Revision as of 15:14, 23 July 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

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)

Current issues

Editor repeatedly readding nonfree images to Infoboxes

I hope someone here can help explain the policy on non-free images to someone else. 212.234.92.35 (talk · contribs) has been reverting a free image in the infobox at Siouxsie Sioux and replacing it with a non-free album cover. This editor is also placing a non-free album cover in the infobox at Siouxsie & the Banshees. Their rationale is: "every artist page on wikipedia has got discography with pictures sleeves. if you start this policy here, I'm afraid you'd have to erase all the discography pictures pages on the site." This rationale for using non-free album art to depict what an artist looks like sounds incorrect to me. The Parsnip! 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no discussion of the issue on these other pages, so why don't you direct them here if it happens again? The answer is that this is already policy, and nothing new being started here. You can see it in examples 16 and 17 here, WP:NONFREE#Examples_of_unacceptable_use. Misplaced Pages has a strong preference for free rather than copyrighted images, because under direction from the Foundation we are a part of, we try to make the articles as freely reusable as possible, not just here but on other websites. Copyrighted pictures cannot always be used on other sites, so whenever there is another picture that will do we use that one. As a band that is still active (sort of), anyone who wants to get a totally free picture can take a photo of them at a concert or a publicity event, and more than likely there are some out there already. Therefore, instead of using the record album cover photo we should look for a free image. Most artists do not have album covers as their main picture, and that is allowable only under specific circumstances. Artist discographies are usually lower in the page, and they can and are being erased under the policy. That's the reason in a nutshell. Wikidemo 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

If the Banshees are still (sort of) active then nobody has told Sioux or Severin! I will note at the article talkpage that I will ask at the band fansite(s) I belong to if there is any pictures that folk would care to upload. LessHeard vanU 22:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I misread the article to think they had done a reunion concert in 2006, I think. Nevertheless, somebody must have a good fan pic they're willing to donate to the cause. The idea is to put some real effort into finding a free picture and use a copyrighted source only as a last resort. If there is truly no free picture, and the only pictures to show the band is a copyrighted one, you do have an argument for using it. That kind of use is a little disfavored / controversial but you have an argument. In my opinion better a publicity shot that is meant for the purpose than trying to retool an album cover or somebody else's magazine spread Wikidemo 00:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

They have started re-releasing the remastered back catalogue, and Siouxsie released a DVD of some concerts featuring Banshee material, in 2006. In any case, it appears that my request to a couple of fansites has resulted in an attempted provision of a free image. Hopefully it will soon be resolved. LessHeard vanU 00:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Block review requested by Durova

I have given a 24 block for WP:NPA to the editor who posted this. Since part of the insults are directed at me there may room to suppose I should have recused myself from taking action. I think the post was obvious enough. Posting for review in case I was mistaken. Durova 16:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

wp:boldly edited the above diff link, see below AnonEMouse 18:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I reading this right? On your talk page, User:Avidor is complaining that User:ATren posted a personal attack on User:Sdedeo's talk page (which s/he quoted on your talk page) but you've blocked User:Avidor? I've reviewed it twice and it's still confusing so I can see how an error could be made (if indeed it has and my apologies if I have misunderstood) → AA — 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I read it the same way AA did I think, i.e. Avidor stated that ATren is "an annoying troll" and provided a diff (albeit a very old one) to support his claim. I don't see how he attacked you Durova (talk · contribs). I have no real comment if this was an attack on ATren (talk · contribs) or just calling a spade...--Isotope23 17:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to Durova that Avidor called Durova a moron, which is a personal attack. DrKiernan 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a direct quote of something ATren (talk · contribs) said to Sdedeo (talk · contribs) as evidenced by the diff linking of the text. I think Avidor was providing that as evidence of his claim ATren is a troll, not directing the text at Durova... at least that is how I read it. Personally, I'd lift the block because I thing Durova just misunderstood or misread the comment (and it is easy to see how because I read it twice before I noticed it was a direct quote)--Isotope23 17:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Durova, it looks like the diff links are for the most recent diff on the talk page, which may confuse those who don't look back a few edits. Leebo /C 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch, Leebo. Durova, your dif link is to User_talk:Durova&diff=cur not a specific dif. What was the dif you meant to post? KillerChihuahua 17:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the diff as it existed at the time of the AN posting.--Isotope23 17:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, pending confirmation from Durova, we can discuss that edit, which appears to be a link to a diff and then a quote from that diff, which Durova took as addressed to her. If that is the edit for which she blocked, the block is an error and Avidor should be unblocked with an appropriate edit summary (something like Mitaken identity, or Blocked in error, wrong party). One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify this: Avidor and I have a long and contentious history, which started here, and expanded outside the project. I can provide details if you like, though it's not important to this issue. Basically, Avidor accuses me of having a "vendetta" against him, because I counter his POV here and elsewhere.

When Avidor saw some posts about me on Durova's talk page, he posted a link to the one edit on this project which I regret - it was my first month on the project, I was frustrated at fighting Avidor's POV pushing, and I lashed out. He brings it up whenever he sees I'm in a conflict. Durova may have misinterpreted this as an attack on her, but in reality it was Avidor trying to taint my reputation by bringing up an isolated edit from my history. ATren 17:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

ATren wasn't blocked for posting a diff of a rude edit you made, he was blocked as though he'd made that edit and directed it to Durova. You're not helping the situation by accusing him of trying to taint your reputation, when we're trying to review the block. KillerChihuahua 17:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant Avidor was blocked, KillerChihuahua... and I think that ATren is trying to clarify that he was the target of that stale diff, not Durova.--Isotope23 17:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, typed the one name and meant the other. KillerChihuahua 21:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)No, KC, you are misunderstanding my point. I'm only clarifying what happened and providing some back history, since it appeared that some misinterpreted that quote as coming from him, when in fact it was an old quote of mine (which I, of course, regret). ATren 17:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement that Avidor should be unblocked as this was a misunderstanding and probably cautioned about bringing up stale diffs from over a year ago as "evidence"?--Isotope23 17:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) That's not my decision, but my point (in the post above) was it appeared that maybe Durova misunderstood the original post from Avidor, and that was my intention in trying to clarify above. Personally, I don't like the fact that he brings up that one single edit whenever I have a conflict (I regretted it almost immediately and I've never repeated anything like it since) but I don't necessarily agree that it was a blockable offense to bring it up, and maybe it was just a misunderstanding by Durova. Then again, he did call me a troll in that message, so maybe Durova was responding to that. I don't know, I'm just trying to clarify the confusion. ATren 17:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've unblocked User:Avidor on the assumption that this was all a big misunderstanding. In any event, blocks should be preventative and not punitive and there is no indication that there was serial incivility in progress. If anyone (including Durova) disagrees, they are welcome to reinstate the block. --Richard 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as a follow-up comment... Durova blocked Avidor with WP:NPA as a justification. The statement "ATren is an annoying troll... " is arguably a personal attack although characterizing people that disagree with you as trolls is something lots of people do (including admins). That statement might have been the basis of Durova's block of Avidor. Hopefully this incident will warn Avidor to eschew personal attacks in the future. --Richard 17:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Apologies to all for the confusion about the diff. My interpretation was that it was an NPA violation against ATren with an incidental sideswipe at me. I considered the attack on ATren blockable but opened the block for review because my action might be construed as blocking for a personal attack on me. Is that convoluted enough for you?

Part of what weighed in my decision was how Avidor's post had about zero chance of doing anything helpful. ATren had come to me with what I considered to be a legitimate but rather delicate question. I had settled matters to the satisfaction of most parties days ago. The situation was still something of a hornets' nest, albeit a dormant one, and Avidor was poking a stick at it. I hoped a 24 hour block would prevent any new swarms from gathering. Durova 04:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Re '"ATren is an annoying troll... " is arguably a personal attack' -- read WP:SPADE; it is in no way a personal attack.

Re the block, I'm afraid I see no valid reason for it. Fortunately it was overturned. I'd suggest just a bit more contemplation before issuing blocks -- I'm begining to notice a trend among some admins to block first (almost as a knee-jerk reaction) and ask questions later. In this case, had Durove checked WP:SPADE, and had she noticed the quotation marks, a lot of time and bytes could have been spared. Mistakes of this type are not conducive to building a better Misplaced Pages. •Jim62sch• 11:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor brought up a single diff from February 2006 to revive a tense discussion that had settled down. I accept the criticism while observing that WP:KETTLE also applies on a couple of levels. Durova 04:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear that the block was inappropriate. No admin should block an editor if their first impression is that the editor about to be blocked committed an "additional sideswipe" at the admin about to block. At that point the admin is involved and it is simply not appropriate. There is no excuse for an admin who blocks people for violating NPA against them. Especially an established editor. I can't help but believe that initial response was anger which hindered comprehension. This escalated into the inappropriate block. I think a good rule of thumb would be not to block people for NPA who post to your talk page. Let another admin handle it. And the WP:KETTLE comment as a response to criticism also doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy. --Tbeatty 05:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's needless rulemongering. Either the block is warranted or it's not; if we made it unacceptable to block where the blockee has side-swiped a particular admin then it will become trivially easy for cretins to avoid blocking. The problem here is not that Durova was involved, but that there was a misdiagnosis,. which is an honest mistake anyone could make. In this particular case, Avidor was a vociferous political opponent of personal rapid transit, and ATren (formerly called A Transportation Enthusiast) engaged in a lengthy and acrimonious content dispute with Avidor on that article. At the time, both were single purpose accounts. ATren has attacked Avidor pretty savagely on his blog, which I believe he registered in part to do specifically that. The dispute is pretty much dead because the fantasy scheme in question was voted down, so I don't know why it reignited. ATren harbours grudges. I don't know if Avidor does because he is pretty inactive on Misplaced Pages these days. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Needless to say, I disagree with almost everything JzG says here, and I have diffs to back me up. Ken has been admonished by several others here for his POV pushing and COI editing on politicians and others who support PRT. Guy has spoken favorably of the "car free" movement, and he is a self-professed huge fan of Ken Avidor, so he is sympathetic to his campaign. The "fantasy" system of which Guy speaks is currently being constructed at London's Heathrow Airport, so clearly Guy has let his own POV sway his opinion on this matter. I'm not going to further clutter this forum by rehashing this old debate - if you want details and diffs, contact me on my talk page and I will be more than willing to provide them. ATren 16:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's time to close this thread manually. I've received fair criticism and have no intention of reinstating the block. I'll also take a closer look before using the tools in this sort of situation in the future. I remain rather doubtful that quoting a single diff from a year and a half ago would have or could have served any useful purpose. ATren and Avidor don't like each other; ATren and JzG don't like each other. Let's put it behind us. Durova 15:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Dormant August 2005 ED trolls

Please block Girlvinyl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Encydra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Encydra2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), users whose edits consisted only of trolling and legal warring on the now-deleted Encyclopædia Dramatica article. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Are they still editing? Being disruptive? Why block? If they were SPA's of the ED issue and now it's over, who cares? --Rocksanddirt 23:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

MONGO cares. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos 23:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the matter when it was presented at WP:AIV last night. All three accounts seemed dormant/never used since 2005. I suggested the request be bought here for admin review.

If MONGO would provide a reasonable criteria for blocking then it could be further considered, although I am now of the opinion it would have been less energy to have blocked them in the first case. However, I wouldn't want to start a precedent of blocking dormant accounts simply on request. LessHeard vanU 13:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CSN

I think it's finally hit a point where we can tag this {{historical}}. It's essentially dead and receives no traffic. While the original intentions of it were fine, it quickly degenerated and has now died a peaceful death. Just wanted to make sure it was ok by the general community before I went bold and ended up pissing someone off. ^demon 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Not at all; it proved decisive just the other day re Iantresman.Proabivouac 02:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There are three active discussions up there right now; that would seem to indicate it's still moving along. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 02:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Proabvouac and Tony Fox. Durova 04:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I agree with demon, because there seems to be a new noticeboard popping up rather frequently, which strikes me as potentially excessive. I am not an administrator, however, but just from observation, it seems that most issues are handled here or on other talk pages anyway. Just my two cents. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 16:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents, you are correct in that the issues in past have been handled in the past at many venues. This is a centralized venue, keeping discussion for that type of, action,... centralized. Regards, Navou 16:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Administrator restoring trolling

Please continue discussing at the relevant thread at WP:ANI. This is a needless duplicate. —Kurykh 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Administrator Chaser just restored this trolling meant to fool and distract, and the equal of a hack to Misplaced Pages Software to a user's page. I seek oversight. Link

Bmedley Sutler 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not trolling, and you are forum shopping. The relevant thread is already at WP:ANI, so continue discussing there. —Kurykh 05:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote that I would appeal his decision. How is foolery equal to a computer hack meant to mimic a legitmate warning of a new message not trolling? Please explain in detail your reasoning. I will post next on Mr. Wales page and see if he thinks that fakery mimicing legitimate Wiki warnings is something he thinks is appropriate for this encycolpedia. It's all a big joke, yes? The talk page discussing 100's of 1000's of dead civilians is a ripe playground for trolling, joking and stunts, yes? Bmedley Sutler 05:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales will not deal with such petty and absurd disputes that the community itself can handle. Trolling is defined as making comments to intentionally provoke an angry or uncivil response, not creating "a computer hack meant to mimic a legitmate warning of a new message." And you are still forum shopping; this is not an appeals panel, and nor is Jimbo Wales. WP:DE is more appropriate for your complaints. —Kurykh 05:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Trolling Jimbo's page is probably not the smartest thing to do, but don't let me stand in your way. - Crockspot 05:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley and Giovanni33 should probably both catch a modest timeout. They're raising hell tonight after a content dispute didn't go their way. - Crockspot 05:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh is asking editors who attacked the page by blanking sourced material added by consensus (over 17 editors agreed), only to find it blanked over and over with no explanation, except by edit summaries saying is (OR?) raising hell? I feel an explanation is to be expected from that editor, as those edits objectively appear as blantent vandalism to me, and others. This is a sign of good faith. I see the edits as clearly vandalism, but I'm holding out for another possible explanation. I'll wait for his answer for his repeated blanking without any discussion on talk to remove a whole section that was the product of consensus among editors from all sides. His actions, as the basis of my accusation (blanking three times in a row against three different editors, claiming it OR--but failing to explain why he feels its OR:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146022799&oldid=146021931
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=145827861&oldid=145825656
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=146020069&oldid=146012238

As of now, I'm still waiting for your explanation from him for why he claimed it was OR, and thus blanked it completely, against the consensus of editors working on the page who supported it and worked in it with me (over 17 established editors). Again, I'm assuming good faith and so that is why I want an explanation so I can understand how it can possibly not be outright vandalism. Proof of consensus obtained prior to adding this material by editors on both sides of the fense:] Giovanni33 05:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not planning to block either of them. No one has reacted badly to these accusations, and cool-down blocks aren't effective anyway.--Chaser - T 05:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

—Kurykh, (and Chaser) thank you for your defense of "a computer hack meant to mimic a legitmate warning of a new message" as being approriate for Misplaced Pages. I would think after the 'Ryan Essjay' catastrophe and all the other problems like the dead wrestler that Misplaced Pages would be more interested in restoring it's severly damaged reputation than in hijinks, but jokes and stunts and defense of such actions are apparently more important! Wise choice sir! I'm logging off for the night. Bmedley Sutler 05:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Wtf!?! I changed the look of my new message box in my monobook.css to avoid being tricked by these fake message boxes, and this one looks just like my custom one. This is basically hacking the interface to trick people into clicking a link, I cannot think of a single website that would allow it. How it mimicked my custom new message box I am not sure. Until(1 == 2) 05:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear users, the use of the prank newmessage box is not new, and is still unresolved. Do I think that the two of you are wrong? No, I agree with you. The ultimate point is that this situation arose from another dispute which was crossposted here. The use of the message bar is separate from the dispute between users. In other words, this is not the place for this debate. Requests for comment is much more appropriate for resolving a particular situation once the twine has been untangled. There is no need for administrator intervention in regards to that particular topic as there is nothing that an administrator alone can do. The thread was closed as no discussion of policy merit can come about in this forum. Keegan 06:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

That box simply uses the ".usermessage" class, as does the real new-message box. There's no "hacking" involved. Just look at the source. --Edokter (Talk) 11:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no general consensus on fake new message boxes, but there is consensus that personal attacks are not allowed, and if someone called me a sucker I would think it was intended as a personal attack. Usually the new message boxes point to something neutraql like Practical joke. If they point to obscene, offensive, of otherwise inappropriate content they certainly can and should be removed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question

Can a user close a template for deletion request? Also the user is not an administrator

for example see here Template:Allegations of apartheid closed by Cerejota who also voted keep Bleh999 11:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that it is a bit WP:BOLD, but I'll endorse it in this circumstance. The prior discussion just closed, go to DRV if you dispute it, otherwise wait some time before renominating it. --After Midnight 12:18, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It's annoying when people are constantly nominating articles for deletion, just a few days after the previous afd ended. Just accept it, the consensus was against you, live with it. I don't know if a non admin can close an afd, but I would say yes, as renominating so soon shows either ignorance of the deletion review process, or deliberate trolling. Jackaranga 12:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-admins can close AfDs if they're unanimously Keep or Delete, or close to it. Otherwise, it's better to have administrative discretion. Shadow1 (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A delete, even if unanimous, should probably still be closed by an admin since closure is only one part of the process. The page must still be deleted and only an admin can do that. Otherwise, the page may not be deleted even though the discussion is closed. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 13:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I know it doesn't explicitly say it in the relevant policy (and it probably shouldn't), but there's never been any particular controversy about non-admins performing a close that amounts to pure housekeeping, such as closing a discussion of a page that doesn't exist. This particular case really was pure housekeeping - closing a renomination of a very recently discussed page that didn't acknowledge the previous discussion or add anything new to it. If that saved some administrator a minute, great (but now we've used it up again ...). In general, a deletion closing is bad only if the result is bad, not simply because of a lack of red tape. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Jackaranga don't make personal attacks, I was asking a question and I didn't ask for your personal opinions on deletion requests, there isn't a set policy for how long time must pass before nominating a deletion so your comments are unwarranted, and I never got the chance to participate in the deletion discussion before and didn't realize it had been nominated so soon, besides according to Shadow1 no one had the chance to vote so it was hardly 'unanimous' Bleh999 14:02, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry I'm not planning on making any personal attacks. When you want to nominate an article or template for deletion it is best (some may say even essential), to read not only the article itself but also have a quick look at the talk page. As you can see if you take a quick glance at Template talk:Allegations of apartheid, at the top in the orangish boxes, the article was nominated for deletion before and you can follow the link to the previous discussion. I'm not sure who Shadow1 is but, it would seem the discussion was normal, and had quite a high participation. I'm sorry if you took ignorance of the deletion review process, or deliberate trolling. badly, it didn't cross my mind that you might not of had a look at the talk page before doing the AfD , sorry. Also if you can I think you should check for previous nominations, as you are supposed to add "(third nomination)" and so forth if it has already been nominated by the past. Jackaranga 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

This is from WP:DP :

• Renominations: As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly. Jackaranga 15:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is right. The last TFD was closed less than a week ago. Please use DRV. If we nominate stuff that fails less every 5 days, then we're admin-shopping, hoping to get the right closure. The Evil Spartan 15:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You make a good point, however I've noticed in the past some articles have got re nominated for deletion a few days later and were not speedily closed, so the question is this policy being unfairly used, and should it be less ambiguous, because we shouldn't have two rules for the same situation, and in this case the deletion request was closed by a user who is involved in edit disputes regarding the content of the template and articles it links to. Please don't take offense but you've only been here since May 2007, and therefore still a relatively new user, there have been deletion requests before that didn't get speedy closed, it isn't up to an editor of the article or template being nominated (involved in edit disputes) to make that the decision on whether it is too soon or not. Bleh999 23:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Be advised, I am the user that did a speedy close based on WP:SNOWBALL around WP:DELETE. I informed the user in multiple occasions to read WP:DRV as part of my close.

User:Bleh999 alleged in his talk page that WP:DELETE didn't apply to him because he didn't participate in the previous TfD, and reverted my close twice already - the close reversions are clear violations of policy as per the template itself. He also alleged there was no consensus in this discussion as to the ability of non-admins to close XfDs: while clearly most everyone here agrees we do have the ability, and only under delete we don't, under obvious reasons.

I have raised an AN/I for disruptive behavior. Please see his talk page for more elaboration. This user clearly shows an unwillingness to respect the deletion process.--Cerejota 17:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Were Cerejota not so deeply involved in this dispute, I would give him a barnstar for sticking his neck out in and speedy closing this discussion. Is it possible to give an un-barnstar to Bleh999, for renominating it 3 days later, then forum shopping (he posted messages here, at WP:ANI, and then again at WP:ANI when the first was closed). The Evil Spartan 20:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if my actions caused 'disruption' however, Cerejota could have simply waited for someone else, preferably an administrator to close the deletion request if it were so against policy, as you said he is 'deeply involved in the dispute' and I posted here asking for clarification on procedure on closing deletion requests not forum shopping (whatever that means) Bleh999 23:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

And as a matter of principle and in the interest of protecting neutrality I don't think someone who is deeply involved in the dispute should close deletion requests IMHO, I wouldn't want to close deletion requests when I am involved in edit disputes and conflicts of interests, I'm not sure why Cerejota feels it is appropriate here as there is an undeniable conflict of interest and the policy states Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly and the who is to decide whether a nomination fits that criteria and closes the deletion request? The most vocal supporters of the template or article should get to close deletion requests? For the same reason that administrators can't ban users they are involved in edit disputes with, users should not close deletion requests that they are involved in edit disputes with, it is inappropriate. The question for the administrators and others here is that are we going to allow users to take such acts even if there is an undeniable conflict of interest, and not just specific to this case, if this article gets nominated again will it be appropriate for Cerejota to speedy close it, even though he can hardly claim to be neutral in regards to this article? Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly I dispute that, my nomination did present new arguments than the old deletion request, so different that you can only really claim the lack of time span between the requests is valid for a speedy close and nothing else. Was it more disruptive of me to nominate this template for deletion, or was it disruptive of Cerejota to repeatedly close it, even when he could have simply waited for an administrator or neutral editor to do so, that I think shows evidence of disruption that Cerejota wanted to edit war to prove a point or stifle the debate Bleh999 23:22, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh999: I might be "deeply involved", but my behavior was exemplary.

When I closed, I had given a few hours after my comments for editors other than yourself to challenge my suggestion. I even helpfully pointed you to the correct procedure: WP:DRV. This is not about keeping or not keeping the template, but about this decision being reached correctly.

I patiently directed you to the correct procedure, explained to you why your actions were wrong, and even went to the extreme of not going to the noticeboard when you first re-opened the closed TfD, to give you the benefit of the doubt. I gave you all these chances because I recognized I was an involved editor, and wanted to avoid the appearance of wrongdoing.

Your response? Come to this noticeboard and edit war on a TfD log page, in spite of the template specifically saying that you should not re-open or further edit once closed.

Your second re-opening was beyond the pale, and you should be banned from participating in XfDs for a few months until you can become familiar with procedures, in particular WP:DELETE and WP:DRV. You remain unrepentant as to what you did wrong, and this is not a good sign. It seems my lack of escalating action was seen by you as meaning that my position was a weak one, rather than as a good faith attempt at getting you to do the right thing. You are wrong.

My snowball close is watertight (snowtight) and I triple dare anyone to prove otherwise: there is not a snowball's chance in hell your TfD should have been allowed to continue. Perhaps I should have contained myself as an involved editor, but ultimately I did nothing wrong, and you should assume good faith.

I have clean record in wikipedia, never have been banned or in other way subjected to any admin procedure, and have thousands of contributions, been a registered editor for more or less two years. I know what I am doing when I WP:SNOWBALL something. Please understand this.

The Evil Spartan: I deserve the barnstar, I really do! :P... Thanks!--Cerejota 02:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree, besides there is no consensus that users involved in edit conflicts on articles or templates up for deletion or conflicts of interest may speedily close a deletion request we may as well let administrators ban users who they have edit conflicts with as well, the principle is the same that one cannot objectively arrive at decisions if you are deeply involved. also read the comments by JodyB A delete, even if unanimous, should probably still be closed by an admin since closure is only one part of the process. The page must still be deleted and only an admin can do that. Otherwise, the page may not be deleted even though the discussion is closed. your closure was inappropriate and disruptive, you could have simply waited for an administrator to close it. Also there is no proof that I violated policy since renominations for deletion are allowed maybe you don't comprehend that part. Boasting about your past contributions is purely irrelevant to the matter at hand.Bleh999 03:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a different view of what JodyB meant with her words. I think she was clear about "delete" not the discussion itself. However, I do not read minds, so I have asked her to clarify.

Thank you for asking me for clarification. Let me first clarify that I am a he, not her. Anyway, my comments, very early in this thread, were not intended to reflect on positions that were not yet stated. I only meant that if a non-admin closes an AfD as delete he may create a situation where the page itself is never deleted because the closed AfD will likely be overlooked and the actual deletion, which cannot be done by a non-admin, will never occur. I was speaking only to the mechanics of the process itself. I would suggest that we all let things cool a bit. Administrators do not close AfD's in which they are closely involved and that principle should apply to all. Maybe just ask for help from someone not involved. Also, Deletion Review is there for a reason. Use it. While re-noms may be allowed, I don't think the spirit of the guideline is to re-nom the identical item within a few days. Just my take. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And to answer one other question posed at my talk page. I agree that XfD's can be closed by non-admins if not delete. I have discussed XfD's which are deletions above. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I swing between exasperation and pity with you: on one hand I have the nagging suspicion you are a troll hell-bent on bothering people, on the other hand just someone who cannot understand English.

1. None here is arguing that XfDs cannot be re-nominated, so your admonition is irrelevant. The argument is clear: a reasonable amount of time has to pass before renomination. You didn't let a reasonable amount of time to pass. You were told repeatedly to go to a WP:DRV.
2. There is indeed consensus that a user can close an XfD if the result is anything but delete. Except for yourself, no one has indicated that my actions were inappropriate. However others have indicated and concurred that WP:DRV is the alternative in this case.

I have never wanted to be an admin, but this case clearly makes me want to re-think that.

This is a crystal-clear violation of WP:DELETE on your part, and you wouldn't have dared question it had I been an admin, and you would be the wiser. Now I have to escalate in order to educate you... if only you would have paid heed and gone to WP:DRV...

--Cerejota 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

First of all I don't care whether you were an admin or not, you're just an unknown pseudonym sitting behind a computer screen and don't have any extra credibility, the conflict of interest would not change if you were an admin, hence the reason why they can't unban themselves or ban users they are in edit disputes with. The fact that two other users commented on the inappropriate manner of your closure on the noticeboard, is proof enough that I'm not the only one who objected to your inappropriate and disruptive actions. The fact that you continue to make personal attacks only reflects badly on you, and your immature and childish attitude means you wouldn't succeed as an administrator since you don't understand some of the core policies such as WP:NPA, I suggest you not close deletion requests in the future where you aren't a neutral third party, but I doubt you will able to understand Bleh999 12:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleh999 apparently continues to forum shop:

Bleh999: I haven't been uncivil (actually, facing your behavior, I have been a hero of civility) but personal attacks are more subjective, so I do apologize if you feel you have been subjected to one on my part. My intention is not to insult you, but to try to make you understand your mistake, so you don't do it again. I hold no ill will towards you as a person (who I don't even know) and editor (we have agreed on other things, AFAIK).

This is the key, and others (including JodyB, who clarified that you didn't understand him correctly) have said as much:

1. Your re-nom was too early.
2. You should have followed WP:DRV
3. Your reversion of a close was a violation of the instructions on the template.

Lastly, if it hasn't been clear by now, I do agree it is valid to say I should have exercised constrain in being bold because of my deep involvement, and will note this in the future. However, since I was dealing with a WP:SNOWBALL issue I thought simply pointing to WP:DRV (which is quite clear on this) would have sufficed to eliminate any allegations of wrongdoing. After all, we are supposed to assume good faith.

I still have faith that once you calm down, read WP:DELETE and WP:DRV you will realize your mistake (hell, I have done my share), and come to even thank me. When such time comes, you will understand what I mean, dear grasshopper. Thanks!--Cerejota 12:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, in his forum shopping Bleh999 mentioned that I have been accused of personal attacks. I did about a year ago, and went to mediation and talked things through.

However you might refer to the more recent claim by User:Jayjg (yes, the man himself!).

It might serve me to clarify the matter.

I was accused of violating WP:NPA by him on my talk page , but upon further discussion he realized he was wrong and apologized in the relevant talk page .

Believe me, if I had truly done a personal attack against User:Jayjg I would have gotten some sort of punishment: he is one of the most respected admins around *and* a former member of ArbCom, first nominated by Jimbo himself.

However, even Gods of the Olympus like him make mistakes, and he apologized. And that was it.

Bleh999, you should take note of that.--Cerejota 13:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

NN character articles

Could someone have a look at this page and the whole slew of character stubs that User:Badgirlsfan is creating? S/he has already been informed on their talk page that they would be better off creating a list of characters page, but is still creating identical stubs at a rapid rate. Might be worth a bigger nudge before s/he wastes any more of their time. ELIMINATORJR 15:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I am redirecting to the tv show main page, I have started with the most recent ones in his history, if someone can start by the other end, we can meet in the middle. Jackaranga 16:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it, though you're well ahead of me. ELIMINATORJR 16:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Think that was all of them. Jackaranga 16:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Matildaluvr15. I've given a Uw-create3, and all their articles are being tagged for speedy, though there's a big backlog at CAT:CSD and I doubt they'll take muh notice until their articles are actually whacked. ELIMINATORJR 16:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I've speedied all the articles as A1 (no context). Now to see whether he heeds your warning. Will (aka Wimt) 16:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Unlock move permissions

Is anyone else unable to unlock move permissions at the moment? They remain greyed out for me. Rockpocket 23:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Similar issue here. The only way I can get it to work (from zero protection) is by, for instance, setting a page to full protection, checking the unlock box, and then moving the edit protection back to semi (or none). But that should not be how it works. -- tariqabjotu 00:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. This must have been caused by a recent change somewhere because I remember not having the problem when I move and semi-protected my userpage (log) earlier this month. Nihiltres 00:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone happen to know the most suitable place to draw attention to this? Rockpocket 18:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sleeper accounts to beware of

Between 13:32 and 14:07 on June 8, some 10 first-time accounts voted at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Allison Stokke (second nomination) before the page was protected (see here for the history).

After lying dormant for a month and a half, several of those accounts have been used to commit vatious kinds of mayhem over the past few days, and have been blocked. (The M.O.'s vary: one claimed to be User:Light current, one acted like Willy on Wheels, etc.) However, a couple of the accounts remain as yet unused, and are almost certainly under the control of the same puppetmeister. Circumstantial evidence like this is probably insufficient grounds to preemptively block those accounts, but they'll be worth keeping an eye on.

They are:

• Theeastyorkshiredude1983xss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Septicollocr44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Kaillaws322 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• T E d PitmanSTARBRISTOL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Gelssam30032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Kemsell43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Penysago333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Kaimarbuth1336 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Wrenfordhouse9000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)
• Quevers00032 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (already blocked)

—Steve Summit (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Kaillaws322 should be blocked, since they are claiming to be Sandi Thom. Corvus cornix 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wahabi Controversial Fatwas

Could someone review my decision here? This article was tagged as an attack page for speedy delete. I declined to delete it because it was sourced and did not seem like the usual attack page. Further, there seems to be some controversy about whether it should remain on not which would mean it needed to go through AfD instead. There is no question that the article makes the individual look bad but that seems to arise from his own writings and statements. A diff on my talk page gives some insight here. I am happy to be reversed if that's the right thing but, as I suggested, I think this ought go through AfD if someone feels strongly. Thanks JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 01:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree. I saw it sitting in CSD, and took a long hard look at it before deciding (in true n00b-admin ways) to leave it for someone with more experience. I didn't think it was speedy-able, but wanted a second opinion too. I support a run through AfD. - Philippe | Talk 01:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have boldly deleted the article per "WP:BOLD; invoked CSD G10 as the article's sole (however subtle and implicit) purpose is to disparage its subject (in this case, a Muslim sect)." Civil comments welcome. —Kurykh 02:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the deletion, since the article was inherently and irreparably OR and pov, bordered on soapboxing and had very vague inclusion criteria. When is a fatwa controversial, for instance? Aecis 02:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted to your talk page, Kurykh before I saw this. My understanding is that CSD is for blatant issues. This one was, as you say, subtle. Would it not have been best to allow the community to make the call at AfD? Afterall, the article was sourced and while there were certainly problems, why not let AfD handle it? I'm still learning and interested in your thoughts. Thanks JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 02:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied a minute ago on your talk page. :) And note I said "however subtle and implicit," not that it is subtle. Semantics is important in this case. —Kurykh 02:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

And it was recreated. Someone else delete it please (if you wish)? —Kurykh 02:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I did not re-create it and would not JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 02:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm amused; why would anyone suspect you of recreating it? —Kurykh 02:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because I am paranoid doesn't mean the world is not out to get me! JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 09:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

New user oddly similar to blocked user

I see the top of the page says take cases of block evasion to Incidents, but as I cannot prove that, only see some evidence of it, I wanted to let everyone here know of my observations.

I have noticed several things which make it seem plausible to suspect that Utto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) might be a new incarnation of indef blocked user Daniel3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (see the relevant case for the block). (Is the term for this sockpuppet?)

• Both users have a small unsectioned unformatted unsigned greeting on the top of their talk pages. (nothing substantial by themselves of course)
• Utto opened their account 2 days after the beginning of the checkuser process which found evidence to indef Daniel3.
• Both users take a keen interest on Morman-related articles.
• Both have added dubious links (both with respect to WP:EL (opinion pieces) and to factual accuracy, a WP:BLP red flag) to Pope Benedict XVI (Utto: here and here).
• Both have uploaded several images, mostly on the topic of Mormanism, and both have had several (OK two for Utto, but out of fewer) with issues on their legitimate use here (just look at their Talk pages' heading, e.g.).

I can provide more diffs on request, but Utto's contribution list now is still quite short (fifteen edits), and easily accessible.

I did inform Utto of my concerns. I would like to share my concerns and let proceed as best is seen fit.

To be frank, I wasn't sure how to proceed, since it seemed any hint of an accusation by myself is bad faith, since it could still just be a coincidence (again, fifteen edits). If anyone has any practical advice for how to handle these types of situations in perceived better faith, I would be very grateful. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Obvious sock. Sasquatch t|c 05:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I will keep in mind this standard for being obvious in the future. Thanks for your attention. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs with few !votes

Looing for something to do? The AfDs at User:Dragons flight/AFD summary/Few votes could use the wisdom of a few good admins. Also, the closing admins may need head counts to come up with a consensus. -- Jreferee 07:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to count heads to come up with consensus. Just look for who has the better argument. >.> —— Eagle101 20:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus = best argument. Wow. Better yet, implement the decision of the user with the prettiest sig. ˉˉ╦╩ 12:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the "consensus" that's important is the project-wide one. The better argument is the one that illustrates better how project-wide consensus (reflected in policy and guideline) applies to the article in question. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That point is both valid and valiant, but, unfortunately, AfD often winds up as something of a crapshoot. Even the project-wide policies and guidelines contradict each other, in parts, when it comes to things like notability and other deletion-related considerations. One trip over to WP:DRV illustrates that there are often many people who claim to present the best argument, or claim that consensus must take majority opinion into account. An appeal to closers to avoid a myopic, hyper-legal reading of policy may well be warranted, but advising them to simply seek out the best (read: favorable) argument will only encourage abuse. ˉˉ╦╩ 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I closed a few. --Deskana (talk) 14:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Permanently semi-protecting date articles

There was a discussion on this at the village pump, which a read through indicates a rough consensus supporting at least a trial period for the idea. I thought I'd test the water here, see what people think. Steve block Talk 14:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Which of the criteria for full protection in the protection policy would justify this? Until(1 == 2) 14:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe full protection has been mentioned at any stage. Deiz talk 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If those articles do attract lots of simple vandalism like "1989 Cute guy John Doe is born", what's the big deal? It's easy to spot and revert, and not particularly harmful. It all seems to be dealt with pretty quickly. --bainer (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these are heavily watched pages (who doesn't have their birthday watchlisted) and vandalism gets reverted pretty quickly. Deiz talk 14:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not a huge fan of that proposal either. Much like a honeypot, these articles do attract a lot of new users and I'm sure there's a sizable percentage of those who will use "their" article to take their first few steps, wiki-wise. Since those those test edits tend to be extremely easy to catch, one of two things usually happens: either one of the anti-vandalism bots catches and reverts the edits or the changes are reverted by a WP:RCP patroller or someone who has the page watchlisted. Either way, the user gets a friendly template warning and a couple of pointers (sandbox, etc). Some of those users will move on and never edit again and some will become productive Wikipedians. Protect or even sprot these pages and a new editor's first exposure to WP will be along the lines of 'Welcome to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 that anyone can edit -- except you, of course'. That's something I'm pretty much opposed to on general principle, as well as out of practicability: the kid who inserts his own birthday will get quickly reverted. The guy who hits ALT+Shift+x and makes his test edit to $random_article might not. I see this as doing more harm than good. --S 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to add a link to Misplaced Pages:Sandbox to the notice that comes up when an editor tries to edit a (semi)protected page? And is MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext the right page to add the link to? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

There must be thousands of articles get vandalized so often, we cannot go about protecting them, all forever, or we will just be another read-only website. Until(1 == 2) 14:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• As has already been pointed out, this isn't what is being proposed at all. Steve block Talk 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I think this is a bad idea because of all the reasons given above, the protection policy disagrees too. --Deskana (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• As is pointed out above and below, it doesn't with regards this proposal. Steve block Talk 21:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, these pages are somewhat different from the usual article pages contemplated in the protection policy—these are really summary and index pages rather than proper articles. It would be relatively rare that an editor totally new to Misplaced Pages would want to make his or her first edit to one of these index pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The protection poliy doesn't say anything about this, however, when 90% of an article's edits is a vandal or a revert, it should at least be looked into. Plus date vandalism regulary hangs around for a couple hours. Wizardman

• Endorse heartily - quoting the semi-protection policy:

Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism.

Sounds like this is a perfect example. Will 20:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of them aren't subject to heavy and continued vandalism. January 1 has only been vandalised once or twice in the past few days, for example. Protecting them all indiscriminately without checking to see if they're vandalised is just stupid. --Deskana (talk) 21:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Individually, no; collectively, yes: eyeballing a list of changes over the last twenty-four hours shows maybe 50-60 vanity additions/vandalism for the 366 articles in this range. That's a pretty steady drip-drip there. --Calton | Talk 23:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not fair to group them like that. I'd rather add every single page to my watchlist (and I will if I have to) than sprotect them all. --Deskana (talk) 07:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Why not do a day or two expiring protection when there is a problem, and watch them after they expire? Until(1 == 2) 21:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell, there is not serious, or persistent vandalism on any of the date articles I watch. Definitely not anything that requires protection -- permanent protection should be used in the case where, otherwise, one would be continually filling WP:RPP requests. This is simply not the case for date articles, in my experience. --Haemo 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Individually, no; collectively, yes: eyeballing a list of changes over the last twenty-four hours shows maybe 50-60 vanity additions/vandalism for the 366 articles in this range. That's a pretty steady drip-drip there. --Calton | Talk 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I have the 11th of each month on my watchlist, so I'm watching 12 date pages. If others would take different days of the month, then I think we can have this covered. Vandalism to the date articles isn't that bad, but occurs on a regular basis. Or more often, people adding their own birthdays or other silly stuff. --Aude (talk) 00:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that -- by my rough estimate -- 90+% of the edits by anon IPs to the date pages are vandalism/silly vanity edits AND that the pages are simple, relatively stable listings, I fail to understand the downside of semi-protection other than adherence to some peculiar form of fundamentalism regarding Misplaced Pages editing principles. Is there some horrible slippery slope I'm missing here? --Calton | Talk 07:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No disrespected intended Calton, but I have to say that I see a slippery slope if the pages are protected, not the other way around. --Deskana (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For the first time ever, I have to say that Calton actually does a very good job of reverting "vanity" additions and vandalism on the Days of the Year pages. I don't see the need for a partial protection. - NeutralHomer 00:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is just not heavy and continued vandalism. It's true that there's a lot as a group, but it would be easy to compose a list of 366 articles vandalized at least as frequently. If we're going to bend the policy, it should be available to all drip-drip vandalized articles; I would love to throw a permanent semi-protect on Mormon. Cool Hand Luke 07:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted images at University of Michigan Health System

In this thread on my talk page, a user claims he has permission to upload roughly 40 publicity photos from the University of Michigan's web page. I don't know a lot about obtaining permission for releasing images like this - can someone help Michiganmd through the process of attempting to get the GFDL release? (ESkog) 20:05, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad Image List

A discussion over adding additional notations on the Bad_image_list has been started here, please stop by when you have a moment if you are interested in this list. Thank you, — xaosflux 03:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards