Misplaced Pages

Move my puppet case

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can an admin please move Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Josh Rumage to the correct location? I messed up the title and am unable to move it. Pinkadelica 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. --auburnpilot talk 19:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Pinkadelica 20:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Very Poor Experience with Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu

I am a Padres fan and over the past months I've tried to add detail to the "Jeff Moorad" article. The article seems to have been stripped of a great amount of detail. Not sure I understand the rationale behind this? Removing the entire Community Work section seems especially strange: almost as if there were a personal campaign against Mr. Moorad by some editors... Honestly, I am done editing this article. Over the past months I've tried to add detail to the article, much of it coming from an MLB.com biography and some from more recent news articles, etc. I feel cheated as a Misplaced Pages user that my edits have been stripped in the name of mere technicalities. There seems to be no protection from the tyrrany of Misplaced Pages editors. Pretty interesting that when the community tries to get involved in editing an article, there is this harsh a response from Misplaced Pages editors. Of course, I understand fully: Editors Bagumba and Muboshgu have found niches here on the baseball sections of Misplaced Pages, and someone trying to help with the articles would take some of their power. The editors used seemingly every tactic to remove my edits, including accusations of slanting sources, etc. Yet, it seems that the editors are slanted in the very opposite direction to which they accuse me of being. Practically every edit I made would be removed and I would receive a message directing me to the "Welcome Page." I will not study the welcome page as I do not plan to spend hours on end editing Misplaced Pages articles, and I don't think that Jimmy Wales' intention was to have every user known every technical detail, but rather to come together and share our knowledge and create a great resource for the world. I've tried to do that and found that I haven't been able to do so.

This is not what Misplaced Pages has been to me, and I'm sorry that it has had to be this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.155.80.248 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you are disappointed, but at the end of the day, Bagumba and Muboshgu, who I might add are two of our most experienced sports editors, are correct that some of what you added is a copyright violation, which is unacceptable on Misplaced Pages. If this makes you want to leave, that is your prerogative, but I would urge you to instead read up on our policies, and then offer to work with either Bagumba or Muboshgu to build up the article Jeff Moorad with good sources, but it's up to you. Respectfully, Go Phightins! 01:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• The IP did not notify either Bagumba or Muboshgu, so I have done so. I'm not really interested in getting heavily involved here, but I doubt that anyone is acting in bad faith. I have great respect for both Bagumba and Muboshgu, and I highly doubt they are trying to cause any trouble. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 01:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• It's unfortunate the editor has chosen to tax the community's resources, as the same request was already responded to by another editor at Misplaced Pages:Help desk. The user's talk page, their lack of constructive involvement to discussions at Talk:Jeff Moorad, and the user's claim of being affiliated with the article and later admission that "I'm not in contact with Mr. Moorad" speaks for itself. The user is now engaged in an edit war to add plagiarized material. An admin might consider actions to prevent further trolling by 98.155.80.248.—Bagumba (talk) 01:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• If he ever reads this, in all honesty, he just may need some more explanation. Either that or they're just deliberately not listening. You'd be surprised how many people we have in #wikipedia-en-help that understand after hours of explanation, but otherwise don't. gwickwire_editing 01:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Bagumba suggested to the IP on the talk page that he/she could benefit from the Teahouse. That would've been much more appropriate than this. I deleted unsourced cruft and placed various inline tags where vague detail was given. I later realized it was plagiarized from the MLB page, which is a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor(s) using accounts solely to adverstise

Section Cross was just indeffed by Daniel Case for his username only. But the editor is obviously using the account solely to advertise some alleged political party similarly named Cross Section. I'm not sure if Daniel even looked at the edits to see if the account can be indeffed totally just for the editing, but check out the post the editor made at the help desk, and the article they created. That'll make it clear what's going on. And now there's a new account that's surely the same editor... a couple minutes after the block, MitchAnth popped up as a new editor and is making the same edits. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel is very accomplished in this area, 76*, I wouldn't be too concerned WRT to the spam on the indeffed user. I'll check the other situation in the event Daniel's not around. Tiderolls 21:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to write Daniel directly, but apparently IPs can't post on his talk page. Sorry, but I do get concerned when I see spramming like this and articles like this being created. And then more concerned when I see an apparent block-evader with a new account doing the same things. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My intent was to assuage your concern, not condemn it in any way. Tiderolls 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry if I came across as less than appreciative. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The username was sufficient to justify the indef block. Had it been reported at UAA, I might have used {{uw-spamublock}}, but it was at AIV instead so I wasn't thinking in a username frame of mind (and I was also using my iPad from a table at a meetup while conversing and eating, to add to the distraction). Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmt: Per Misplaced Pages:Protection policy#User talk pages, Daniel Case should have "an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." I would post this on his talk page, but.... ;) Rgrds. --69.95.62.119 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about doing that, to be honest. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. My concern was not the spamming in and of itself, but the editor's clearly outrageous and disruptive behavior in how s/he executed the spamming... at the help desk, with the article they created, etc. So, to me, simply saying... hey, I'm only blocking you because of your username sends the message that the edits were acceptable (because nothing was said about it). There are many nice, cooperative spammers who simply don't understand the rules until someone teaches them, but this editor crossed the line not only by his editing, but by ignoring all admonitions.. One final thought... I think registered users, especially admins, should not treat IPs like second class citizens. I have to be honest, it hurt my feelings when I came to your page and realized I couldn't write to you. And I was really surprised... I was like... wow, I can't even post a message to him. That's why I came here. I'm sure you're a great admin, but I hope you'll consider opening up your talk page to everyone. Remember, it's not just IPs who occasionally cause trouble on people's talk pages. I've seen quite a bit of very hostile talk page posting from registered users. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that username blocks and softerblocks are grossly overused. In my experience, in well over 90% of cases where a user is given a block message saying "your username is the only reason for the block", the user has been using Misplaced Pages for promotion. Telling such a user that there is no other reason for the block than their username is unhelpful for at least three reasons. (1) It is totally unfair to that user, as it encourages them to continue with the same kind of editing, which is likely to be a waste of their time and lead to another block. (2) It is unhelpful to Misplaced Pages, as it results in more spam, which could have been stopped. (3) It makes it difficult for administrators who assess unblock requests. I used to frequently assess unblock request from such users, and what do you say to someone who has explicitly been told that it is perfectly all right to carry on with the same kind of editing as before, provided they make a new account, when you decline a request to be allowed to do exactly that? Now, when I check for unblock requests, whenever I see "your username is the only reason for the block", I almost always move on to another request, leaving that one, because it is likely to be just too much hassle. Judging from how long such requests tend to stay in the queue, it seems likely that a lot of other admins do the same. Finally, it is not just matter of what message is given to the user. It is also a matter of blocking without disabling account creation, which means that a new account appears, and sometimes (though not always) it is not immediately obvious that it is the same spam-only user. As far as I am concerned, if I block a promotion-only account, I make it clear to the user that promotion is part, if not all, of the reason for the block, and I disable account creation, so that they have to undertake not to spam if they want a new account. I reserve "your username is the only reason for the block" for the much rarer situations where the username really is the only reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In such cases I almost always use a spam username block, {{Uw-spamublock}}, which makes it clear that the promotional activity is the big problem but also covers the username problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel, while definitely one of the good guys, is clearly on the gentler side of things (though in the past he's said he really doesn't see himself that way) compared to my position on spammers (and those who commit marketing on these pages in general). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.249.204 (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Daniel is a very good administrator, and I have high respect for him. However, I do tend to take a different line than him towards anyone I see as using Misplaced Pages for promotional purposes. Also, in response to what Boing! said Zebedee said above, some time ago I gave up using the standard "spamusername" block template, because in my experience it is too complex and confusing. It tries to cover everything relevant, rather than just the most important points, no doubt with the intention of being helpful to the blocked user. However, in practice, it is not helpful to most blocked users, because there is too much information for them to take in, which very frequently results in users making good faith unblock requests that are declined because they don't address the reasons for the block. Also, it seems to me that being confronted with such a long wall of text in a big orange box is likely to look unnecessarily intimidating to the user. Instead, I now use a much shorter and simpler message of my own. My message briefly states that the block is for promotion, explains that promotion is against Misplaced Pages policy, mentions that the username is also against policy, and says how to request an unblock. It is 88 words long, excluding the signature, compared with 457 words for the standard spamusername block message. I believe that my message is more user-friendly, as well as clearer and less subject to misinterpretation than the standard message. Also, in my experience, it does not lead to anywhere near so many unblock requests that completely miss the point. Maybe I should make a template of it and make it available for more general use, just in case there is some other administrator somewhere who feels as I do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense. While the great majority of users I block like this never come back (they're mostly one-off blatant attempts to promote a company), I do see a lot of spamusername unblock appeals where the editor has not understood at all. It might be very useful to have a template version of your warning. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Trolling by 68.50.128.91

68.50.128.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been tying up numerous editors on Talk:Robert B. Bell with a repeated frivolous semi-protected edit request. The anon. editor wants to include unreliable information about one of the most-trolled individuals on the internet who is of no notability by wiki standards. See Misplaced Pages:Deletion_review/Log/2012_December_20#Christian_Weston_Chandler and Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Christian_Weston_Chandler. Despite repeated attempts to explain things to the user by at least 4 different editors, the anon persists in mis-using the template and trying to violate WP:BLP. Actually, if you look at the IPs contribs, you'll see pretty much nothing but attempts to add CWC material to Misplaced Pages. At this point, I'm pretty sure the IP is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to spread the trolling of CWC. This list edit summary accusing me of trolling/vandalism for trying to politely explain policies is the final evidence that the account is just here to troll wiki and/or CWC. Sailsbystars (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Please review Misplaced Pages:Assume_good_faith, regarding calling my actions "trolling."

You are incorrect about my user contributions; I invite anyone reading this to look through them to see the truth. If I have spent more time than I wanted to on the Bell edit request, it's because the editor above keeps trying to close it before discussion can be had on it. If the above editor finds the sources that I have posted (e.g. newspaper and magazine articles and television news reports, as well as official court documents) "unreliable" the above editor has a right to their own erroneous opinion. We can discuss it on the the talk page, or not, and we'll see what others have to say. But the above editor should not try to shut down discussion because he/she happens to disagree with the request in the first place.

In short, the above editor should handle this like an adult and let the process take its course like it's supposed to. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I closed the edit request as not done; there is obviously no consensus to implement it.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)\

There needs to be a reasonable period to discuss it, first. Obviously there can't be consensus if the discussion is shut down almost immediately in a knee-jerk way by editors such as Sailsbystars. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

You discuss and form consensus before pinging all of us who watch the template with a request. Not after. gwickwire_editing 02:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I was told by an administrator on this very noticeboard to make the request due to the edit filter's false positives, as I have pointed out numerous times. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

They were assuming in good faith that you had legitimate edits to make, which you really haven't shown. In spite of badgering us on the talk page for two weeks now, where you've argued about policy, deleted people's comments, and reverted people when they disagree with you, you STILL haven't provided a reliable secondary sources. WP:BLPPRIMARY is abundantly clear that a reliable secondary source is required. Do that and I'll make the edit myself. Sailsbystars (talk) 03:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• 70.241.73.164 (talk · contribs) appears to be related to this issue, pushing for the same edits ~4 months ago. --auburnpilot talk 03:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Iyad Burnat

The Iyad Burnat article would probably benefit from semi-protection and revdel-ing all the tagged BLP violations per WP:CRD. The article appears to be under attack by ultranationalists or possibly some kind of hobby club for sociopaths, hard to tell. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Semiprotected by NawlinWiki. BLPvios are probably bad enough to warrant revdeletion, assuming the article survives AfD. —Rutebega (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs edit-warring in conspiracist claims

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article on Collapse of the World Trade Center is being hit with some serious edit-warring by various IPs pushing the controlled demolition conspiracy theory. One IP was blocked, but semi-protection is clearly needed and the POV-pushing IPs should probably also be blocked. At least one belongs to a proxy server.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Spain

Hi, I am currently involved in an edit war with user:LTblb because he refuses my edits (corrections) in several articles (the principal, Spain).

The issue started with user:Bashevis6920. He changed the data about the Metropolitan Areas of Spain without consensus, he removed all (MA) data from the article, and he added/introduced random and sourceless figures, as he stated the data of Bilbao and Málaga were/are wrong.

I think user:LTblb-user:Bashevis6920-user:Alex320000 are the same person (it is a kind of sockpuppet user). This user refuses to correct metro areas, typo, spelling and pronunciation because he says I haven't reached a consensus... But how can we reach a consensus if we start with lies, and there is always an antagonic actor who refuses all my edits, and edits what he wants or likes...

Can an expert help us here, please? Alburzador (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

* Here Bashevis6920 changed the previous reference for metropolitan areas in Spain - ESPON (2007) - without consensus) Alburzador (talk) 03:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It takes two to tango. By my count, You're at nine reverts while LTblb is at ten. Everyone Dies In the End warned you both at 0230 UTC. Talk:Spain is the place you should be now, not here. —Rutebega (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Its always amazed me that the most fractious debates on WP usually revolve around diacritics.

@Alburzador - I would cease the edit war and try to discuss the changes that you are making one-by-one on the talkpage. If you reach something that you simply can't agree on with User:LTblb, consider an WP:RfC! Good luck. NickCT (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Is this withdrawal of a legal threat sufficient?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Harleyborgais (talk · contribs) has been making legal threats. I asked him to explicitly withdraw them and the response is:

"For the time being I will promise not to attempt any legal actions against anyone on this issue, even though I disagree with you. For now I will carefully ponder all of your comments and as soon as I have the time to return to this issue I will respond to all of your comments here. I will present evidence to support all of my claims, and withdrawal any that I feel you have proven me wrong on.

As I sat considering which charges I would bring, the only ones that came up were severe: Crime against humanity (for spreading false info that cause harm , treason , and potentially fraud . It was never my intention to press charges that severe, as the harm does not seem severe enough to warrant the punishments these bring.

Anyways, until I have more time and am able to respond to everything, I will take NO legal actions against anyone on this issue."

This doesn't look like a withdrawal to me but statement that he may still take legal action. If you look at his talk page and his few article edits, I don't think he is going to get very far editing in any case. But on the NLT issue, does anyone see a reason not to block him? Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. Even if he did mean to retract rather than just put on hold his (outrageously ridiculous) legal threats, his other recent postings show he's some kind of fringe nutter (Sovereign citizen movement-promotion and stuff), so there's nothing positive to expect from his contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. He's convinced he's right, that labor taxes are illegal, ditto home foreclosures, you don't need a driving licence, etc. He's in the wrong place. Dougweller (talk) 11:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank god he's not representative Basket _Feudalist 11:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyone else think it is rather ironic that a "sovereign citizen" nutter fringe theorist is threatening legal action, in courts that he presumably doesn't believe are legally constituted?--ukexpat (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon bombings

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Will someone please consider semi-protecting the article pronto? Both Writ Keeper and I are somewhat involved in a content dispute, and the article keeps getting disrupted by IP editors sticking unsourced North Korean pressure cookers in it. Quickly please: it's already busy enough. Drmies (talk) 15:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I had already protected it for a week, which I felt was very mild, but Zzuuzz reverted me without notifying or discussing with any of us that had been involved with the protection. I don't mind being reverted, but I should have been notified (before or after) out of courtesy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's strange, Dennis. When you discussed this with me on the talk page, yesterday, you were adamant that the place to make requests for page protection is WP:RFPP, so that's where I went. Yet here you are asking the boys at ANI to circumvent WP:RFPP. I wonder why you would do such a thing. Then again, it looks as though the result here is a foregone conclusion, so maybe that's why you would do such a thing. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RFPP is the proper place to make a simple protection/unprotection request, but as soon as it proves controversial and appears to need discussion, this is the appropriate forum to seek consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• I would also add that it is normal for an admin considering reverting another admin to discuss with him (or them), or at a minimum, notify afterwards. I found out that I had been reverted only by going through the edit history and seeing recent IP edits, then having to chase it down. Even now, I notified him and Bongwarrior of this discussion since they were previously involved. Had I and Bongwarrior been invited at WP:RFPP, it might could have been handled there instead, but now requires a full community discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• It wasn't in the least controversial. I made the request; it was discussed, left overnight, and then uprotected. It's clear from Dennis's comments on his talk page that he is peeved because he didn't get his own way, so he's come here to make sure he does. There is absolutely no reason why he couldn't have taken this request to WP:RFPP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• It quite clearly *is* controversial - or have you not seen the section below? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would suggest that this was not a reversion, but an un-semi-protection. Although a time frame needs to be fixed when setting the protection, this time is not fixed as if law. We should unprotect when protection is no longer necessary, and one of the ways of doing that is by 'testing the water'. Anyway, Dennis' view on unprotection was previously made clear on the talk page. For WP:RFUP to work properly, it must take into account these views, which is something I did (as well as reviewing all edits to the article and its talk page). I maintain that unprotection was worth a try. It should be obvious that if protection is required again it should be applied again, and I will not be bothered if it is. -- zzuuzz 16:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for two weeks semi-protection

• Support as proposer, this should make it simple. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - lots of people editing without understanding our policies, and this is understandably a hot button topic right now. Let's direct these folks to the talk page so experienced editors can guide them. LadyofShalott 16:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Voting is evil. Protection should be only for as long as necessary, not until some arbitrary date in the future. -- zzuuzz 16:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I largely suspect you feel votes are evil when they don't go your way. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection can always be reduced if a consensus finds it is no longer needed, but when protecting, you must pick a time frame. There is no "as long as needed" option. The last case like this, Sandy Hook, I took it to WP:AN and the consensus was one month, so I'm already erring on the light side here and in my previous protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support The North Korea has already hopped to at least one new IP to continue posting his thing, and sadly, I don't think this is going to be the last of the wild claims we hear about this. In an overabundance of caution (and with no small regret, since there are definitely constructive IP edits to that page, as well), I think this is needed. (Note: as mentioned above by Drmies, I did and still do consider myself too involved with the article (particularly in a dispute over one of the victims' name) to protect it myself). Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - it's clearly going to continue to attract problematic "North Korea" IP edits for a while yet -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support: BLP violations are evil. In fact, one can make a case for full protection given the number of editors sticking in a victim's name against consensus on the talk page, against common sense, and against WP:V. Drmies (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support - original protection was sensible, now even more so - no idea what zzuuzz was/is playing at. GiantSnowman 16:17, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per above. Some IPs obviously want to help, but with current events like this, we tend to see first-time contributions and vandalism. —Rutebega (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose There has been very little vandalism since the page was unprotected. As soon as a vandal does pop-up there is a proposal to protect the page for 2 weeks. What vandalism there has been was removed instantaneously. The vandalism has not been an impediment to editing. There are more eyes on that article than on just about any other. It just needs a few admins to keep an eye on it and block the vandals as they crop up. By doing that you will keep the article available for all to edit. That's what WP is supposed to be about. That's what admining is supposed to be about. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, but admins aren't always around. This one is gone for now. Drmies (talk) 16:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Well we have had about half a dozen admins show up here in the space of five minutes to vote to exclude unregistered users from the page for 2 weeks. Perhaps one or two of those would be good enough to keep an eye on it, thereby keeping the page open to all. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This is a high visibility page, and there is demonstrated persistent vandalism. NickCT (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support enough disruption to justify semi, not sure why it was removed, to be honest. No need to make more work for ourselves. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Lord no. You wouldn't want to give yourselves any more work. One reason you might have wanted to would be to make sure that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit but ... nah. 80.174.78.102 (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

  Of course, yes, that's why we all become admins in the first place - to enjoy a life of avoiding having to do anything. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's done

I've extended the semi-protection (and the full move protection) for an additional 2 weeks. There seems to be fairly strong support for such an action, which is actually not that big of a deal in the first place; we routinely use semi-protection in this manner on high-profile, controversial in-the-news topics. MastCell  16:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) The discussion was archived just as I was gonna say my thing! Here it is anyway: Support (if my support means anything, as I'm not an admin). I personally wouldn't be upset if the page went full-protected. I doubt that's the best course of action, but I certainly wouldn't be upset. Ignatzmice•talk 17:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• Me too. re:zebedee. How many admins in this 10 minute old vote? How many voting to take the lazy way out? How many voting to keep the encyclopedia open? 80.174.78.102 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• It's not the "lazy way out" - it's what page protection is for. People died. Other people are vandalizing a sensitive topic. PP is created for just such a situation. If you don't like it, Conservapedia is somewhere else ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Or... you could just create an account. ‑Scottywong| comment _ 17:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn27

The user above name KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been committed a series a behavioral issues during a clash of reliable sources over box-office gross references as seen on this section on Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as well as this part on WP:FILM. He has been doing disruptive editing on several film articles and replace sources from Box Office Mojo with a less reputable source name Boxoffice.com on what he believes that he doesn't consider BOM (Box Office Mojo) reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary total on various films such as Red Dawn, which the foreign gross only shows n/a as well as some other films recently, including The Call, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, Side Effects, The Man with the Iron Fists, 21 & Over and Snitch. While it seems to be good faith edit, his behavioral edits at some of our talk pages over the issue isn't really polite and friendly-community at anyway. This part of my talk page is one those examples, as well as the talk pages of MarnetteD on this part and Betty Logan as well as the two noticeboard sections above. According to many on RS/N on this issue, BOM is said to be the most reliable sources for box-office gross as seen here and get news references on Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. We don't even know if boxoffice.com gets any outside news reference in anyway. Sure, there is conflicting reports on BOM and boxoffice.com on production budget costs and box-office gross numbers on various movies, but it said that BOM is one of our most realible sources at this time. This issue was already discuss in the archeives section here. KahnJohn27 continues to stick to his opinions and rashly berates us on our talk pages and the noticeboards at us for contradicting accuracy on worldwide box-office gross and accusing most of us of such violations, not to mention he's a high-school student as well and his English grammar isn't really the best as well. We tried to be reasonable and polite with him, but he just won't stop being disruptive.

All I asking is to do something with him before this dispute with him gets any worse. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified user, which you should have done. Blackmane (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already told that they Red Dawn, Incredible Burt Wonderstone etc are not the only examples of BOM's unreliabilty. There are several other movies where this problem occurs. However I have never said that BOM should be completely discounted. Not only that I also proved that even where this so-called "n/a" problem is present, I have also proved that the total foreign box office gross is incorrect in case of many movies like Dredd and Man With the Iron Fists. And no I am not letting it go and the status of it being reliable or unreliable will be decided by the discussion. Because these users seem to be making up the same reason of BOM not updating their figures. How are we to believe what they are saying. I think until now except including some times I have been mostly civil. I've only passed one insult to you and I.already had apologised for that. If my behavior seems to be combative to you just because I do not mince words then that is a problem with your attitude not mine. I never personally attacked you and only reverted your edits at The Call and Incredible Burt Wonderstone once. Also after that I accepted it. You have forgotten that even if the consensus seems to be going in your favor reverting someone's edits still counts as edit-warring because consensus has not been reached yet. If this is a strong-arm tactic to stop me being able to discuss this matter then I'm afraid that will not work because that is not the way things work around here. Also I ask what is wrong with giving proof of innocence? You kept saying that I have combatic behavior so the only options I had was to show a proof of innocence that I didn't. Also you should know that Tenebrae deleted my comments on his talk page saying "rants of a high school user". I ask from which angle is this civil behavior? Unfortunately it's not me but you who have constantly induldged in combatic and implotic behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice.com and such. You've been bashing at us when we tried to be reasonable to you, but you continue to be disruptive and uncivil, not to mention you bully at us. You also been accusing with such violations that we never violated anything on this site, regardless of what you think. Do you think your bullying is going to help. It's not going to help out on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bully you. If I was trying to bully you instead of saying that everyone's opininions matters I would have said that I am right and you're wrong. Also I myself said that only by contacting the sources we can find out the truth. I don't think that is combative behavior at all. If you think my behavior is combative then it can only mean two things. Either you're misinterpreting my statements completely. MarnetteD said that anyone who says "they're trying to do.the right thing" is trying to enforce his opinion. That's a gross representation of my statement. Apart from that what you were calling as rants on his and Tenebrae's talkpage when in actual I was trying to prove myself innocent. I had particpated in a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games here ( en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_97#Statistic_Brain) and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources here ( en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_7#Statistic_Brain). They never even said anything about any disruptive behavior and they were perfectly cooperative me. Also you say that my grammar is incorrect while you have made such mistakes yourself. That is no reason for discounting someone's opinion. Tenebrae called my comments as rants of high school student. I ask what kind of behavior is that? You have been induldging in combative behavior yourself. I agree I have been rash many times but I still have shown respect towards everyone's opinion. If I really have been combative then my punishment will be decided by the admins. I assure you that I'm not bullying anyone but simply speaking the truth. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the reason that this dispute happened in the first place. You have been combative about the box-office issues and such. boxoffice.com is questionable at this point and I don't think it has any reliable outside online news reference that we know of. BOM has outside outline news references on The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Don't you see? Box-office numbers and production budget costs differ in those sites, regardless of whatever it says n/a on the foreign gross and such, so we don't know whatever or not boxoffice.com is reliable and accurate, whatever it's domestic and foreign gross. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Also please note that BattleshipMan seems to have a habit of always exaggerating matters. I'm not trying to bully anyone but am saying what I see. I don't think statements like "KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice." can be classified as civil. If you want to talk Boxoffice. com and BOM please talk about it on reliable sources noticenoard. Abd anyway unlike Box Office Mojo BOM doesn't have this n/a problem. Also Hollywood Reporter and Variety do not use BOM as a source for Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw Massacare 3D and all other films where BOM has provided incorrect figures. Can you not see that? We all are trying to reach a peaceful solution and I humbly thank you for that. That's why I ask that please forget past transgressions and let's work towards making Misplaced Pages better. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the irony! "always exaggerating matters" Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, you may does some good faith editing, but it is not with the consensus that we should use boxoffice.com yet. You may think your not trying to bully anyone, but you are disruptive editor, whatever you realized or not and you bash us for reverting your edits on film articles. Good faith edits are not always right and no one can take someone's word for it. Sometimes someone can unintentionally cause an edit war, like you did with some of film articles and can put stress on other editors. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't wanna blame anyone but in actual it was MarnetteD and yourself who had reverted the edits at Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call respectively. Even though I agree that at that time consensus was not in my favor but it was already known that a clear decision still won't have been possible because it couldn't be ascertained why was this n/a problem there on BOM and the user knew also that admin intervention was to be requested. Also please note that User:MarnetteD has been accused of having combative behavior on ymy talk page. Technically I think it's more of her fault and if you think that I had participated in an edit warring then the blame for triggering it in first place should go on Marnette and you too while the discussion was going on. I hope you do not mistreat this an insult. Because this is what had really happened. Apart from that edit war means indiscriminately reverting each other's edits. However since we have reverted edits of each other 3 or 4 times I am not in favor of calling it an edit war. Also I'll like you to note about 2 of the 4 users who have said that my behavior is combative and implosive actually themselves behaved in such manner. Although user Tenebrae has ony gotten into once MarnetteD on the other hand has a much more serios combative behavior and from what I've seen on her talk page she has resorted to such behavior with multiple users and something must be done about this. I know and confirm that your's and Betty Logan behavior has been civil. That's why I request you to please ask MarnetteD to stop behaving in such a disrputive way with editors who oppose her view. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to add my voice to those with concerns about KahnJohn27's disruptive behavior, which includes passive-aggressive bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at this noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan at Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Tenebrae. Beating a dead horse and bludgeoning editors with a huge amount of text and forum shopping counts as disruptive editing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I must concur with Tenebrae's assessment of this problematic editor. To get a full understanding of what several of us have had to put up with you will need to read through this thread Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. Here are a few items that need to be pointed out

1. KahnJohn 27 first post includes this statement "I'm not gonna just sit and let two inexperienced users decide which source is reliable on the basis of some worthless reason like publication in trade sources. You don't know what a reliable source actually means." You will note the combative tone, the insult to the two editors that had already posted there and the attitude about our policy regarding WP:RSs.
2. K implies with this statement "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not" that everyone who has posted there is being dishonest. K again implies that all who disagree with K are inexperienced and that the reason that K has used that insult is "Why does teacher sometimes insult his student. Not to actually insult him but to clearly show them their mistakes." That never worked for any students that I have been around and it certainly won't work for long time and experienced Misplaced Pages editors.

Please read the rest of the thread to see other examples. K was then recommended to get input from the RS noticeboard and began this thread Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com. Again you will need to read through the various posts there but it should be noted that after K was not getting the responses K wanted K went on a spree of posting on the individual talk pages of editors who had disagreed with K. Some of us got fed up with the continued insults and removed the threads from our talk pages which we have every right to do.

In my very first post I had suggested that K not turn this situation into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. That was ignored and K's behavior since then has hit most of the items in that section of WP:ISNOT as well as several others on that policy page. MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest we should do at this point? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

About BattleshipMan I stand by what I said. Not only he is continuously harassing me and he himself is beating a dead horse. If he continues this harrasment then there is no choice at all left for me. Continuously blaming someone is direct bullying. Especially WP:RS noticeboard which is no place for commenting about someone's If my remarks seems to be passive bullying then I suggest all uses MarnetteD to look at her behavior first. I have read her talk page and her seems to be the most disruptive. This user is constantly bullying other editors. Apart from that I agree my behavior is rash but I don't think it is combative or either disrespectful. I am now carefully selecting my words. Apart from that the point of a debate or consensus is to take all points. After passing that inexperienced insult I haven't passed any personal or bullying remark. I would like to know BattleshipMan and Betty Logan to know that the reason I insulted them was because I really thought they were new users. I sincerely apologise for that remark. A bullying or combative user never uses words like "please", "I apologise sincerely", "I accept my mistake", "I request you to". Also as I have already said that you are always misrepresenting my statements. I ask how does "I'm only trying to do the right thing" idms enforcing opinion. Yes I am trying to do the right thing by putting forward points with concrete proof. According to rules of consensus there is nothing wrong in disproving other's statement when you have proof for it. And last but not least I sincerely ask what does poor grammar have to do anything in determining someone's behavior or that their edits are in good faith or disruptive? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also what users are calling as rants or wall-text or spree they are merely just proof of my innocence. There is nothing wrong with proving yourself innocent no matter how long or cubersome the proof is. Removing somebody's comments as rants is however actual combative behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled into this discussion and the one below as an outsider, and from that perspective, have real concerns about KahnJohn's ability to understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what doesn't. From my perspective, and for what that's worth, what we have here is one inexperienced editor who lacks much understanding of the basics of Misplaced Pages policy and so, when challenged, takes on a battleground stance on an issue. His arguments in the discussion cited by MarnetteD remind me of WP:SOUP argument; he's decided his source is right and he's going to go hunting for what he perceives as errors on the part of the established source, most easily explained, and attempts to use them to discredit the source as a whole in favor of the one he prefers. Meanwhile, he remains blind to the problems with the source he favors when they are pointed out to him. Worst, he goes through periods where he will calm down and discussion reasonably, then suddenly his rhetoric becomes aggressive and threatening (a threat couched in polite language is still a threat), which is what got us here. This user requires some decisive administrative action, perhaps a short cooling-off block and/or topic ban, and at the very least, a mentor. Otherwise, his future looks bleak, and will be littered with a succession of discussions such as this. --Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already intervened on both KahnJohn's talk page and the RS noticeboard. We will not be taking administrative action at this time. Also, note that 'cool-off' blocks are not sanctioned by policy.

I'll discuss the rest of KahnJohn's comments on their talk page when I'm home from work. m.o.p 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is that I am not threatning anyone and nor I have calming down or agressive periods. Repeatedly blaming someone is also a kind of bullying.Also as I have already said that my behavior has been most civil. An editor with disruptive behavior doesn't accept his mistakes. I still think that some of the editors themselves seem to have conflicting behavior and I cannot be blamed for it. It is their own responsibility. You cannot say that user caused you to become impolite. It is your own responsibility. I think the admins themselves know that I remained civil most of the time no matter how much abuse was directed to me. Apart from that I still stand by the fact that BOM hasn't been proved reliable in those cases where it's foreign gross is inaccurate or incorrect. A consensus always needs proof. A combative user doesn't respect others opinions. However I have every time even though the users complaining about me haven't sometimes. I think that's all I can say about this topic. I trust your judgment. Apart from that as I have already accepted my behavior is rash but I don't think it's combative. Last but not least I have earned praise from 4 editors including m.o.p. for my respectful and helpful nature and always standing by the truth. I am not trying boast about myself but stating the fact that I'm atleast not disruptive. After the discussion of Boxoffice.com and is over I will take a break from editing Misplaced Pages atleast for 3 months except grammar corrections or where I think I really need to do something. I will try to focus myself on improving my behavior and make it more polite and less rash. I can atleast promise that but I cannot guarantee the end results. I really hope you understand that. But my behavior will be somewhat more refined I can promise. I trust your judgment. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

This post above combined with this response to m.o.p on K's talk page show that absolutely nothing has changed. This rather extraordinary statement "I'm sorry m.o.p. but I cant back off from this issue. I hope you understand it's not because of my pride or it is correct according to me. It's no more just about Boxoffice.com or BOM but also bringing about positive change to Misplaced Pages and if I alone have to do it I'll still do it.". This combined with the diatribe above fulfills almost all of the items at WP:NOTHERE and basically confirms all of the concerns expressed by most of the editors involved in this thread. The continued WP:PAs are tiresome but unlikely to stop. MarnetteD | Talk 02:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. As it can already be seen that MarnetteD has always been misrepresenting other's statements. Apart from that yes I cannot quit because of bullies like you on Misplaced Pages. There is nothing wrong in saying that I waNot only that the only person who in actual has combative behavior is MarnetteD. There is nothing wrong in trying to bring positive change to Misplaced Pages. That is the goal of every editor. And yes if I alone have to do I still will do it. As stated in WP:BOLD and near every other policy "just do it". And so you do not misrepresent that I mean to say bring the positive change and every other editor do so. Not only that yes I will try to improve my behavior. There's nothing wrong in that. Apart from that there's no reasoning with you. So I don't think there's no point in keep on trying to explain to you. Still thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn, do you see the irony of saying if I alone have to do I still will do it? You do understand what "consensus" means?

Added to that, BOLD is a guideline, not a policy, and clearly within the guideline it says but please be careful. In fact, right after the phrase you quote above ~ just do it ~ comes (With civility, please!), which seems to have slipped past your attention. Not that you are being specifically rude, but the walls of text, even "proving innocence", can be uncivil, and ignoring consensus, even if you believe it to be mistaken, is definitely so.

If you are utterly convinced that everyone but you is wrong, i.e. that consensus is mistaken, the answer is to work to change consensus, not to ignore it. You'll find it easier ~ not to mention more productive ~ in the long run. Cheers, Lindsay 05:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

When I said I'll do it alone I wasn't at all referring to the consensus. What I have meant as even if eveyone becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth. Apart from pointing out the obvious I think that it is known by everybody that sometimes we cannot ascertain what is a user really impying. For example sometimes a praise is an insult which is a real irony. Yes I have tried to make the discussion more productive. Misplaced Pages policies always say to try bring a positive change which I have tried very hard to. I have not said that I will try to keep on trying to prove BOM unreliable. No I have instead said that I will support the decision of the consensus if it is fair. Honestly to say I still think it is somewhat unfair but still most of it seems to be fair to me. The statement "I'll alone do if it have to" is the same as saying "never ever give up except to convictions of honour and good sense" said by William Churchill. Also please not that he also used the word enemy but I am clearly not saying that anybody is my enemy here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No, you really do not see the irony....let's quote this again: "....if eveyone (sic!) becomes wrong and tells me to just back down by bullying me I will stand by the truth...". Could it be that if virtually everybody else is saying you are wrong....well, that there might be some truth to it. We do not have a truth (TM), really. And telling you you might be wrong is not bullying, either. Lectonar (talk) 06:54, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, KahnJohn, I appreciate what you're trying to do, but you're beginning to run in circles and it's - forgive me for being blunt - a bit of a time-suck for everyone involved, including you. Where in MarnetteD's message above was your statement misrepresented? The editor merely expressed an opinion, which is perfectly acceptable.
I understand that you feel like you're being targeted, but I keep getting sent on wild goose chases through editor's contributions because you accuse them of being combative/bullying you/misrepresenting you/etc - then, in the end, nothing substantial shows up. Unless you can provide a diff of statements you think are unfair, you need to focus on more-productive things. It may sound a bit bleak, but a thicker skin is a benefit on Misplaced Pages. If someone makes a blatant (and I mean blatant) personal attack on you, then we can do this dance. Until then, let's stop playing "he said she said" and work on the actual content dispute.
Please don't take this personally. I am not trying to shut you down. As I've said multiple times, I understand that you're editing with Misplaced Pages's best interests in mind. And I'll do everything I can (within reason) to help you if you're feeling shaky about some policies or need a hand. In return, all I ask is that you tone it down a notch. And, if this is causing you real-life stress, remember that you're always welcome to step away for a while - take a Wikibreak, go for a walk. Misplaced Pages will still be here when you get back. m.o.p 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not running in any circles. Because I already said that it was not related to the discussion. Also please note that my decision to never quit inspite of difficult circumstances and sometimes bullying by other editors and always standing by truth. Apart from that I don't blame anyone for being blunt. They deserve praise. Aside from that MarnetteD clearly misrepresented my statements when she clearly knew what I meant when I said "I can't back down because somebody tells me to" that some editors(only 2 actually) tried to bully me and that's why this statement was made in the first place. Also this is not the ony time she has misrepresented my statements and she has shown agressive and rude behavior. Aside from that I sincerely thanks m.o.p. for caring. Yes I agree this discussion has put some stress to me mostly because of the direct bullying attitude of some editors and their continuous harrasment. Still I think it's better to forgive everyone no matter how wrong anyone might be. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

As I said, a thicker skin will be highly beneficial if you can manage it. If someone says something that bugs you, it's easiest to just let it go - if they continue harassing you, you may ask for help. But, in this case - and trust me, I've seen a lot of disputes over my eight years here - it isn't that big of a deal.

As for the stress, try not to let anything get to your head. At the end of the day, you are a volunteer, and you are free to step away whenever things get too hectic. Just remember; try to focus on editing, ignore any offhand remarks, do your best to discuss civilly when necessary, and you'll do just fine. m.o.p 07:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Apart from that yes I still stand by what I said about my statement because that is what I really meant. I am honest and will always stand by what I say. Ofcourse my behavior is impolite and rash which I myself accepted that but I wonder why most editors nearly always forget to mention that. I think I have said all I have to say. Apart from that I think my agreement with the consensus says everything else. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn, do you have some type of connection with boxoffice.com that is leading you to crusade to the last man to get it approved as a source? I can see no other basis for your position - it is not benefiting Misplaced Pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

No I am not connected to any source and neither biased towards any source. I only acted upon what I saw. Also MarnetteD had also represented another of my statements much earlier in this discussion. I had not noticed about this earlier. The statement was "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not." MarnetteD said that by this statement I (KahnJohn27) was implying that everyone posting on the discussion was dishonest. However it can clearly be seen that that was not what I meant by the statement. I only said that we should'nt be discussing who is honest or not and should instead focus on trying to solve the discussion and it can be easily seen about that from the statement. I won't like to start any blame game again but it was a gross misrepresentation of my statement. KahnJohn27 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Mass uploading of NFC of recently deceased by Slowking4 - possibly a POINTy violation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A discussion has been started a few days ago by B (talk · contribs) on WT:NFC on the issues of non-free images of the recently deceased. The matter is being discussed in a reasonable manner though no clear consensus has come out yet.

It has been noted that Slowking4 (talk · contribs) has started going what appears to be alphabetically through Category:2013 deaths and uploading NFC images of these people, starting shortly after the above discussion thread was started. A number of these have already been tagged as CSD or FFD, in that while deceased, the possibility of finding free media exists (this is related to the thread above). While a strict reading of NFC says that once dead we would never be able to generate free media of such people, there's other avenues of getting non-free.

I've given Slowking4 a warning (and mention about ANI), but I'm wondering if this is POINTy violation, given past issues with Slowking4 and NFC, and some of his responses in the open FFD (eg : the last bunch at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 April 16) that flaunt NFC policy. I am hesistant to outright request a block or removal of uploading priviledges at this time, as I've just now warned him, and in the long run, the actions aren't necessarily wrong - but it is exasperating the current discussion on whether we should wait to use non-free images on the recently deceased. However, at the same time, such actions are just not appropriate for a free content goal. I open the question if anything more needs to be done - pending Slowking4's response and the issue at hand. --MASEM (t) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am currently removing images that he has uploaded where the relevant persons were public figures up until their recent deaths - for those people it is very clear that a free image may be available (and that's all NFC requires). Slowking's rationale is that "he couldn't find any free images of them on Google" - which of course due to the nature of Google being slanted towards commercial sites you almost certainly won't. I have left a few alone (for instance, a sportsman who retired 50 years ago). These are either reasonable additions or can be discussed at FFD. This is a direct violation of WP:POINT by Slowking and he needs to be clearly aware that such editing cannot be tolerated. Black Kite (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
• This really should be at ANI, I believe, not at AN. I'm (obviously) involved, so I'm not going to take it upon myself to do so, but I believe it should be moved. --B (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Just a question for Masem — is it possible to prevent uploading without a block? I'm under the impression that all autoconfirmed users are always able to upload images unless they're blocked. Nyttend (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Besides somehow removing the autoconfirmed right, perhaps a ban on uploading might be the only solution. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 02:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• You could do it as an edit filter. Kumioko (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't think that we can un-autoconfirm someone, and an edit filter seems a bit much for just one editor. Depending on what we find out, I say we either do nothing or we issue a ban on uploading nonfree images, per Salvidrim's suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If a decision were to be made for a community ban on uploading non-free images, it could be enforced just like any other topic ban. I'm not even advocating that necessarily - I think that there just needs to be some kind of meeting of the minds and an agreement not to upload fair use images in this manner. Acceptable: you're editing an article, in the course of doing so you observe the lack of a photo, you look around and try to find a free one and can't, you search flickr and don't find anything, so you upload a photo under a claim of fair use. Unacceptable: you patrol through a category of dead people and upload fair use photos in alphabetical order with no attempt whatsoever to obtain a free image. --B (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Any list of "acceptable" uses would get abused. I think an uploading ban is the most reasonable way to address this problem.—Kww(talk) 03:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Yea, and they can still request an image to be uploaded (I think that is still around?); unless, of course, that's abused in turn. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 03:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Again I say this without having looked at his editing, but given the evidence presented, I see no reason for an uploading ban — do nothing if it's less severe, and ban from uploading non-free images if it's more severe. Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at his edits pertaining to Arts on the Line.—Kww(talk) 05:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think he's gotten the message for now. If he resumes mass-uploading non-free images we can reconsider the ban. - King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • By "gotten the message", you mean he didn't upload anything while he was sleeping? ;) --B (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Continuing issue

Slowking4 has resumed uploading non-free images of deceased people. In a clear case of WP:POINT, he's now gone to people deceased a while ago (1970), but it's clear he's still not making any effort to find free images further than the usual Google search. On his talkpage, responses to other editors included

• "sorry, i ignore policy discussion, and ANI. much ado about nothing. more heat than light. what controversy? anything you try to do here is controversial: it's SOP. why do anything? this is not a bulk upload. this is the upload wizard one at a time. but now that you mention it, i should really write a bot for fair use uploads." and
• "i can see discussion is of limited utility. this playing subjunctive gaming of rules, "oh you could try harder to find a free image" is bullshit... i'm going to handle it. deal with it."

I would suggest that this probably has to be dealt with here now - this is clearly WP:IDHT, WP:BATTLE and WP:POINT given that there is currently a discussion going on at WT:NFC about the issue which Slowking4 refuses to join, and he has previous form for this type of uncollegial behaviour. I am reluctant to block him as I may be perceived as involved, but I don't think nuking all his latest contributions would be controversial. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• • This has to stop. He's uploading photos from commercial content providers (violates WP:NFCC#UUI #7. He's uploading photos like File:A. A. Allen.jpeg, which is from a prolific public figure who died in 1970 and public domain photos almost certainly exist. Basically all of Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 April 16 and Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2013 April 17 is his photos and basically all of them are inappropriate. If you're uploading fair use photos at a clip of every few minutes, then you're not making any effort whatsoever to find a free photo. Rather, fair use photos ruin our chances of obtaining a free one. Take File:A. A. Allen.jpeg. Suppose we email the successor to this guy's ministry and ask for a public domain photo or one that they own the copyright to and are willing to license under acceptable terms ... what do you think they will say? "Why should we? You're willing to use a 'fair use' image - why should we do this for you?" --B (talk) 12:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Since he's evidently deliberately defying the consensus here that these uploads are inappropriate, in the face of a clear consensus that sanctions against him may be necessary if he continues, I have blocked him for 48 hours to put a temporary stop on these mass uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
      • Here's another one: File:Franz Aigner.jpg. According to {{PD-Austria}}, copyright of photos expires 50 years from publication. Are we really to believe that a guy who wrestled in Austria in the 1920s didn't have a photo published of him in that time? Heck, this one might even be public domain. And regardless of whether it is, he uploaded a tiny unusable photo rather than scrolling down to the bottom of the source website and finding one of usable quality. This is the problem with these bulk uploads - he's not putting any effort into doing it right - just google, find, upload, and move on. --B (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
        • Actually, I seems to understand that the definition of a simple photo is very narrow in Austrian law and that most photos get a full life+70 years protection. The Egyptian example that I posted at today's FFD page is better, I think. I think I've shown that free photos of A. A. Allen exist, see FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
          • Okay - international copyright law is not my thing. But the point is that if you upload a really tiny image from the top of a page and don't scroll down one page view and see that there's an actually usable photo a little further down, you're engaged in way too fast of a process, rather than a serious effort to build an encyclopedia. --B (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
            • How do you know there are free photos available? I thought there was a rule against "crystal ball" conclusions. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
              • Several points here: (1) WP:BALL refers to content of articles and is completely inapplicable here - I'm not writing an article about the potential for existence of a public domain photo. (2) WP:NFCCE says, "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it for non-compliance with criterion 10c are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." In other words, if you are seeking to retain the content, you must provide evidence that it complies with our fair use policy (ie, it's not replaceable) - it's not my job to prove it is replaceable - only to show that it reasonably might be. (3) As I said, the issue with this photo isn't just copyright - it's that Slowking4 is carelessly uploading these things. This is a tiny unusable photo and, supposing that it is legitimate fair use, there's a better one at the bottom of the page that if he had even taken the time to scroll down he would have seen. Edits to the encyclopedia - fair use photos or otherwise - should be well-thought out, not haphazard.--B (talk) 15:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Kamarupi Prakrit and user User:Bhaskarbhagawati

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Bhaskarbhagawati is removing a duely referenced (with page number given) sentence from the article Kamarupi Prakrit. He is insisting on a link to verify the sentence, but there isn't one (not all books are fully on the web). He has removed the sentence twice. diff) and (diff). The reason given, in his edit summary, is "Give page link for claim regarding usage of X sound"; which is strange because this sentence is not at all about phonetics, but the use of certain letters in an old language.

I request that he be prevented from removing sentences arbitrarily----instead he should ask for more evidence, if needed. Such abrasive behavior has lead to edit wars in the past, I am afraid.

Chaipau (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello everybody! relist this please

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bachchan family--Penssail (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, really? I'm actually impressed. Please don't clutter up ANI with requests like this. m.o.p 19:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Provocative editor needs some action

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We've got a IP who seems to be solely involved in provocation. If you take a look at the edits to GoodDay's page here and others we get provocative and insulting comments that have nothing to do with improving any article. GoodDay looks likely to be subject to Arbcom restrictions so actively trying to wind him up and actively encouraging him to sock is especially nasty. Also editing as SixtyNineSixtySix. Would an admin please take a look? Warning at least but the behaviour seems enough for a block in my view. I suspect its one of the old B&I article sock masters. ----Snowded 21:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright, alright. I'll leave off GoodDay. I guess he's a lost cause anyway. Anyway, I told him to go to Wiki News, so not really SP. Can't log in at the moment; forgotten password (will find it). 86.23.69.66 (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, you said "Just retire, have a few months off, then come back as someone else." That's sockpuppetry, and the rest of your post makes it absolutely clear you were aware of that. You also another editor's comment without permission. —Rutebega (talk) 22:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Rangeblock on Fort Irwin National Training Center

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fort Irwin National Training Center is getting repeated spam from a cleaning service. All the edits, among edits to other articles of exactly the same nature, are from 69.235.x.x Might it be possible to rangeblock the offending IPs for a while? Per whois they're registered to AT&T Internet Services (69.224.0.0 - 69.239.255.255). I'd try it myself but I have a feeling I'd block ¼ of the US if I got it wrong… Could someone who understands CIDR take a look? Thanks. Tonywalton  23:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I have a feeling there would be a lot of collateral damage --Cameron11598 (Converse) 00:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Unregistered users blocked from editing this article for a year. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Potential vandalism on Iraq attacks article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not sure how to proceed on this, but a few minutes ago part of the intro section and background info in the 15 April 2013 Iraq attacks article was deleted by User:216.169.108.216, whose talk page features an older warning from 2010, as well as one that just now happened on the Cony High School article. I already warned him, but wanted to have this here just in case whoever is behind this account decides to act again later. Skycycle (talk) 02:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Run-of-the-mill vandalism; such cases can be reported at WP:AIV if it gets out of hand. There is no need to start an ANI thread for such cases, and at any rate the IP is already blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Harassing/overbearing editor

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have only reverted this editor once, yet he feels the need to post all this stuff on my talk page, accusing me of edit-warring. It's been a while since I've actively edited Misplaced Pages, so I don't know where to report the harassment, but I figure this is as good a place as any. Please move this to a more appropriate forum, if there is one. --C S (talk) 02:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

By my count, you have reverted twice. That is edit-warring. It's rather crass of him to warn you for it, because he's part of the problem too, but it is not harassment. Please continue to discuss the issue on the talk page and, as always, AGF. —Rutebega (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you point out my second revert? I reverted him once here. That's it. I also made a change later here, but that's not what I reverted earlier, nor did he make any edits in between my two edits. Well, I'm probably not disposed to view his/her actions favorably now, but that kind of behavior encourages more polite, busy people to just go do something better, as I am going to do now. So s/he wins again. --C S (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

—Rutebega (talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

So the first link is to the first edit I've made to the article... I saw something wrong and I made the change. That counts as a revert now? Anyway, I guess this is enough time on this. Thanks for your input. --C S (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I should really should stop being so surprised to see someone participate in an edit war with an edit summary of, "Please do not edit war. Seek consensus on talk". Someguy1221 (talk) 03:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit war on Mehmed the Conqueror admins needed

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi, I would like to ask the opinion of the administrators on the dispute at Mehmed the Conqueror's page. This was a 15th century Ottoman/Turkish ruler who conquered the Byzantine Empire, their capital Constantinople, and mostly struggled against other Christian powers. In short the dispute is about LGBT and rape of this ruler, whether he was LGBT/rapist or not. In the talk page it is very long discussed so I will try to explain it in short.

It is claimed by some contemporary Byzantine historians that Mehmed was trying to rape several little boys, but this is disputed by modern Turkish historians who point out that contemporary Ottoman historians do not mention any of these claims.

Before I started editing on this page, the LGBT and boy-rape stories were presented as if they were facts and there were a dozen of LGBT categories in the article. There was no criticism to these stories after all rape is a serious accusation. And I knew that Mehmed has a much different image in the works of Turkish/Ottoman historians. So I wanted to add criticism to these claims and I found sources in which modern Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik, dispute these stories (see this and this, by pointing out that these stories do not appear in the works of contemporary Ottoman historians. I first tried to add sourced criticism, it was reverted and I was accused of promoting pro Turkish/Neo-Ottoman and Islamic agenda and being anti LGBT. In fact I was not doing this. I was only adding the other point of view, since rape is a serious accusation, but it seems they make these kind of personal accusations to silence other users. After an edit-war and long discussions on the talkpage, the criticism was accepted and the categories were removed since its not a fact and based on disputed weak sources. Then the page was protected for a while. After the protection expired an anonymous (changing) IP who might be a sock puppet and who is still violating this page (mass-removal of text) and has done this in the past, removed the criticism to present it as a fact. He is basically pushing his own POV and doesn't allow the other point of view to be added.

It is always the same IP (same location, IP numbers show small differences), who is adding and removing sourced text without discussion and who accuses everyone which he doesn't agree as "Turkish nationalist/neo-Ottoman and Islamic propaganda"

Here are some of his edits and IP's he uses:
93.133.190.75
77.4.193.214
93.133.167.212
77.4.253.60
93.134.137.144
93.133.148.229
77.4.249.210
93.134.173.227
93.133.174.169
93.133.141.203
93.134.142.91
77.4.209.24
77.4.239.146
77.4.243.235
93.133.171.31

But I reverted to the consensus but then they added more stories about boys being raped.

There was a German scholar called Franz Babinger who wrote a biography about Mehmed's life and his book is critical about Mehmed and bases this on these Byzantine historians. His book includes most of these claims including who originally came up with these stories. His book is called Mehmed the Conqueror and his time and is perceived as one of the foremost works on Mehmed in the West. Probably all other modern Western sources are based on his book. First the article stated that Mehmed was attracted to both men and women, later I added (according to Franz Babinger), they first didn't accept it but later they did. I added criticism of Turkish historians.

The boy rape was first based on 1 story:

• The execution of Loukas Notaras, a Byzantine nobleman, some Byzantine historians claim he was killed for refusing to hand over his son to the sultan, while according to all Ottoman and some Byzantine sources he was executed for treachery and bribery.

Since I added criticism to this story, the Personal Life section of Mehmed turned into the execution story of Notaras so I removed this all to the article of Notaras.

In the Personal Life secton of Mehmed I left, "According to Franz Babinger he was atracted to men and women and based this on various Byzantine historians". So I did not go into much detail but summarized it in the claim of Babinger since his book contains most of these stories. I think this is sufficient.

But then the anonymous IP added another source that Mehmed tried to rape Radu, a 15th century Wallachian prince, and added LGBT categories back.

I removed this because 1 sentence in Babingers assertion was already enough and there was no reason to go into so much detail about. Or we had to add criticism to it.

But then User:Contaldo80 completely wrote a detailed LGBT section, where some sources are mixed with the wrong sentences. I did not like this because it is again presenting these stories as facts while cherry picking sources and only mildly refuting them.

I have also tried to improve the article with the facts that really matter and which for a long time have not been expanded, because the only edits were edit wars about this LGBT. I did research and expanded the history, reign administration but User:Contaldo80 accused me of "clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/Ottoman bias".

So the rest of the edits consist of me undoing his edit and vice versa. I think we should not add so much detailed info which is disputed by historians and who are ultimately based on 15th century rumors of Byzantine historians who probably wrote this stories as slanders because Mehmed conquered their capital city Constantinople and ended their empire. Some Turkish historians think this was the reason.

So it does not seem to be neutral to devote so much space in the page to Mehmed raping little boys. I think one sentence about LGBT in the Personal Life section is enough or we have to add more criticism to each of these allegations. But I think adding so much negative info will result that the page will be full with these disputed dubious rumor stories and I think they were also added primarily by anti Mehmed users as slander.

So my first proposal is to indefinitely protect this page from anonymous IP's who are only adding above mentioned subjects, ignore discussions on the talk page and never really contribute to the article, except for slander and discredit the historical person.

My second proposal is to only add a short sentence about this LGBT, I do not think it necessary to add so much details about dubious raping stories, which make the article un-encyclopedic and I found an article with extensive criticism of Turkish historians but I didn't find it necessary to add their entire detailed criticism and so I summarized it in one sentence, otherwise I can expand that too but then the article will have too much disproportional discussions on LGBT and rape.

Can you please look at this and end this discussion about (raping boys) once and for all. And the page should be protected from IP's I don't think they are neutral, in my opinion their goal is to vandalize.

Thanks in advance.DragonTiger23 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to summarize the above post? An (admitingly very brief) read of the above seems to suggest this is a content dispute and should go through the usual dispute resolution process... Singularity42 (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I can summarise it quite quickly for you. Mehmed II was a 15th century military leader. A number of contemporary sources claim Mehmed sexually exploited the sons of vanquished nobles. Some editors, including myself, have tried to refer to this in the article in a relatively brief way and using mainstream academic sources. The complainant above has a problem because they argue the primary sources were written by hostile observers (whereas local - Ottoman - observers do seemingly not cover the issue). My argument is that the sources cited are good ones and we do not know for sure that the primary sources are incorrect in their claims. Nevertheless I have also made sure theat text has remained in place citing the counter-argument - ie that the primary sources are potentially open to bias. That seems a good balance to me. The complainant continues to insist this is a LGBT issue" (the term is anachronistic here). Despite their protests they are clearly pushing a pro-Turkish/ Ottoman polemic which is skewing the balance of the article. The complainant has also been personally abusive on several occasions. I have explained I am happy for them to challenge the robustness of the secondary sources, or to include mroe secondary sources which support the claim of bias; but I am not prepared to leave the whole section out on a personal whim. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

If this isn't the right place, where should I add this?DragonTiger23 (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

BEfore Contaldo insisted to include his own text, the only mention was about attraction to both men and women and the story of Notaras execution. But now Contaldo combined different stories as to prove it was common, he basically copied this book. In that book the execution of Notaras is deeply investigated by analysing various sources, Contaldo cherry picked the sections relating to Mehmed and used this in his text without critism. I have already explained these stories in detail on the talk page, they are controversial weak sources so I do not understand why all these stories should be added in a way which implies that they are facts and only mildly refuting. These claims are also not relevant to the article or proportional to this ruler. What Contaldo insist is to add some Byzantine slandering rumors in detail, since all these stories are already summarized in Babinger's book and Babinger's concludes that Mehmed may have been attracted to men and women. Even Babinger states that they are based on a few Byzantine sources and he himself does not find them very credible. Also can you please say that they should stop accusing me of being pro-Turkish/ Ottoman, if I am so by their logic only because I added criticism then doesn't he become anti-Turkish/Ottoman because he insist on presenting rape stories as facts? Is this normal that they are trying to discredit my User by using so cheap accusations, I have done nothing which suggest this.

I think this is sufficient information for the page.

My version:

Franz Babinger in his book Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time, asserted that he was attracted to both women and men, by basing this upon various Byzantine historians such as Doukas, Chalcocondylas. However these assertions met fierce criticism from modern Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik pointing out that contemporary Ottoman sources do not mention this.

Contaldo adds this after the siege of Constantinople:

Several contemporary chroniclers have also written that following the fall, Mehmed deliberately spared the sons of certain noblemen from execution. These youths had apparently caught his eye and were subsequently sent to his seraglio, supposedly to be seduced. Most notable was the youngest son of Grand Duke Lucas Notaras, who numerous contemporary sources say was “snatched from the arms of his parents”. The Byzantine historian Doukas described how after the fall of Constantinople, Notaros resisted attempts to deliver his son to the “pleasures” of the sultan and was summarily executed. Leonard of Chios, related the same story in his letter to Pope Nicholas. The young Notares later escaped the harem and fled overseas.

Nor did this seem to be an isolated case. The son of Sphrantzes met the same fate; and later lost his life after a plot to kill the sultan failed. Nor were the detainees confined to Constantinople. Radu cel Frumos, (son of the duke of Wallachia), was also reported as being subject to Mehmed’s erotic advances. The academic Demetrios Chalkokondyles describe how Mehmed “proposed toasts in his honour, and invited him to his chamber”. Radu at first resisted attempts by the king to kiss him, stabbed him in the thigh and fled up a tree. Thereafter Radu submitted to become the sultan’s lover and lived with him in the palace.

The suggestion of homo-erotic impulses has met, however, fierce criticism from modern-day Turkish historians, including Halil Inalcik, noting that the events described were set out by hostile Byzantine or Greek chroniclers, and such tales are not to be found in Ottoman sources. Indeed there is a chance that the stories echoed polemic from Iberia in relation to Saint Pelagius who similarly resisted the advances of a muslim king. Also, figures such as Notaras and other Christian dignitaries in the city were likely executed for purely political reasons.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, (ed. WC Hickman, translated from the original German by R Manheim), Princeton University Press, 1992, pp 475, 426 - 428.
2. http://arsiv.zaman.com.tr/2003/05/31/kultur/h5.htm
3. Franz Babinger, Mehmed the Conqueror and His Time, (ed. WC Hickman, translated from the original German by R Manheim), Princeton University Press, 1992, pp 475, 426 - 428.
4. Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453. Cambridge University Press, 1965.
5. Crowley, Roger (2006). Constantinople: The Last Great Siege, 1453. Oxford: A.P.R.I.L. Publishing.
6. ^ Andrews, Walter G. (2005). − The Age of Beloveds: Love and the Beloved in Early Modern Ottoman and European Culture and Society. − − Duke University Press. p. 2. ISBN 0-8223-3424-0. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
7. The Siege and Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies, Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, 2011, page 609-611
8. John R. Melville-Jones, "The Siege of Constantinople 1453: Seven Contemporary Accounts"
9. The Siege and Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Historiography, Topography, and Military Studies, Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, 2011, page 609-611
10. Byzantinische Zeitschrift, Volume 88, Karl Krumbacher, page 281, 1995
11. The Siege and the Fall of Constantinople in 1453: Marios Philippides,Walter K. Hanak, page 641, 2011
12. Studies from history. Richard i. Mohammed ii, William Harris Rule, page 119, 1854
13. The Ottoman Empire: conquest, organization and economy, Halil İnalcıkpage, page 190, 1978

• DragonTiger23, sorry no one has mentioned this yet as I can see you put a lot of time into your post, but neither WP:ANI nor administrators deal with content issues (admins have no extra say on content matters). You're looking for WP:DRN but see WP:DR for general dispute resolution practices. May I suggest that when you post to DRN you keep it brief, long posts like these tend to be ignored by many people. Good luck. Sædon 09:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Unless the IPs are crossing WP:3RR and not discussing, in which case you should either request semi protection (very easy using WP:TWINKLE), or file at WP:EWN Sædon 09:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

There is plenty of discussion, let me reassure you - so I don't think semiprotection is a useful approach in this case. Contaldo80 (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Then I will remove this to section to there.DragonTiger23 (talk) 09:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

AFCShandong

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AFCShandong (talk · contribs) has been editing Chinese football articles for a while and has caused more than one editor grief. See editor's talk page and User talk:Walter Görlitz/Archived Talk to 2012-12#User:AFCShandong for examples. Editor has received multiple warnings and several final warnings. Editor simply refuses to discuss, quite possibly since the editor is not a native English speaker. Today, editor has decided to go against WP:OVERLINK again and is walking through articles and linking China in its various forms (edit summaries, player talk pages, etc.). I am opening this notice in hopes that editor will start discussing, if not a short block might help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:52, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• I attest 200% to what Walter conveyed in his message. Sadly, i'm not as hopeful as he is, this guy will NEVER talk with us unless he's blocked, not sure he will if that occurs also. --AL (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I really didn't really know complex Misplaced Pages editing is. I'll look up tutorials and I promise that whatever you mentioned will not happen again, such as overlinking, removing sections etc. Also when the notification came up with new messages, I ignored that because I thought it was just spam or something similar in that aspect. As I said, I'm truly sorry and I'll make sure it doesn't happen again. If I ever mess up again, just shoot me a message. AFCShandong (talk)

• So, i must also present my apologies, for saying you would not talk to anyone. Hopefully, it will be the end of the misunderstandings and we can all work together improving the articles from now on. Sorry. --AL (talk) 01:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Walter, are you also happy that AFCShandong has seen the error of their ways and will now be able to edit/discuss matters in a more constructive manner? If so I will close this ANI and you can all go about your business. GiantSnowman 08:11, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Having read what AFCShandong has written I am assuming his comments are made in good faith and I hope from now on there will be an improvement in his edits. Yours sincerely User talk:Kai Lau 23:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue is that the editor has been here for six months on-and-off. The first warnings arrived just over a month in and no effort was made to communicate either via talk pages or in edit summaries. I have to assume that it's a language issue and will work to communicate better and without warnings. I don't know if I'm happy, but I'm willing to close the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Could an administrator please edit the Queue 5 for DYK and change Sugababe's to Sugababes'. Thank you in advance Till 14:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done by Yngvadottir. De728631 (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Messed-up page history

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Jasonvaidya123 recently moved User talk:Jasonvaidya123 to Misplaced Pages:Dhananjay prasad vaidya. I attempted to undo the changes, but the page history for User talk:Jasonvaidya123 is still at the Dhananjay prasad vaidya page. Not sure what I did wrong. Could someone please take a look and make it so that those two pages have the correct edit histories? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Something else is weird here. The talk page has entries to things like "Speedy deletion nomination of Potpie inc", but the user contributions for Jasonvaidya123 do not show him as having created or edited that page. Is this a problem? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

No, that's normal. The page was deleted, so it no longer shows up in his contributions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Moreton Bay Symphony Orchestra (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

without contacting a specific admin, could an admin close this as it went past 7 days. thanks. LibStar (talk) 08:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Done. There's often a small backlog at AfD, but it's been a little more recently because of problems with the toolserver meaning the "open AFDs" tool has been broken. Black Kite (talk) 08:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

User:HGJ345

• HGJ345 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 16:10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

In February, User:HGJ345 added some problem templates to 16:10 . In the ensuing discussion on the talk page, User:HGJ345 has displayed a number of signs of a tendentious editor: