articles they dont agree with. In fact Singh6 is referring to many source references such as the BBC (where much of the information was gathered), CBC, The Times, Evening Standard as POV ? Seriously are these POV sites ? They seem neutral to me - Anyway, I wont be editing on here for a while and see where it leads to ? Thanks again

Hello Sir, Please see the history of this respected user who has created this POV article:

User Talk: Satanoid alias His Blocking Biography alias User talk: 90.192.59.43 (his previous IP) alias User Talk: 90.196.3.37 alias User Talk: 90.196.3.246's past and new acts have been duly documented by several editors on User Talk: Master of Puppets in several sections. This respected user was blocked several times.--Singh6 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

He had tried getting permission from Admin User Talk: Master of Puppets to create this article and instead he has received a warning with heading "Hi Again". He has come up with this account after getting numerous warnings to his three IPs, i.e. 90.196.3.37, 90.196.3.246 and 90.192.59.43.--Singh6 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh Extremism means using an abusive word for an entire religion. Extremism is there in every other religion, but it does not mean that we allow such hatered (POV) on wiki. I request you to go through this (extremely new) respected editor's history (provided above).--Singh6 (talk) 09:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Even Admin User talk:DJ Clayworth has called this article an Insult to Misplaced Pages.--Singh6 (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, this article is not POV as some suggest, its simply dealing with the issues surrounding Sikh religious fundamentalism no one is suggesting all Sikhs are extremist, but some may well be- its s fact of life. (I wIll be taking this to the discussion page) I will stress again, that bullying admins into removing subjects surrounding religious fundamentalism is not in the interest of free speech or Misplaced Pages.

This issue

Regarding this article, there are a few things I would like to say. First of all is whether or not this article should be included in[REDACTED] at all. As the it currently stands, the article has some WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:SYNTH issues which must be fixed if this article is to merit inclusion into the encyclopedia. A topic of this nature must provide reliable sources (from both sides of the spectrum to eliminate NPOV) to establish verifiability. To be fair such articles are a necessary part of the encyclopedia (e.g. articles on: Islamic terrorism, Jewish terrorism, Christian terrorism, Hindu terrorism and Religious terrorism exist for a reason) however unless the above problems are fixed, this article may have to go. I suggest starting the article from scratch and heavily sourcing each and every claim within the article (or else the article will have to go). As of now, continue the debate on the article's talk page. If you need professional editor assistance I suggest taking this issue to the Mediation Committee. Otherwise, let's keep the comments civil and constructive, so that we may each conclude with a satisfactory outcome. --Flewis 12:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, the article looks to have been re-examined from an Indian/Asian perspective, but it does warrant information from a UK/US/EU intelligence perspective as was set out previously, I think if you take into consideration the fact that Babbar Khalsa International and the ISYF have been banned under international terrorism laws as these links prove. http://www.milnet.com/tgp/data/sikh.htm http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/1734 It will be worth adding to the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satanoid (talk • contribs) 17:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Flewis, for what it's worth, I'm sorry about the abuse that was being heaped on you by the anon. No one deserves to be spoken to in that way. I've blocked the anon for now, and if they come back after the block with the same language, or if they start up again on some other account and continue to disrupt, please let me or any other admin know, and we'll try to take care of it as quickly as possible. The reason that there was resistance at WP:AIV, is because that's a very fast-moving page which is only for really blatant cases of vandalism. Since the anon was just being abusive and wasn't (technically) vandalizing, things just got clogged in the bureaucracy. Sorry, I know that this must have been frustrating, since you were on the receiving end of some insults. Anyway, things should be straightened out now, and if there's anything else that I can do to help, please let me know, --Elonka 00:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your warm words :) - I receive ip/anon harassment quite often, and usually the offenders are blocked after a brief posting to AIV. I guess there was simply a minor mix-up and the admin didn't properly check the extent of harassment. Anyway, thanks for all the help! --Flewis 00:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Your vandalism ticker

I'm wondering why you reverted my change to your vandalism ticker. it was at 58 and then I vandalized your page and was kind enough to increase the number by one for you. Was that wrong to do? Also, you reverted my edit to the !!!F*ckyou!!! article which was to censor a swear word, why did you do that? And why did you call it vandalism? 64.230.94.183 (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not censored, see also Misplaced Pages:Profanity - I've reinstated my vandalism ticker to 59. Thank you for your "concern"--Flewis 03:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Have a good one!

Also you might want to consider removing it, considering it's what made me want to vandalize in the first place.64.230.94.183 (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll pass --Flewis 03:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sikh extremism

I have cleaned up the article, but I'm afraid that this version won't long last as Canadian gaddars would vandalize it: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sikh_extremism&oldid=250677918

Please keep a watch. Thank you. 59.164.100.127 (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, this article is unreadable - its got extremists vandalizing left right and center. The Sikh Federation, an offshoot of the banned ISYF seem to be having a field day especially from http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Roadahead

Its a well known fact that the ISYF is a banned terrorist group by EU/US/Canadian Governments, and references were provided. Exposing the truth wont be easy due to extremists blocking an article that deals with many issues concerning themselves. Thanks Satanoid (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Flewis, it seems they've put every tag under the sun even though as I and others predict the article wont probably see the light of day unless proper research is done form non pov sources ie mainstream Western media or when one looks at specific banned Sikh terrosist groups that have links to Al Qaeda and thier offshoots. Satanoid (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your strange edits

I have changed the Veveo article to the new rules you and Ckatz have introduced. I will also change the articles for all other search engine company articles, according to those new rules you and Ckatz have invented. Rick.nolan (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

This link that you inserted is nothing but spam . It has absolutely nothing to do with the article subject, and hence has been reverted. Please brush up on WP:RS.--Flewis 09:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Regarding AIV report

—Dark 09:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I fail to realize why this is not considered a blockable offense: Malicious speedy deletion tagging: . Spamming: . Blatant advertising . Disruption . Surely your not gonna let this off the hook simply because "he hasn't done anything since you removed him here last time". This is clearly a vandal/disruption only account. A preventive measure may need to be taken to deter any further detrimental behavior --Flewis 10:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Binayak Sen

Please see NPOV edits by SPAs.-Bharatveer (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)