IronGargoyle (talk | contribs) →Unprotection of [[Chocolate Rain]]: relisted |
|||
Line 388: | Line 388: | ||
I would like to pat the admins on the back for this one. While a DRV was inevitable, at least a clear, thought out, and substantial reasoning was put in the close so at least there is less to contest. [[User:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]]<sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#cc9900">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
I would like to pat the admins on the back for this one. While a DRV was inevitable, at least a clear, thought out, and substantial reasoning was put in the close so at least there is less to contest. [[User:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]]<sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#cc9900">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
:You'd think so, but the opposing comments are getting steadily more insane - it looks like I've been fingered as "one of the ringleaders" (''sic'') of [[WP:CABAL|TEH CABAL]]. Apparently the rest of you are my sockpuppets, or something. It's sour grapes all round - not much good for producing anything other than a little whine. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
:You'd think so, but the opposing comments are getting steadily more insane - it looks like I've been fingered as "one of the ringleaders" (''sic'') of [[WP:CABAL|TEH CABAL]]. Apparently the rest of you are my sockpuppets, or something. It's sour grapes all round - not much good for producing anything other than a little whine. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 20:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::ChrisO, how can you possibly believe these remarks are w/in the bounds of either [[WP:AGF]] or [[WP:CIV]]? To say nothing of [[WP:NPA]]. True, you're pontificating here to a "general audience", but in the process you're effectively besmirching anyone who happens to disagree with your rather disagreeable views and actions. If I were a British Parliamentarian, I'd probably yell "Shame, good sir, shame!", and with good reason. You are incredibly out of line. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:After the 4th administrator showed up to endorse I was waiting for the [[WP:CABAL|cabal]] claims to start. I should start telling fortunes.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Isotope23|talk]]''</sup> 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
:After the 4th administrator showed up to endorse I was waiting for the [[WP:CABAL|cabal]] claims to start. I should start telling fortunes.--[[User:Isotope23|Isotope23]] <sup>''[[User_talk:Isotope23|talk]]''</sup> 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::We should prolly remove the mop icons and admin cats and all mentions of adminship from our user pages. Of course, then they would still hunt us down and claim we were an even more secret cabal, so I guess that wouldn't help either... I am actually amazed I didn't realize how much crap admins got when I got nominated back in the day. [[User:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]]<sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#cc9900">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
::We should prolly remove the mop icons and admin cats and all mentions of adminship from our user pages. Of course, then they would still hunt us down and claim we were an even more secret cabal, so I guess that wouldn't help either... I am actually amazed I didn't realize how much crap admins got when I got nominated back in the day. [[User:David Fuchs|David Fuchs]]<sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#cc9900">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::What ChrisO conveniently neglects to mention is that he and his "cabal" are not a group of admins against a bunch of anonymous trolls. This is a dispute between ChrisO and his opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins in opposition to a bunch of other admins, a number of whom happen to be Jews. Something that becomes obvious when the relevant discussion is read in full. It is not without cause that there are numerous charges of thinly-veiled antisemitism that have been made in the various relevant discussions, not only against ChrisO, but against a significant number of other editors, including a merry gang of uncharacteristically deletionist admins. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
:::I hate to say it, but now I'm horribly reminded of [[Great Jedi Purge|this]]. --[[User:Hemlock Martinis|Hemlock Martinis]] 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
:::I hate to say it, but now I'm horribly reminded of [[Great Jedi Purge|this]]. --[[User:Hemlock Martinis|Hemlock Martinis]] 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
::::That can only be possible if you truly have no concept whatsoëver about what's going on here. [[User:TShilo12|Tom]]<font color="#008000">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|e]]</font>[[User:TShilo12|r]][[User talk:TShilo12|<sup style="font-variant: small-caps; color: #129dbc!important;">talk</sup>]] 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Since we're discussing this business anyway, I feel I should mention that the issue in general is being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid]]. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
Since we're discussing this business anyway, I feel I should mention that the issue in general is being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid]]. -- [[User:ChrisO|ChrisO]] 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 05:34, 9 August 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
|
Current issues
Alleged sockpuppetry by Orderinchaos
Some humour
Thought people might appreciate that. ViridaeTalk 11:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Great stuff. Does anyone collect references like that and put them in Wikipedia:Wikipedia in the media? Maybe Wikipedia:Wikipedia in webcomics, though I note, with sadness, that some killjoy has tried to limit the page with: "It is not intended to be a comprehensive list of all the ones that merely use the word "Wikipedia"." Well, I think those ones are enough about Wikipedia to go in there. Not sure what you call the first one though. Internet humour? Carcharoth 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
COI and copyright problems
West 47th Street (film) and Bill Lichtenstein appear to have been created by Bill Lichtenstein himself, at least partially from material for which he holds and retains the copyright.[9][10][11] 24.4.253.249 08:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- If you believe this material to be copied, use the {{copyvio}} template, stating the suspected source. It says what the authpr should do if he/she is the owner of the material.
- Once that's dealt with, feal free to place a {{coi}} tag on it. Od Mishehu 12:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Screw it - I've provided all the information I have. I have no idea what the source is, merely that an anon IP has claimed to be Lichtenstein and claims to have created one of the pages using material for which he holds the copyright. If I thought the COPYVIO template was applicable in this case, I would have used it; it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to get through to process-bound minds. But if the hoops are more important to you than the use of copyrighted material, fine. 24.4.253.249 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- What action were you requesting be taken? It would appear that more research would be needed, no matter who acts on it. How does that equate to "the hoops" being more important? Leebo T/C 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Apparently the "hoops" that required admin attention by posting here included looking in the article history for a copyvio tag that showed the source material. I've stubbed Bill Lichtenstein to get rid of the copyvio because a random IP "releasing" this for use doesn't cut it in my book. This didn't require a post here though...pretty much anyone who can edit a page could have taken care of this.--Isotope23 talk 18:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- What action were you requesting be taken? It would appear that more research would be needed, no matter who acts on it. How does that equate to "the hoops" being more important? Leebo T/C 18:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Screw it - I've provided all the information I have. I have no idea what the source is, merely that an anon IP has claimed to be Lichtenstein and claims to have created one of the pages using material for which he holds the copyright. If I thought the COPYVIO template was applicable in this case, I would have used it; it's a hell of a lot easier than trying to get through to process-bound minds. But if the hoops are more important to you than the use of copyrighted material, fine. 24.4.253.249 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, Isotope23; I wasn't comfortable making changes to the articles because of 1) my unfamiliarity with copyright law and the Foundation's interpretations of it, and 2) ignorance of the process when a source for alleged copyrighted material is unknown. Despite that, it seemed obvious that further attention was needed outside of the template resources available. 24.4.253.249 19:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Cleaning out the cobwebs
I've recently noticed that some users thought RFC was a formal and bureaucratic process, to the point where these people created a new process (ironically almost exactly identical to RFC) that was supposedly less formal. Since content RFCs were never intended as formal, I've taken a flame thrower to the warnings and caveats and other instruction creepy stuff on that page accumulated over the years, and making it simple again. Please copyed. >Radiant< 15:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
DYK backlog
There's a six-day backlog on DYK. Lots of valid nominations are discarded daily, because very few DYK regulars are still active these summer days. If there are some idle sysops, they are welcome to make their DYK update debut. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I was partly responsive for the large discard,and initiated a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Circeus 02:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Cannot say I'm very familiar with the DYK stuff (only one submission ever) but I'll try and help out with anything I can. David Fuchs (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Controversial AfD closure - a heads-up
A particularly controversial AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid, is coming up for closure shortly. It's one of the most contentious AfDs I've seen in a long time, with over 100 !votes so far (currently with a slight majority for deletion). Given that members of WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine are heavily involved in the dispute, it's probably best for an admin with no involvement in those WikiProjects or subject areas to close the AfD, so that any claims of bias on the part of the closer can be avoided. The closer will need to have a fair amount of tact and diplomacy (which rules me right out :) as well as a strong grasp of policy, particularly regarding the nature of notability and original research, and ideally a willingness to think through the issues as elegantly as A Man In Black did in his closure of Daniel Brandt. Any volunteers? -- ChrisO 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'll have a look - no promises as whether to complexly merge anything! But, my word, I'd need to think about the closure, probably a day or so. Then again, maybe not. Moreschi Talk 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
^demon closed it as delete. Expect an equally messy DRV. —Kurykh 19:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- No doubt. I'm reminded of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Daniel Brandt 2 (ugh). -- ChrisO 19:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Probably... though I have to say, I was reviewing it too and I would have probably done the same thing, including offering the content for Hukou to be resurrected for use. There was some good info there, it was just supporting original synthesis and a neologism.--Isotope23 talk 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
So much for WP:AGF, eh Chris? Tomertalk 20:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I AGF. The discussion in the AfD shows that quite a few people don't, at least in this case. We don't need yet more controversy and drama in this affair; that's why I suggested that someone wholly uninvolved in anything to do with the wikiprojects or subject matter should close the AfD. Believe me, I've been there with another article and I'd hate to see another admin facing the barrage of crap that I did. -- ChrisO 20:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- You're suggestiong that no editor from WikiProject China, WikiProject Judaism, WikiProject Israel and WikiProject Palestine should not be allowed to close an AFD that involves those WikiProjects. That doesn't strike me as assuming good faith. You and I have very different ideas of AGF. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- What I got from the post was that in having the closing admin be not from one of those projects, any disagree-ers wouldn't be able to use the argument "The closing admin was biased". I thought this was just an attempt to get somebody to close the discussion that would have the least likelihood of being called biased. Nobody suggested no allowing members of those projects from closing the discussion. Sancho 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly. They could have closed it, but they would have got a load of abuse from one side or the other if they had. It's better all round to avoid that. -- ChrisO 22:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds like a fair request designed both to mitigate complications at the inevitable DRV and (perceived or real) COI. I fail to see the problem with the request. --ElKevbo 23:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Seems like a fair call. Until(1 == 2) 20:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Um, not really, knowing the history there. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ugh. It seems this mess isn't over yet - I've just come across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, an AfD on a sister article which involves many of the same editors and all of the same set of arguments. It likewise needs closing. Again, I suggest an uninvolved closer for this one to avoid any claims of bias. -- ChrisO 01:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Closed that one. f anyone wants to discuss the close, feel free. ViridaeTalk 02:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I find it reasonable. The rename fixes most of my concerns, at any rate. >Radiant< 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if you mean Viridae's recommendation to rename the article, or the act of renaming which I performed earlier - the article is now at Tourist segregation in Cuba. Which did you mean? And do you have any thoughts on the new title? -- ChrisO 18:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I find it reasonable. The rename fixes most of my concerns, at any rate. >Radiant< 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Aaaaaaaand here comes the DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion review/Allegations of Chinese apartheid. By the way, does anyone else find it really inappropriate that Leifern attempted to delete (!) the co-closer endorser's statement from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of Chinese apartheid? ([12]) -- ChrisO 07:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, and I would recommend a warning - although co-closers arent the norm, they arent disallowed, and therefore have no reason to be removed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 07:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- The circumstances are quite amusing - from Hemlock's user talk page: "There was an edit conflict as I submitted my closure. I contacted ^demon on IRC to jokingly complain, and another administrator suggested I do an endorsement." It's actually quite fortuitous because it shows that two admins, operating independently, came to much the same decision simultaneously using the same policy arguments. -- ChrisO 07:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I would like to pat the admins on the back for this one. While a DRV was inevitable, at least a clear, thought out, and substantial reasoning was put in the close so at least there is less to contest. David Fuchs (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- You'd think so, but the opposing comments are getting steadily more insane - it looks like I've been fingered as "one of the ringleaders" (sic) of TEH CABAL. Apparently the rest of you are my sockpuppets, or something. It's sour grapes all round - not much good for producing anything other than a little whine. -- ChrisO 20:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- ChrisO, how can you possibly believe these remarks are w/in the bounds of either WP:AGF or WP:CIV? To say nothing of WP:NPA. True, you're pontificating here to a "general audience", but in the process you're effectively besmirching anyone who happens to disagree with your rather disagreeable views and actions. If I were a British Parliamentarian, I'd probably yell "Shame, good sir, shame!", and with good reason. You are incredibly out of line. Tomertalk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- After the 4th administrator showed up to endorse I was waiting for the cabal claims to start. I should start telling fortunes.--Isotope23 talk 20:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- We should prolly remove the mop icons and admin cats and all mentions of adminship from our user pages. Of course, then they would still hunt us down and claim we were an even more secret cabal, so I guess that wouldn't help either... I am actually amazed I didn't realize how much crap admins got when I got nominated back in the day. David Fuchs (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- What ChrisO conveniently neglects to mention is that he and his "cabal" are not a group of admins against a bunch of anonymous trolls. This is a dispute between ChrisO and his opinionated and misinformed gaggle of know-it-all admins in opposition to a bunch of other admins, a number of whom happen to be Jews. Something that becomes obvious when the relevant discussion is read in full. It is not without cause that there are numerous charges of thinly-veiled antisemitism that have been made in the various relevant discussions, not only against ChrisO, but against a significant number of other editors, including a merry gang of uncharacteristically deletionist admins. Tomertalk 05:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but now I'm horribly reminded of this. --Hemlock Martinis 07:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- We should prolly remove the mop icons and admin cats and all mentions of adminship from our user pages. Of course, then they would still hunt us down and claim we were an even more secret cabal, so I guess that wouldn't help either... I am actually amazed I didn't realize how much crap admins got when I got nominated back in the day. David Fuchs (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Since we're discussing this business anyway, I feel I should mention that the issue in general is being discussed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Allegations of apartheid. -- ChrisO 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This RfC about me has passed the 48 hour threshold. Please approve or reject it. --Eyrian 19:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you mean. At least two users claim to have tried to resolve the issue with supporting evidence; that is sufficient to continue with the RfC. Sr13 is almost Singularity 19:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I disagree with that assessment, but the point is that it has neither been formally moved into "accepted" nor deleted, which the RfC process dictates should have happened by now. --Eyrian 19:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I believe Eyrian is referring to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. This RfC is still listed under "candidate pages" and is looking for it to either be moved to "approved pages" or be deleted. For Eyrian's benefit, admins look at the user-conduct RfC page fairly regularly, so I don't think you will have to wait very long for one of those outcomes. Newyorkbrad 20:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Once again, we see the misuse of conduct RfC with respect to a priori efforts to resolve the dispute. Prior efforts to resolve the dispute are not optional. One of the users has failed to do so, entirely, whereas cited efforts by the other, hardly appear sufficient. This would become immediately clear to the casual observer if some sort of accompanying summary were to follow those diffs (that, however, is optional; but it would go well to illustrate this point). Adhering to RfC certification rules is not bureaucratic, it is necessary to keep it grounded in the spirit of our dispute resolution system; to prevent the bureaucratization and easy circumvention of conduct RfCs as indictment-like pages that are a shortcut to, rather than a consequence of, the parties talking to each other, with dr in mind, about the dispute. In short, deleted and delisted. El_C 20:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is an increasingly common feature of user conduct RfCs. People say they've tried to resolve the dispute, when in fact they're lying through their teeth. Most likely they've never even talked to the person in question. Moreschi Talk 12:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Disagreeing with one of your administrative decisions, as at least 4 admins did on the thread you cite, is not equivalent to encouraging the misuse of RfC's. If you're still upset about your actions there being questioned, it might be more constructive to discuss it with the involved admins rather than sniping here. MastCell Talk 22:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to learn you view this criticism as sniping; I do reserve myself the option of touching on it here, in this related case. El_C 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody please speedy delete this nonsense article and close the AfD that is becoming overrun by SPAs? Corvus cornix 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- DoneChrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 21:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you. Corvus cornix 21:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, is there a template to close afd's? I've always cut and pasted the code from other closed AfDs to do it, rather annoying. David Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- {{Afd top}} {{Afd bottom}} and add the closing reason immediately underneath the first one - that works for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, thats how its done. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I personally like the Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/CloseAFD.js script... — Scientizzle 20:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yea, thats how its done. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 19:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- {{Afd top}} {{Afd bottom}} and add the closing reason immediately underneath the first one - that works for me. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for that... David Fuchs (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Incidentally, is there a template to close afd's? I've always cut and pasted the code from other closed AfDs to do it, rather annoying. David Fuchs (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
RDNS is "web-proxy.beale.af.mil". My guess is this is a gateway between a secure DoD network and the Internet. It has a history of some vandalism but mostly good edits. Is there a tag to apply to the talk header to alert people dealing with it? Also (I'm assuming) it's not considered an "open proxy" (although it may in fact be open to a great many people)? -Nard 22:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- I tagged it with {{SharedIP}}, noting the squadron and Air Force base. I do this whenever I come across IPs registered to military bases and many turnout to be shared computers in base libraries. Probably just bored/unsupervised kids. - auburnpilot talk 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Checking page history of deleted version of relief sculpture
I recently created a redirect from relief sculpture to relief, but while doing so I noticed that a previous version of relief sculpture had been deleted as "nonsense". This struck me as strange, as this is a fairly common architectural term. I was wondering if a vandal had turned the previously existing page into nonsense, which might then have been deleted without anyone checking the page history. I also noticed that the deletion took place on 29 November 2005, but when I checked "what links here" for relief sculpture, I found three links (all of which were red-links before I recreated the page): (1) This version of an image page on 16 July 2005; (2) an edit to Talk:Dürer's Rhinoceros on 20 August 2006; and (3) the addition of the link to the page List of basic sculpture topics with this edit back in October 2001! That last example is back at the dawn of Wikipedia!! The second link was probably always red. I don't know when the first and second links turned blue, as I don't know when the deleted version of relief sculpture was created, but this all leads me to suspect that there may be salvageable content that was obscured by vandalism and then deleted without checking. Of course, it could also be that the current article of relief is quite adequate (see the page history), but technically any salvageable content should be merged and previous non-vandalised versions made visible. After all this, I will be most disappointed if there are no non-vandalised versions hidden away there. So, my questions are: (a) could someone please check this? ; (b) if there was a previous non-vandalised version, is there a way of checking whether redlinks were later removed after the deletion of 29 November 2005? ; and (c) is there a location to ask for admins to check page histories in this way? I thought of asking for a history restore at deletion review, but I thought here would get the same result. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- There were only two edits to relief sculpture: The first was a string of gibberish, the second was a speedy tag. IrishGuy talk 23:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Exactly right. Cat on your keyboard type keyboarding. --FloNight 23:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Often, users see a link, click it, and find it doesnt exist and it asks them to create it. These users often insert random nonsense, then it gets deleted. That's likely what happened in this case. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, guys. I'm guessing the first version of the page got deleted very soon after it was created? If that's the case, don't bother replying to confirm, I'll assume that was the case. Carcharoth 01:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Continued Personal Attacks by User:Chrisjnelson.
As my request at WP:ANI has not helped, would someone please step in and put a stop to this? Here is yet another example of this user attacking me. Continued warnings have done nothing as he was warned several times. In fact, one warning was issued at WP:ANI here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 07:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Note the two users were in discussion at Wikipedia:Community enforceable mediation/Fangio and Nelson due to a disagreement over just how to link to Pro Bowls. Nevertheless, Chris is goading Juan, and I've asked him to stop that. The whole thing could probably use somebody knowledgable about the NFL (ie, not me) to step in and help out - both are gaming 3RR and the mediation was called off due to both being 100% certain they were correct and swearing to never let the other get their way. Neil ╦ 08:27, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, I have not asserted that "I am correct". What I have said is that Chris' point of view, and the "alternative" point of view are both 100% legitimate. Because of that, I have proposed a neutral solution. This is starting to spread like a virus and I'm close to taking this to the ArbCom. If someone wants to advise me otherwise, I'm all ears. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- If Chris' point of view is acceptable, and he really really really wants it, why not just let him get his way? This would surely be better than going to ArbCom over something so minor. Neil ╦ 08:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't actually think it's minor at this point. Chris has expressed WP:OWN numerous times and has attacked me even more. This is actually overflow from Template talk:Infobox NFL player, where he was driven off. A number of other people have agreed that Chris' perspective is no more correct than the other. I'm happy to find a neutral solution, but it doesn't seem that he is willing to. If Chris gets his way, then this aspect of the template will be constantly edited (as others have said). I'm just trying to find some middle ground. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Jonathan King - help and advice would be great!
hi all - would someone mind swinging by and taking a look - there's been a very slow burning edit war over the last few weeks concerning the weight to give King's sexual convictions, and it's in danger of deteriorating rapidly - help and advice would be great (obviously including a take on my edits and contributions.....) thanks.... Purples 09:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, in regards to your edits: the summary "oopsie - this is better, at least you're not claiming that this is nonsence, but you are still removing large sections of sourced important information, which isn't a good thing... stop it!" might have been a little judgmental and dismissive (altho removing large amounts of information without discussion shouldn't be encouraged)... As to the actual article... slow burning is like it. From what I can tell, the debate is about the length/detail of King's jail time/crimes section, correct? David Fuchs (talk) 19:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff AfD
| The Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff AfD is being plowed by anon ips and suspected spas. I don't know if Mrs. Seelhoff (she created her own article) is trying to make one side look bad, and disrupt the discussion, or if there is a person with the intent to bring her down, but it's getting out of hand. I think someone should take a look. James Luftan contribs 19:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- That is an ugly mess. No time to deal right now. I considered semi-protecting the AFD, but wasn't sure if I should. GRBerry 22:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- There seem to be 15 comments by IP editors in the AfD right now, which compares with 60 or more edits by logged-in editors. Unless the AfD closer is half-asleep, shouldn't he be able to sort this out when he closes? EdJohnston 23:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Images
Remember the Claire Danes image discussion from this board a few days ago? Good news: Claire Danes has a professional photo now.
Wikipedians often hope more celebrities would release images through GDFL. I'm in a position to communicate that to the PR folks and I'd like your help. If your volunteer time focuses on images, please contact me via e-mail. Tell me the things you wish they knew. DurovaCharge! 20:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- (refactored) LessHeard vanU 21:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- What's with the Photo courtesy of Robin Wong Photography caption and an external link? I thought that this sort of stuff belongs on the image description page, but not in the caption of articles. Take Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, and the image with a very similar license. Why no photo credit in the caption there? Perhaps that could be an incentive to get more photographers to donate their work (or release it under a 'free' license) by saying we'll link to them from encyclopedia articles. However, I don't think we are at that point, and was wondering if I was missing something by wanting to remove the photo credit/weblink from the Claire Danes article.-Andrew c [talk] 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's one question I'd like to ask: how appropriate is that caption? If consensus would prefer a different credit format then I'd like to know. The Claire Danes image issue is an example of what I'd like to explore. I'd like to explain what methods are compliant with consensus. DurovaCharge! 02:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Attribution of the image is found on the image description page -- we needn't reproduce attribution everywhere the image appears. It's redundant, distracting, and smacks of advertising. I've removed it from the Claire Danes and MuchOnDemand article, and will probably poke around to see if other links like that have cropped up. -- Merope 12:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Well, that's one question I'd like to ask: how appropriate is that caption? If consensus would prefer a different credit format then I'd like to know. The Claire Danes image issue is an example of what I'd like to explore. I'd like to explain what methods are compliant with consensus. DurovaCharge! 02:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- What's with the Photo courtesy of Robin Wong Photography caption and an external link? I thought that this sort of stuff belongs on the image description page, but not in the caption of articles. Take Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome, and the image with a very similar license. Why no photo credit in the caption there? Perhaps that could be an incentive to get more photographers to donate their work (or release it under a 'free' license) by saying we'll link to them from encyclopedia articles. However, I don't think we are at that point, and was wondering if I was missing something by wanting to remove the photo credit/weblink from the Claire Danes article.-Andrew c [talk] 00:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Anyone can upload with a CC-BY license that requires those using the image elsewhere to attribute the creator in the manner specified. For instance, the owner can request attribution by name with a link to their web page. This doesn't look like advertising in Wikipedia, but if somebody copies the image from Wikipedia to use elsewhere, the owner will get a publicity benefit, as well as a bit of search engine optimization via the additional link. Jehochman Talk 12:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Personally I would prefer not to see image captions in articles cluttered with photo credits. I have no problem with the image description page having detailed information about the photographer (name, address, phone number and web site) as a form of attribution and to give the photog something in return for their donation. (I have no idea what actual policy is, but since policy comes from what we do, rather than the reverse, it should be no big deal.) Thatcher131 14:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
So what can the business community do to facilitate image use compliant with Wikipedia policies? Releasing more stuff via GDFL or compatible copyleft seems to be tops. Have there been other common mistakes you'd like to make them aware of so they can correct? Or particular requests that would be to their benefit as well as Wikipedia's? DurovaCharge! 15:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Restoration
These exact words are used in the Suburban Noize Records Talk Page for a request to unblock the page and create what should be known on Wikipedia. "One page that many have told me would be great to work on is the Subruban Noize Records page. Many artist are working under this label and for those who use Wikipedia as their main source of information would like to understand what this label is all about. These artist are the likes of Jada Pinkett Smith and Wicked Wisdom, the legendary punk rock group D.I. , Sen Dog of [[Cypress Hill] and of course the head of the label, the Kottonmouth Kings. I'd like to use the facts used from the Kottonmouth Kings' documentary, 10 Years Deep and The Official Suburban Noize Records Website to summarize the greatness that came out of such a small thing. I personally would be greatly appreciative to give the details behind this great label." Apologies2all 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is an unsalting request; The version deleted in March was a one-liner, but the previous version, deleted in January, was deleted with "No evidence of notability". However, looking at their website now, they appear to have at least a few notable bands signed to them ((həd) p.e., OPM, Mondo Generator - probably a few more, I'm not familiar with some of these genres. I don't see any reason why a decent article couldn't be written on this subject. ELIMINATORJR 00:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have been accused of personal attacks by User:Lurker
Minor capitalization issue
Could someone with Foundation access please capitalize the word "internet" in http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Board_of_Trustees? Yuser31415 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, you may get a faster response if you post on feedback page. Majorly (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done but please request it on the feedback page in the future! The English Wikipedia admin's noticeboard has nothing to do with that site! :) However, thanks so much for the heads-up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks and apologies! (By the way, this is my new username.) -- Thomas H. Larsen 04:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- What was the reason for the request? As I noted on the feedback page, the actual change made was to lowercase some occurences, which I believe is a good change. Capitalization would not, in my view, be appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 11:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks and apologies! (By the way, this is my new username.) -- Thomas H. Larsen 04:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done but please request it on the feedback page in the future! The English Wikipedia admin's noticeboard has nothing to do with that site! :) However, thanks so much for the heads-up! Cbrown1023 talk 03:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This user left Wikipedia two years ago. Recently I noticed the user's account on Commons had been hacked the same time (January 2007) his user page here on Wikipedia was the target of vandalism. Given the potential this is a hacked sleeper account, I'm wondering if it shouldn't be reblocked. (or in the alternative, looking at the block log, apparently this was a vandal using good guy/bad guy personas... The vandalism on Commons in January should be the proof the unblocker was waiting for.) -Nard 01:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Can somebody please shut down Betacommandbot?
It keeps messing up Template:Wider attention list (look at the history) and it's really annoying me.--P4k 04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Instead of trying to stop the bot you should have looked into the human factor, and the usage of {{watt}} and {{wider attention}} you would have seen that on the emo talkpage there was a human typo that was generating that error. βcommand 14:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- PS the complete text of {{wider attention}} is bot created and human editors will just get reverted. βcommand 14:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Couple of very small interface changes
Hi. For the sake of consistency, could some admin please modify the interface of Special:Preferences to lowercase the word "If" in "Raw signature (If unchecked ...", and change Special:Watchlist/raw to lowercase the word "Watchlist" in "Update Watchlist"? Cheers, -- Thomas H. Larsen 05:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- ... and the caps in "please use the Sandbox" when editing an article as an IP. Fairly minor, so I won't complain if these changes aren't made. -- Thomas H. Larsen 05:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed the IP message, but for the raw signature it's the start of a sentence, even if it is in brackets. Also for the raw watchlist it says "Update Watchlist" on the button (with the capitals). I'm not sure how to change the button text, I think it needs a developer. It's not that vital anyway. Here are some links incase anyone is planning on changing anything: MediaWiki:Watchlistedit-raw-explain, MediaWiki:Tog-fancysig and MediaWiki:Anoneditwarning. Trust me, it saves time rather than sorting through Special:Allmessages. James086Talk | Email 08:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Member Missing
I'd like to call attention to the disappearance of User:Guy (also know as User:JzG). His page has bee deleted, (CSD G7: Author Requests Deletion) as well as his Talk Page. As you all should, know he is a valuable member of our community, and I'd be grateful offer any information that could easy my concern. Cheers, Dfrg.msc 07:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- See the current thread at WP:ANI#JzG -- Flyguy649 talk contribs 07:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Unprotection of Chocolate Rain
I would like to unprotect Chocolate Rain so that I can add a legitimate article there that I think meets WP:MUSIC, and I'd rather not go through the bother of another DRV. I would just ask ST47, who protected it, but he is on wikibreak right now (I should also note that I closed the last DRV for this article as keep deleted). Does anyone have an objection to this? Thanks! IronGargoyle 08:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- No objections raised, so I have gone ahead and unprotected. IronGargoyle 15:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Re-deleted. With both the AfD and the DrV showing strong consensus to keep this deleted, you really should have known better. Take it to DRV if you must, but without STRONG new evidence that additional notability/verifiability has shown up since the last DRV (which was just a week or two ago), it has no chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I salted it too, since it's been recreated far too much. --Deskana (banana) 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Fair enough, but I would like to point out that I used new and reliable sources that were not available at the time of the last DRV. To quote from CSD G4: "the copy [must be] substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes to it do not address the reasons for which it was deleted". I don't think that was the case, and I invite you to look at the deleted revisions. Best, IronGargoyle 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I salted it too, since it's been recreated far too much. --Deskana (banana) 15:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Re-deleted. With both the AfD and the DrV showing strong consensus to keep this deleted, you really should have known better. Take it to DRV if you must, but without STRONG new evidence that additional notability/verifiability has shown up since the last DRV (which was just a week or two ago), it has no chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the deletion at this point, although I was one of the people arguing for it earlier. The authors and proponents of the article at first claimed youtube and google as sources and evidence of notability, both for the main article and mentions in other articles. When told these were not verifiable or reliable sources, they objected to Wikipedia policies and basically called us a bunch of nitwits for denying what they considered obvious. People repeatedly vandalized various pages with mentions of Chocolate Rain. In the deletion review some calmly repeated our position that rules must be followed, whereas others who were apparently fed up from dealing with the unruliness of newbies said the video and other Internet memes can never be notable no matter how much coverage they get. I and others prevailed on the editors to go away and come back when they could find newspaper articles about the phenomenon, and they dutifully complied. The new article, though not perfect, does have multiple verifiable sources. As such, I feel like a hypocrite for having told them they can write Wikipedia articles if they will only do things the right way. It is untenable, and breaks NPOV, to say a topic is non-notable per se due to its subject matter, even if it has multiple reliable sources and fits all the other criteria. Notability and sourcing are there to enforce process and quality, not to shield us from articles on subjects we don't like. I have no idea why some feel so strongly that the video needs coverage but they do. There is a lot of interest in this. We're setting a bad example, and perhaps proving right the accusation that we're biased, if we categorically refuse to listen. Like it or not, it is a major Internet phenomenon and articles are rapidly beginning to appear. I haven't read these in depth -- that's the job of people who actually want to write the thing -- but I see substantial-looking mentions in Gaming Today, Daily Telegraph, Minnesota Daily, Undercover Music News, Ashland City Times, The Sun, MTV.com, Business Standard, and the New Zealand Herald. That is more sourcing that most music articles have. Most or all of these articles appeared after the deletion and subsequent review. It's only a matter of time before it gets mentioned in USA Today or CNN. Whatever threshold you may have for sourcing the article will likely cross it, whether today or next week or a month from now. Wikidemo 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- It was also a topic on VH1's "Best Week Ever". Chocolate Rain isn't Tay's best work, btw. That would be Edelweiss. OMG, the young man needs some real musical training and to sing opera. He's got raw talent there. Kyaa the Catlord 16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, a casual google indicates that this article may now be sourcable. We should be less into "sticking to our guns" and more into realizing that situations change. With a topic of recently-exploding popularity, it's entirely reasonable that a few short weeks may drastically change what sources are available. This should be unsalted, etc. It's a shame that such tripe becomes popular only for being so horribly bad, but it's not really up to us to judge. Friday (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think we need a shrubbery if the new article meets inclusion standards. G4 is for substantially identical versions. Until(1 == 2) 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps if someone wants it we should give a user the article to put on userspace until it can be slam-dunk verified and notable? David Fuchs (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's where it was until I moved it. I thought it was pretty much a slam-dunk. Apparently it got slam-dunked into the trash bin though. I have put it into my userspace again (sans image) so that editors may, more easily, evaluate it. IronGargoyle 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I copy-edited the article for language and encyclopedic tone just before its latest deletion, and saved a text version of that if anyone is interested. I didn't add or remove any major points or references, just cleaning up. I thought I was doing a favor to people....I don't want this nonsense in my user space but if anyone is willing to host it, I'm happy to post it back there. Just let me know. Wikidemo 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- An edit of my draft? Or the one that was DRVed a couple of weeks ago? Either way, feel free to make any edits to my draft that can add to the encyclopedic tone. Sourcing has always been a stronger point of mine than tone. IronGargoyle 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, done. I added some section headers, took out words like "perhaps" and "however" and "admitted," and removed the attempt to show notability via the number of parodies, covers, and views -- that just seems a little forced. Once it's notable people will know it from the references. Is the matter closed for now? Come back once you have a few more sources, which will inevitably come? I don't know how much more you want this to gestate. A major publication reference? A detailed article somewhere? A Congressional Medal of Freedom? However did I get sucked into this... Wikidemo 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- It's not closed as far as I'm concerned. I'm seeing if this thread attracts any more attention, because right now there seem to be a good number of editors who seem to support its recreation now (I have a hard time seeing how this does not pass at least two criteria on WP:MUSIC (or WP:WEB). If somebody else doesn't take the initiative and unsalt it themselves, I will send it back to DRV. IronGargoyle 21:13, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, done. I added some section headers, took out words like "perhaps" and "however" and "admitted," and removed the attempt to show notability via the number of parodies, covers, and views -- that just seems a little forced. Once it's notable people will know it from the references. Is the matter closed for now? Come back once you have a few more sources, which will inevitably come? I don't know how much more you want this to gestate. A major publication reference? A detailed article somewhere? A Congressional Medal of Freedom? However did I get sucked into this... Wikidemo 19:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- An edit of my draft? Or the one that was DRVed a couple of weeks ago? Either way, feel free to make any edits to my draft that can add to the encyclopedic tone. Sourcing has always been a stronger point of mine than tone. IronGargoyle 19:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I copy-edited the article for language and encyclopedic tone just before its latest deletion, and saved a text version of that if anyone is interested. I didn't add or remove any major points or references, just cleaning up. I thought I was doing a favor to people....I don't want this nonsense in my user space but if anyone is willing to host it, I'm happy to post it back there. Just let me know. Wikidemo 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- That's where it was until I moved it. I thought it was pretty much a slam-dunk. Apparently it got slam-dunked into the trash bin though. I have put it into my userspace again (sans image) so that editors may, more easily, evaluate it. IronGargoyle 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps if someone wants it we should give a user the article to put on userspace until it can be slam-dunk verified and notable? David Fuchs (talk) 18:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- A DRV should quickly determine that G4 did not apply. Agathoclea 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if G4 applied or not, but a DRV would still have to be performed for inclusion (particularly one where an admin went forward and undeleted the article himself)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't undelete. I re-wrote from scratch. The only issue was the unprotection and no one objected for 7 hours (the salting admin was on wikibreak...and I closed the DRV, so the salting order comes from my lips anyway) so I thought I was fine. IronGargoyle 21:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if G4 applied or not, but a DRV would still have to be performed for inclusion (particularly one where an admin went forward and undeleted the article himself)—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:25, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- A DRV should quickly determine that G4 did not apply. Agathoclea 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Relisted
I have listed Chocolate Rain on DRV per the new draft and the addition of new and reliable sources. IronGargoyle 22:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I first noticed this page because of the use of images in userspace. After looking at it, I thought somebody else might want to review it. 24.6.65.83 08:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Requesting a deletion
Oh mighty administrators, I hereby humbly request that you delete the page Executory interest, which formerly redirected to Executory interests. I request this because I wish to move the latter page to the former name, to give it a proper, singular title. If you have and questions, please contact me at my talk page. --Eastlaw 09:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Done ;) >Radiant< 09:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, you can tag it with {{db-move}} instead. (That way you don't have to beg.) Hut 8.5 17:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Kiev/Kjiv, User:Kyivukraine, and avoiding COI
I just blocked User:Kyivukraine for edit warring related to the naming of Kiev, and suspect him to be a sockish SPA on the issue, but after blocking him realized that this may create the appearance of a conflict of interest on my part as I once expressed an opinion on the name of Kiev. It isn't my intention to ever use my admin bit as a club to push my own POV, this was normal disruption and I think the block should stand, but I'd like to make a note here in case anyone feels differently. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Chocolate rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Chocolate rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) points to a nonexistent article, which was deleted and protected. I'd put a {{db-r1}} tag on Chocolate rain, but the page is protected, so I'm asking here at WP:AN instead.
I suppose I could ask for adminship so I could do things like this myself, but self-noms are supposedly a prima facie indication of power hunger, and RFA is a circus anyway. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- Aw come on... you know you want the constant abuse for making decisions that someone, somewhere will find to be wrong... Come and join the dark side my padawan and together we will rule the galaxy!... or not.
- I deleted the dead end redirect. I didn't salt it as I'm not overly familiar with the main issues pertaining to Chocolate Rain, though if someone else feels it necessary they can do so.--Isotope23 talk 18:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
- See the discussion "unprotection of choc. rain" a couple of headers above this. David Fuchs (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as Chocolate Rain is deleted, so should Chocolate rain.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)