Tennis expert (talk | contribs) |
No edit summary |
||
Line 647: | Line 647: | ||
== [[User:Lman1987]] == |
== [[User:Lman1987]] == |
||
This user is being highly disruptive in making changes to tennis articles against longstanding and well-established consensus[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Federer&diff=prev&oldid=110083029] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marat_Safin&diff=prev&oldid=110083279] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lleyton_Hewitt&diff=prev&oldid=110083451] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Sampras&diff=prev&oldid=110083691] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andre_Agassi&diff=prev&oldid=110084261] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Roddick&diff=prev&oldid=110085354] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Nadal&diff=prev&oldid=110085690], editing |
This user is being highly disruptive in making changes to tennis articles against longstanding and well-established consensus[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_Federer&diff=prev&oldid=110083029] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marat_Safin&diff=prev&oldid=110083279] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lleyton_Hewitt&diff=prev&oldid=110083451] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pete_Sampras&diff=prev&oldid=110083691] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andre_Agassi&diff=prev&oldid=110084261] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andy_Roddick&diff=prev&oldid=110085354] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafael_Nadal&diff=prev&oldid=110085690], editing the comments of other users[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tennis_expert&diff=prev&oldid=110091904], and blanking his talk page (which includes several warnings) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lman1987&diff=prev&oldid=110090135] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lman1987&diff=prev&oldid=110091186] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lman1987&diff=prev&oldid=110092096]. It appears that this same user was making the exact same changes over the last few weeks using various IP accounts until the [[Roger Federer]] article was semi-protected to prevent those changes. We need administrator intervention. Thank you! [[User:Tennis expert|Tennis expert]] 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC) |
||
== [[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]] == |
== [[:Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests]] == |
Revision as of 17:05, 22 February 2007
Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators. |
---|
When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. Sections inactive for over three days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)
Start a new discussion
|
Important notice regarding fair use that all administrators should see
Moved to /Kat Walsh's statement to prevent the discussion from overwhelming this page.
Springfield Isotopes
Hello. Springfield Isotopes had an AfD that ended on February 15, 2007, the result of which was keep. User:Eluchil404, the closing admin, left a note at the talk page, noting that "Anyone interested in merging or redirecting should first seek consensus on this talk page." User:Scorpion0422, who had nominated the article for deletion, has now since redirected the article three times, without discussion at either the talk page or his user page. Please advise; this user, in my opinion, seems to have a tendency to disregard community consensus. --Maxamegalon2000 17:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've left him a note, but this isn't an administrative issue. Consider using the dispute resolution procedure next time, e.g. WP:3O. Sandstein 19:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I wasn't sure where to go with it. --Maxamegalon2000 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- We reached a consensus at the Simpsons WikiProject that the page should be gone. It should be noted that the above user has been shadowing me for no reason whatsoever. -- Scorpion 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- No comment on the "shadowing" part, I haven't looked into that, but the consensus that the page should be gone wasn't really impressive (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject The Simpsons/Archive4, only three people seem to agree on this, two of them being the nominator of the AfD and a contributor to it), and doesn't really matter, as a Project doesn't WP:OWN a page, and even if a clear consensus would have been reached, it would not overrule the AfD. Also, such a discussion should be held or at least noted at the talk page of the article under scrutiny. To redirect a page immediately after an AfD resulted in a rather clear keep seems like a way to get what you want one way or the other. The fact that you redirected it to two different pages indicates that even you feel that there is not one obvious redirect as well, but that is a minor point. If there is a good merge candidate, discuss it on the article talk page, and proceed if there is consensus for that: but please stop redirecting the article. Fram 10:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- We reached a consensus at the Simpsons WikiProject that the page should be gone. It should be noted that the above user has been shadowing me for no reason whatsoever. -- Scorpion 00:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I wasn't sure where to go with it. --Maxamegalon2000 19:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
My page has been moved
Hi chaps, sorry to bother you. User:Semperkatolica moved my talk and user pages and I have no idea what to do to get them back. I've been accused of being a "phony editor/user", which a look at my history will reveal to be a false charge. InfernoXV 04:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed and restored. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Semperkatolica has now placed an {{Autobiography}} tag on the Jimmy Akin page with no discussion as to why he feels that may be the case. Corvus cornix 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
"Homophobes"
There has been a lot of disruption going on tonight because of my block of and user talk protection of 203.87.64.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). After I made his user page into an archive, I discussed why I was currently cross with him, after which it turned out he posted on some blog of users who attack Wikipedia. This led to me blocking several IPs tonight thinking they were open proxies. Now, what the hell happens now?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've alerted the LGBT WikiProject that we can probably expect some disruption over the next few days. Gor, between him and Nkras, talk about persecuted... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 07:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think WP:LGBT needs to be involved. It's just some sort of blog that we're going to have to either identify and shut down for disrupting Wiki.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't thinking that we get involved, more than this person began his campaign by edit warring on an LGBT person's article, so there's reason to suspect he may continue. In which case, we need to keep an eye out. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think WP:LGBT needs to be involved. It's just some sort of blog that we're going to have to either identify and shut down for disrupting Wiki.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Example
Hi, I have recently noticed that there has been an increase in vandalbots, particularly in hours where vandalism is quite low on the Defcom scale (i.e. 4-5 scale) or at times where admins are not available (i.e. late at night in America or during work hours in America). For example, please see Pandora 45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Just want to keep you at alert. Is there anyway that bots can be made in order to quickly revert the pages that this vandal has made? HighBC, you have any suggestions? Real96 08:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is actually the same sort of user that is mentioned in the above section, and I have merged them.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The IP uses vandalbots? Please also see Tim_Ayeles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks! Real96 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think it's the IP. But it is the same vandalbot.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- User:Tim Ayeles/monobook.js—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- WP:RFCU#Disruptive site, well, it turns out that they're all one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The IP uses vandalbots? Please also see Tim_Ayeles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Thanks! Real96 09:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Editor adding "counterbalancing" original research
Editor Insulator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has added and reverted to the Mel Gibson DUI incident a piece of original research that is essentially soapboxing based upon this video. In removing this from the article I have specified in my edit summaries the out of policy nature of his edits and after having been reverted a couple of times I explained more indepth how his edits don't correspond to policy to which he has responded while again reverting me. Would an uninvolved party take a look at this? Based upon what this user is saying in his response to my user talk to him, the solution to this will likely be as simple as reverting his last reintroduction of this material. Thanks. (→Netscott) 09:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gads. Several pages with 57 links, just because a celebrity happens to be a dick? Oh well. Give it a year, and maybe people will have some perspective, and the lot can be merged back into Mel Gibson where it belongs. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 10:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Rejected or essay?
There is a recent tendency of some people of removing {{rejected}} from old proposals that they like, and replace it by {{essay}}. Apparently the latter sounds less negative or offensive to some. However, is this appropriate? If you make a proposal to the community, and the community doesn't like it, it's obviously rejected - so should you then step back and say, wait, it wasn't actually a proposal, it's just my opinion? On the one hand, who cares? On the other hand, it is essentially misleading. Comments please? >Radiant< 13:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- The problem is is isn't that straightforward. Sometimes someone writes an essay and then someone else proposes it as a guideline. Sometimes someone proposes a guideline, but others think it is better as an essay. On the whole it doesn't matter. Essays are a position held by a number, but not a consensus, of wikipedians. Guidelines are the position that reflects what we actually do - i.e. current consensus. Perhaps thus all rejected guidelines that still enjoy a reasonable level of support are essays. (Unless they are advocating a new process, in which case they are simply 'fails').--Docg 13:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable, but I'd probably make an exception for pages that are not opinions but simple falsehood, or that are Really Bloody Stupid. Both are rather rare; the UBOR comes to mind if you remember that one. >Radiant< 13:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- (EC) Yes, I agree that essays that are in the minority opinion, or a simple falsehood, or "Really Bloody Stupid", should be kept in userspace. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- To be an essay, I think something needs to express an idea that has some degree of support, however controversial it may be with others. Anything that's purely a small minority sport or a quixotic opinion should be userfied.--Docg 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- And that begs the question of whether, as several people have suggested recently, a significant part of CAT:E should be userfied. >Radiant< 13:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'd support userfying almost all of the essays. The recent issues with Why Wikipedia is Failing have shown that these essays are treated as if editors own them, not as group projects which can be edited by anyone. I'd support any move to have essay be permitted under user areas only.--Alabamaboy 14:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- That makes sense... except for the rare essays which DO have wide agreement / collaborative editing. Things that occupy a status somewhere below 'Guideline', but above 'Opinion of a handful of users'. --CBD 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think essays are fine in project space, as long as a) the are not WP:OWNed b) open to having a 'other people disagree with this idea because...' section, if opponents want the other side recorded. It would be a shame to lose such things. If they are put in userspace, then they lose something of the corporate possibilities. Maybe we need a separate category for 1. collaborative written pieces that explore and issue and are open to recording all sides 2. useful monographs (whether in project space or userspace).--Docg 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that (a) is necessary. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. >Radiant< 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think essays are fine in project space, as long as a) the are not WP:OWNed b) open to having a 'other people disagree with this idea because...' section, if opponents want the other side recorded. It would be a shame to lose such things. If they are put in userspace, then they lose something of the corporate possibilities. Maybe we need a separate category for 1. collaborative written pieces that explore and issue and are open to recording all sides 2. useful monographs (whether in project space or userspace).--Docg 16:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- That makes sense... except for the rare essays which DO have wide agreement / collaborative editing. Things that occupy a status somewhere below 'Guideline', but above 'Opinion of a handful of users'. --CBD 15:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- To be an essay, I think something needs to express an idea that has some degree of support, however controversial it may be with others. Anything that's purely a small minority sport or a quixotic opinion should be userfied.--Docg 13:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- My $0.02: if something is launched as a proposal (i.e. is designed to be used as a rule of some sort) and is rejected, then rejected is it. If something is a philosophical discourse never advanced as a proposal, it's an essay. If something is proposed and rejected, we need to have it tagged as rejected to stop people coming along every few months and saying "hey, that's an idea! I'll propose it..." Guy (Help!) 23:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do you want a list of pages designed to be used as a rule of some sort, that were rejected, and had their tag changed to {{essay}} because the proponents found the {{rejected}} disparaging? There's at least half a dozen of those. >Radiant< 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Proposals that failed to reach consensus and are now marked as "essay" include the following:
- Do you want a list of pages designed to be used as a rule of some sort, that were rejected, and had their tag changed to {{essay}} because the proponents found the {{rejected}} disparaging? There's at least half a dozen of those. >Radiant< 10:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Deny recognition
- Wikipedia:Let the dust settle
- Wikipedia:Lists in Wikipedia
- Wikipedia:NOT evil
- Wikipedia:Places of local interest
- Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks
- Wikipedia:Search engine test
- Wikipedia:Straw polls
- Wikipedia:Trivia
- Wikipedia:Userfication
- Wikipedia:Youth protection
- There's a bunch more that's really old, and a few that have both {{essay}} and {{rejected}}, and I did not check userspace. >Radiant< 12:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- How about a rejssay tag (we can work on the name) for rejected proposals which, through community consensus become essays. "This essay was initially proposed as a guideline/policy and was rejected by the comunity. It has now gained consensus amongst the community as an exposition of a contentious issue on Wikipedia". Or something like that. Steve block Talk 18:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
A modest proposal: sweep out the weakest essays with MFD. DurovaCharge! 18:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is merit in both Steve and Durova's suggestions here. Guy (Help!) 10:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Do note that mixing Wikipedia:Straw polls in with the rest of those pages is a bit disingenuous (apple and oranges) in that it had been labeled as an essay for quite some time and then labeled as guideline for quite some time and then its guideline status was disputed whereupon it's status was changed to proposal and now it is back to essay. Labeling such an essay/guideline/proposal/essay as rejected would not be the right thing to do. (→Netscott) 16:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
We frequently tell people things like, 'Wikipedia is not a travel guide', 'Wikipedia is not a game guide', 'Wikipedia is not a dictionary', 'Wikipedia is not a webspace provider', et cetera... usually just before we delete something that they have been working on. Needless to say this doesn't usually go over well. As such, I thought it would be nice if people could get out of the habit of saying, 'Wikipedia is not...' and instead say, 'Wikitravel accepts this kind of travel guide info', 'Wikibooks allows game guides like this', 'Wiktionary is the best place to put dictionary entries', et cetera. To that end I created the Wikipedia:Not Wikipedia page to start listing various places which ARE all the specific things which Wikipedia frequently is not. Please expand, correct, use as you see fit, et cetera. --CBD 15:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nice idea... I like it. It might be a good idea to publicize this at village pump too. I agree we could be a lot friendlier if we were saying "WP:NOT a travel guide, but Wikitravel is and that might be a good place for your contributions."--Isotope23 16:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) That's a good idea for such a collection of where things can be posted, but I'm afraid that soon it will degenerate into either primarily just a listing of Wikimedia projects or into a place where everyone will be posting links for their own sites/ categories. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic, though. As for telling people that their material isn't appropriate here, I usually prefer the more straightforward statement, saying that "your material isn't suitable here because Wikipedia isn't a [game guide, etc.], but for a list of alternatives see this page." - it gets the point across, while tacking on a reference to the page you just created. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is an excellent idea. One thought – and I'm just throwing this out here – would this be more effective if merged into WP:NOT? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but that's pretty long already. I did include it as a 'see also' at the end of WP:NOT. --CBD 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nice page CBD :P. Yuser31415 19:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe, but that's pretty long already. I did include it as a 'see also' at the end of WP:NOT. --CBD 19:19, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is an excellent idea. One thought – and I'm just throwing this out here – would this be more effective if merged into WP:NOT? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please make sure to double-check the entries on this page with the projects you are recommending. For instance, I'm not certain, but I think Wikibooks dumped their game guides a few months ago. FreplySpang 20:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed they did. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'll check, but they still have lots of things like wikibooks:StarCraft. --CBD 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- From looking here it seems like it's not a black-and-white issue. But it's probably worth discussing this with someone from the Wikibooks community to see whether this would be more of a burden than a benefit to them. FreplySpang 00:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I'll check, but they still have lots of things like wikibooks:StarCraft. --CBD 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed they did. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Requested move
Please move Guqin literature to List of guqin literature. --Ideogram 18:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Please move Guqin societies to List of guqin societies. --Ideogram 18:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Please request moves at Wikipedia:Requested moves. FreplySpang 20:00, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Both have been done, but in the future you can use Wikipedia:Requested moves to request such moves. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks. --Ideogram 21:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello
The article L.ron hubbard is an attack site and I have already labeled it for speedy deletion - my question is, after it is deleted, should I redirect to L. Ron Hubbard? Or should I do it immediately? --Nevhood 18:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- No, just blank and redirect. No need to delete :P. Yuser31415 19:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
12.135.51.149
I'm sure you would be interested in looking at Special:Contributions/12.135.51.149. The user has been wandering around CAT:RFU, I believe. Yuser31415 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Odd set of edits...
User:Wfresch redirected List of deceased professional wrestlers to a category, and since the category was not as comprehensive, I removed the redirect. However, lokking at the edit history, the page is blank, and I cannot restore the list. Can an admin take a look and see if there was a double redirect or an improper move in the history? MSJapan 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The original list was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of deceased professional wrestlers. Hope that helps. --210physicq (c) 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. I had that page on my watchlist, and never saw the AfD template. Was it done properly? MSJapan 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. The deleted edits show that the AfD template was present from February 13th until its deletion on February 18th. It's been recreated twice since then, and I've now listed it at WP:PT. Chick Bowen 06:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hm. I had that page on my watchlist, and never saw the AfD template. Was it done properly? MSJapan 01:21, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Extra categorization
User:Java7837 is adding a whole bunch of cats to articles, where the article is already in a cat that is a subcat of the cats that he's adding. I've indicated this to him, but he's ignored me. My understanding that it is not good practice to include both sub- and super-cats in articles as it defeats the whole purpose of categorization. Regards -- Jeff3000 01:06, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- You are correct. I've dropped him a line. >Radiant< 12:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
For historical reasons, will someone please tell me what the deleted Template:Policy2 used to say?
Hello, I am looking through the history of something that used to include this, but I don't know what it means. Will someone please tell me? Thanks, Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am assuming you read Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 January 15#Template:Policy2, but it did not give much of a clue. Template:Policy2 was created in January 2006 before ParserFunctions such as
#if:
was fully implemented. It was basically the same as Template:Policy except it included a space to list a shortcut. But after ParserFunctions became in use, the optional parameter to list a shortcut was added to Template:Policy, making Template:Policy2 deprecated. Hope this helps. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks to both of you! : ) Armedblowfish (talk|mail) 01:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Lilphil212 is apparently the subject of Phil mondiello, which has been deleted at AfD twice. Aside from the fact that he has posted the article for the third time, he removed my db-repost tag. I went to his talk page to give him a good faith note not to remove CSD tags, but I saw he had already received warnings for the same conduct. Not sure what the proper action is in such cases, but I thought it was worth mentioning here. -- Butseriouslyfolks 07:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked indefinitely, his sole edits are his autobiography.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
1ne (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has a bit of a problem. Check the last few deletions and undeletions - a wheel war over Category:Wikipedians born in 1993 and a suspiciously WP:POINTy undiscussed deletion of Category:Wikipedians born in 1989. Could someone who is friendly with this admin please go and have a quiet word. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 13:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I remain of the opinion that we should deal sternly with wheel warriors. >Radiant< 13:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- For those unfamiliar, I believe this administrator is in one of these categories and hence sensitive to the matter of precisely where the age cut-off for them should be placed. Of course he should step away from further deletions in this matter and I'm sure he will take guidance accordingly. Newyorkbrad 13:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yup. No evil intent, just an excess of enthusiasm, butin a very sensitive area. Needs a quiet word from a trusted friend. Guy (Help!) 15:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree fully. No need to rush in and browbeat him, just quietly point out that he's too close to the issue and that someone else might be a better choice to decide the matter. Essjay (Talk) 15:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- As it seems that "quiet point" is probably going to come from this noticeboard - given NYB has had a chat/linked him here - I might as well throw my hat into the ring. 1ne, although you may feel that an injustice is being done to Wikipedia, wheel warring only creates problems, and those problems aren't worth it on this category. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 18:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wait, wait, wait, guys. I had a change of heart, I'm not trying to violate POINT. What I think is that we should delete categories for everyone under 18. What's wrong with that? Also, JzG, don't 'report' people you're involved in disputes with. Cheers! 1ne 22:32, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is that he's not the only one who redeleted that page. Several administrators have, while you restored it six separate times. Your actions are out of process, and definitely constitute wheel warring. What's wrong with his bringing attention to it here? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. 1ne, please don't wheel war (and you did so on both categories). Ral315 » 23:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- How are the other administrators' actions not out of process? Deleting something with the reason 'page contained: foo' isn't a reason. 1ne 01:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's an automatically generated edit summary. I'm sure that if you have any question about the reason an admin deleted a page and ask that admin the reason, he or she will gladly tell you. Newyorkbrad 01:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- All of the other admin's actions were due to CfDs. Unilaterally restoring or deleting things that have gone through an XfD is generally not cool. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then why did 'born in 1993s talk page state that it survived a CfD with no consensus? Ignoring that is not cool. 1ne 04:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It references it, but the CfD doesn't exist. Kick whoever put that there. The CfD that was in the deletion summary was a delete. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It was a UCFD, which means that it's not going to be found on the main CfD page. Do not pass go, whack the people who decided on that split. -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- And the correct link is Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion/Archive/November_2006#Category:Wikipedians born in 1993, which is indeed "no consensus". -Amarkov moo! 05:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I think it was a very bad idea for 1ne to remove the DRV from showing up on the TOC when adding his input. Almost as if he didn't want other people to notice it. VegaDark 06:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- What, do you think I'm in on some sort of conspiracy? If you see my edit to this page, you'll notice that this is a glitch in my browser that happens when I add a new section. I was wondering why the formatting was broken, myself. I think it was a bad idea that you didn't look into my contribs to pages related to this one. If I had known I was attaching '&s to things, I'd have been fixing them. Vega, is this a big conspiracy to you? 1ne 08:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should try a new browser if that is the result of you adding new sections. VegaDark 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. 1ne 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, but I didn't jump to conculsions. If I had I would have flat out said that you were trying to get people to not see the debate instead of saying "Almost as if" you were doing that. VegaDark 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, but perhaps you shouldn't suspect there's a conspiracy without convincing evidence. 1ne 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is a stupid debate. Let's get back on task. Anyways... so 1ne has been wheel warring over a category. Newyorkbrad says he may have emotional connection towards that category. That makes sense to me. The wheel warring has come to an end. That is good. The wheel warring towards the 1989 category is no more. That is good. Did 1ne delete the category to begin with to disrupt Wikipedia for the sake of a point or because he's genuinely concerned about the fact that some people in that category are under 18? That is irrelevant; if we keep spending all this time on it, then it will have been disruptive. The problem seems to have died down. Let's get back to work. I myself have more homework than I thought; I should get started. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 22:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, but perhaps you shouldn't suspect there's a conspiracy without convincing evidence. 1ne 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, but I didn't jump to conculsions. If I had I would have flat out said that you were trying to get people to not see the debate instead of saying "Almost as if" you were doing that. VegaDark 09:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you shouldn't jump to conclusions. 1ne 08:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps you should try a new browser if that is the result of you adding new sections. VegaDark 08:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
WP:CN intro needs a fix
Techies please help. The Community noticeboard is missing something vital. It ought to have a link to the Wikipedia:Disruptive editing guideline and a specific statement in the introduction that community bans for disruption require a consensus of uninvolved editors. The board is getting stuff like this[1] that specifically goes against the key provision that got the disruptive editing guideline accepted. If this is tolerated then we set up a situation where good people could get railroaded out of the community. The header ought to explain that involved parties can comment and provide evidence and should disclose their involvement in the dispute. DurovaCharge! 18:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
AfD running like an out-of-control steam train
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlayRadioPlay! is heading for a steep decline into the pit of doom, if it hasn't already. I'm hesitant to sprotect - for similar reasons to the main page FA protection debate, but admittedly slightly different (because it will deny the users the right of reply) - but I was wondering if you thought we could/should because their mass-silliness keep !voting is becoming disruptive (this is only 2 days worth!). One of the few "delete" !votes has been attacked by a mob, and that mob has turned around and !voted keep in ridiculous numbers. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 18:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Holy sockpuppets Batman! Well, if you got a ton of time on your hands, you could leave a message that if any more "meatpuppets" attack the page, you will protect; if not, you could just do it, and say, due to abuse, that any new users can contribute on the talk page. Could run a checkuser, but might get the duck test response... Part Deux 18:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's deleted. It fails A7. It was a good faith nom, but a little too much good faith nom. Any issues take to deletion review. Friday deleted it, mostly because I was closing the debarte before deleting it. Steve block Talk 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. Quite an impressive list of deleters, really. Can't argue that the deletion was unilateral :) Daniel.Bryant 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Yuser31415 20:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ah, the power of Myspace. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cheers. Quite an impressive list of deleters, really. Can't argue that the deletion was unilateral :) Daniel.Bryant 19:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's deleted. It fails A7. It was a good faith nom, but a little too much good faith nom. Any issues take to deletion review. Friday deleted it, mostly because I was closing the debarte before deleting it. Steve block Talk 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Would it be possible for an administrator here on Wikipedia to get the original source information for this image. It is the subject of a deletion request due to insufficient source and the description page indicates it has been moved here. See also commons:Image:YoungGould.jpg. Lcarsdata 20:24, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- left a note at the deletion debate, but all I can see in the history is "A young Glenn Gould circa 1944 with his Dog and Budgie, from the Ontario Archives {{PD}}". Steve block Talk 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is what I found:
"A young Glenn Gould circa 1944 with his Dog and Budgie, from the Ontario Archives {{PD}}
{{PUI}}
Source seems to be http://ao.minisisinc.com/Webimages/I0002768.jpg
Information at http://ao.minisisinc.com/scripts/mwimain.dll/1354/2/6/1958?RECORD:
- Digital Image Number: I0002768.jpg
- Title: Glenn Gould as a child, at his piano
- Date: [ca. 1940]
- Place: Toronto (Ont.)
- Creator: Gordon W. Powley
- Format: Black and white negative
- Reference Code: C 5-1
- Item Reference Code: C 5-1-0-133-2
Since we now the creator, Gordon W. Powley, and know at least that he is not dead 70 years (he cannot have died in 1934, since the photo is of ca. 1940 or later), I don't think Public Domain applies.--AndreasPraefcke 13:31, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC) "
I believe that Canadian copyright applies for 50 years, IIRC. If it were first published in Canada, that might allow it to be PD. Ral315 » 20:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is PD in Canada, but not in the United States. Therefore, we need more information about the copyright holder. Is it Archives Ontario? If so, what is their policy? If not, it is likely going to take a great deal of detective work to figure out who to contact. Jkelly 20:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression only the law of the country of provenance counted in such cases? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is unfortunately complicated. This image might be in the public domain in the U.S. if it was in the public domain in Canada January 1 1996 per the URAA, but we also need to know its publication history in the United States. See this chart for a handy guide. Jkelly 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was under the impression only the law of the country of provenance counted in such cases? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am not sure, but I think Fut is correct on that point. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 20:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please restore Pierre Joliot?
I was the only contributor (and creator) and had it speedy deleted in a fit of annoyance... this doesn't really need to go through DRV, if someone could restore it I would be most grateful. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 22:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- Done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Corporate sex offenders?
I've never seen this listed anywhere, so I thought I'd bring it up. Wikipedia is currently listed as a "passive Corporate sex offender" at Pervert-Justice.com, because of our current attitude to paedophiles. You can see it here. I personally find the fact that we had one of the most notorious paedophiles and a leader of the "childlove" movement actively editing our articles absolutely horrifying. Maybe we need to be more aggressive about blocking paedophiles? I mean, I think Clayboy (talk · contribs) is an acceptable editor, but someone like Rookiee is hardly going to be unbiased... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC) Update: They also have a essay on the subject here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 02:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- That website is nothing but complete bullshit. "We've left Wikipedia in the 'passive' category because they still have not taken a clear and unambiguous stance disavowing pedophile advocates from editing 'encyclopedic' pedophile articles. There are still pedophile editors on Wikipedia but some in the extremely large organization do seem to wish to rid themselves of such persons who are harmful towards Wikimedia's interests." There will always be pedophiles out there and there's nothing we can do to completely rid the world of them. What really bothers me is that they talk about Wikipedia being a breeding grounds for pedophiles and yet say nothing about MySpace, one of the most talked about websites when it comes to pedophiles. What the hell happened there? // DecaimientoPoético 01:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I find it disturbing. Personally I feel that it conflicts with the goal of having a safe editing enviroment as seen by a particularily nasty episode that just wrapped up. — MichaelLinnear 01:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Cute, they include Livejournal but not Myspace. This justice truly is perverted. --Golbez 01:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Isn't this the group that hatemailed us into banning Rookiee for... something... when he hadn't actually been doing anything disruptive or policy-violating at the time? They get their facts wrong 75% of the time and the rest of the time they exaggerate them.
- If you want your children to be safe online, you don't let them use the internet, anywhere, unsupervised. It's that simple. --tjstrf talk 01:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- When I have kids, I intend to let them follow the exact same schedule in technology as I did. They get a C64 and an NES when they're 5, a 386 without a modem and a Genesis when they're 10, and they will be allowed online when 14. The point of this is because I know that I wasn't ready for the online world before that, and two, to give them appreciation of old-school video gaming. ;) Screw trying to police them, I'll just keep them offline til they can police themselves. --Golbez 01:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ohh, let them play X-COM: UFO Defense, that game rocks! HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, you're going to let your kids online with a 486 running Windows 95 and Internet Explorer 3.0? Wow, I bet you'll get the vote for "most popular dad" on the block.... <grin> -- MarcoTolo 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nah, that's when I let them get a real computer. :) And it would be a 486 running Windows 95 and Netscape 1.1, puhleeze. ;) --Golbez 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- So, you're going to let your kids online with a 486 running Windows 95 and Internet Explorer 3.0? Wow, I bet you'll get the vote for "most popular dad" on the block.... <grin> -- MarcoTolo 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- People don't seem to get that this is an encyclopedia, with a NPOV, I would not worry about what they say. I would think this is a terrible place to prey on children, considering everything is permanently logged, including IPs, and the intense level of monitoring we do. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
That essay is the perfect example of why these people really don't know a thing they're talking about. Thanks for reposting it. --tjstrf talk 02:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"We've left Wikipedia in the 'passive' category because they still have not taken a clear and unambiguous stance disavowing pedophile advocates from editing 'encyclopedic' pedophile articles. Damn straight. Pedophilic editors such as User:Clayboy need to be blocked on sight. El_C 02:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Whoa, whoa, since when did Wikipedia become the morality police? If someone is convicted of murder, should they be banned? Should we ban anyone who's been jailed? As long as they aren't doing anything to harm Wikipedia or trying to harm others through Wikipedia, I don't think its our purpose to ban people based on their activities outside of Wikipedia. Of course, everything should be done to prevent predators from being able to contact children through Wikipedia, but banning users because they might violate rules is absurd. Wickethewok 02:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Why? --Golbez 02:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because the idea that anyone could think of children as sexual beings is icky. --Carnildo
- That doesn't answer the question as to why they should be banned. "Ickiness" is not an objective qualifier. Try again. --Golbez 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- That's about my view of the matter too. --Carnildo 07:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thoughtcrime, anyone? --Conti|✉ 03:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- That doesn't answer the question as to why they should be banned. "Ickiness" is not an objective qualifier. Try again. --Golbez 03:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because the idea that anyone could think of children as sexual beings is icky. --Carnildo
- It's a provocation, as are the above responses. El_C 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My response is a provocation? Should it be banned? Also, didn't at least one of you lose adminship because of some misguided crusade against pedos? --Golbez 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Let sleeping dogs lie. — MichaelLinnear 03:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- One of you? I did not participate in a crusade. I am —and always have been— an editor and admin in good standing. El_C 03:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can we have fewer cliches and more substance in the comments here, please? --Golbez 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Some old wounds haven't healed. Therefore things are better left in the past. — MichaelLinnear 03:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Can we have fewer cliches and more substance in the comments here, please? --Golbez 03:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My response is a provocation? Should it be banned? Also, didn't at least one of you lose adminship because of some misguided crusade against pedos? --Golbez 03:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a provocation, as are the above responses. El_C 03:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought the pedophilia userbox wheel war made it quite clear taht Wikipedia was gonna go crazy on any self-identified pedophiles. Hbdragon88 03:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have created a proposed policy to cover this issue. 04:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I can see why this is controversial, and I think I can at least sympathize with everybody posting here. I think... to me, maybe it's an issue of "Why are you here?" If you're here to help build and keep a neutral, informative, free encyclopedia, then I suspect I'll have no serious qualms with you -- that is, if they're wearing their Wikipedian hat. If, however, they're wearing another hat, and here for another purpose (promoting or practicing pedophilia, neo-nazism, whatever it may be), then I suspect I will have many qualms with their presence. That's what it comes down to, for me, I guess -- are they here to build an encyclopedia, or not? – Luna Santin (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is nothing much what we can really do. While we did try to come up with some sense of the problem, based on the WEP:CHILD debates, but honestly, we cannot do much. While Pee-J is trying to do what they do, unless we catch the people in the act of preying on children, we cannot do anything administratively. Not to mention, people have a right to privacy here on Wikipedia and not everyone even decides to make an account. But I strongly urge anyone that if someone is indeed preying on children using Wikipedia, please let us know. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Our policy is that Wikipedia is not a platform for advocacy or propaganda. That policy covers both advocacy of sexual assault of children and the witch hunters. Fred Bauder 14:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
sneaky vandalism in progress
See the recent edits by User_talk:24.64.64.242 and User_talk:64.131.177.181 on the Fibonacci, Filippo_Brunelleschi, and Giovanni_Boccaccio pages. They are tricky triple edits that foil the diff mechanism. Looks like they did some tag-teaming too. You should block them pronto. This requires more wiki skill than I have. Good luck cleaning up their mess. (Spectrogram 03:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC))
- 24.64.64.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) appears to be static and I've soft-blocked it for a month. The other one I left a {{bv}}; we should keep an eye on it. Chick Bowen 06:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Administrator attention needed
Please take a look at Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion, but particularly Category:Administrative backlog. What has happened to all our administrators? Extranet (Talk | Contribs) 05:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- We're all hiding. Shh... =) -- Gogo Dodo 05:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- CAT:CSD is backlogged? Alert the media! Hbdragon88 06:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can see the headline now: "Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion backlogged. Is this the end of Wikipedia?" -- MarcoTolo 06:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- What has happened is that the administrators are simply busy doing other things, Wikipedia and otherwise. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can see the headline now: "Category:Candidates_for_speedy_deletion backlogged. Is this the end of Wikipedia?" -- MarcoTolo 06:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
"Candidates for Speedy Deletion backlogged; Netcraft predicts death of Wikipedia" - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Empty sockpuppets/suspected sockpuppets categories
As indefinitely blocked users get their user pages deleted often, it is not uncommon to see empty sockpuppet categories. Are these speedyable just as any other empty category if empty for at least 4 days? Or should we hold off on these? I've come accross quite a few so if I should be deleting them that is helpful to know. VegaDark 06:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Go for it. ViridaeTalk 06:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, will do. VegaDark 06:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Three Two bad blocks waiting to be undone
I've been trolling through CAT:RFU, and I happened to come upon two bad blocks. I wouldn't say anything here, but it doesn't look like any administrators are going through the unblock request at the moment. We have:
- User talk:24.128.186.205 - user appears to have been blocked simply for trying to work with images. This was not vandalism, but newbie problems.
- User talk:Brooklyn5 - this is definitely a bad block. This user was blocked for "vandalizing" another user's page by placing a {{db-author}} tag on it, but in fact, he is this other user. But, he can't login because he was blocked due to a WP:U violation.
User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen - continual censorship of articles. But this is edit warring, and deserves maybe 24 hours at most, and at least an explanation of WP:NOT. Not worth an indef block, IMHO.
Worst part: it's giving Cplot more ammunition to talk about "block happy admins", yada yada. Part Deux 09:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Gen. von Klinkerhoffen was not blocked for censorship but being a YTMND troll, primarily with using "For Brian Peppers" in his edits. The censoring I would have not blocked for (I was going to warn him, but then I saw the edit summaries). The IP is shared, and the block has an expiry. With Brooklyn5, I have no idea what's going on (looks like an impromptu username change without edit changing), so I'm not touching that.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. No need to fool around; Brian Peppers edit summaries clearly show he's a troll from somewhere, just like Colbert vandalism would. Part Deux 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Brooklyn's been unblocked. No need for alarmism, misunderstandings that lead to unnecessary blocks happen, and they are usually dealt with within reasonable time, that's what the unblock category is for. But thanks for helping to clarify the Brooklyn situation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. No need to fool around; Brian Peppers edit summaries clearly show he's a troll from somewhere, just like Colbert vandalism would. Part Deux 09:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Brian Peppers (2)
It's now 21st Feb, How come this page is still protected? DXRAW 09:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- We decided we didn't need a weakly sourced attack page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The page will probably have to go through deletion review before it is allowed to be recreated. VegaDark 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Already there. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21. I linked it there from the Talk page, to try to get all the crap in one place (I know, the triumph of hope over experience). Guy (Help!) 10:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, I expected that to go up right at 00:01. Luigi30 (Taλk) 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Btw DXRAW, Jimmy never said that the page would be unprotected on the 21st. He said that the discussion could reopen then. Big difference. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 07:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The page will probably have to go through deletion review before it is allowed to be recreated. VegaDark 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Addmin needed for review
user:Durova kindly suggested that I may ask for additional and neutral addmins from here to review this Piotrus 3RR case. Contributor, who ran 3RR board initially also not object for this [2]. The prime concern is - was there violation of 3RR rule in presented case by Piotrus or not. Thank you in advance, M.K. 09:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
LOL...
See [3]. :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I can't but recognize a striking pun regarding an admin signing as "Nearly Headless Nick"
:-)
Duja► 15:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)- Maybe we should warn him in particular that he risks becoming even more nearly headless? Hey, wasn't he involved in some controversial AfD closures too lately? Hopefully no webcomics, were they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe several of them were. *sigh* Webcomics. Oy. (So, when are we going to have an extensive discussion on how to judge the notability of webcomics that aren't covered by media outlets, don't have dead-tree versions, etc. but are fanatically followed by Internet fans, and avoid having this kind of thing showing up in every freakin' webcomic that comes around?) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- What discussion is there to have? For a webcomic to have an article we need reliable independent sources and preferably someone at least vaguely dispassionate writing the thing, same as everything else. Webcomics aren't a special case. Ok, they're on the Internet, and we're on the Internet, and therefore it's easier to round up some fans to SPAm an AfD, but this is just a side-effect of our model - webcomics have no more reason to 'deserve' an entry in Wikipedia than they do in Britannica. It's just harder to organise a coach down to Britannica's head office, and have them tell the editors that Webcomic #15353 is number 5 on the Top 100 List Of Webcomics About Bicycling Furries Wearing Wooly Hats, than it is to post a link on a blog. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I agree completely, and have opined on both sides of webcomic debates. The problem is that there's this seemingly growing revolt among webcomic creators and their readers that is vilifying Wikipedia because their articles are being deleted, and it seems to be a significantly sized group that's out there screaming about deletionism. The comic leading this section isn't the only one that's been taking potshots at us. My question, I guess, is whether we need to have specific guidelines for webcomics that we can point to, say "If you don't meet these, then let us know when you do," and make the comics mob put down the pitchforks and torches to actually try and meet the guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- What discussion is there to have? For a webcomic to have an article we need reliable independent sources and preferably someone at least vaguely dispassionate writing the thing, same as everything else. Webcomics aren't a special case. Ok, they're on the Internet, and we're on the Internet, and therefore it's easier to round up some fans to SPAm an AfD, but this is just a side-effect of our model - webcomics have no more reason to 'deserve' an entry in Wikipedia than they do in Britannica. It's just harder to organise a coach down to Britannica's head office, and have them tell the editors that Webcomic #15353 is number 5 on the Top 100 List Of Webcomics About Bicycling Furries Wearing Wooly Hats, than it is to post a link on a blog. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I do believe several of them were. *sigh* Webcomics. Oy. (So, when are we going to have an extensive discussion on how to judge the notability of webcomics that aren't covered by media outlets, don't have dead-tree versions, etc. but are fanatically followed by Internet fans, and avoid having this kind of thing showing up in every freakin' webcomic that comes around?) Tony Fox (arf!) 16:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Maybe we should warn him in particular that he risks becoming even more nearly headless? Hey, wasn't he involved in some controversial AfD closures too lately? Hopefully no webcomics, were they? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I say we bend the rules for webcomics. After all, they're writing nasty things about us! Seriously, I agree with Sam that the rules on notability are clearly stated.--Alabamaboy 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
62.6.160.99
the user 62.6.160.99 is currently enganging in massive vandalism and claims to be a sockpuppet of long term vandal my name please block him/her.--Fang 23 15:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC) [4]
Lakerdonald (talk · contribs) - violation of ArbCom ruling?
Lakerdonald (talk · contribs) is an Encyclopaedia Dramatica user who has had useful edits in the past. However, his/her recent edits are somewhat startling. Would edits such as this, this (also see edit summary), this, and his/her userpage constitute a violation of Remedy #3 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO ("Users who are current or past editors of Encyclopaedia Dramatica are...admonished to wear their Wikipedia hats while here.")? --Coredesat 15:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- And it should also be noted that this user just violated WP:BLP on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 21/Brian Peppers. This is here instead of on ANI because I was not sure whether to block. --Coredesat 15:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- *Eye roll*. These users are literally pushing the envelope as far as they can. "Oops, might get banned now!"? C'mon. Just block the guy. If anyone can tell me how the statement "users are full of cocks" is anything other than WP:TROLL, I'll do it, but this is someone just trying to game the system. User is just hoping to get people mad, and then have some admins come along and say, "I don't know if we should block him..." Part Deux 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked. Seems like an obvious case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't sure how strictly to apply the ArbCom ruling. --Coredesat 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- The user posted an unblock message but I denied the unblock on the grounds that this was absolutely a valid block.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 18:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I wasn't sure how strictly to apply the ArbCom ruling. --Coredesat 16:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Blocked. Seems like an obvious case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- *Eye roll*. These users are literally pushing the envelope as far as they can. "Oops, might get banned now!"? C'mon. Just block the guy. If anyone can tell me how the statement "users are full of cocks" is anything other than WP:TROLL, I'll do it, but this is someone just trying to game the system. User is just hoping to get people mad, and then have some admins come along and say, "I don't know if we should block him..." Part Deux 15:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Little help?
Can somebody take a look at Atkins nutritional approach? I can't figure out what the heck is going on there. It's obviously a talk page, and after several bizarre moves from place to place, it's now sitting where the article should be. I'd fix it, but I can't find the article. Anybody have a clue? Kafziel Talk 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It looks like the article is at Atkins Nutritional Approach (with the capitals). Newyorkbrad 17:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I've closed this early for reasons explained at that page. Please review in case anyone thinks that continuing this for the full length will produce a different result or something else in the least bit productive. --Sam Blanning(talk) 19:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Given that few of the "endorse deletion" were based in reality, I'm not even sure how you can come to an "endorse," let alone think there's any consensus given the discussion there and at the DRV subpage's talk page. You needed to reverse yourself twenty minutes ago. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- As a matter of principle, I strongly oppose closing any discussion that has been open only 11 hours. For a lot of people, this means it will be over before they even saw it. Trebor 20:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's a shame we don't all possess your positive knowledge of what is and is not reality,
Mr. BradyJeff. Mackensen (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)- Yes, it is. I don't think that means you need to be a WP:DICK about it, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nor am I trying to, and I'm sorry you chose to interpret my remark as such. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that simply stating, as a fact, that everyone else's concerns are non-existant, is unhelpful and is not the way to win arguments. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I actually detailed it better at the talk page of the DRV. It was, of course, soundly ignored in favor of a disruptive close, so what else is there to say? --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nor am I trying to, and I'm sorry you chose to interpret my remark as such. Rather, I'm trying to suggest that simply stating, as a fact, that everyone else's concerns are non-existant, is unhelpful and is not the way to win arguments. Mackensen (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, it is. I don't think that means you need to be a WP:DICK about it, though. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I approve, we've spent enough time debating on that one, and no new information has come to light. Mangojuicetalk 20:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- As it met standards before it was deleted, what did you expect? After 11 hours, how could you expect anything new to crop up. I may relist it on the main DRV page if someone doesn't do the right thing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Although I have some sympathy for Trebor's argument, I think it was a good close. —Doug Bell talk 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff, I see no 'I don't like it' delete arguments on that page.--Docg 20:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Really? I'm sorry to see that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Pace badlydrawnjeff (to whom I directed some remarks on the talk page of the DRV as to which I would welcome feedback from others), the consensus against re-creating the article is overwhelming. Personally, I would prefer retention of the outright deletion over redirecting to List of Internet phenomena, in part because the "People" section in that article is itself a WP:LIVING/privacy/notability horror show that needs substantial attention and clean-up. But I suppose we should leave that for another day. Newyorkbrad 20:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you've posted this in a few places already. Thanks for the input, there still hasn't been a legitimate, logical, rational reason for deletion given. Not that 11 hours is enough time to find one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- How about the legitimate, logical, rational reason that many of us find the idea of basing an article on this subject to be horrific, despicable, and non-encyclopedic as well? And how about the fact that there are several hundred other deletion debates going on, on many of which I would like to see a strong case put for keep, instead of devoting continuing energy into continuing advocacy for an article that clearly is not coming back? Newyorkbrad 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for proving my point. "Horrific" and "despicable," both terms I agree with, are irrelevant to the discussion. Non-encyclopedic? Well, I disagree, but we have ways to discern that, which this article met. If we're going to abandon our policies and guidelines here, why bother with any other disucssions if they don't matter? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- You want "legitimate, logical and rational"? How's "Any article about this guy would amount to: He is a sex offender from someplace. He got a short sentence. He has become an internet meme because a number of people think he looks funny." Come on, man. I know you're on the extreme end of the inclusion spectrum, but that's all you could write about him, and even that would probably not meet BLP because it would be slanted towards negative coverage. Having said that, however, I probably would have let it run at least 24 hours before closing; I, though, am not an admin, and I respect Sam Blanning's judgment in this case. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- How about the legitimate, logical, rational reason that many of us find the idea of basing an article on this subject to be horrific, despicable, and non-encyclopedic as well? And how about the fact that there are several hundred other deletion debates going on, on many of which I would like to see a strong case put for keep, instead of devoting continuing energy into continuing advocacy for an article that clearly is not coming back? Newyorkbrad 20:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure - the result was no in doubt. Sure, a minority believe it was the wrong result - but even they must admit that letting it run was not going to produce a different conclusion.--Docg 20:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It depends - if we expected the arguments to be weighted properly, I certainly expected a different result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure per Jason Fortuny logic. (→Netscott) 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, that was one of our shining moments. Ugh, the logic is nonexistent here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- How heavy should the sockpuppets be? There were plenty of those supporting re-creation. Mackensen (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ignore 'em. Ignore 'em like those using IDONTLIKEIT arguments should have been. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- And the BLP concerns? Are those to be dismissed too, just because you're so sure they don't amount to much? Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nonexistent. The deleted article didn't appear to have any, and we could have easily edited any of those concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- BLP was what I was getting at re: Fortuny. (→Netscott) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, not an issue. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- BLP was what I was getting at re: Fortuny. (→Netscott) 20:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nonexistent. The deleted article didn't appear to have any, and we could have easily edited any of those concerns. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- And the BLP concerns? Are those to be dismissed too, just because you're so sure they don't amount to much? Mackensen (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ignore 'em. Ignore 'em like those using IDONTLIKEIT arguments should have been. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:14, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure per Jason Fortuny logic. (→Netscott) 20:12, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- It depends - if we expected the arguments to be weighted properly, I certainly expected a different result. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think there would have been any harm in letting it run one full day, but on the other hand I don't dispute the close either. Consensus was extremely clear, and among established editors it was truly overwhelming. "Brian Peppers Day" has come and gone without any great cataclysm, and we all survived. Time to get back to building an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Agree with Andrew, this could be left to run, but the outcome would have been the same. This was clearly trending WP:CONSENSUS to keep deleted.--Isotope23 20:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Fully endorse closure - I wasn't around for this the first time, but from everything I have read, it was an embarassment for Wikipedia and there's no reason to make the same mistake twice. --BigDT 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- This is disgusting. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- This was simply never going to be recreated, for many reasons. Jeff: please get off the soapbox. Others: there are many people abroad who are getting off on us tying our knickers in a knot over this non-notable alleged sex-offender "meme"-driven freak show. If ever WP:DENY applied somewhere, this was it. 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not on a soapbox, yet. I can certainly get on one if you'd prefer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm suggesting a new NOT idea based upon a number of meme furthering articles I've seen turn up on WP. (→Netscott) 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Jeff, darling, you've been stood on the same soapbox since late last year. Adding another one simply wouldn't help... although it'd make you taller, obviously :o) 〈REDVEЯS〉 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I really don't think you want to go there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, we get it Jeff, you're righteously indignant. Now knock it off. --Cyde Weys 01:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well done Sam. Now let's all get back to building that encyclopaedia... Guy (Help!) 20:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thats what we were trying to do before it got closed early. This project while a good idea has many flaws. DXRAW 21:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- No, An article is not a flaw, Get your head out of your arse. Read this [5] for example DXRAW 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- And about five newer. Can I cash in on that abusive admin offer now, Guy? --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you want, but do take the time to pause and reflect on the fundamental fact: the sum total of verifiable information here is (a) Peppers looks funny, (b) Peppers was convicted of a technical offence at the lower end of the severity scale of sexual offences, (c) a number of people chose to make fun of his appearance, resulting in his mugshot being pulled from e-SORN. Nothing else is actually verifiable. Not the disability, not the fact that he lives in a nursing home, not the cause of his apparent deformity, not the details of the offence, nothing about the victim or the context, no contemporaneous news coverage, Factiva, Lexis-Nexis and Google News all come up blank. We know next to nothing about Brian Peppers, the living human being. The only things we do know are either trivial or derogatory. I paid money for searches to see if there was additional verifiable data - there isn't. This is not the Star Wars Kid, who thought he was being cool and wasn't, this is someone who ahs absolutely no control over the situation, and furthermore whose "notability" rests solely and entirely on the fact that he looks weird. Only that. It's a random picture of some guy, taken out of context and used as an object of ridicule by people with absolutely no shame. And we deleted it, and we decided to keep it deleted. It's a trade: we get raspberries from the people who like to laugh at Peppers' appearance, in return for our self-respect and the clueful application of our policy on living individuals. I can't find it in me to call this anything but a good deal. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I knew you were only half serious anyway. --badlydrawnjeff
- nothing pm lexis-nexis? that rather contradicts a claim amde here:
- Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive74#Brian_Peppers.Geni 23:18, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
talk 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse close, nothing good was going to come of keeping that discussion open any longer. ++Lar: t/c 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure, per above. All useful arguments related to this issue are already well-known. It was pretty apparent to me that nothing good would have come from keeping this open longer. Friday (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I have never seen so many trolls in my entire life. —Pilotguy push to talk 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I would endorse the close as well. Article was clearly not going to be recreated. I say this, by the way, as someone who doesn't think either recreating it or salting it would be a bad thing. The issue is just too trivial, and ends up being a time sink. IronDuke 21:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Putting it out of its misery was the right thing to do, as consensus was clearly to delete. Thus ends, "Brian Peppers Day." ObiterDicta 22:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I also endorse the close. I already explained how trivial any sources found on this guy would be, and almost all of the deletions were valid. Something deleted so many times clearly has zero chance of being notable, whether as a person or as a meme, and you're not going to find anything that proves otherwise per WP:BIO. One source of questionable value is not enough, and I would recommend reviewing the whole situation before accusing the closing admin of being abusive. --Coredesat 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My review of the whole situation is how I came to the conclusion. Your continued assertions regarding supposed triviality simply are not true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, regardless, all that can be established is that he is a sex offender, and the DRV was heavily trolled anyway. I don't really see how the "keep deleted"s were "not based in reality" - there were major WP:BLP concerns here. This is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, and even if you take any such arguments out of the equation, there still would have been consensus to endorse. --Coredesat 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't seeing a lot of heavy trolling, honestly, and there, again, were not a lot of BLP issues - certainly not so many that couldn't be dealt with via editing. I guess it depends on whether you think a consensus can be based on incorrect reasoning - Wikipedia:Consensus certainly doesn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, regardless, all that can be established is that he is a sex offender, and the DRV was heavily trolled anyway. I don't really see how the "keep deleted"s were "not based in reality" - there were major WP:BLP concerns here. This is not a WP:IDONTLIKEIT issue, and even if you take any such arguments out of the equation, there still would have been consensus to endorse. --Coredesat 22:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- My review of the whole situation is how I came to the conclusion. Your continued assertions regarding supposed triviality simply are not true. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong endorse. This is clearly the right decision. Good job. Nandesuka 22:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Normally I'd be among the first in line to cry for "hey, let's just follow our own rules so that our critics won't get any undue ammo", but heck, it's abundantly clear that there's no way out of this dead end right now. Basically, a) the Opposition hasn't been able to figure out why this person is really notable aside of some fuzzy ideas on... perhaps... I don't know... having some email forward notability somewhere? Uh... forwarded a bit from person to person... somewhere... and b) how to conduct this matter with all the solemnity required. We don't need a "just-because" revival of the article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 23:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse closure. WP:SNOW covers the action. The degree to which this particular subject is a troll magnet might make an interesting sociological study, but we're an encyclopedia and not a social experiment. DurovaCharge! 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong endorse closure, I think we're ready to put this all behind us. --Cyde Weys 01:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Problem in exchanging a redirect page and the page it points to
Hi, I tried to exchange the Page Lamellophone (then a redirect page to lamellaphone with the page Lamellaphone /then the main article). I tried to do this by a ring move. The idea was to move "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone1", then "Lamellaphone" to "Lamellophone" and finally "Lamellophoe1" to "Lamellaphone" (+ change some texts). Trying to move the redirect page "Lamellophone" to "Lamellophone11" did not work, the system complained that a page of that name already existed (I belive it did not). I then did the change instead by moving the content of the articles including the talk page content. However, the Talk page of "Lamellophone" now has the title "Talk:Lamellophone1", so it looks like the attempted move lead to an inconsistency in the data structure. It looks like there is a bug in the moove functionality. If possible, could somebody repair the problem (rename the talk page)? Thenk you Nannus 20:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I need a hand
I dont have time at the moment to take care of this issue but these images need undeleted.
- these were orphaned to to a template issue can other admins please undelete? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 21:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added image links to facilitate undeleting them (you can see redlinks vs bluelinks) and restored the first three, but they seem to still be orphaned. Are they actually in use somewhere? --BigDT 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- They still have the orphan template, but all of the ones I've looked at appear to be in use. I've been restoring and then removing the template. And I'm working from the bottom up. -- Merope 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I added image links to facilitate undeleting them (you can see redlinks vs bluelinks) and restored the first three, but they seem to still be orphaned. Are they actually in use somewhere? --BigDT 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please review the closing of the discussion surrounding the application of the trademark section of the manual of style to the article titles that include TNA iMPACT!? It appears the closing admin ignored comparative argument strengths, simple majority, and the manual of style itself in deciding a consensus was not met and therefore move was not warranted. Thanks. ju66l3r 21:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- If reviewing this requested move discussion is not done here, then can someone suggest the next step? I know that there is deletion review, but I don't see a requested move review. Thanks. ju66l3r 23:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Macs and Mcs
Is there a reason why this user has changed the category sort on articles for people with McBlah surnames to Macblah, such as this diff [6], and many more in their contribs? I couldn't find anything at Wikipedia:Categorization_FAQ, am I missing something? --Steve (Slf67) talk 22:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps something should be put in the Categorization FAQ about this. I have been making sure all British MPs are correctly categorised, and checking them against contemporary alphabetical lists, and it is very difficult if the 'Mac's and the 'Mc's are in different places. All lists I have seen treat them as the same. (Also the Irish variant popular in the 19th century, of just "M'"). I confess to myself having changed several over to fit in. Sam Blacketer 22:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as the culprit in question, I was changing those surnames for categorization purposes only because of the note left on Martin McGuinness' edit page from an otherwise unidentified source (a sorter?) who stated that "McG" should be categorized as "Macg"; you can see it yourself.
I extended it to surnames starting with "O'" because I have noticed default sorting as "Oneill", not "O'Neill", for example. It is not anti-Celtic harrassment, I assure you.
As far as the distinction between Mc (Irish) and Mac (Scottish), that is far too deep and profound for me to delve into, I am not an expert anyway, but it has nothing to do with this matter. Please contact me if you wish. Veronica Mars fanatic 02:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Guy is correct that there's a custom of sorting "Mc" and "Mac" together. It is much less common in the U.S. now than it used to be, but is still practised in the U.K. I think there's nothing wrong with doing so here since we also honor British spellings. -Will Beback · † · 09:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hesitation
I've left a notice at User talk:Pastorwayne, due to multiple situations, requests and comments, both in the past and present.
It would seem obvious he's well-meaning, but he's also apparently forcing his POV.
And even though he's been warned several times, he's continuing his disruptive creations.
To make it clear this is a history of many categories, over a period of months.
However, I hesitate to block. for a couple reasons:
1.) "How much is too much" could be considered subjective. (The cry of: "That's what WP:CfD is for...", rings in my ears.)
2.) I think this could set a precedent that could be abused, related to the above. ("You created x number of categories which went up for CfD, so now you're blocked.") - Though I honestly can't imagine an admin doing such a thing, I've been surprised in the past : )
3.) If blocking is appropriate, then we should probably discuss a community ban, since it's been an ongoing issue. (At least from methodist, or even christian-related categories.)
4.) I want to give some time after the warning.
Interested in others' thoughts.
PS - I don't think I would oppose a short block by another disinterested party.
- jc37 23:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- First off, that is a very good post you made on Pastorwayne's talk page.
- To the issue at hand, I think you made a fair and valid warning. A block would only be appropriate if continued disruption occurs after the message, so that the user is prevented from misbehaving more while the discussion of appropriate action is undertaken. I don't see a block at the moment for preventative reasons- no dialogue+disruption= a day or two. Teke (talk) 04:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am one of the people who has seeked administrative assistance regarding Pastorwayne. I read through jc37's comments, and I think he missed one key point. Some of the categories that Pastorwayne has recently created are effectively the recreation of deleted content, which is clearly disruptive. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 15#Category:Methodism in Ohio. This issue needs to be addressed. Dr. Submillimeter 08:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, rather than address my concerns, he created another category. He could have explained his reasoning behind the primate categories, but instead, seems to have ignored the warning and created another one. I think that he qualifies for a block based on at least the two following criteria on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing: "Is tendentious" and "Rejects community input". I think that this also brings us to step 5 at Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Dealing with disruptive editors.
Based on that, I'm instituting a 24-hour block. I do welcome further comments on this. - jc37 15:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Violation of Verifiability, and NOR on "Ethnic Japanese" and "Japanese Diaspora" pages
I'm quite tired of editors refusing to abide by verifiability and NOR on ethnic Japanese and Japanese diaspora (Nikkei people). Currently they have NO reliable sources, while I have many. They keep referring to consensus and discussion; however discussion does not make an article space edit verifiable, and qualifies for original research. You may visit the respective talk page for my evidence (Talk:Japanese_diaspora) or I can recompile key ones here. These editors are relying on gut reaction rather than core tenants of wikipedia. Even the resolution of a move was made by an admin without proper verification. I was willing to compromise with that, but the issue will keep on going. It's ridiculous that I have to spend hours citing my case, but my opposition is getting away with arguments without verification. Currently User:Arthur Rubin is calling me a vandal for edits upon Ethnic Japanese, despite my edit having verifiability. I'm not quite at the point of arbitration, and would like some opinions by administrators. falsedef 02:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- You can view User:Arthur Rubin comments on my talk page. falsedef 02:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- The talk page has exactly one reference, and it may be a stylistic choice rather than a concious decision to (mis)use the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- For examples of reliable sources that use ethnic Japanese to mean those in Japan (nonexclusive): Enc. Britannica, NCBI, Nature, UChicago professor, Time. For example, Britannica states, The population of Japan is very homogeneous, consisting almost entirely of ethnic Japanese..
- The talk page has exactly one reference, and it may be a stylistic choice rather than a concious decision to (mis)use the term. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you have a reliable source that is not ambiguous, then please provide one. At the moment you are violating 2 core policies. ONE unambiguous reliable source (that does not use Wikipedia for its information), then we have a discussion; until then, you have no right to revert my edits. falsedef 02:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you would like the proper usage of Japanese emigrants and descendants (aka Nikkei, Nikkeijin), then here are some: [7][8] [9][10] [11] [12][13] [14][15] [16][17] [18][19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25][26] [27] [28][29][30] [31] [32]. Currently, one of the largest ongoing efforts is with the Japanese American National Museum. You can view their project's site project's site and respective definition derived from "findings of the International Nikkei Research Project, a three-year collaborative project that involved more than 100 scholars from 10 countries and 14 participating institutions." Now, please provide your sources, then we can "discuss" and reach a compromise, otherwise you have no right right to revert my edits. falsedef 02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- All right folks, that's just about enough bickering. Take it to requests for comment if resolution on the talk page doesn't work. This is not the place for content dispute. Thank you, Teke (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- RFC does not seem to resolve core policy conflicts. Reaching consensus is pointless if there's no verifiability. Again, I keep getting referred by editors and even admins about discussion and consensus resolution, with disregard to core policy. The RFC states: "All editors are welcome to provide comment to assist in reaching agreements or to provide their opinions by responding to requests for comment on an article discussion page. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. This is not a vote.". Why must I keep jumping through hoops of unverified claims over and over again? falsedef 06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then it seems arbitration is your route, if mediation cannot be agreed upon. This isn't for a singular administrator to resolve independently unless they want to mediate. Teke (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. I should've requested for it awhile ago; however, I'll refrain for now. I was under the apparently incorrect assumption that admins had the ability and right to enforce wikipedia core policy, or at least be forced to follow it. falsedef 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Then it seems arbitration is your route, if mediation cannot be agreed upon. This isn't for a singular administrator to resolve independently unless they want to mediate. Teke (talk) 06:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- RFC does not seem to resolve core policy conflicts. Reaching consensus is pointless if there's no verifiability. Again, I keep getting referred by editors and even admins about discussion and consensus resolution, with disregard to core policy. The RFC states: "All editors are welcome to provide comment to assist in reaching agreements or to provide their opinions by responding to requests for comment on an article discussion page. Remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; all articles and policies must follow Neutral point of view, Verifiability, and No original research. This is not a vote.". Why must I keep jumping through hoops of unverified claims over and over again? falsedef 06:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- All right folks, that's just about enough bickering. Take it to requests for comment if resolution on the talk page doesn't work. This is not the place for content dispute. Thank you, Teke (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you would like the proper usage of Japanese emigrants and descendants (aka Nikkei, Nikkeijin), then here are some: [7][8] [9][10] [11] [12][13] [14][15] [16][17] [18][19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25][26] [27] [28][29][30] [31] [32]. Currently, one of the largest ongoing efforts is with the Japanese American National Museum. You can view their project's site project's site and respective definition derived from "findings of the International Nikkei Research Project, a three-year collaborative project that involved more than 100 scholars from 10 countries and 14 participating institutions." Now, please provide your sources, then we can "discuss" and reach a compromise, otherwise you have no right right to revert my edits. falsedef 02:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Request deletion of image
The image, "Image:H60566.jpg" exists under identical file names in both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Request that the Wikipedia image be deleted so that the Commons image will be used instead to the linked articles. Thank you. Cla68 03:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Marked. I subst'd {{nct}} and it's still yelling at me for transcluding it! Hbdragon88 03:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, the articles appear to now be linking to the Commons image. Cla68 04:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
titty.jpg
Per Image_talk:Titty.jpg which says to ask on this board I would like to use this image in the article Mammary intercourse. Nardman1 06:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
It's been deleted. Hbdragon88 06:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah; the user who uploaded it is a single-purpose account who has uploaded a few porn images that were deleted for no source/improper licensing, so my opinion was that GFDL-self couldn't be easily confirmed. Ral315 » 06:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Alternative way to create accounts due to CAPTCHA
Because of the recent addition of CAPTCHA images to the account creation page, I'm proposing an alternative process for those who are unable to read the images (screen readers, et al.): Wikipedia:Request an account. Admins would be able to create accounts for anonymous users. Feel free to edit these pages; I'm hoping to add a link to it from MediaWiki:Fancycaptcha-createaccount once the process is well-defined. Ral315 » 06:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
User:Asher Heimermann
Further to this deletion request, Asher Heimermann (talk · contribs) is back with more WP:CHILD issues (this time a picture along with personal information). Anyone want to try to explain our concerns to him this time? Rockpocket 09:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Right, that's it. This kid has made it clear, I think, that he is only here for one reason. Blatant use of a sockpuppet to insert his name in articles after he was warned to desist, using two userpages for self-promotion, etc. ad nauseam. 1 month for him, indef for his sock Tony16, and if anyone wants to change it to indef, please do. yandman 12:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Fuzzy Zoeller needs full protection after article today about lawsuit. Already it's been vandalized. I also thin someone with oversight needs to delete the latest edit. --Tbeatty 14:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is a separate page Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.--Jusjih 14:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I realize that. This is an ongoing incident that recently had front office action and oversight deletions. It needs attention. --Tbeatty 14:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The article is a mess right now. I tried to clean up some of the self-referential problems... --W.marsh 14:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I reverted back further, it looks like you missed the vandalized "Fussy" stuff. I've fully protected for the moment whilst we sort this out.--Isotope23 14:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Be sure to have a look for vandalism when protecting pages, since once protected it can't easily be removed by editors. The protected version had some nonsense about a prosthetic penis, which I've removed. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ugh, I don't know how I missed that. Nice catch.--Isotope23 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Requesting a schoolblock for an IP address
I would like to request a schoolblock for our proxy server IP address so that we don't have anymore instances of students anonymously vandalizing pages. After ask about this on the help desk page I was told that an admin would have to put this in place. Is there an admin that can help me with this ? Pennmanor 21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pennmanor (talk • contribs) 21:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC).
- To start with, you'll need to log out and post again here, so we can see what IP you are coming from. Otherwise your IP is hidden to us. Then someone will look at the history and make a determination. Thatcher131 21:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, here is a post with me being logged out so that you can see the IP. I just static mapped my proxy to this address so you may not see any history of abuse from it but you will find previous abuse from the 166.66.202.70-120 range 166.66.202.60 14:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not seeing a lot of anonymous vandalism; there's some, but it's pretty typical and not so outrageous that we would preemptively block the entire school. The only range I can verify is 166.66.0.0/16, which is all 65000 addresses belonging to the school, including everything from faculty and administrations to the dorms. Blocking the entire range doesn't seem warranted at this time, although I appreciate your concern. Thatcher131 15:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there appear to be almost no edits whatsoever from the given range. —Centrx→talk • 15:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
We are a school district and we utilize the university as our ISP so we only have 128 address. What we would like to avoid is the university being contacted everytime a student vandalizes a page. We would only like to have anonymous edits blocked from 1 IP address, 166.66.202.60 , not the entire range.
- OK that makes more sense, however I am perplexed. The address you cite only has two vandal edits, both today. What are the 128 addresses in question? Thatcher131 15:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Our NAT pool that requests would have come from is 166.66.202.70-120 . Before today when I locked the proxy into the .60 address requests could have been from any of those 50 addresses Pennmanor 15:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Are you saying that from now on, all edits from your school will come from 166.66.202.60? Or do you want 70-120 blocked as well? And would you mind emailing me at thatcher131 at gmail dot com from an official address so I can confirm this is not a prank? Thatcher131 16:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
You should have an email from me. Thanks Pennmanor 16:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- OK, since all the traffic is now routed through one IP and the school is trying to avoid being dinged by their upstream host, a soft block is a no-brainer. Thatcher131 16:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Optional parameter in the "usernameblock" ("unb") template
What isn't documented at {{usernameblock}}, and should be (but I can't edit it to do so, it's protected) is that the template takes an optional parameter. {{usernameblock|reason for block}}, or even {{unb|reason for block}}, will replace the rest of the sentence following "blocked indefinitely because", up to the parenthetical "(see our blocking and username policies for more information)", with your own specific reason for the block.
That is, the boilerplate text -- ..."it may be rude or inflammatory, unnecessarily long/confusing, too similar to an existing user, contains the name of an organization or website, or is otherwise inappropriate"... -- goes away and is replaced by your own text.
If you enter: {{unb|"Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales"}}
you get:
- Your username has been blocked indefinitely because "Charles Prince of Wales" too closely resembles the existing username "The Outlaw Josey Wales" (see our blocking and username policies for more information).
- (and the rest of the template stays the same)
Please pass the word. For blocking admins to consistently use that feature would certainly cut down on our head-scratching at WP:RFCN over "Why was this name blocked?" -- Ben 15:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
This user is being highly disruptive in making changes to tennis articles against longstanding and well-established consensus[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39], editing the comments of other users[40], and blanking his talk page (which includes several warnings) [41] [42] [43]. It appears that this same user was making the exact same changes over the last few weeks using various IP accounts until the Roger Federer article was semi-protected to prevent those changes. We need administrator intervention. Thank you! Tennis expert 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
CAT:PER is at 21 entries now, and has been backlogged for ages. --ais523 16:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)