Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:37, 25 April 2010

This user lives by the Pirate code: “Take what you can, and give nothing back!”

Tears for Fears discography

Hi Xeno. Can you please protect the Tears for Fears discography page? I'm having difficulty with a IP editor who keeps using different IP addresses to revert edits. Besides myself, three other editors (Dottiewest1fan & Endalecomplex & Wysprgr2005) have reverted this IP but he/she keeps coming back under a new IP to revert the intro to the article to reflect their preferred version. Consensus appears to prefer the edit that this IP dislikes. It looks like this problem has been happening since December 2009. Here are diffs concerning this situation:

Thanks. Caden 10:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Xeno the IP has reverted again but I can't do nothing because I'm close now to the 3rr limit. By the way I'm convinced the IP is a sock. Caden 11:44, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

• Please initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article discussing the two versions and seek input at WT:DISCOGS. Just at a quick blush, "This is the ..." seems like a terribly unencyclopedic way to start an article. –xeno 12:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay I seeked for opinions from other editors at WT:DISCOG. Did I do this right? Caden 15:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but it's best to put the actual discussion on the article talk page with a request for editors to comment there. –xeno 15:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey Xeno this is the IP under a username. Check and you will see the exact wording, writing style etc, it's the same person. It's the same bunch of IP addresses from the diffs I gave you above. I believe that user is a sock and owns all those edits as far back as December. Furthermore he/she was accused of being a sock before. I read something about it in their history. Caden 14:11, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Other than writing style do you have anything to back up this claim? –xeno 14:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If you read all of the diffs I gave you, and if you read all the posts involving my interaction with the IP, you will see that it's the same person. I can't explain it to you. You need to trust me and just please read all diffs. Caden 14:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless they start double-voting or something there's not too much that can be done. You ask them if they are the IP... –xeno 14:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude I asked the editor and they deny being the IP. Anyway I took your advice and posted at WT:WPMUSIC and at the talk page of Tears for Fears dicography. Can you please tell me if I did this right? Caden 08:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks fine. –xeno 17:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Falling rain

Hi. Many months ago I proposed that Falling rain was blacklisted. It contains false population and altitude data and out of date railway markings etc which lesser informed individuals don't know about. The deletion was endorsed by a number of active geography contrbutors such as myself, Orderinchaos, Darwinek and others. What a waste of my time. Look at this. We now have hundreds of fresh new stubs with false data using this source. Great one. I don't have a problem with the new stubs except for the source and data which is false. Falling rain should be blacklisted asap. Can you or Amalthea please see this through and perhaps we can organize a bot to remove the link and data from all of the articles it is currently used in. Dr. Blofeld 14:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a comment there about the mass-creation without BRFA. Where was this Falling rain thing discussed? Probably best to continue at User talk:Mattgirling to keep it all together. –xeno 14:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It was discussed months ago at the whote list/black list page I can't recall where. I am very surprised it was not seen through. It is used in 9000 articles, probably 10,000 now. Many of the Pakistan.India andd African articles use it to reference altitude and evne population!! A Tibetan town known to have 35,000 inhabitants according to official sources, falling rain claims 800!! It definately needs to be black listed asap to prevent people like Matt using it in good faith. Dr. Blofeld 14:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You will need to dredge up those past discussions if you want this link added to the blacklist. –xeno 15:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I found a diff. You'll need to dig up the archives though to find the full discussion. I believe it was redirected to another page. Dr. Blofeld 15:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com ... Probably best to follow the advice given by A.B. there. –xeno 15:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Found another diff. Dr. Blofeld 15:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yea, the thread in its entirety is here: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/02#Fallingrain.com. See my above comment. –xeno 15:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com. The A.B has proposed that 900 links to falling rain are removed as a trial and if there are no complaints then is happy to support it. Could your move 900 further external links to falling rain using your bot? Dr. Blofeld 14:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Commented there. –xeno 15:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, no. LOL. Honestly though if any seriously objects to the removal of the links and blacklisting of that site I'll give em ten gross blunder example of why such a course of action is valid. Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Well since the ones that I am working on presently were added by you, and requested to be removed by you, this seems to be a fairly low-volume task (for the moment). Not sure about the next phase. –xeno 14:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Naajaat. 63 people according to the 2007 census. Fallingrain claims it is uninhabited. Does that kind of consistent blunder really need consensus to agree it is an unreliable source? Dr. Blofeld 14:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You've just deleted the Fallingrain external link at Skelani which was useful because it provided readily visible maps - no extra clicking. The latitude and longitude information is confirmed by other sites and the population figure is not implausible even given the demographic issues since the 1991 census. So I'd have opted to keep that link had anyone been bothered to ask. Opbeith (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to undo the bot and add {{bots|deny=Xenobot}} to the page to prevent the bot revisiting it. But please discuss further at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Fallingrain.com; my bot is merely doing what I've been asked to - and what seems to have consensus. –xeno 15:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that considerate reply. I'll leave it as I've learned that once people have their teeth into something at Misplaced Pages it saves energy better used for other purposes to recognise which way the wind's blowing. The idea of deleting the subject rather than using it to warn people tells me enough. But I appreciated the decent reply. Opbeith (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "deleting the subject rather than using it to warn people", though? –xeno 18:37, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

search and replace patterns

Hi. I've dropped a set of diffs at:

• WT:ACTOR#search and replace patterns

The two forms of all the old code that are most prevalent are the ones described in the RfC:

• WT:ACTOR#hard-coded markup

There are a lot of less-used variants out there, too, and I'm not really done finding all the edge cases.

I believe these patterns of hard-coded markup appear in articles far outside of the scope of Category:Actors and whatever category best covers "filmmakers". Such matches probably should not be automatically converted to use a filmograpy-specific template; better would be the generation of a list that can be reviewed to determine the appropriate action.

It would be best to continue this discussion there in order that the remedial actions taken be associated with the RfC they're being performed in response to.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 16:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

• What's with that argument between you and User:Wildhartlivie? Are there objections to this task, or is that unrelated? –xeno 18:32, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  She supported a slightly earlier version of the template and has not specifically objected post RfC-close. She is, clearly, attacking me there and elsewhere. She seems intent on dragging all this out indefinitely. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  But other than that, the change has wide support? –xeno 18:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

  I believe so. I am, however, going to float a quick poll to be sure. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like a copy of the deleted article Kody Lapointe

Hi Xeno,

I was not aware that I could not Write a Personal Biography of myself because I did not read anything I just wanted to write one. I would like to Retrieve a copy of this article for myself so I may save it on my computer. I apologize for doing this, next time I will read all the information before posting anything. If it possible to retrieve thispage it would be greatly apreciated. Please Email the Copy to: <email removed by X!>

Thanks,

Kody Lapointe

Emailed. Please do not re-create this. –xeno 16:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

New user on the JP Talk Page

Since you were involved in the protection of the John Pershing article, please see my comments regarding the appearance of a "new" user with apparent knowledge of the article and Misplaced Pages policies and procedures. In my off-the-record view, this is quite obviously someone who has edited before creating this new account to bolster support. However, I can prove nothing and don't want to go against WP:AGF. We have just had that article become such a battlefield the last thing we need is a WP:SOCK or WP:MEAT issue. -OberRanks (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hm, after reading their explanation probably best just to give them the benefit of the doubt, AGF, and see how it goes. –xeno 20:20, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

It might not be a bad idea to run an ip trace on this. You will notice on the user talk page who appeared right away to "welcome" the new user. I have to be very careful here in what I say because I do not want to go against good faith and accuse without evidence. I might be wrong and this might be exactly as explained - but, this is just a little bit too convenient, especially since this user's views are now being cited to place disputed material back in the article . To get right down to it, I think it is a sockpuppet account and I think you know who I think it is a sockpuppet of. Can you check it out? If I am wrong, deepest apologies. -OberRanks (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to file at WP:SPI and present your evidence. It's fairly minor, but I do note they are signing right next to the full stop at the end of their comment ''(.~~~~)'', which isn't common. I will be fairly disappointed if the person you are hinting at turns to be the one running the account. I hope it isn't. –xeno 18:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm, the matter of the signing post is of extreme interest. However, I probably will let this one lie for now. I did a close examination of the various posts and there is some grammar and syntax difference between the two user's methods of writing so it might not be the same person. Obviously, if this new user reappears, supporting any and everything that the other one does then I sure there would be a good case. But for now, its not worth it since no disruption has been attempted. -OberRanks (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I came to your talk page to seek your advice on something else, and just saw that. And I'm pretty goddamn mad. (Not at you, of course.) In the first place, I have never done anything in secret here. What really pisses me off, is all of the bending over backwards I have done over the past few weeks, to be both civil and appropriate. And what infuriates me, is that OberRanks would come to your talk page and do this, rather than asking me directly. "I think it's a sockpuppet account, and you know who I think it is a sock puppet of"? Are you kidding me? You have my full permission, blessing, and even insistence to investigate this fully. And then I sure as hell hope there's going to be some form of punishment for his falsely accusing me of sockpuppetry.Mk5384 (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Damn right I appeared right away to welcome (without quotations) the new user. In the first place, that's what we're supposed to do. Secondly, the very first thing that OberRanks did was to attack this poor person. He violated AGF, NPA, and "don't bite the newcomers" all at once. "Mmmm, the matter of the signing post is of extreme interest"? Who in the hell does he think he is? Then he did "a close examination", and discovered "grammar and syntax differences"? Is he a goddamn detective? And he's decided to let this lie? Sorry, but I will not. Please tell me how to pursue this.Mk5384 (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I just should point out that noone has made any formal accusations here. Xeno and I were having a off-the-record discussion about this just because of how it looked. At face value, it looked very suspicious and that is why we were talking about it. But, at the end of the day, there is no evidence, no disruption, and no further activity from this account. This is exactly why this has gone nowhere except on this talk page. I am sorry it upset you. This was posted nowhere except here and no charges were ever made on any formal noticeboard. In short - Xeno and I were just talking about it. -OberRanks (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

If you wanted an off the record discussion, you should have used private e-mail. You accused me of sockpuppetry, and it was not "off the record". I could care less if there's been activity from the account. You can be damn sure that no one's going to accuse me of anything based on what another user does or dosen't do. And there will be formal charges made. And there is no "we" having this discussion. You came here, and engaged Xeno. When you say, "Xeno and I were having a conversation because of how it looked", that's horseshit. Please don't try to pretend that Xeno was concerned about this.Mk5384 (talk) 15:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

You should be aware that I do not use private e-mail on Misplaced Pages due a case under my old account User:Husnock where several users sent e-mails threatening my family. Since then, I confine all my business on Misplaced Pages and avoid any outside contact or use of my real-world e-mail; there's just too many crazy people out there. Again, sorry you're mad. If you would like to file charges, feel free to do so. I again stress that since this was two users talking on a user page, and this never made it to any kind of noticeboard or the mainspace of an article, there probably wont be much done about it. BTW, Xeno, apologies for continuing to post on your talk page about this. -OberRanks (talk) 15:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Private e-mail, or not, don't pretend it was off the record, and don't pretend that Xeno was at all concerned about it.Mk5384 (talk) 15:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I noticed on the ANI thread that you said you will be busy. When you are free, please drop me a quick note, and let me know how best to handle this situation. As far a the sockpuppet thing, I'll report myself, if that's what I have to do to get this investigated.Mk5384 (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

BAG

Congrats on the +BAG :D. You're welcome re. the nomination :). Best, - Kingpin (talk) 19:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks =] Looking forward to helping out! –xeno 19:43, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Back to why I was here in the first place...

On the John Pershing page, user Aunt Entropy posted a comment that I had made on the talk page of Genesis Creation myth. (Please take a look.) It was completely unrelated to the Pershing issues, and as such, deliberately misleading. I removed it, stated that I had removed it, gave my reasons, and notified the user who posted it. OberRanks (who else?) raised a fuss about this, and I wanted to make sure that I was within my rights to do this.Mk5384 (talk) 14:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, nothing in WP:TPG would preclude such a line of argument. If you feel it is irrelevant, you could rebut or ask the user to refactor. –xeno 15:57, 25 April 2010 (UTC)