Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:01, 25 March 2009

Old talk at /Archive1, /Archive2, /Archive3, /Archive4, /Archive5, /Archive6, /Archive7, /Archive8, /Archive9, /Archive10, /Archive11, /Archive12, /Archive13, /Archive14, /Archive15, /Archive16, /Archive17, /Archive18, /Archive19, /Archive20, /Archive21, /Archive 22, /Archive 23

Pssssst

Are you back? :-D I hope so. You've been missed around these parts. I passed 120,000 edits in your absence. I know I know. :) I'm actually considering going for CheckUser under the new policy. I know I'm qualified. It's really just a matter of deciding whether I want the responsibility. Anyway. Drop me a line and let me know how you are doing. If you are back, it's nice to have you around again. :) --User:Woohookitty 11:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly back, but neither am I not back. ;-) I'm just always hanging around, sometimes doing a little here or at Wiktionary or even Wikisource, when I'm in the mood. But I'm still much more busy in my studies than I used to be, though. I think you'd be great at CheckUser. Are you experienced in the technical aspects of it? Just be aware that it's a job that can often be stressful and frustrating, as well as tedious (which I know you're expert at), so you have to make sure you're ready before you commit yourself. Take it from me, it was a big relief when I resigned from that particular tool. :-) Dmcdevit·t 04:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well that's my thought process right now. The thing is, I obviously devote alot of time to Misplaced Pages, so that's not really an issue. I mean I'm averaging about 300-400 edits every day, so obviously, I have time. :) I'm somewhat familiar with the technical aspects of the position. It's really a matter of the stress. As you probably know, I've been avoiding stress on here for about 2 years now. :) But on the other hand, I know it's a very needed position and I think I'd do a good job. So we'll see. --User:Woohookitty 20:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It is what it is

Want to let me in on where you transwiki'd my article? -- Kendrick7 04:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Normally, a transwikied article goes to the transwiki namespace, so it will be at Transwiki:It is what it is. A Wiktionary editor will eventually reformat it to Wiktionary standards and move it to the main namespace, or you can go ahead and read the style guidelines and do it yourself. Dmcdevit·t 05:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm just not sure how this falls under "A5" -- there was more information there other that "only of a dictionary definition." -- Kendrick7 19:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Dictionaries discuss words themselves, while encyclopedias discuss the concepts the words represent. So the rule of thumb is whether the article actually goes being merely describing the word. To me, the six sentences establish a definition and explanation of meaning, an alternative definition, two classifications for the phrase (a cliche and a tautology), and an early dating (etymology), but nothing beyond description of the words as words. Do you disagree? Dmcdevit·t 01:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I looked at the refs again and they aren't as deep as I remembered. It's a fair call. -- Kendrick7 04:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If you are around...

Could you revert this for me? It was a basic move. No idea what ClueBot off. --User:Woohookitty 20:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's weird. I've reverted it, though I think you would have been completely acceptable for you to revert something that obviously wrong yourself. The bot doesn't even have feelings to hurt. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 23:09, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I know, but I felt like it was more proper not to. --User:Woohookitty 11:37, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Prodd summary on BEST Travel Source

Hi. I think you want to rewrite you reason for proposing BEST Travel Source for deletion. Funny though:-) Rettetast (talk) 20:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, that was silly. I was copying and pasting the same summary to several articles, but I can't imagine what possessed me to write that. :-) Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 22:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Help desk#Error in audio article

An anon messaged us saying that the audio for the article Julie Kirkbride contains an error. I'm not sure where the version you uploaded came from, but it was already in the original recording and the uploader edited the article to match his error in the text. What is the origin of your file? - Mgm| 08:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The audio file is completely Yeanold Viskersenn's work. All I did was approve the file's move from Misplaced Pages to Commons. So I'm afraid I can't really help much. :-( Dominic·t 08:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Unblock request

MSNBC Muse (talk · contribs), who you recently indef blocked as a vandal, is asking to be unblocked. You might want to comment. —Travis 15:08, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I see that the user is a sock. —Travis 17:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RE: Edit summaries and PROD

Hi Dom!

I reply to your message on RasterFaAye's discussion page regarding his removal of PRODs without giving a good summary. If you have a look at Bint, click the History' tab, and you will see that he removed my PROD from the article. There is alreay an entry on Wiktionary (see wikt:bint) so that's why I prodded it. He removed it with "Prodding no good, see edit history", I mean, WTF?! It's been transwikified and therefore it's no longer needed on Misplaced Pages.

In other words, I totaly agree with you about RasterFaAye.

-calvinps- (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, transwikied articles like that can usually be speedied. Try WP:CSD#A5. Dominic·t 01:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IP address block

Hi Dmcdevit, you were the person who blocked my IP 84.45.219.185 - thank you for doing that. I apologise for the puerile behaviour from this IP. Since the offending computers had the OS re-installed and spyware cleaned, hopefully there should not be any more vandalism. I apologise for the compromised computers , but now that's been sorted, it shouldn't recur. --Litherlandsand (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Lookie Louis

Hi Dominic! Lookie Louis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whom I blocked this morning for disruption with a bit of CU evidence, is now asking for a block review. I've told ANI that reviewer(s) can unblock without asking me, but I have requested that they ask you for confirmation first as the duty CU on the case. Sorry to volunteer you! ➲ redvers 21:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd rather not. I think it makes more sense if the CheckUser doesn't become involved in discussions over blocks, and restricts themselves to the technical evidence only. That way the evidence will be more credible, and they won't get stuck in the case where a CheckUser is advocating a block based on their own findings, and the impartiality of their findings become questioned. In any case, admins don't need a CheckUser's permission for anything; it's just an extra button to help fight abuse, not extra authority. Dominic·t 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Kopimi

"Designed to be the opposite of copyright, a kopimi notice specifically requests that people copy the work for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial." says the article on the Pirate Party. ViperSnake151 20:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I read. It doesn't matter what the copyright holder's opinion of copyright is. If they want their work to be in the public domain, they have to release it. If that's the only text, then it is clear that they have not done so, or even released it freely. Being allowed to copy something is far different from being allowed to modify it and distribute derivatives, which is what Wikimedia requires. Dominic·t 20:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

When blocking Grawp...

...please don't forget to lock out his user talk page and email access as well. He's been known to abuse both of these unblock methods, and if we know it's him it's safer to knock them out ahead of time. Thanks! Hersfold 03:01, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Dominic·t 05:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha, "safer". As if Grawp can harm the site through an unblock request. Pathetic. Incidentally (talk) 12:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Lessno page deleted

I noticed that two weeks ago (8-Feb-09) you deleted the Lessno page. May I ask what was the logic behind the deletion of the Lessno article? Thanks... Ned Terziev

Yes, the article was deleted as a result of the discussion in which you participated: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lessno. However, you recreated the article afterwards, and so it was deleted again. If you would like to create the article again, you should follow the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review for requesting reassessment of the article, but you should not make it again without a discussion and approval, since it has previously failed such a discussion. Let me know if you need help with this, and sorry for the confusion. Dominic·t 00:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

List of English irregular verbs

Where has it been transwikied to? DuncanHill (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's at List of English irregular verbs. Just needs to be reformatted and moved to the Appendix namespace. Dominic·t 10:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for John Biehl

On February 25, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Biehl, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Recent removals of fair use images on E! Canada stations

Please discuss your recent changes to these article in the conversation about this in here. Thank you.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 07:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any valid reason why you would remove all of those images before discussing it first on the articles. While it is a poor habit, I often do revert then discuss it. In Canadian television, there is little to no history known of why they choose that logo, except for certain occasions like CHEK-TV's checker board logo or their checkmark logo, which has to do with the station's name sounding those words. Most of the time only the date used is known. That's why there only the date is used.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not about to start a discussion before every time I make an edit to make an article conform to our non-free media policies. Your reason here is mistaken, in my opinion. It doesn't matter why there is no critical commentary on the fair use images, but the fact that there isn't—and apparently can't be since the sources don't exist—is even more reason why the images are superfluous and decorative, failing to meet our policy. If there is nothing that can be said about them, then they do not contribute significantly to the article. Dominic·t

If that's the case then, there are several American stations that can use your logo removal treatment like WGN-TV, KTLA-TV, KCOP-TV, KTTV-TV. I've found some commentary for the logos you removed again from previous revisions of the page. єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are just demonstrating how unnecessary most of that is. Misplaced Pages is a free content project, and restrictively-licensed media should be used sparingly. I would suggest you pick the logos that are truly important to the article and display those, but remove most of the existing ones. Dominic·t 07:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I can remove some of the logos that are of poor quality and the logos that are similar, if that makes it better. I have now removed 33% of the logos from the page.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 07:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more like that you should choose the one or two that have real historical significance, and, along with the infobox image, keep those. But honestly, a gallery like that one is still only there for decorative purposes. Does the use of 10 logos really convey more information than 3 illustrative ones? Would the omission of several of the ones currently there be detrimental to the readers' understanding of the subject? I think the answer to these questions is "no," based on the lack of reference to the logos in the body of the text. Dominic·t 07:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I remember once I tried combining all of the previous logos before the checkmark logo that got deleted into a single file along with the descriptions. I still have it on my computer and I can show it to you if you want. This would eliminate many problems and would provide only ~4 non-free logos in the article (excluding the infobox).  єmarsee  • Speak up! 05:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Autoblock review

An autoblock has caught User talk:Ren Newman and he is asking for the block to be withdrawn. As the account is very fresh and he's never edited outside his user talk page, I'm a bit suspicious. Hoping for input, so I've put the unblock request on hold. What do you think? Dekimasuよ! 04:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The block is related to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Petersantos/Archive. All of the other accounts on the IP are related to that sockpuppetry, and there is no obvious sign that it's a shared IP, so I would be wary about unblocking that account unless he has a satisfactory explanation. Dominic·t 04:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I declined the request. Dekimasuよ! 05:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Question

Out of interest, why have you removed the IP block exempt from User:SockOfPedro? Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I assumed you no longer needed it, as the UK blocking issues were resolved long ago. In any case, there is no real reason to have the flag on an account that is not in use, so I saw it as a maintenance issue. If there is some reason you need it, don't let me stop you. Dominic·t 01:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No, no issues, just saw it in the rights log and wondered if there was something specific I wasn't aware of. Pedro :  Chat  13:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet blocks

You blocked an editor on my watchlist (User:Richard Hock) with an edit summary of "(account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (CheckedSockpuppet|Pickbothmanlol)". The sockpuppetry case seems unrelated and doesn't name that editor, although I wouldn't be surprised if it was related to some sockpuppetry case. Did you refer to the wrong case? Am I missing something? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I've rechecked the sockpuppetry case and there's no signed of the named editor. Can you clarify please? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Tollund man was also blocked, but doesn't appear anywhere in the sockpuppetry case. Just thought I'd add that. Lychosis /C 18:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for not replying sooner.) I may have used the wrong block template here. However, what I meant wasn't that he was one of the accounts named in the last sockpuppetry case, but that he was a sockpuppet account discovered when the latest Pickbothmanlol sockpuppet (Tollund man) was checked by me, and was confirmed by CheckUser. See . I have also received an email from this user, and I will see if there could be an innocent explanation for his sharing the same IP. Dominic·t 20:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Contemplation

I am contemplating doing something extremely nasty to you. You reverted all my unblock declines. Why? You fucking prick... Incidentally (talk) 12:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Already blocked. Mangojuice 14:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia

Thanks for the heads up. By "face the consequences" I didn't mean some kind of threat, but rather that PMK1, who began adding such POV material to the article, is practically asking for counter-material: the two ways to balance an article to NPOV are to have the POV content in balance or to remove it outright. Since administrators have reverted my removing of the Macedonian POV content, I tried to add a map that represents the other view, but I've been reverted several times now.

Thinking back, I should have been more careful in my wording, but I'm multitasking at the moment and I'm not a native speaker, so I realize now that it may have had an unintended threatening twist: I apologize for that :) My intention was to say that the user got what he should have expected to get.

I don't think those warnings were necessary though, I'm not a disruptive editor and I've been here long enough to know about WP:DR, edit warring, ABMAC and the like. You should have just assumed that, I believe. The article has been thoroughly POV-ized and I was merely trying to help balance it out or clean it up, that's why I've been insistent with the reverts. The removal of such useful, relevant content is basically bordering vandalism. Todor→Bozhinov 13:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Since apparently the AE discussion has already been archived, I'll reply here. I understand you are not a new editors, but I do feel that your behavior merited at least some kind of comment, if only to get you to think about what you were doing, since you clearly let the disagreement get heated. I think you need to be careful, because the attitudes of both you and PMK1, regardless of who is right, would really make editing those articles unpleasant for anyone else who wants to get involved. Your comment here about it being bordering on vandalism is part of that. I can easily tell that the reason you had the disagreement was because you both thought you were right. Vandalism is when you do something you know is wrong, to harm the project, not when you are acting in good faith. You can probably imagine how insulting it would sound if you are acting in good faith, then, and how it would hurt attempts to come to resolve a conflict. Dominic·t 06:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure that the conflict will be resolved. Your intervention could possibly be extended to the pag itself, no? PMK1 (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I admit I have a tendency to insist on certain revisions and thus engage in edit warring, but I'm almost always discussing the changes on the talk page. I've attempted several times to solve this issue to no avail: when people don't offer any sensible explanation as to why they're reverting me, I assume the dispute is either over or futile, and so I reintroduce these changes. I'm aware that these reverts are not "classic" vandalism, but as ungrounded, strongly POV-flavoured removal of relevant information, they are not far from it. Of course, you are right that PMK1 wasn't doing it to harm the project, but other than that, some features of vandalism are apparent.

He doesn't want images that represent the Bulgarian point of view included and he counters any attempt to reduce the number of Macedonian POV images, or at least images that are captioned in a POV manner. What I'm trying to do is, basically, have a more or less equal or balanced number of POV images or no POV images at all, in order to have some kind of NPOV.

I accept your advice that I should be more careful in my wording (didn't mean to offend PMK1 or anybody, he's actually a pretty reasonable (though a bit stubborn) guy compared to other people who share his views on the matters involved), but I still don't think there was anything that much wrong with my actions. I discussed, had no reasonable arguments presented against my point, and I made changes to the article. My edit summaries were more of a disagreement with the way the article has been going than some kind of anger.

Like PMK1 said, any third-party comments are welcome on the talk page. Todor→Bozhinov 11:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		A big thank you for dealing with all those vandals and deleting pages during the time non-admins couldn't edit! :) Versus22 talk 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Users on hard-blocked IP address 194.176.105.39

There are currently 2 users on the IP address 194.176.105.39 which you hard-blocked - AulaTPN and Toaster wasn't.... Is it okay to give these users an IPBE? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the IP used by Hamish Ross. As I noted when I made the block, I could see that some editors would be affected and would need IPBE (many on the IP already do). Just use your own best judgment as to whether it's an innocent user or a Hamish Ross sleeper account caught in the block. Dominic·t 10:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

iPod

Ya! Daniel (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail

It's a bit urgent. Thanks. --Pixelface (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. I would suggest that this be done in the open. I'm in Bali, as is well known, and as logs will show. Indeed, John has done a check and stated that Someguy1221 and I are on different parts of the globe. In all likelihood, Someguy1221 is not just not in my area but more like most of the way to the other side of the globe. aside; the antipode to Bali is in Columbia Colombia. Jack Merridew this user is a sock puppet 04:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what it is that you want in the open. I have double-checked John's findings and can confirm that Someguy1221 and Jack (who, apparently, can't spell Colombia ;-) ) are unrelated. Dominic·t 04:46, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maaf (bahasa Indonesia for sorry re my spelling), and terima kasih (thank you) re the confirmation.

Elsewhere, Pixelface has asserted that he had 'evidence' and I feel that this mere assertion should be backed up, in an open manner, <joke>or an apology made</joke>. But that's just my take ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:01, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Happy Nyepi.