Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:57, 14 May 2007 editDurova (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,685 editsm →Tenacious IP Vandal: fixed typo← Previous edit Revision as of 06:02, 14 May 2007 edit undoJehochman (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers46,275 edits →Tenacious IP Vandal: word choiceNext edit →
Line 606: Line 606:


The situation was finally resolved by semi-protecting the targeted articles. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC) The situation was finally resolved by semi-protecting the targeted articles. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
: To clarify the point of this thread, Jehochman and I suspect this was a coordinated attempt to erase outgoing links to a particular site, possibly by some professional competitor of ], and possibly script-driven. I've blocked all three IP addresses for 24 hours and semiprotected these articles for two weeks. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC) : To clarify the point of this thread, Jehochman and I suspect this was a coordinated attempt to erase outgoing links to a particular site, possibly by some professional adversary of ], and possibly script-driven. I've blocked all three IP addresses for 24 hours and semiprotected these articles for two weeks. <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:02, 14 May 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators. Shortcuts

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

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

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

    Start a new discussion



    Burntsauce

    User:Burntsauce is constantly going around blanking pro wrestling articles, just because they don't have enough sources. He refuses to let us know, and is totally taking the rules too far. WP:BIO says delete things with out sources that controversial, not just delete everything.

    Can an admin ask him to stop blanking articles, and to just leave a notice at the WP:PW notice board that it needs sources? Whenever we question him about it on his talk page, he immediatly deletes the messages.

    Thanks, Kris 02:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Admins don't have any special power to warn people. If you think that a block may be warranted, you can make a case here with diffs of when he/she blanked the pages and when he/she was warned. It is considered courteous to leave a message on Burntsauce's talk page pointing out that there is a discussion here about him/her. I'll leave one for this thread. CMummert · talk 02:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Burntsauce has been doing a commendable job ensuring that our articles comply with WP:LIVING policy, and should be thanked for the thankless job he is carrying out. There is no issue here which requires administrative attention. RFerreira 02:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    That is ridiculous. He is completely blanking out pages with out letting us know. Those articles are protected by WP:IAR, and he is nothing more then a vandal. Look at his talk page, even Lid brings up the fact that he doesn't even read external links, he just assumes that it is not there and blanks them. The member that posted above me is also a vandal, completely blanking pages if not sourced, with out giving any warning. Kris 02:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Diffs please. It would help if you could cite specific examples of the vandalism you are referring to. Removing unsourced material from biographies of living people is not vandalism. RFerreira 02:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    This editor was blocked for trying the WP:IAR excuse on one of these articles recently, so his attempt to claim WP:IAR trumps WP:BLP is incorrect. One Night In Hackney303 02:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Yes, blanking pages is generally discouraged, even with BLP articles. But he/she probably has good intentions, as do you. You have to make a case if you want admin action, and then people here will discuss it and decide if any action is warranted. This is not a personal investigation service. CMummert · talk 02:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Right. Ignore all rules needs a huge fucking asterisk next to it, because if there is one rule we do not break around here its the policy we have in place for living people. RFerreira 02:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    This person is not trying to do good. When questioning him about it on his talk page he will delete the message. If he were trying to do good, he would respond to the messages, let us know it needed to be sourced before blanking, and if he did blank articles, he should at least let us know. Kris 02:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    You are giving us airy rhetoric, not actual policy violations. —physicq (c) 02:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    He is going around blanking pages. All he does is go around blanking wrestling pages. Why? I don't know. Maybe he hates wrestling, and doesn't feel it belongs on Wiki, but I would catagorize him as a troll when all he does is look for wrestling related articles with a lack of sources and blank them. Kris 02:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Removing unsourced information from biographies of living people is not only allowed, but mandated. Your assertions are false, misleading, unsubstantiated, and insulting. —physicq (c) 02:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Jimbo said it best here "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information is to be tagged with a "needs a cite" tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced. This is true of all information, but it is particularly true of negative information about living persons."

    You people need to quit your bitching about articles being massively cropped... find some sources to back the content and poof the problem goes away. These articles have remained in this unsourced form for months, with "Citation Needed" templates all over many of these pages... this is an improvement!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 02:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, I've sat back for too long regarding this. I am sick and tired of this issue being discussed over and over and over again, ad nauseum. The back and forth of "Stop blanking, it's vandalism", "Unsourced material violates BLP", "No, only contentious material violates BLP" is useless when it comes to building an encyclopedia. You know what? I'm a member of WP:PW and if anything, Burntsauce's blanking has made us step it up a notch when it comes to sourcing. Also, results from wrestling shows (especially ones televised) are not any sort of "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information, nor are they negative, so that quote from Jimbo Wales goes right out the window. Should they still be cited so they are verifiable? Absolutely, just don't call something "pseudo-information" that isn't. I don't see any concrete policy violations on anyone's part (I'm going to AGF for all parties involved here). My one and only issue with Burntsauce is that he seems to be targeting only pro wrestling articles for this sort of action. I could be wrong, but that's just what I've seen, and to me is the only cause for any sort of concern here. Quite honestly, I think if any cropping and stubbing should occur, it should be for more famous people, since those articles are viewed more often. Bmg916Sign 03:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Is Burntsauce actually blanking pages, or just cutting them down to stubs? CMummert · talk 03:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Cutting them down to about two or three sentence stubs, if that, from what I've seen. Bmg916Sign 03:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    That is perfectly in accordance with policy on BLP articles with loads of unsourced information - cut them back to stubs and let them grow again, just like overgrown hedges. CMummert · talk 03:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is an example of what he does: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Stacy_Carter&oldid=129379392. It's not just him blanking articles, he refuses to let us at WP:PW know when he blanks an article, he refuses to actually help source the articles or discuss anything at the wrestling WikiProject, and whenever anyone confronts him he just erases their comments and says "talk to Jimmy Wales". Several of us have pointed out non-wrestling bios that are also poorly sourced (or unsourced), yet he NEVER blanks any of those. The only bio articles he blanks are wrestling related ones. If he was trying to help WP, why does he only target wrestling articles? BTW, he does misinterpet BLP since BLP since to remove 'contentious material. TJ Spyke 03:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have no problem with that, it forces sourcing. My main concern is his seemingly delibrate targeting of only pro wrestling articles. Bmg916Sign 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    If that's what he's interested in, it still means the overall encyclopedia is being improved - this is volunteer work after all. Eventually there won't be any pro wrestling articles left to prune. CMummert · talk 03:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    That is a good way to look at it, I guess I just wish we could source as fast as people were stubbing. Oh well, to be honest, I just wish this discussion about Burntsauce's actions would cease already. This is about the 5th time this topic (in some form or another) has come up, and the conclusion, whether everyone agrees or not, is the same everytime. Bmg916Sign 03:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    How about as a compromise, that Burntsauce at least let the folks know which articles he's stubbing, that way the PW Project can spend their limited resources properly? SirFozzie 03:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    That would be nice, but what are the chances he would comply? Every time someone questions him on his talk place it is deleted. Why would he agree to help out here? Kris 03:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Try rewording it. I found that the previous notices were a bit brusque. And if he still does not respond to your satisfaction, use other means of dispute resolution. —physicq (c) 03:44, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    (Outdenting) I have made a request of Burntsauce here to ask that he make a good-faith effort to notify the PW folks (or at least a PW editor) of the articles he's stubbing so that the articles can be properly sourced. SirFozzie 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    He hasn't responded yet, but continues to go to work on other pages. Hopefully he will at least reply. He did put a mention on at least one talk page that he stubbed, which is at least a step forward (although if the page is not on any active editors watchlists, it wouldn't do any good, which is why I suggested he let the project or an editor know.) SirFozzie 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    It should be noted Burntsauce blanked Adrian Adonis citing BLP issues on the talk page. What makes this notable, and supports the not reading an article before blanking it position, is that Adonis has been deceased for nineteen years. Applying WP:LIVING to the dead is a little amusing. It also supports that Burntsauce is targetting wrestling related articles for blanking simply because they are wrestling related, citing policy to back himself up. –– Lid 20:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Burntsauce has now changed the stock comment from "biographies of living persons" to biographical articles. –– Lid 20:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is ridiculous, I can't believe this thread is still open. Yes I have removed unsourced information from this article, and no I have not, "blanked" the article. I would appreciate it if you'd make a note of the difference between the two terms. Burntsauce 20:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Admin Myleslong (talk · contribs), who has previously protected other Burntsauce "edit warring" related articles has not protected Adrian Adonis. A little peculiar considering the edit war consisted of me making only two reverts, hardly an edit war by any stretch. If this is what is considered an edit war these days I think 3RR needs re-writing. –– Lid 21:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    And Burntsauce has not responded (although he hasn't blanked the talk page either), and just gone on his merry way. SirFozzie 16:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Whoops. Spoke too soon. Rather impolite of him to not respond. Unfortunately, the policy's titled WP:CIVIL, not WP:IMPOLITE. SirFozzie 18:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    User name blocks

    User:Misza13 blocked User:DennisGay with the block reason of "Username" at 15:21, 10 May 2007 (EDT) It appears that this was a bot-based action that blocks any newly created username of the form "Xisgay" While most such names are clearly inappropriate, i don't see this specific one as being worthy of an on-sight block.

    User:Time to die was blocked with the same reason at 10:59, 5 May 2007 (EDT), so was User:Yo Check It Out! Its Oompapa! at 16:27, 3 May 2007 (EDT), so was User:Ericisgay at 14:07, 30 April 2007 (EDT). None of these user names seem to me so offensive or inappropriate as to warrant a block on sight. The one-word summary does not help any new registrant who might wish to correct problems to understand what the problem is. I will say that the vast majority of user name blocks issued by User:Misza13 seem proper, but I am concerned about the risk of unwarranted blocking in this apparently automated activity. In none of these cases did place any notice on the user's talk page, as is strongly suggested for user name blocks that might be at all debatable. DES 20:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    X Is Gay, Eric Is Gay, Denn Is Gay(this one could be an error), basically saying someone is gay in a username is a form of disparagement to those who do not wish to be known as gay. Since Gay is a last name, Dennis Gay could be a good faith name, but the others seem to be insulting by intent. As for the Oompapa one, I see no violation. I agree that a proper explanation to the user is more helpful that just saying "Username". InBC 20:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oompapa is too similar to the user name of a blocked user. Aslo the user doesn't just see "username" they see {{usernameblocked}} Metros232 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well I'd say User:Yo Check It Out! Its Oompapa! is pretty likely a User:Mr oompapa sock. Will (aka Wimt) 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    DennisGay should not have been blocked, but I think I have to agree with Ericisgay being blocked. Dennis is a real name, Ericis on the other hand isn't. As far as I know. Burntsauce 20:59, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Oompapa is the name of a vandal, Ericisgay is clearly a WP:U violation, and Time to die seems like an inappropriate name to me. Have you spoken to Misza about these before bringing them here? – Steel 21:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    I have unblocked DennisGay. The rest looks fine. Kusma (talk) 21:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    "Eric" is a common fist name, and could appply to any one of thousands of people, in other words it applies to no one in particular, and I fail to see how it is different from "Dennis". In general i don't see that "X is gay" is insultign when no specific person can be identified as "X". Perhaps others differ on this. I note that possibly inappropriate names are usually warend, not blocked on sight. User:Misza13 said "...Thus, I see no reason to change the status quo,..." in refernce to his blockign practice at WP:ANI#Children of Curpsbot, so he is already aware that questions are being raised. DES 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Blocking 'Xisgay' accounts is not only common practice but backed by policy. If you disagree, I suggest you move to have policy changed, rather than single out one user and use recent concerns about adminbots to complain on WP:AN. – Steel 21:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    It seems that I mis read the policy. Blocking any name that contains a "reference" to sexual orientation whether or not it is an attack on any particualr person, or in any celar way offensive, seems very odd to me, and I didn't expect iot to eb in the policy. i read what seemed to be the relevant sectiosn of that page before startign thsi, an somehow missed this clause. i still think that particular policy is, er, perverse, but I don't think i fight that particular battle just now. I still think that auto-blockign on a regex is a poor idea. DES 21:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Isn't this one of the reasons blocking usernames is not delegated to bots normally? Misza13's apparent use of a regexp bot seems to be the root cause here. -- nae'blis 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. Bots should not be used to block people. If the bot wants to flag a username as problematic, fine. But the block itself should be done by a living human admin.--Alabamaboy 21:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Agree too. Anchoress 21:35, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Talking of bots flagging usernames as problematic, there's a discussion about that at WT:UAA if anyone's interested. Will (aka Wimt) 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    I see nothing wrong here. Misza made a mistaken block. He accepted this when asked about it. The account has been unblocked. The other username blocks are clearly fine and Misza has an excellent track record on making username blocks. WjBscribe 21:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    It's easy to find one of two borderline blocks and generate a huge discussion about adminbots. I wonder whether a human's error rate would actually be lower than a bot's. – Steel 21:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    A casual glance through Misza13's logs shows that all blocks (except for DennisGay) were good. Of course it would be preferable if they were under a bot account, but that would violate a couple of rules... Kusma (talk) 21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Well, the "isgay$" regex has so far performed well in blocking all kinds of stupid attack usernames. "DennisGay" is a very rare case that got caught erroneously, I admit. Nevertheless, I have removed that regex until I figure out a better solution for this common attack pattern. But then again, I might've as well blocked that username instinctively if I saw it with my very own eyes. Any other blocks under question? I do check my block log regularly and I must say this is the first blunder - I design my regexes with extreme care and use them mostly to combat nauseus memes such as "Great Gitten Huff of <insert year here>". On a side not, I believe that "{{UsernameBlocked}}" block summary is about enough for a notification, because (as noted above) the blocked user will see the full template when the block kicks in, not just the CamelCase word. Миша13 21:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

    Misza you are doing a damn fine job with username blocks. The signpost had an article about another administrator who was constantly issuing poor username blocks but I don't see any problem with yours. Your work is appreciated. Burntsauce 22:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
    Even admins have the right to make mistakes without being penalized for them. The block of DennisGay is seems to be such a mistake - if Gay is a real last name (as has been claimed), then since Dennis is and Denn isn't, DennisGay is most likely the user's real name. Od Mishehu 05:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    There is the possibility that that said user knows someone named "Denn" and is mocking him under the pretense that "Dennis" is a legit real name and "Gay" is a last name. hbdragon88 00:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Have we forgotten so soon? No matter how good his results to date are, the process lacks transparency if we only found out by seeing a questionable block. --Random832 03:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Block Templates On User Talk Pages

    Hi everyone. I want to report something that has been bothering me for quite sometime. Administrators should let the user know that they are blocked by putting a block template on there talk page. I have read thru the entire blocking policy and it says that the user should be notified on there talk page that they are blocked. Some administrators do this but many others do not and it makes it very confusing for other editors to know that they are blocked and many get reported after they are blocked because they don't know that they are blocked without looking at there block log. For example user Luna Santin (talk · contribs) has blocked many users without putting a block template on there talk page and many other administrators too. I think all administrators should follow this as it says on the Misplaced Pages blocking policy. So how does everyone think about this? King Lopez 03:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    I don't see why is is absolutely necessary, all the info (and sometimes more) that is given in a template can be see at MediaWiki:Blockedtext which is displayed to anyone that is blocked when they try to edit. John Reaves (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    WP:BLOCK states, "Administrators may also notify users when blocking them by leaving a message on their user talk page." (emphasis mine) It's nice but not necessary, as they get a message anyway as per John. Phony Saint 03:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Luna is a prolific vandal fighter. I have sometimes followed Luna to users and left them warnings and block messages so that Luna wouldn't be slowed down. I made sure this was okay with Luna beforehand. If you do see someone who has been blocked, leave them a message on their talk page and it frees up the blocking admins to go through the list faster. --Tbeatty 03:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    An experienced user can obtain block details, including the blocking administrator and reason, by looking at the block log.
    The blocked user will be notified of their block, including the blocking administrator and reason, when they try to edit a page.
    That's all that is necessary. Anything else is a simply waste of time. Why do people not understand this? – Gurch 06:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
    If you've never been blocked, you may not realize that a blocked user is notified of the block and the reason when s/he tries to edit. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's not a waste of time especially if the blocked editor is behind a corporate proxy or some other legitimate proxy. The IP is not blcoked until an edit is tried. That means the proxy will be blocked before he has a chance to realize it and refrain from editing. A talk page notice can intercept an editor before he blocks his whole company from edits. For this reason alone, talk page warnings should be required and anything less should be considered misuse of the blocking tools. --Tbeatty 06:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    It is a waste of time when accounts that are already blocked are listed on WP:AIV because nothing on the talk page says that they are already blocked, for one example. Titoxd 06:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    That's a very good reason why block templates should be placed on users' talk pages, since some people don't bother looking through the block log before AIV reporting. ~Crazytales  11:21, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    It isn't just that some people don't look - some people don't know the block log is there. Or if they know it's there, they don't know how to access it. Every new user finds things at different rates, and it takes some people a long time to find the block log. Natalie 15:22, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Ok so it seems like everyone wants to do it the lazy way now a days. But really the block template on the talk page takes just seconds to add on the page and really does not take a lot of time. Thanks for your comments. King Lopez 07:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    While I might agree that some consider it not worthy for non indefinite blocks, indefinite block templates usually put the page unde Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. I don't know if someone crawls this category and delete the marked talk pages after a while, but in that case the indefinite block templates are definitely useful. -- lucasbfr 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    207.62.247.30

    I just dropped a note on this IP's talk page that it isn't an educational IP at all - it's the shared address at my local library. Still shared, of course, but probably handled differently. Let me know if I can help from this end. -- BPMullins | Talk 03:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    That's strange. Checking on the WHOIS, it looks like the California State University (CSU) system. Also, it looks as though both the WHOIS and an independent, non-Wiki source show the IP coming from San Mateo and the ISP is the CSU system. But, there is no CSU San Mateo (I should know). There ARE three CSUs within striking distance (Hayward, SFSU and San Jose State), but I'm not sure how a library could get a CSU ISP, unless it's a school library--Ispy1981 20:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Momoko (The King of Fighters)

    I'm having a personal problem which I require assistance with. An editor, BorisTheBlade (talk · contribs), continually adds to this article a trivia about Momoko "constantly being barefoot". He has done this with another account as well as through various anonymous users despite never being blocked. I don't want to start an edit war, but it really bothers me that this is on the page (it doesn't have that I have an obvious distaste for people with foot fetishes). Anyway, this could be an issue, as I feel it's very suspicious that he's jumping from account to account for no apparent reason. Thoughts? JuJube 04:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    What in the...why does every King of Fighters character have an article? Especially when this Momoko character is a one-paragraph stub? Merging, please, merging...anyway, I just undid the edit. I think an admin can issue a 3RR block if it's obvious, or CheckUser otherwise. hbdragon88 05:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Perhaps the more minor ones should be merged, but with ~40 KoF games (including the ~10 spinoffs), it's not quite as absurd as it first seems. -Halo 08:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Mega backlog detected at IFD

    I'm surprised this has gone somewhat unnoticed. Please exterminate these images. MER-C 12:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Well, that's a big backlog. Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    When you finish a day, please remove it from the "Old" section on the main IFD page. --kingboyk 11:00, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    FU images in lists

    Is the previous discussion's consensus is that zero images are allowed in episode lists now? - Peregrine Fisher 01:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    It all depends on whether there is a reasonable, thorough rationale provided for that image's use in that article. If there is, then no worries. If there isn't, remove it. Picaroon (Talk) 01:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Could you help me come up with what constitutes a thorough rational. - Peregrine Fisher 03:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I don't think a list would be very likely to contain the critical commentary and discussion necessary to justify the images' use in the first place. If it did, the rationale would have to briefly explain this critical commentary. See User:ESkog/Rationales for some examples of what I mean by this, including some exemplary rationales on other types of images. Lists are a tough call because of our prohibitions against decorative use and fair-use galleries - I know you don't feel the images are either one of those, but that's what they look like to me. (ESkog) 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    User:ESkog/Rationales is a good page. Creating rationals better than Image:As Nasty As They Wanna Be cover.jpg, Image:6.5Supergirls.jpg, Image:Action_Comics_-1_June_1938.jpg, etc. is not a problem. It's problematic when you say that "it is not sufficient for the image to just show something - such as a screenshot of an episode - but it must illustrate some concept or claim in the article in such a way that words would be insufficient." It sounds like episode images are being held to a higher standard than other images, but I'm willing to accept that. Anyways, I imagine that even if I met that criteria, I'd be hit with a revert and a page protection. This is a problem we need to come to a compromise on. - Peregrine Fisher 04:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Compromise: one image per 10 episodes, 10 images max. Of course meeting all requirements on User:ESkog/Rationales. - Peregrine Fisher 04:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    (un-indent) Please don't treat my page as anything more than suggestions; it is only my reading of policy, and is certainly not anything binding. I don't think the number of images is the problem at all, but instead it is the depth of the commentary provided. An article with 2000 words and 200 images is almost certainly not providing any analysis of what we're seeing in the pictures or why each one is significant, so I suppose numbers come into play, but the bottom line has to be common sense. No sensible policy will ever state that X images is okay but (X+1) is not. (ESkog) 04:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    The new rule for episode pages is apparently zero images, unlike any other type of article. The problem is that some admins now feel comfortable with reversion then protection of a page when one image is added. As a non admin, I feel pretty helpless. - Peregrine Fisher 05:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    If an episode list provides sufficient critical commentary of each episode, then screenshots could certainly be used. Most lists by definition do not. --bainer (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    OK, say I'm trying to add an image and someone is contesting it. How much, of what type, of critical commentary should I add so that I can feel secure. - Peregrine Fisher 05:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Basically, that's the wrong way to do it. We shouldn't be looking for a reason to include an image after it's there. We should be writing about something, going "this really is missing something, we can't complete this without showing the reader what we're talking about", then add the image. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    (EC) Basically, this isn't a case of "Well use X words, and you can use Y number of pictures." If you notice, after working with the article, that you're discussing some particularly iconic or controversial scene in that episode, and the article really suffers for not having an illustration of it, you've got a good rationale for a fair-use image. If it's just "Well, we really should have an image in this article...", it's decorative. Seraphimblade 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's hard because I feel every article should be illustrated. Convincing myself that an article needs an image is easy, it's the convincing of someone who feels most comfortable with zero images that's hard. It's similar to the free images I have uploaded. I don't look at the article and decide it needs an image; I look at the images I can provide and then find articles for them. I will add rationals explaining why an image is particularly iconic or controversial , and why the article really suffers for not having an illustration of it, though. - Peregrine Fisher 05:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    That would work. (But remember "iconic" or "controversial" means "according to reliable sources", not "according to fans", and not every show will have such a scene! Probably, not even every TV series will have too many such scenes.) Seraphimblade 15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Peregrine, you do realise that's bullshit, don't you? This is not about preferring articles without images, it's about copyright law and our fair use policy, based on copyright law. Which policy, incidentally, you seem to have violated rather prolifically. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    No, the use in lists is well within both policy and even further within the law. Copyright paranoia and over-reaching admins enforcing their interpretation of the policy is just as much bullshit as Peregrine wanting to use the images. SchmuckyTheCat 20:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Do feel free to show a list which provides critical commentary of an image for every episode. -- Nick 20:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Since a single screenshot is such a tiny portion of a TV episode (a standard 40-minute episode contains nearly 72000 frames, not counting commercials), and since a screenshot does not in any way impair the market value of the episode or serve as a substitute for the episode, the legal threshold for fair use is probably fairly low. I think that the episode lists (which usually had about one paragraph of commentary for each screenshot) would be considered fair use in the very unlikely case that the copyright owners decided to press the matter. (Plenty of major fan sites use screenshots far more prolifically than that, often with no commentary at all, and have never been served with a C&D.) What we're really talking about is not U.S. law, but Misplaced Pages policy. I don't think anyone can plausibly claim that these usages constitute actual copyright infringement; the question is whether they fall within our fair use criteria. I feel that using terms like "bullshit" in response to other people's arguments, and implicitly accusing them of violating copyright, is probably unhelpful. *** Crotalus *** 22:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    The lists look so empty without images. Also they help if you don't know the name of the episode, among other things. JDeus01 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    We don't use images to make lists look "full". As for recognizing an episode, that only works if you have seen the episode in question. An image is not useful for someone who has never seen the episode. -- ReyBrujo 22:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Useful toolbox on contrib pages

    Please take a look at fr:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer or ru:MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer and modify our MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer the same way. This should add the following footer on the user contribution pages:

    User subpages · Editcount · Created pages · Uploaded images · Registration date ·

    Users with the same name in other projects

    The links go to either Misplaced Pages Logs or public tools on Toolserver. Very handy, no drawbacks. P.S. Some other logs (like block log) can be added; some tools should probably be removed because of the huge enwiki lag on toolserver. Alex Smotrov 16:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    This requires discussion. Please take this up at MediaWiki talk:Sp-contributions-footer, and link there from the village post or other prominent places. Thank you. Chick Bowen 19:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Okay, I did just that, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Useful links on user contribution pages. However I have a feeling that it might go unnoticed. At the same time, some other major changes are often done without any discussion… oh well ;) Alex Smotrov 23:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Protection is broken?

    Is it just me, or is page protection broken? I get this message:

    A database query syntax error has occurred. This may indicate a bug in the software. The last attempted database query was:
    (SQL query hidden)
    from within function "Title::purgeExpiredRestrictions". MySQL returned error "1205: Lock wait timeout exceeded; Try restarting transaction (10.0.0.237)".

    every time I try it. Could someone else give it a go to see if it's a general fault? -- ChrisO 17:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    I just semi-protected my userpage without incident. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I had this same problem with blocking a week ago or so. It fixed itself after a few minutes. Natalie 19:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's just a temporary database error that occurs every so often to most of us, nothing to worry about. /me hates it when he can't protect a page because of that! Cbrown1023 talk 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    OK, thanks for that - it seems to have resolved itself now. -- ChrisO 12:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    CAT:CSD

    The candidates for speedy deletion log is down to about 70-80 articles right now. It'd be great if we can get some extra admins out there to knock out the last ones and keep it down for awhile. Thanks, Metros232 21:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    I think congrats all round is required here, everyones done great work getting it down that low. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Congratulations? For getting it "down" to 80? Clearly you have forgotten the days when 80 pages was considered a backlog in need of attention. (And it wasn't that long ago. I'm talking about late 2006) – Gurch 07:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    It was down to one article as of this timestamp! (aeropagitica) 20:02, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, it was actually down to 0 when I headed out for a bit this morning. I almost took a snapshot. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm in love with this diff from Cydebot right now. Metros232 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    What constitutes a reliable source?

    Is there any imaginable scenario under which a GEOCITIES website can be used as a reference in a biographical article? Burntsauce 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    A lot of non web-savvy foundations etcetera use GeoCities websites for "official homes", but otherwise, I can't think of any. SirFozzie 22:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Unless you made this post in order to solicit support for excluding such a link, this question should have been brought up elsewhere. If you are indeed here to seek assistance with suppressing this link, then please don't do it again. Misplaced Pages policy is on your side in this editorial dispute, but there is no need for administrative intervention. ˉˉ╦╩ 22:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you, that's all I need to know. Burntsauce 22:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Smile

    File:09f9 ... ahh fuckit.jpg Oh yes. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    That's Image:09f9 ... ahh fuckit.jpg for those of us who aren't drunk. – Steel 23:16, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    Shared account?

    Happened to have a look at this new account, Rod & Todd Flanderises (talk · contribs)

    Its name seems to imply a shared account--not sure if this is consistent with policy, can someone look? Thanks ... Blueboy96 23:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    I am unaware of any policy against this and if this is one I would like to know as my wife has made edits through my account (image uploads), SqueakBox 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    I'm pretty certain this is just a reference to Simpsons characters Rod and Todd Flanders. JavaTenor 23:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    WP:USERNAME#Sharing accounts explictly forbids shared accoutns, and says that any such accounts may be blocked. But in this case there seems to be doubt as to the actual sharing, and even if shared, we should assume good faith and simply advise the user(s) to create new accounts, as there are less than a dozen edits on thsi account to date. I have informed the user of the relevant policy. DES 23:49, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

    David Ostad and BLP

    BLP listing: ]

    Article: David Ostad

    I wrote this just now. I also put it in the BLP board. Please review and comment, if needed. I am seeking administrators' comments because the article is very negative but attempts to be fair and well referenced. An AfD has been placed on it minutes after the article appeared. I think that's a bit quick but I am not seeking adminstrators' comments on the AfD listing speed.

    Disclaimer: I do not know Ostad, do not have any family or friends who know him or have been treated by him. I only saw him on TV.Newcolex 23:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


    External Links to sites with malicious code in them posted by Doma-w

    I can't find any policy on this, but I was reading an article on the bbc website (), about how you can get key loggers from sites like this. Now I don't know why Doma-w, is posting this stuff, but I was thinking it may be possible for a wikipedia user to post a link to a site he created or hacked into, in the hope that a wikipedia administrator may click the link and reveal his password, through keyloggers or other Trojans. I'm not saying this is what Doma-w is doing because I don't know why he is posting these links.

    The report from Avast anti-virus was 12/05/2007 03:24:53 SYSTEM 1624 Sign of "Win32:Nimda " has been found in "h ttp://www.databaseolympics.com/favicon.ico" file. (I replaced http by h ttp, so you can't click the link by accident). This is a Dropper and if you look at Doma-w's contributions, you will see he has added the link in many articles he created, such as Collier Cudmore for example. I don't want to cause a fuss and Doma-w seems like a good editor apart from this. Perhaps he is a victim of the malware, in this case please accept that I am posting this here not to incriminate the user, but rather to avoid that other users be tricked. I would recommend administrators be careful in particular, if investigating this, for the reasons I said above, and you should read the page from the BBC website, apparently 1 page in 10 is infected, so this may be an error on Doma-w's behalf. I would expand on the issue further but WP:LEGAL prevents me from doing so.Jackaranga 01:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Perhaps something should be added to WP:EXTERNAL, because currently it is not possible to warn a user about this without violating WP:LEGAL and getting a perma ban.--Jackaranga 01:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Just tell the user that it's not a nice link. No legal threat needs to be given. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Said link opens up an eml file (README.eml, which is a common name for worms/viruses, apparently). My guess is that the website has been unknowingly pwned. Links to it should definitely be taken out, and the user notified to stop posting links to it until this is resolved. Edit: Oh damn, this is going to be a chore. Anyone have a bot/script/blacklist access? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    ::As I said on his talk page, I have no way of warning him without violating WP:LEGAL, or I would just have asked him about this, I don't want to incriminate him or anything, it's just that he does not violate any wikipedia policies, and you can't make legal threats on wikipedia. So I can't tell him he's violating policies (because he isn't), and I can't tell him he's violating the law or I will be blocked.

    I don't have acces to a bot unfortunatly, sorry.Jackaranga 02:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    That is a lot of links.Jackaranga 02:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    It looks like the virus was injected into one of the site's error-docs (the 404, which http://www.databaseolympics.com/favicon.ico returns). It doesn't seem to be there any longer, Firefox is no longer warning me about it, and I can't see anything odd in the page's source. Did they fix it already? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    False alarm. Still there. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    I just crawled large random portions of the site, i'm not getting anything unusual, can you email me the link that caused the questionable item to be downloaded? Navou 02:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    My guess is what happened is our antivirus software, blocked that file the first time, and now it is added to a blacklist, so we can't access it anymore, which is why we get error 404.Jackaranga 02:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's off and on, but occasionally a 404 will include this tidbit in the end: <script language="JavaScript">window.open("readme.eml", null, "resizable=no,top=6000,left=6000")</script>. It doesn't appear that the file actually exists though. I'm not particularly comfortable linking to an exploited webserver, but it doesn't seem to pose a security risk right now. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    It's still there, here is a screenshot on imageshack. Jackaranga 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I found this on internet about the Nimda Trojan, and User:Consumed Crustacean said there were README.eml files. --Jackaranga 02:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I have reproduced the java popup window, it opens the readme.eml file, however, this request also reproduces, another 404 error. Is anyone in contact with the site admin? Navou 02:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Images for deletion backlog

    There currently is a massive backlog on the images for deletion page. Heck there are things from April 14 2007 still waiting to be looked at. I will probably try to hit some of the more obvious ones, but if there are some folks that know image policy well hanging about, please join in and help. —— Eagle101 02:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    I have a few minutes and will chip in -- Samir 05:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've archived 14th April, but left one listing there because I don't know what to do with it. Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_April_14#Korean_Pottery_by_periods
    Summary: Possible move to Commons, possible licencing problems, large number of images, not much discussion.
    If nobody else knows what to do with it I'll do what we do on AFD when there isn't sufficient input to determine consensus and that's relist it under the current date. --kingboyk 16:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Alright, as there was no response I've relisted at Misplaced Pages:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_12#Korean_Pottery_by_periods. --kingboyk 17:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    MediaWiki:Cascadeprotected

    Can anyone explain to me the point of all the new stuff on this MediaWiki page? It seems that several users have decided to copy the Main Page into a user subpage and cascade protect it, and then change this notice so that if the Main Page is not available it invites them to go there instead. This messes up View Source for the Main Page by listing a load of userpages, and until I asked for it to be fixed, completely broke the message everywhere else. If someone was going to delete the Main Page, surely they would just delete all those userpages first? This seems to be to be completely the wrong way to address this "problem" (if a problem even exists) – Gurch 07:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    I would bet that it's intended as insurance against the main page being accidentally unprotected. --Random832 01:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    The idea is that when somebody deletes the main page, people won't re-create it in the short time that it is gone, making it a bit harder to clean up. After an article is deleted, it nullifies the cascade protection (and briefly unprotects all otherwise cascade-protected templates, leaving them vulnerable for a short period of time). Also, when the page is finally undeleted, it is quickly vandalized by anon users, which the other cascade-protected subpages would prevent. However, David Levy moved the user subpages that the protections were originally on to subpages of the main page. These pages will now show up in Special:Random, and subpages are disabled in the mainspace, so I don't understand what it was meant to accomplish. You'll have to ask him. Sean William 01:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    The idea is that when somebody deletes the main page, people won't re-create it in the short time that it is gone, making it a bit harder to clean up. Er... has nobody else noticed that anyone who can delete the Main Page can unprotect/delete those other pages as well? – Gurch 04:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Please see Talk:Main Page#Cascading protection backup subpages. —David Levy 04:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Problem on Misplaced Pages:Articles for creation/2007-05-11

    Hello I have encountered a problem on the aforementioned page. If you look at the last submission you will see that a user submitted some content that caused all following submissions to not be registered. He used <ref><ref/> instead of <ref></ref>. Because of this the page was truncated, and all further submissions do not show up. If I replace the <ref/> tag by a </ref> tag, the problem is fixed but, then it makes it look like I have signed all the submissions, because the ~~~~ were not parsed by the server, when the users submitted their articles. See here what happens if I do that. What can I do? And what can be done to prevent this happening again ? It a fairly serious problem, because the only people likely to find this are unregistered users who do not have a good grasp of wikipedia (or they wouldn't be using WP:AFC), or the person reviewing the submissions. By which point it is too late, and all the IP addresses are lost. Thanks for any ideas on how to solve this.Jackaranga 08:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    I think now it can only be fixed by hand, writing all the sigs explicitely. Might be a good idea to file a bugreport on this. Perhaps you could have like a warning when you save such an edit that says: "This edit contains unbalanced or incorrectly closed (HTML-)tags. You open with <tag>, but there does not seem to be a </tag>. Press save again if you are sure this is how you want to save this entry". Another possibility is that you let ~~~~ substitution take precedence over <ref><ref/> parsing. Or perhaps both :D I'd file, but i don't want to register. I'm already in too many of those bugdatabases. --TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 15:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Changes

    As you know, the search functionality is so bad it can cause cancer at times. I have created an update but because I am not an admin, I need an admin to take a look over what I have done and (if you accept it) update the protected page.

    The current page if no results are found is MediaWiki:Searchnoresults

    I propose, we replace it with my version - User:Symode09/Search

    please take a look at my version adnd, if you like it, please, replace the current version with it

    thanx

    --talk to symode09's or Spread the love! 08:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    I told him to come here for consensus first, as the change would be affecting millions of users so I didn't think I should make such a decision unilaterally (although the changes seems reasonable). VegaDark (talk) 08:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Why here? Doesn't seem an administrative issue, a discussion on Mediawiki_talk:Searchnoresults and "publicity" on the village pump would be the normal way to tackle something like this. --pgk 09:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    He's already mentioned it on the talk page, but that isn't likely to get much attention. As for bringing it to the village pump, I can't say much to that other than agree, I should have suggested that in the first place. Looks like sleep time for me. VegaDark (talk) 09:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Request for admin advice

    As those of you who follow WP:ANI and WP:AFD will know, I'm working through Category:Micronations adding maintenance templates, cleaning up, and nominating articles I think are deficient for deletion. I also started a guidelines proposal at WP:MICRONAT but it's currently tagged as rejected.

    I'm planning to open up a naming debate at WP:RM because of naming inconsistencies across these articles. What I'm wondering, though, is whether people would advise me to continue my trawl through the category and get this all done in one go, and have one batch of fallout to deal with, or whether I should hold off and do the rest another time. I'm currently up to letter M in the category.

    Some articles which were poorly referenced now have reliable sources cited, some have been cleaned up or tagged, some have been deleted, others will follow. I've succeeded in working with some micronation enthusiasts, but one or two have accused me of bad faith, hence my question. If I'm overstepping the mark in the eyes of neutral contributors here I will of course step back and find something else to do. So far I'm convinced that I'm achieving positive results, but folks always think that of their own work don't they? :) --kingboyk 13:03, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    As long as you have time and energy to go through all articles in a category and clean up, there's no reason I can see to stop in the middle. Having all the falout together will save time in the end. C Mummert · talk 13:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not an admin, but continuing this task seems like the right thing to do. I looked at some of the AfD discussions summarized at WP:MICRONAT#Deletion_debates, to see what the arguments were. I don't at all object to kingboyk's approach. Evidently he is slightly more deletionist regarding micronations than many of the responders in the AfDs, but there's nothing seriously out of whack in going about it this way. He is running individual AfDs, which is good. He is fixing as well as deleting, which makes his approach more acceptable. EdJohnston 15:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Actually the deletion debates listed there are old ones, with the "criteria" also being very old (and weaker than I would care to support). I certainly haven't added the current AFDs, I don't think anybody else has either... You can find the current debates by looking through AFD or my contribs; I could list them at the WP page if it's felt to be helpful but I'm not sure it would be :) --kingboyk 15:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Subtle vandalism?

    69.158.21.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has changed dates in a number of articles. Could I have some assistance in checking these? Since the IP's first edit was to claim that Reggie Jackson is dead (he's not), I'm suspicious. Chick Bowen 16:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    All edits are undone. Rettetast 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    That was a good move. Many of his edits were previously undone by other edits; I'm sure it was just subtle vandalism (the worst kind). -- tariqabjotu 16:26, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, most of them sat for a week. I only noticed the Reggie Jackson one since it broke a template. Chick Bowen 16:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    Unfair allegation against me

    I have been the victim of a false allegation made using Template:uw-delete1, and the person who made the allegation is not apologising to me. I do not think this sort of short cut method of insulting people who try to help Misplaced Pages should be allowed as it is very upsetting and will put people off contributing. Varsdra 19:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

    I don't think this issue requires administrator attention. Clearly there has been a misunderstanding about one of your edits. To avoid this in future, it might be wise to ensure you provide an Edit summary with a brief description of the changes you have made. Not doing this increases the chance of confusion like in this instance. Whilst I note you are not happy with the templates, I would suggest these are necessary when you consider the size of the project. Using templates ensures a consistent message. For the benefit of other editors looking at this issue, I believe this diff is what prompted the warning. Adambro 20:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    The d1 template is hardly insulting, for that matter: " It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from an article. Please be more careful..." Natalie 21:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
    You still have not explained why you removed the tags from Church of God in Christ in Bhutan. I'm sorry if you feel ofended by the template. This is the diff and also note that the article can be speedy deleted CSD A1 "very short articles without context". The article it self needs a rewrite and expanded. But try and use your Edit summary to explain why you are removing content such as the tags listed in the diff I provided. Purgatory Fubar or Snafu 16:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:PJ Pete

    Could somebody fix some articles? User:PJ Pete moved Pauline (Nintendo) twice and then change the redirects. Now there are 3 articles that all redirect to each other (double re-directs), and the edit history is at the wrong one. Could somebody restore the original article at its correct name? TJ Spyke 02:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not an admin, so I couldn't fix it all the way. I fixed the double redirect and I reverted one move, but I couldn't over the second. To an admin: The original history is located at Lady (Nintendo), and the page needs to be re-moved back to Pauline (Nintendo). Thanks! — The Future 03:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Done. Chick Bowen 03:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Incidentally, for future use see Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Chick Bowen 03:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Follow up --Kind of HOT

    Resolved

    Can one of the kind administrators please check out CAT:PER as there is a request by FrankB/Faba rtus about changing Template:Infobox Officeholder. Many thanks, Extranet 04:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC) {{EditProtected}}

    • This is (@FrankB) a one line cutNpaste Edit needed to fix a 'parameter name used twice' problem that has been affecting template:Infobox Officeholder, and hence potentially a lot of articles. It's been in place for some ten hours, so is kind of hot! <g> The double name use is breaking the second use occurrence, even when not used as it biases the default. Hence Notable People's Pics are defaulting to user preferences thumb size in the infoboxes, not going full margin!
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.I'd added both the {{HelpMe}} and {{EditProtected}} to my talk as the template has an outstanding connumdrum of some sort going back several days, and has the {EditProtect} "lingering" and stale because of that on .
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Since the problem I'm involved with is analyzed in that section of my talk, and it holds the entire three party conversation thread, that seemed a handy way to get an administer's attention for the cutnpaste that will solve the problem on Nancy Pelosi.
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.User:Extranet, apparently patrolling 'Help Requests', elected to remove the {{HelpMe}} -- and left the {{EditProtected}}. Being on a user talk as active as I am in templates, I figured it might be overlooked by itself as a likely mistake. Sigh! <G>
      Unexpected use of template {{2}} - see Template:2 for details.Since I just polled all my normal Admin friends, (Yah -- Saturday night -- they're out partying or sleeping!) I thought I'd check Extranet's note here to see if there's been a response. Sniff. No Joy. Believe I'll put the HelpMe back -- maybe an admin will respond before anyone sees THIS. Have a good weekend! (It'd be a damn shame if you don't, it looks like everyone else must be!) Good night, and thanks! // FrankB 05:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    I've removed the extra parameter. --MZMcBride 05:12, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    FYI

    Saw this interesting news story during a Google search. The individual doesn't seem to have caused any actual problem on Misplaced Pages, but it's good to remember that we get all kinds at this site. Durova 05:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm not suggesting that you disclose which account or IP he was editing from, but have you identified him with reasonable certainty and confirmed that he was not causing problems... or are you just assuming that if he was disrupting the project, we would have noticed it by now? — CharlotteWebb 06:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    I haven't identified the editor's account or IP name. Durova 06:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well it won't be a future problem as he most likely won't be editing from prison. Talk about an IRL ban. — MichaelLinnear 06:06, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, I don't think there's anything we should be doing about it. The way, the truth, and the light 06:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    This user has been blocked from editing ˉˉ╦╩ 10:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Good catch. Durova 15:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmm, I wonder if he's one of the parolees caught in a recent Perverted-Justice MySpace sting? Well, not sting, really. Anchoress 16:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Image file history lost and other oddness

    I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but couldn't find where else to put it. The image file Image:Toronto_Skyline_Photo.jpg has recently been edited by a user (I believe) who has said the image is a fake as the moon can't show up north of Toronto downtown (see this edit for the reason I believe this ). Now however this has been edited it now says below the licence Template:Delete and This is a fake. Since many images on Misplaced Pages are edited I see no problem in having an edited photo, when all that has been altered is the moon added, it's depicting the skyline which is what it is used for. Anyway, the edit has done something to the image page, I cannot access the history and I cannot remove the Template:Delete or the text about it being fake. I don't know how, but something has broken (or I'm being incredibly dense this morning). Can someone take a look and see if they can figure something out? Ben W Bell talk 07:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    The image is on commons. Viridae 07:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Please block

    Someone is threatening to block me from editing for an ongoing editing war over the genre of Lamb of God (band) so therefore he is being a hypocrite, please block User: Inhumer from editing or prevent the blocking of me. Please visit my talk page. Skeeker 07:36, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    I've protected the page so there should be no need to block either of you at this stage. You need to discuss this and sort out the issue on the talk page. --pgk 07:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    That user isn't an admin and so can't block anyone... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Vandalism and missing article sections

    I'm not sure this is the right place to ask this type of question, but I have noticed that sometimes vandals will blank or delete whole sections of articles, and then the next editor to come along will not completely revert the deletions which were made. An example of this is in the Bob Dole article, where I noticed that the previous version that I saw had no information on his early life before entering into politics. So I went back through the edit history and lo & behold, I found the missing sections, which had apparently been deleted by vandals nearly a month ago. This is the diff showing the replacement of sections that I had to make.

    This is not the first time I have encountered this problem on Misplaced Pages. I was wondering if there was any way to solve this, perhaps noting in an automatic edit summary that a section has been deleted, or some other type of software fix? Some way of readily identifying when article sections are deleted, without having to go back many pages through the page history (which will often not be an obvious option to newer editors) would be a useful tool for combating this type of vandalism.

    If you have anything to ask me about this, please visit my talk page. Thank you for your time. --Eastlaw 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    One thing you can do, is every time you see such a thing - leave a message to the reverting user. Od Mishehu 11:45, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Bot Issued Speedy Deletion Warnings

    A new bot, Android Mouse Bot 2 has been approved. This bot is designed to scan the CSD category and automatically add a nn-warn template to the article creator's talk page. I have concerns with this and have written them up at Misplaced Pages:Bot requests#Notify article creators of speedy-delete tags. As this bot will be doing something that overlaps admin responsibilities (ensuring users are notified when speedy deleting their articles), I believe we all need to be aware of this and the potential issues. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 18:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Ehem... I know I warn users when I delete their copyvios with a {{nothanks-web}} tag, but the standard procedure states Also, in some cases the article's creator should be notified. Therefore, I don't think the bot is overlapping me, it would just issue warnings I do not consider necessary. I don't really see anything wrong with that. -- ReyBrujo 18:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    This is about the quality of automatic warnings; not usurping responsibility. I am also not advocating that the bot be prohibited. I am concerned that it's thought through and we don't end up over biting new users. As admins who work CSD should have the best experience (at least ideally) with the occasions that warrant warnings and those that don't, they should be able to provide input (if needed) to the bot creator as to what potentials pitfalls are present. -- JLaTondre 18:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Just to clear things up a bit, it doesn't always issue an nn-warn alert. It issues alerts based off the template that was used on the article. It although has been pointed out that some of the corresponding warnings I have choosen for the speedy deletion templates don't make sense or are not appropriate. I'll go ahead and post the tags it scans for on the article and which warning it generates from those so if others have objections to my choices can suggest alternative templates or create custom templates for those situations. --Android Mouse 20:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    The following is a list of tags the bot searches for and the warning it generates for each. The ones listed below are placed on the talk page in the format {{subst:template name|article name}}:

    (I'm removing the list since I've added an updated list below, see page history if you need to see the original.) </nowiki> --Android Mouse 21:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    I've gone through and created custom templates for each warning. These new templates state that the warning is comming from a bot and that the bot didn't nominate the article/image/category/etc for speedy deletion. If you see any problem with the templates I created, feel free to edit them. Although I have kept some intentionally vague since some I plan to use several for multiple similar warnings, keep this in mind if you edit them. Unless I recieve further suggestions or comments I will go ahead and run the updated bot (monitoring its edits closely) sometime tomorrow.

    The 4 immediatly below specify a specific reason given by the nominator for speedy deletion, the rest only specify the article name and a prewritten reason:

    --Android Mouse 03:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:Shame On You

    Shame On You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Can someone take a look at this user. His talk page is full of civility notices, and I think his recent comments to me deserve admin attention. I'd do it myself, but then I'm sure someone would complain that it should that I'm "involved". Raul654 20:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Gave him a last warning. Further incivility will result in a block. —physicq (c) 20:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    You definitely did the right thing to post here Raul. There won't be any shortage of admins willing to block if he doesn't mend his ways. Already been done. Too bad, that guy knows the the truth and now he can't tell us! :( --kingboyk 21:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    I encountered the article by watclist chance; too bad I failed to notice this notice. Anyway, indefinite block issued, eventually. El_C 21:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Tagging centuries old images as "no source"

    Madmedea (talk · contribs) has been tagging a number of centuries old images, some of which have been used in Misplaced Pages articles for years, as "no source" for deletion within 48 hours. For example, Image:ADurerCardinalAlbrecht.jpg apparently noting it was done by Albrecht Dürer in 1519 is not adiquate sourcing. I (and some others) have objected to this to Madmedia, arguing that such images are in no way copyright problems, but Madmedea says this is appropriate and necessary for image policy. I would appreciate others taking a look at this and stating perspectives. Thank you, -- Infrogmation 22:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    This is currently at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sources_for_Mona_Lisa.3F. I suggest that the discussion be kept there. --Iamunknown 22:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
    Thank you, I hadn't been aware that this was already under discussion when I posted above. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

    Unblocking of 210.50.231.142

    The IP address 210.50.231.142 was blocked until a date in October 2007. I request for this block to be removed as the IP address belongs to a high school in Melbourne, Australia, namely Mazenod College. The block is having a negative effect on students whom wish to edit Misplaced Pages legitimately.

    Could a notice be also added to the page to alert administrators to this fact?

    — Peter McGinley 01:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    Hmm... the ip has been blocked 8 times, and has vandalized since June 2006. Everytime the block expired, vandalism continued. Students can register an account and edit through it. I would unblock it, but if I am forced to block the ip again, I would block it until next year, due previous abuse. -- ReyBrujo 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    Hotel Travel Check's "Misplaced Pages listing service"

    This caught my eye today during a routine Google check. Apparently this firm has spent the past half year soliciting business for the purpose of writing Misplaced Pages articles about hotels. Anyone heard about this, or know what the firm's Misplaced Pages username is? Durova 01:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    User:HTC. One Night In Hackney303 01:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    AACS encryption key

    The Spanish Misplaced Pages found a way around $wgSpamRegex, and that method is now starting to appear here. Is this something that should be allowed, or should any key addition be reverted? This pertains to AACS encryption key controversy of course. Prodego 02:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    WP:BEANS? Personally, the key is not really needed for articles, and would revert it on sight, especially if in articles that have little to do with the key itself (such as hexadecimal). -- ReyBrujo 02:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    Yes, perhaps, maybe this wasn't terribly smart, but it would have been figured out anyway, since someone spotted it in the Spanish Misplaced Pages, and it could just be copied over. However, I am talking about the article AACS encryption key controversy specifically. Prodego 02:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    Well, that is one of the exceptions I was thinking about. I am sure we will be receiving a DMCA takedown notice, though :-/ A pity we don't have legal advice from the Foundation. -- ReyBrujo 02:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    The-Number-That-Must-Not-Be-Named can be treated however you would like to treat it. As long as it only gets used in the article, and nowhere else, it may well be safe to use... or not. The lawyers are out on that, but either way, no one seems to have complained yet, and there are advantages to both approaches. It definitely shouldn't be used elsewhere, of course.

    Whatever the case, we're certainly noticing a clear chilling effect here. --Kim Bruning 02:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    Block review requested

    Since the issue has come up elsewhere (WP:AN/I#Reverting_problem_tagging) I would like to solicit comments on my recent block by User:Jossi. Details here:

    This was about tagging Image:DerSturmer_stand.jpg as unsourced. The first edit was to tag it unsourced , and then a revert war spun out with several participants about tagging it as {{PUIdisputed}}. I see WP:PUI as different in character from {{nsd}} - it serves to attract more eyes to a questionable image and offers the chance to find a suitable replacement if one is needed.

    Nazi-era events are abundantly documented, and there is images available from archives all over the world. The Library of Congress, the Holocaust Museum and the German Historical Museum all have images online and offer further reading as well. It's crucial to document the provenance of an image. A recent example is Image:OctopusNAS1.jpg, which was uploaded as an example of a generic antisemitic cartoon but on closer inspection turned out to be attacking Churchill as the head of the supposed world-wide Zionist conspiracy.

    I prefer to think that much of the material culled from websites was added in the early days of Misplaced Pages, when there was higher priority on generating content. Now that the project has matured it is important to vet what is uploaded - it makes us more credible.

    Accusations of antisemitism are way off the mark, below the belt, and they won't help to clean out the huge backlog of unsourced imagery. Dr Zak 03:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point? Other people acting badly doesn't excuse 3RR violations. Is there some reason you shouldn't have been blocked that I'm missing? -Amarkov moo! 03:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    As I said, the purpose of {{nsd}} is to mark something clearly deleteable for deletion. {{PUIdisputed}} is to attract more eyes to something that is possibly deleteable. There were no three reverts.
    Also, there is the general problem with unsourced imagery. Every time it's a Nazi image someone complains about antisemitism. Dr Zak 03:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    The second claimed revert () isn't technically a revert, so he shouldn't have been blocked for 3RR, although there may be some other problems in this case. I'm not sure where accusations of antisemitism come from. Phony Saint 03:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    Tenacious IP Vandal

    Tonight we dealt with a particulately energetic vandal who was shifting IP addresses as fast as we could issue blocks and repair the damage:

    The vandal targeted the following articles multiple times:

    Edits included deceptive edit summaries. The attacker frequently asserted that reference links to Matt Cutts blog were spam. Because of Matt's official position as leader of Google's webspam team, and unofficial position as Google's lead spokesman to the web developer community, Cutts' blog is a valuable primary reference.

    The situation was finally resolved by semi-protecting the targeted articles. Jehochman (/contrib) 05:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

    To clarify the point of this thread, Jehochman and I suspect this was a coordinated attempt to erase outgoing links to a particular site, possibly by some professional adversary of Matt Cutts, and possibly script-driven. I've blocked all three IP addresses for 24 hours and semiprotected these articles for two weeks. Durova 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
    Category: