Revision as of 19:32, 16 May 2011 view sourceMelonbarmonster2 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,629 edits →Revert without participating ongoing discussion← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:06, 17 May 2011 view source Renata3 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators45,578 edits some socks for you to investigate, if you don't mind :)Next edit → | ||
Line 201: | Line 201: | ||
{{YGM|sig=] <sup>]</sup> 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)}} | {{YGM|sig=] <sup>]</sup> 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)}} | ||
==Single-purpose account for naming== | |||
Hey, I am contacting you because I know you been involved in the Polish-Lithuanian naming disputes so you are familiar with the background story. I do not have the time to investigate/pursue this myself. I am not opposed to adding Polish names wherever it's reasonable (I find that whole debate exceedingly silly and I have no desire to get involved), but what I am opposed to is blatant sock puppetry & ban evasions. In short, the last couple of days I noticed a bunch of throw-away accounts on my watchlist that do nothing more than edit to add Polish names to Lithuanian articles. Here is the list of ones that popped up on my watchlist (I am sure there is more): | |||
*{{user|Siusiumamusiu}} | |||
*{{user|Logging23}} | |||
*{{user|Butyzcholewami}} | |||
*{{user|Butifyouforgetmyson}} | |||
*{{user|Wdzienlapanka}} | |||
*{{user|Wnocynalot}} | |||
*{{user|Pilkaszklanka}} | |||
*{{user|Siekieramotyka}} | |||
*{{user|Mirektutaj}} | |||
*{{user|PolakzWlna}} | |||
*could be related to Canadian IPs 24.84.209.134 and 209.121.225.252 | |||
Please do whatever you deem to be appropriate. Thanks, ] (]) 00:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:06, 17 May 2011
Archives |
---|
Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here
Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure
You are invited to participate in the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure which is expected to close in a little over a week. If you have received this message, it is because it appears that you participated in the 2009 AC RfC, and your contributions indicate that you are currently active on Misplaced Pages. Ncmvocalist (talk) 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Logo
Ilyich-Avia Logo comes form their official website. It's their main logo for the airline at this time (as said on the web). Gleb 7:47 AM, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Block IP Addresses from 148.197.235.0 to 148.197.235.255
Can you block all IP addresses 148.197.235.0 to 148.197.235.255, as they are constantly editing my page? Either that, or let me move my page
Collage pic for Bristol page
Hey, I did indeed create the collage that I uploaded for the Bristol page but I'm not a regular user of Misplaced Pages editing so I have no idea how to clear up the copyright and all that. Any help would be appreciated. User_talk:BadboyIain 01:15 15 March 2011
RE: Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Acorn Computers Medusa project dev team.jpg
Hello, Future Perfect at Sunrise. You have new messages at Trevj's talk page.You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
WikiProject Greece newsletter - March 2011 issue
The WikiProject Greece Newsletter Issue XII (VIII) – March 2011 | |
| |
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Greece/Outreach#Delivery options. |
Steve Irwin image file. File: SteveIrwinNeyyar.jpg
File description added. It is intended for fair use in articles on the crocodile park mentioned and in Steve Irwin. Please make necessary changes needed, if any.
Apology regarding 'disruptive editing'
I (username "Ashok 1504") hope that I am able to pass this message to you in the right way
I didn't mean to misuse any existing articles by editing them. It is true that I haven't properly read all the guidelines regarding various copyrights and so forth. I only meant to enhance each article but unfortunately myself being, to a certain extent; ignorant, failed to properly use the many articles related to films and actors. There won't be any further editing from my side until I am aware and sure of all the existing rules and guidelines to users on wiki. Thanking you .... Ashok
Another thing I forgot to mention.
For the articles-Mammootty, Mamta, Prithviraj - I didn't notice the source on the edit page. I copied the edit page of Asif Ali and just changed the names in the 3 articles I've mentioned above. That was the reason. I never meant to take credit for the pictures. It was an accident. Anyways, I hope there won't be further problems .... Ashok
TFD's appeal at AE
I just noticed your comment in the 'Discussion among uninvolved editors' where I'd previously overlooked it. I see we discussed this above. Is it time for you to join the other admins in the Result section, i.e. do you want to !vote on having a warning, and if so which. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
ANI
I have raised your actions on this tread. --Domer48'fenian' 18:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
removal of Gallery from Octane Render
Hi... This is with reference to the removal of Rendering samples from Octane Render...
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Octane_Render&action=history
Firstly, thank you for your time in going thru the page. This page was created by various users of the software, and to document the features/ rendering samples/ user interface and version history etc- to be made available as a ready reference, under the category of Rendering Systems (http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Rendering_systems). This was done in the most unbiased and neutral way- with adequate references and citations. Also, all these images (non-free) have been contributed by various licensed users of the software, upon permissions from each one of them for use in the Gallery section. If you could please allow us to retain all these images in the page- it would be really helpful in showcasing various ways the software can be used for rendering (e.g. interiors, product design, architecture, character modelling etc.)
For now, temporarily I have put the images back in place- for your consideration.
Thanking you in anticipation. Suhail spa (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
- No, I'm afraid that won't work. Please see our policy on non-free content. We can use such images only under some narrowly defined conditions. The way you are using them now, it's in breach of the rule of minimality (a lot more images than would be strictly necessary), that of contextual significance (the images are not the object of individual discussion, so it's not clear to the reader what each of them is actually meant to illustrate), and most crucially: replaceability. If we are talking about copyrights belonging to those users who used the software to produce those graphics, and those users could have released their copyrighted work under a free license but chose not to, and if the aim of including the images here is to illustrate the technical capacities of the software, rather than the artistic achievement of the users, then the images are replaceable with other images that somebody else (you or I, andbody who has access to the software) could create and release freely, and which could illustrate the same features. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Closing an article creation ban proposal
Hi, I note that you were online recently fixing up Govind Kumar Singh. We could really use a fast track on this matter. As you can see from this user's talk, he intends on making even more stubs against consensus. We are going mad cleaning up. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 08:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
- Please ignore the above. User:Fram has now put a block in place while discussions continue. - Sitush (talk) 10:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Deletion requests
Might I askn what you think you are achieving with these over-zealous deletion requests. These are an affront to hard work put in by editors and undermine the quality of pages. Mtaylor848 (talk) 16:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Deborah Winters and Matthew Laborteaux.jpg
Hi Future Perfect,
Thanks for pointing out the issue with the photo graphic for the Tarantulas: The Deadly Cargo article[[:File:Deborah Winters and Matthew Laborteaux.jpg located at: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Sinclairindex&action=edit§ion=8
I mistakenly loaded the photo before finishing my edit to the article. I have since added production information, plot line, and commentary about the photo used. I would like to keep the photo since it encapsulates the picture with two of the film's leads peering inside the crashed plane cargo hold but missing the "deadly cargo" that's inside.
I have three other press photos given out by the production company in 1977 for use in the press, etc., that I would like to use. I am uncertain as to the license type to use.
I appreciate your attention and your assitance.
Best regards, Robert Sinclairindex (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Revert to previous title
Hi, someone is making some redirections and renamings without asking anyone. In the case of Hamza Kazazi he renamed the article by putting the title "bey" even though apparently he was not, in fact there is not a single source of him being bey, while certainly was a popular figure (actually he was head of artisans of the city, far from being a bey). It looks like this guy is pushing some sort of agenda or at least biased POV without a single reference. Could you please revert this article to its previous name? I tried to do it but it keeps telling me that the title exist and only administrators could do it. Regards Aigest (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Revert without participating ongoing discussion
Hi, I reported User:Melonbarmonster2 to WP:ANI#Revert without participating ongoing discussion. I would appreciate if you warn the user to participate in ongoing discussion at Talk:History of Korea#Japanese rule should be change to Colonial Korea. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 09:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Melonbarmonster2 resumed a disruptive edit again. See Talk:Japanese Sea Lion#User:Melonbarmonster2's disruptive edit. Please keep paying attention to the article. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- What I am seeing is that you have both been edit-warring on several articles. Most importantly, you have both been editing the Japanese Sea Lion article although you both evidently have no interest in, or knowledge about, marine biology. You are both editing exclusively with a motive of misusing that article for a silly game of national point-scoring – adding stuff for the gratification of making representatives of one nation look bad, or removing stuff to avoid just that. If the conflict on that article escalates, you will most likely both end up blocked for national battleground conduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advise. However Melonbarmonster2 never participated in the discussion, only reverting the edit. If the user is not an established user, the user would be blocked from editing immediately. Please suggest how to deal with this kind of disruptive editor without participating the discussion. Your comment above only encourages the user's disruptive editing. Melonbarmonster2 probably will revert my edit without participating the discussion. Then I will revert it immediately. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I have been heavily involved in this article since it's beginning. I have also lived on the Atlantic Coast with a high interest if not passion on marine biology and environmental preservation. I have also visited islands off eastern and western coast of Korea. Phoenix's only participation on this page has been to revert my edits. Please check the history page to verify. Thanks. Melonbarmonster2 (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for your advise. However Melonbarmonster2 never participated in the discussion, only reverting the edit. If the user is not an established user, the user would be blocked from editing immediately. Please suggest how to deal with this kind of disruptive editor without participating the discussion. Your comment above only encourages the user's disruptive editing. Melonbarmonster2 probably will revert my edit without participating the discussion. Then I will revert it immediately. Thank you. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- What I am seeing is that you have both been edit-warring on several articles. Most importantly, you have both been editing the Japanese Sea Lion article although you both evidently have no interest in, or knowledge about, marine biology. You are both editing exclusively with a motive of misusing that article for a silly game of national point-scoring – adding stuff for the gratification of making representatives of one nation look bad, or removing stuff to avoid just that. If the conflict on that article escalates, you will most likely both end up blocked for national battleground conduct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
About the images
Thats Because I don't know how to put license to images I upload that I took from the public domain websites. I'm sorry. Will you teach me how could I fix this? User:Allanjason
- Well, not all of the images that I uploaded are come from the internet, some are truly mine. but can you tell me what kind of license should I put on this images to avoid deletion?
User:Historiographer
The editor added a discovery of a map in South Korea. I reverted it. The ref in kr the user provided says that another copy was first found in South Korea. The map was already known and a copy is in Japan. I thought the discovery does not change the situation and not noteworthy. The editor reverted to his edit. Sorry that I undid his edit again but I remember the 1RR rule and self reverted. If I understand correctly the rule, the user should be blocked and I request for it. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, not all of the images that I uploaded are come from the internet, some are truly mine.
Now that the drama has subsided
Hi, can you review your application of the Famine Arbcom page bans on Sarah777 in relation to the British Isles page please? I cannot find any anti-British comments made by here at these pages. Her only series of edits (which occur in a sequence) appear to be late at night and don't appear fall under the category of aggressive biased editing as stated in the Arbcom ruling. Especially since the edits were reverted quickly and there was no edit warring. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Nope. This content edit to the article was not merely "aggressive biased editing", it was in fact nothing short of POV-driven vandalism. Sarah777, when making that edit, clearly knew she was falsifying the contents of the page. She knew that the term "B.I." in fact does include Ireland, in the usage of the English-speaking world at large, and that this meaning is the topic of that article. Of course, she doesn't want the world to be that way, but she knows that it actually is that way. Changing an article in order to make it conform to the way you want the world to be rather than to the way you know the world actually is, is vandalism, period.
- This together with on the associated talk page, which clearly is biased, aggressive rhetoric. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Blocking for POV-driven vandalism isn't covered by the Arbcom ruling. Blocking for "aggressive biased editing" is covered. As an experienced editor, she should not have made those edits. I'm simply trying to interpret the block on that article page in the context of the Arbcom ruling based on Sarah777's edits to that page in the cold light of a new day without drama. An indef block applied to the British Isles page based on Vandalism is more appropriate that invoking the Arbcom ruling. --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course "POV-driven vandalism" is a form of "aggressive biased editing" – a particularly bad form, to be precise. So yes, I'm quite confident this is exactly within the letter and the spirit of the Arbcom rule. (And an "indef block applied to the British Isles page based on Vandalism" – by which I take it you are referring to a topic ban – wouldn't otherwise be feasible, because we can't in fact hand out topic bans without such Arbcom authorization.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so pedantic about this. Would you mind if we ask for a review of this interpretation from Arbcom? Not sure of the exact procedure. --HighKing (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I can't stop you from doing so, but yes, I sorta would mind, because I'd consider it a waste of time. The procedure should be outlined at WP:RFAR#Requests for clarification, if you must. But why would you even bother, given that there's also still the full indef-block in force, which renders the topic ban rather moot, for now? And why don't you just let Sarah take care of her own affairs? If she wants to raise an appeal, against whichever part of those sanctions, she can easily do so by herself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- You're right. Not much point unless she wants to return to editing. --HighKing (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I can't stop you from doing so, but yes, I sorta would mind, because I'd consider it a waste of time. The procedure should be outlined at WP:RFAR#Requests for clarification, if you must. But why would you even bother, given that there's also still the full indef-block in force, which renders the topic ban rather moot, for now? And why don't you just let Sarah take care of her own affairs? If she wants to raise an appeal, against whichever part of those sanctions, she can easily do so by herself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:05, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Sorry to be so pedantic about this. Would you mind if we ask for a review of this interpretation from Arbcom? Not sure of the exact procedure. --HighKing (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Of course "POV-driven vandalism" is a form of "aggressive biased editing" – a particularly bad form, to be precise. So yes, I'm quite confident this is exactly within the letter and the spirit of the Arbcom rule. (And an "indef block applied to the British Isles page based on Vandalism" – by which I take it you are referring to a topic ban – wouldn't otherwise be feasible, because we can't in fact hand out topic bans without such Arbcom authorization.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- Blocking for POV-driven vandalism isn't covered by the Arbcom ruling. Blocking for "aggressive biased editing" is covered. As an experienced editor, she should not have made those edits. I'm simply trying to interpret the block on that article page in the context of the Arbcom ruling based on Sarah777's edits to that page in the cold light of a new day without drama. An indef block applied to the British Isles page based on Vandalism is more appropriate that invoking the Arbcom ruling. --HighKing (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Notification
Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
- I don't do WP:WQA. It's always been a useless page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
hey
Hi. In the past you have given me a topic ban regarding a dispute (the whole affair seems kinda embarrassing now that I look at it, to be honest), by which the punishment was a ban on "historical demographics and cartography of Ex-Yugoslavia." Would you consider removing the ban on historical demographics? That was never really the problem though - the problem was maps, not demographics in general. New census data is being released nowadays, and I would like to be able to add current and past census data for municipalities and settlements. This is what I have been doing in my early days on wikipedia, and nobody ever had a problem with this because there was nothing controversial about it. It was simply the census data, nothing to discuss, and so nobody ever discussed anything, they just let me work on that stuff. In fact, I got two barn stars thanks in part to my contributions. I think that the initial topic ban was a bit broad, but okay, so it happened and perhaps it may have actually been useful. But anyways, would you please allow me to return to adding demographic data on wikipedia pages by removing half the ban? (LAz17 (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)).
Unfree file
Hi! I was wondering what happens now? The file's been listed at PUF for ten days, when does it get deleted...? Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►condominium─╢ 15:10, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Don't worry, somebody will get to it in due course. PUFs typically sit around a bit longer than FFDs, but they do get processed by admins in the end. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:14, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
File:James Tate Shelton High Prom Sign.jpg
Hi, can you tell me where I am supposed to comment on the proposed deletion of the image File:James Tate Shelton High Prom Sign.jpg ? I don't see any discussion. Are you the one who proposed the deletion, or are you acting as an admin informing me of such a proposal? Please respond on the talk page of the file in question. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- I placed the tag myself, but I could also end up acting as an administrator in deleting it, because it's a speedy deletion process. If a substantial, policy-aware objection is raised, we could take it to a regular FFD instead. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, as I said on the file page, it is not the words themselves which were ever at issue, but the actual sign which was the occasion for all the hulabaloo, and without seeing the image (the act was described as trespass and a safety issue) readers have no evidence upon which to judge for themselves the spirit and severity of the incident. μηδείς (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Mohammad Shaikh
Hello! I am mindingthequill. I don't know where to write you at. This is my first article. You can write me at mindingthequill@yahoo.com I would like the Mohammad Shaikh page back up. I had nothing to do with the former pages. Thank you kindly. Please e-mail me as soon as possible. I don't understand why editors don't assume good faith. ARGH! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindingthequill (talk • contribs)
Hello!! This is mindingthequill for the Mohammad Shaikh page. The article is blocked now. Can you unblock it so I can recreate it? I was told I had to get you to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mindingthequill (talk • contribs)
- Sorry, but no. Please see my response to your request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for undeletion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:37, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello, mindingthequill here! You did cause a lot of issues by deleting my Mohammad Shaikh page. Please put it back up for me and unblock it so that I can finish editing it. Thank you kindly. I am not hearing anything from you on this topic. Are you ignoring me? Please respond in kind. Thank you! You did the damage not please fix it ASAP! Thank you!
- Please see my answer above. Why are you always posting up there in that unrelated section in the middle of this page? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Cailil 11:50, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Single-purpose account for naming
Hey, I am contacting you because I know you been involved in the Polish-Lithuanian naming disputes so you are familiar with the background story. I do not have the time to investigate/pursue this myself. I am not opposed to adding Polish names wherever it's reasonable (I find that whole debate exceedingly silly and I have no desire to get involved), but what I am opposed to is blatant sock puppetry & ban evasions. In short, the last couple of days I noticed a bunch of throw-away accounts on my watchlist that do nothing more than edit to add Polish names to Lithuanian articles. Here is the list of ones that popped up on my watchlist (I am sure there is more):
- Siusiumamusiu (talk · contribs)
- Logging23 (talk · contribs)
- Butyzcholewami (talk · contribs)
- Butifyouforgetmyson (talk · contribs)
- Wdzienlapanka (talk · contribs)
- Wnocynalot (talk · contribs)
- Pilkaszklanka (talk · contribs)
- Siekieramotyka (talk · contribs)
- Mirektutaj (talk · contribs)
- PolakzWlna (talk · contribs)
- could be related to Canadian IPs 24.84.209.134 and 209.121.225.252
Please do whatever you deem to be appropriate. Thanks, Renata (talk) 00:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)