Misplaced Pages

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Template:Archive box collapsible

Hey, man...what else do I need?

I wrote my first Misplaced Pages article for one of the local musicians in the city who's fairly well-known, but I noticed didn't have a listing. The guy's name is Chad Williamson. After doing a ton of research, I did found some other sites that offer information about him at your request. In addition to that, is there anything relating to references that I should generally consider when posting articles so they don't get deleted?

Thanks!

Message from my partner:

Hello, Pat. I love you. --Deaaaa 17:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

BOO! --Deaaaa 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hereby name thee "Internet Hero". I LAAAAAAVV YOUU. <3 Deaaaa 19:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Another Huggle blunder-boy

Is RedZionX another one these impatient Huggle-goofups who doesn't know what WP:VAN actually is? Users should have to take a test before they try being a vandal hunter. Saves on the blunders. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 02:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're a class A gem you are! 6500 thank-yous to you. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 11:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but under the new under EEC regulations, the maximum amount an individual may bestow upon another is up to 5.5 thousand thank-yous, you may however bestow up to 7.5 thousand tas, as these are much more compact and therefore the carbon footprint is smaller.--Alf 11:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Alf, I stopped boiling the kettle just for me so I'd reduce the carbon footprint... but now I can't have more than 5.5 thousand thankyous? ...It's just not fair... Damn you EEC! Damn you all! Runs off crying... Scarian 11:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm Canadian the EEC regs do not apply for me and I hereby issue 100000 more thank-yous... but so as not to cause any incidents... this latest shipment will remain 201 miles off the English coastline on a boat marked the HMCS Scarian. 156.34.216.55 (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

HMS Scarian - For Queen and Country! Scarian 12:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Alf informs the coast guard, reminding them of how well they did on 'fixing' Radio Caroline, chuckles evily and rubs hands together in manic delight.

re: Huggle concern

I am no true expert on said article's content, and though that the user had blanked simply for the sake of blanking. I make sure to double-check edits before I revert them, and did not know that the removed information had been false, so I replaced it. I will revert my edit. Sorry about everything, it was an error on my part. Cheers! RedZion 16:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Scarian.

Congratulations on your RfA! Very impressive level of support you got.

I saw your name listed among the RfA's and recognized you as someone who played a very positive role in a difficult situation I was in recently. I don't usually take the time to vote on RfA's that already have 100% support, but since I recognized your name with gratitude I thought I would vote. I started looking through your contribs as I normally do for RfA votes, but had at least 6 projects going at once at that time and didn't have time to complete my analysis up to a standard that I felt would be needed in order to vote in your RfA (even in the neutral section). However, I thought I would let you know after your RfA completed the comments I did come up with, hoping that they're useful feedback for you. I've often made mistakes while providing this kind of feedback, which is one reason I didn't feel comfortable bringing it up in your RfA, so I apologize in advance for any mistakes I make here. Often it turns out there's some aspect of a situation that I wasn't aware of. Another thing that I considered is that it's clear from the situation mentioned above where I first remember running into you that you're clearly open to criticism, making a post-RfA comment seem a reasonable choice.

I encourage you to use welcome templates more often. I see that you often post vandalism warnings on pages which have apparently never received a welcome template. I believe the welcome templates (in addition to a vandalism notice) are important in order to give the users a positive idea of what's expected.

Re your warnings posted to User talk:Mc chill529, i.e. first warning at 14:51 14 Feb 2008 and second warning at 14:52 14 Feb 2008: I don't think there was even a whole minute between these two warnings of yours, since you did a lot of other edits in the same minute before the first one and after the second one. However, even if there was a minute between them, I don't think a minute is enough to be reasonably sure that the user would receive your first warning before doing the edit the second warning is about, even if the "you have new messages" banner works properly and instantaneously, which it hasn't always. The user could have opened a page for editing before you posted your first warning, and posted the change afterwards, thus receiving both warnings at the same time. But wait! In this case, that doesn't even apply: the user had no edits at all between 14:29 and 21:30 on that day, so the user could not possibly have vandalised after your first warning and before your second warning. So I have two messages to you here: first of all, please hesitate before posting consecutive vandalism warnings in consecutive minutes unless the pattern of edits is such that you can be reasonably sure the user has received your first warning before doing the vandalism referred to in the second warning (i.e. probably only in the case of more than one edit per minute by the user); and secondly, please check whether the user has already received a warning from yourself or from anyone else after their last vandalism before you post a warning about it. To sum up: here you posted warnings at 14:51 and at 14:52 complaining about edits the user did at 14:18 and at 14:29. Given the timing, only a single warning would be appropriate. In addition, while the first edit was clearly vandalism, the second edit looks like a possible good-faith edit to me. ("wernt official members)" therefore for several reasons, I think the "final warning" you gave was not justified in this case, and was probably experienced by the user as a sudden "final warning" before receiving any previous warnings -- not the way these warnings are supposed to work.

On this talk page is another situation where you've posted a warning only a minute after a previous warning on the same talk page. In this case, the previous warning was by a different user, and in this case, unlike the case above, the user was actually editing around the time of the warnings. (The user edited at 14:51 and 14:52.) But wait! The first warning, posted by Ossmann, specifically mentions the 14:52 edit of Urethra by 162.27.161.188, therefore it must necessarily have come after that edit. Your warning mentions the earlier, 14:51 edit of Princess Albertina. Therefore, the user had not vandalised after the most recent warning at the time when you posted your warning.

Again, I would like to encourage you in general not to post warnings only a minute after the previous warning, except in cases where there it's clear that the user had the opportunity to receive the first warning before the second vandalism edit. These particular situations also involve other aspects of the situation that make such warnings more clearly inappropriate.

Remember, vandals are our friends. While many of them will simply go away or get blocked, on the other hand a small but significant fraction of them will eventually become productive Wikipedians. Some of them may be reasonable people most of the time but just happen to be feeling angry or mischievious at the time. Maybe some of them will later regret how they first edited Misplaced Pages. Some may change their attitude towards Misplaced Pages based on what their friends say to them, and some may simply mature as they grow older. The way we treat them makes a big difference, in my opinion, to how likely they are to become productive Wikipedians -- or how likely they are to get angrier due to perceived unfairnesses and vandalise more.

If you haven't already, I would like to encourage you to study the case of Ggggggggggggggg12 as an example of how standard procedures, applied carelessly and incorrectly, can cause a valuable contributor to be permanently lost to the project. In general, I would like to encourage you to do RC patrol more slowly and carefully, and looking harder for opportunities to be friendly. If you revert less vandalism, it's not a big deal: someone else will get it later, and maybe it will even encourage someone to join who has never previously edited: their first edit could be reverting that vandalism. But if you go too fast, problems can occur. We might never know which users might have become productive Wikipedians if they were just left alone during their first few edits.

By the way, I find your talk page a little difficult to read due to the dark grey background colour.

I hope you take this criticism in the positive spirit in which it is intended and know that I respect you as a person who has shown a willingness to admit to error, who has spoken to me with courtesy and who has received tremendous positive support on their RfA. --Coppertwig (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Scarian, I really appreciate your kind and friendly message and am happy to consider you a friend.

No, I wasn't previously aware of the existence of Huggle, as far as I remember. While users of such a tool need to take responsibility for their edits, (particularly since the documentation states that the tool is in development and is available "for testing"), I've now realized that rather than criticizing an individual user, it may be more productive to give suggestions for improvements to the script developers, and I've therefore posted a message at WT:Huggle.

While I haven't looked into the details of this edit, I commend you for your conscientiousness in checking and correcting actions taken on your behalf by the script.

I notice that apparently your edits using Huggle don't mention Huggle in the edit summary. It seems to me standard practice that the use of such a script would be mentioned in the edit summary. I would appreciate it if you would let me know whether these edit summaries are the default behaviour of Huggle, because if so I'll probably want to give the Huggle developer(s) a suggestion about that.

Re welcome templates: I can understand that it can be difficult to keep up the motivation for a task that doesn't provide any apparent feedback. However, I encourage you to use them anyway. I've recently been answering a fair number of Template:helpme requests, and I started to wonder how all these new users knew about the helpme template. Then I realized that it's mentioned on the welcome template: that's how they know to use it. And then I remembered that when I myself was a new user, I received a welcome template and I used "helpme" once or twice, I think, during that initial period when everything was rather bewildering and I hadn't really made contact with any individuals yet. So one way you could get something that feels like feedback for posting welcome templates would be to reply to the occasional helpme, and consider those questions to be, in effect, replies to welcome templates. Another possible motivation might be the thought that someday someone like me might come along :-) and check whether your most recent thousand contribs include the word "welcome" anywhere in any of the edit summaries (and now they do!); and whether you want the overall face of Misplaced Pages that you present to new users to be a confrontational, blocking one or a friendly, welcoming one.

My suggestion to the Huggle developer(s) includes a suggestion to make it easy to post welcome templates. While perhaps in most cases the welcome templates are ignored, for example if that user never edits again, nevertheless it only takes a few seconds to post one, and the few that are used can do a lot of good, so I really thing they're worthwhile.

Just to clarify: I didn't actually end up posting any vote or comment in your RfA, but saved all my comments for the above message only. I'm glad I did it that way, since (although you're correctly taking responsibility for your edits) the problems I discovered were apparently really more Huggle's fault than yours. As I said, it often turns out that there's some aspect of the situation I hadn't been aware of.

Feel free to call on me if you ever have some small task I can help you with. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Hi, Pat: I forgot to call you Pat before. Re talk page colouring: While I find it somewhat diffiult to read, it's not extremely difficult, and I could always copy or modify the text in order to be able to read it more easily; I haven't actually found that necessary. So it probably wouldn't make sense to change the colours just for me. However, if you do ever want to make it easier to read, you can make the background a paler grey by changing "background:#8A8C8B" near the top of your page. Apparently "8A8C8B" is a hexadecimal , RGB colour specification. You could change it to "A0A0A0" (slightly lighter grey), "BBCBCC" (even lighter) or "D0D0D0" (even lighter than that). (Those are letter D's and zeroes, not letter O's.) The first two digits, e.g. "8A" give the amount of red, for example, with the first digit being more significant. You can twiddle the numbers to make it a slightly more or less reddish grey, for example. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Research on the RFA process

Hello, I am an anthropology student researching the Misplaced Pages Requests for adminship procedure. As you recently completed this process, I was wondering if you would be willing to answer a few quick questions.

• Do you believe that the current RFA process is an effective way of selecting admins?
• Do you notice a difference between users who are nominated vs selfnoms?
• Is a week an appropriate length for process? Should it perhaps be longer or shorter?
• Do you think the user's status in the community changes while the user is undergoing the RFA process? How about after the RFA process is over?

If you are willing, please leave your answers on my talk page or e-mail them to me.

This research will not be published academically, as this research is primarily to demonstrate the feasibility of doing online ethnography in online only communities such as Misplaced Pages, though I intend to make my findings available on Wiki. Your name will not be associated with any information you provide in any published work. If you have any questions please let me know. Thank you. --Cspurrier (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Need a rollback

88.88.23.109 (talk · contribs) has been busy "de-formatting" a whole bunch of articles away from their proper WP:ALBUM guidelines. Created a lot and re-directs... ignored the WP:ALBUM rules... etc. Many have been reverted. But he's a busy boy and made several attempts at some of his article edits and so some remain undone. Too many for me to browse through. One simple magical undo will be much easier. Know anyone who can do that? :D 156.34.216.55 (talk) 03:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I took the invitation and reverted, though it does get frustrating when the rollback function is throttled to five every minute or so. I might have reverted some genuine edits in the process, so apologies if so. And, hope I haven't abused rollbacker rights. Dreaded Walrus 04:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Good show, guys. Don't worry, Walrus, I'll turn a blind eye ;-) - Naw, it looks like the guy was being an ass so that's a good reason to use the rollback function. Good job. Scarian 10:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at this one... David Tronzo. Text is a copy/paste straight from the guy's MySpace page. I think he's a Speedily dee dee D. Thoughts? 156.34.216.55 (talk) 11:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

What? What article are you talking about? ...Pat giggles... Scarian 12:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know? Guess I need a coffee. :D 156.34.216.55 (talk) 12:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

New Topic

You posted in my ip talk page "Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Snowboarding. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing"

However, I clearly have never even read the wikipedia page on Snowboarding, much less edited it. How is this possible?--74.14.72.122 (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

The edit Pat referred to is this one it is definitely the same ip as you are editing on now, but as it is a month old, the ip may be dynamic and you have been allocated that ip by your isp since that edit.--Alf 16:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

new message

I was wondering what your thoughts were about my last comment on the warning vandals thing. Enigma 07:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece edit war

Hi Scarian, thanks for taking care of that edit war. Now there's again an anon IP continuing the same revert war: 77.83.42.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), identical to previous 77.83.22.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), quite possibly identical to LittleTinMan (talk · contribs). Even if it's not him, the anon has been on a slow revert war for many days. Would you take action? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

77.83.42.118 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) again at it. Sterile reverting, no talk. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. Scarian 17:20, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR check

When you get some time away from your bust admin schedule... :D .... can you do a WP:ENGVAR checkup over on The Police article? I rv'd a wp:engvar sabotage attempt... read through the lead-in (which seems OK) but then got lost in my tenses and pluralised adjectives and adverbs. Another set of eyes is required. Remember, my geo-space is parked right next door to that "other place" where we have to dumb things down so I end up reading in 2 different versions of English. Someone with an auld tongue... even a "young" auld tongue.. would be a great help. 156.34.226.197 (talk) 11:06, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I've corrected any glaring errors. I'll have a proper read of it later, Libsey, to check for readability. Hooah! Scarian 12:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Adding 7500 more thank yous to the hold of the HMCS Scarian. :D 156.34.142.110 (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Did I...

Congratulate you about your adminship? In case I didn't, congratulations! And you so stole my dark gray scheme-thing. :P See ya around, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 07:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

One to watch

This guy is a talk page troll. Very similar to blocked editor Zephead999(and his 100 socks) who was, in turn, a sock for uber-troll Dragong4. I bet you a shiny new Canuck nickle that they are "of the same hands". Or at least of the same dorm. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

2 to watch. 99.252.42.122 (talk · contribs) is an annoyance on several New Brunswick related articles. He has taken to a mild edit war over naming in the Saint John article. No 3RR breaches (I think)... but certainly a repeat pattern of reverts against discussion and consensus over the article content. What is you admin opinion of this individual's activities? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Pat is currently away from the computer for a couple of days. Deaaaa 20:16, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell him Libs says he's not allowed any time off from Misplaced Pages :D 156.34.142.110 (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Another one for the blacklist 156.34.208.218 (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh shut your mouth? Civil :D 156.34.220.185 (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am permitted to edit my talk page aren't I? It wasn't vandalism. Perhaps I shouldn't have removed that comment but I don't like somebody bradning me as a " fanboy". Misplaced Pages has got to be the most uninviting and unfriendly website goingThe Wild West guy (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it covered. ;-) Good call. Scarian 14:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well leave me alone then and stop ganging up on me. The way you treat editors who appear to be "beginners" is appalling also. Its not surprising wikipedia has built up a reputation for bullying and driving potential editors away The Wild West guy (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

The accusations of "ganging up" and "Its not surprising wikipedia has built a reputation for bullying..." are patently untrue. If you tell someone to "shut their mouth" you are going to warned for incivility. Please read WP:CIVIL and no personal attacks. If you require any help at all on how to use Misplaced Pages, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you are a new user I highly recommend that you read Misplaced Pages:Introduction. Take care, buddy. Scarian 14:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well there are lot of people who have encountered this with the community on wikipedia and episodes like that a frequently reported in admin discussions. I;ve seen many great editors leave this project because of grossly uncivil behavior by colleagues on this site who push them too far. You've been an admin for one week and I wish you the best of luck with that, genuinely. That isn't an excuse to use your new status and give me unnecessary warnings either particularly when editing my own talk page. If I had vandalised an article or addressed a personal attack to you on your talk page it would have been different. Now can I please continue in peace. Thankyou The Wild West guy (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, friend. But... You still told me to "shut my mouth". You wouldn't find that rude? You don't WP:OWN your talk page or user page or whatever, if you're uncivil to me on your talk page (in an edit summary in this particular instance) then it's still rude and the warning was deserved. If you feel that my behaviour has been out of order, please feel free to leave a message at WP:ANI. By the way, even though I am an admin I still would've picked up on your rude edit summary regardless of my new found "status". Of course you are free to edit in peace but please make sure your edit summaries are focused on what you're doing rather than how you're feeling. And please don't remove comments that you didn't write (which is what I originally warned you for). If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian 15:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

OK I apologise for my edit summary. I just don't like it when anonymous IP addresses and people sneakily contact other editors or admins and report them as perceived "vandals" or "cruftboys" as if they are the worst human vermin possible and then receive a message as if I have conducted a serious offense. Vandals should be stamped out certainly, but I can assure you I am not one of them. Regards The Wild West guy (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC).

AfD help

Take a look at this article: Crow face. Totally inane and ridiculous. I asked for a speedy deletion on the grounds of WP:OR, the fact that it's an orphaned article, it's extremely short, totally nonsensical and that it's blatantly wrong. If anything it's ripping off corpse paint. I was declined by another admin, but I'm hoping that you'll be able to help out. It's nice to have an admin as a friend. Can I call you a friend? At least a wikipedia friend? Anyways, I can see how extremely useful it might be to known an admin. No wonder other admins' talk pages are always cluttered with people asking them to do things (do this, delete that, block them), instead of reporting it directly to ANI or wherever it belongs. It's not like I want you to help me break rules or bend them or anything, I'm just saying knowing an admin makes things faster. Instead of taking it to wiki security, I can take it to an individual of wiki security who can expedite the situation in a much faster, more effective manner. Anyways, maybe you can help to get rid of that page, seeing as how utterly ridiculous and wrong it is. I'm sure I'm gonna be asking you many more things (whther for help or advice) now that you're an admin. Blizzard Beast 21:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your thoughts

Am I justified with and ? 156.34.220.185 (talk) 15:26, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I deleted them both for being A7 non-notables. The "nonsense" speedy reason is only used for stuff like: "fojsdglksdjgdofgj" that, I think. But yeah, both deleted :-D - Good call. Scarian 15:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

570000 thank yous now docked. The same user that created them also added his fairytale genre to the template:heavy metal. I can't rv that because its a prot. 156.34.220.185 (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you happen to catch this a**h*l* of a statement? The user has a history of civil/npa issues. He needs a good throttle. :D 156.34.226.160 (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, sometimes I don't get the orange bar and it's annoying... Okay, I've left a comment with him, he'll see what happens when he messes with the cabal ;-) Scarian 21:19, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no cabal :D. 156.34.226.160 (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Pat performs the secret handshake... ...'Course not... Scarian 22:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

block of User:UB65

I've overturned this. I hope you don't mind; given that it's a short-term block and you had already expressed some hesitation, and I got a quite complete picture from WP:AN3 and the edit history, I didn't consult with you first. I felt, in viewing the situation as a whole, that the block was unnecessary as all the issues have been resolved through discussion. And also, it's only the "in whole or in part" issue that makes this a 3RR violation, and I think there's good reason to think the user wasn't aware of that aspect of the rule. Mangojuice 18:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin coaching

I heard you've been coaching Urban rose. Would you like me to formally list you at Misplaced Pages:Admin coaching/Status or is this just a one-off informal thing? MBisanz 21:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes everything's good with me

I'm on a wikibreak right now so I probably won't be editing too frequently for the time being. If I need any help with admin-related stuff I'll be sure to let you know. Thanks!--Urban Rose 21:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

What was wrong with my Kyler Peasnall Article?

I wrote an article about the famous mentally challenged Mexican American war Hero, Kyler Peasnall. And you deleted it. I was just wondering if it was because I didn't have enough information. or do you have a problem with mentally ill people. I also wrote hangon on it, but it was deleted a few seconds later.

Prove to me that it was a serious article by providing reliable sources and maybe I'll take a look at it then. Scarian 22:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

sock

this person may be the same as this personfuneral is possibly is using that isp as a sock and makeing reverts to avoid the 3 revert rule--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wikiscribe, I've had interactions with both of those editors for many months now. Funeral lives in England. And the 156.34x IP actually lives on the East coast of Canada. I'm very, very sure that they are two different people living around 1,000 miles away from each other. The 156.34X actually has many different IP addy's and his nickname is "Libs" because he's a librarian :-) - I hope that clears some things up for you. Scarian 22:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

okay but they are working in tandem and making chnages and reverting sourced info on the guns n roses article because they only went them to be hard rock but they are condidered heavy metal to and they just keep reverting it in tandem--Wikiscribe (talk) 22:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Where are your reliable sources to prove that they "are considred heavy metal"? Scarian 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

this music site they have them as hard rock rock and heavy metal --Wikiscribe (talk) 23:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see now. You've misinterpreted "Styles" for "genre". The style of "heavy metal" does not mean a band is actually "heavy metal" as a genre. Sorry, buddy. If you need any help with anything please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian 23:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

okay i guess you are right but one day i will find a legitiment source that states they are heavy metal--Wikiscribe (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Technically I am an Engineer specialising in Asset Management (a useful skill when your in charge of keeping track of a library that spans across several campuses that are 100km apart) but I guess I am an honorary librarian and I am honoured to be nicknamed 'Libs'. 156.34.226.160 (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kingjames813

I'm just curious but did you block User:Kingjames813 because the user vandalized my User page? Gary King (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, he was clearly a vandal only account. And it's not nice to replace peoples' talk pages with insults ;-) - Do you disagree with my block, friend? Take care! Scarian 23:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I think it was a fair block. It was just the first time that my User page was vandalized, and I'm still a bit shaken up from it, I guess :P Gary King (talk) 23:15, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I guess I'll have to get used to it. Also, I wasn't sure what warning I should have given the user, but I ended up giving a 4im for being pretty offended. Gary King (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Here...

Someone vandalized my Userspace! But a little angel came along and fixed it! Thank you! You can thank others by using {{subst:Vangel}}! _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} 23:22, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalizing

How is that vandalizing, I sincerely thought that San Diego was discovered by the Germans in 1904. Sometimes I take movies too seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creamy4 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Concerns about copyvio

This section from the Merle Haggard page is a copy/paste job. It quotes the source but I think it streches the limit of "paraphrasing" and is ripe with copyvio images to boot. If it were me, I would rm the lot of it. But that would just get me bot rv'd. Do you concur that the section is a no no? The copyvio pirate is User:Jeff Yarbrough, III who has no other contributions other than the paste job and the stolen pics. 156.34.226.160 (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've bombed that whole section. But I don't know about deleting the pics as I'm no image expert but it seems as if a) He's a great photographer and he's uploading great pics or b) He's a thief and should be indef blocked for uploading nabbed pics. Bah... maybe a job for our super hero? Scarian 15:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand is the pic man.... although I am sure our superhero would certainly know the inner pic biz... seeing as how he's a superhero n all :D. Thanks for your peek-in on my query. New boatload heading for international waters. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Need some help

Hey! Have a look at this page, Michael Battista. On the onset it appears as a valid page. But if you check this page too, James Hendler, you will see that the previous article is a copy of the latter. Also, a check of the references will reveal that the former is the hoax article. I tagged it {{db-nonsense}} appropriately, but it has been sitting there some time now, maybe because the article does not appear to be nonsense. So I approached you with this matter, I hope it is not against policy or something. Thank You! Welt 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh well it got deleted in the meantime, thanks anyway! Welt 14:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

What is all of this sockpuppet business? Creamy3 (talk) 16:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough Scarian, no more comments from the peanut gallery for me. Have a good one. Creamy3 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

a repost

User:Cerebralstroke receated Cerebral Stroke after you already deleted it as a speedy. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Someones already bombed it for AfD... I don't know if I can re-speedy as I don't know the policy behind a recreated article... :-/ Scarian 18:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Zero Googlies... I am thinking it's a hoax. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 18:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The advice I was given on the IRC channel was to just let the AfD go it's natural course and not worry about it... It'll get deleted either way. Scarian 19:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good advice--the AfD result will allow WP:CSD#G4 to apply in the future (which doesn't cover prior speedies). — Scientizzle 21:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

See Libsey! We have a resident genius here disguised as a scientist... ;-) Scarian 21:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

And it feel good knowing there's another genius working on this project besides just me :-D. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Dudes, it's obviously pure vandalism. There shouldn't even be an AfD discussion about it. It should be deleted outright, incl. the albums that idiot made up. Blizzard Beast 21:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello Scarian

Thanks, and yeah, I'd appreciate the AfD thing. I understand about the WHEEL deal. Didn't know the rule existed, but it makes sense. That article is hurting me. It's a total eyesore and when I see it, it makes me wanna gag. Pure inane ridiculousness. I just wonder if enough idiots not-quite-intelligent-people will argue that crow face is a real thing. It has no sources and is an orphaned article, so I don't understand why the other administrator would deny my speedy deletion, especially when I cited WP:OR. It's obviously an imaginary term, used by those who have no idea what corpsepaint is and shouldn't because they are obviously not cool/smart enough to live (WP:CIVIL!!OMG! ROFLCOPTER,LOLZ,StOptHaTgUY1) w/e, I hate people and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I can't stand for such superciliousness. Idiots need to go (and should definitely not be allowed on wikipedia). This is MY fuckin source! Bullshit stand aside. All hail the god, Maddox. Blizzard Beast 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I've listed it. Feel free to add in your rationale of why it should be deleted. Scarian 21:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated, cheers. Blizzard Beast 21:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

rvv tools

What tool(s) do you personally use for reverting vandalism quickly? Thanks. Indosauros (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

on sod

maybe just a few spelling errors, but noithing uncosntuctive. all factual information —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.95.65 (talk) 12:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Vandalism

• Hi there, I was just wondering what anti-vandalism tools you use? I currently use Vandal Fighter and Twinkle, yet you seem to be a lot faster. What tool do you use, if you wouldn't mind saying. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Acually, I award you a barnstar.

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your diligent work in reverting vandalism, keeping Misplaced Pages clean. Steve Crossin (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Okay, so I email the maker of Huggle, and then what? Will they let anyone use it? I've recently been cleaning up as much vandalism as possible (I got rollback rights today) and, well, if there is something that will make it easier for me to help clean vandalism, the I definitely would like to use it. Do you know how long it takes to get a reply? Steve Crossin (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Do I have to use the Monobook skin for Huggle? -shudders-. Well, OK, that's easy enough to do. And I emailed them a few minutes ago, but maybe they didn't get my email. Should I drop a message on their talk page? Steve Crossin (talk) 13:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• You said they were online now? I can't seem to find their talk page, and I haven't received an email yet. Are you still talking to them by any chance? Maybe the email I sent didn't send properly, could you ask them by any chance? If it's not too much trouble, of course :) Steve Crossin (talk) 13:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Could you show me the revert you were referring to? Thanks. Steve Crossin (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, THAT one. Well, yes, that was an accident. But I've fixed at least 300 vandalism instances, and I won't stop for another hour or so. I'm taking more time to review each edit before I revert it, but, I think I'm doing OK Steve Crossin (talk) 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

A funny comparison

Browsing through the Huggle whitelist is sorta funny. A good 25-30% of the users whitelisted by huggle... are blacklisted by VandalProof. Huggle seems to identify 'white' users as users who don't normally do any simple vandalism. VP seems to blacklist a lot of those same users simply because they are a**h***s whose edits are better off reverted just because they are stupid or useless. I have no idea who would've blacklisted so many users?... some of the admins are blacklisted :D... but they don't show up in VP as 'red' users because the admin list overrides the the blacklist.bummer :D Is user "Wikilibs" on the Huggle whitelist? If he isn't he should be. Salt of the Earth y'know that fella is. :D 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My User Page

Someone seems to have deleted my Userpage? Could you retrieve it for me please. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

775 000 thank yous being loaded in dry dock!!! 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Does tweedle-dee using huggle on me by mistake mean you have to blank my history again and then restore me? 156.34.142.110 (talk) 17:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Dahn

I am inclined to grant his unblock request after I went through his edit history. I cannot find any outright edit warring or repeated reversions. If you have some difs that show what the problematic edits were, perhaps that would help me make an informed decision, otherwise I am inclinced to unblock at this point. Thanks! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

After quickly looking through the Romanian people article this is what I found: , , , and . Scarian 18:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh

I liked this. :) Acalamari 18:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad you became an admin, and with unanimous support too. I was sure that you'd do well, and I was right. :) Acalamari 18:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Oasis

......Too-day is gonna be the day that they're gonna throw it back to yew...

Yeah, I'd still like to see the last para of Britpop era and height of fame (1994–1998) a wee bit bigger, and theMusical style and influences a bit more solid. Could add the piss-take band No-way-sis here (remember them?). Maybe shift that last para to this new section and rename influence to chunk it up a bit. It all looks more polished now and I really like the rollabout narrative the article has somehow inherited. I think the quality of the rest of the article is such that it isn't a real deal-breaker (and there has to be something to aim for FA, right?) Yeah, I'd nom it and see what happens.

You interrupted my reverie on soma the divine mushroom of immortality....:) ] (] · ]) 20:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries, should be strightforward. I'll keep me porkies.....oh sod, that was the wrong cockney rhyming slang allusion, the link should have been 'lies' not 'eyes' but anyway...I'll keep me eyes on it....] (] · ]) 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

re: FF IP

Hi there. I have warned him. Several times. In fact I have no doubt this is the same person who has operated under the Kean College " 131.125.xxx.xxx" IP addresses, which prompted an incident report, resulting in the blocking of the IP range for a few weeks. - eo (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Hey, belated congrats on your mop. I jumped on to the wiki just now and noticed that my userpage has been deleted. I left a note with the deleting admin, but I noticed that you already restored an other anon userpage. Could you please do me the same? I would deeply appreciate it. 74.133.9.95 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Amendment the deleting admin already restored it. Congrats anyhow. :) 74.133.9.95 (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for passing Philippine Idol into WP:GA status. I appreciate it! Starczamora (talk) 10:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Omarosa's article

Greetings.

I recently edited this article taking out unnecessary info and for some reason it was marked as vandalism. Please clarify the situation. Tam001

Yup, you continue to remove information that you feel is irrelevant. I've been reverting your edits because as a community we consider that to be vandalism. Please discuss your proposed changes on that articles talk page. Thank you. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. Scarian 13:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

AutoWiki Browser

• Hi, I noticed you are the one who approves people to use this software, is that correct? Just letting you know, I added a request here Steve Crossin (talk) 16:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Any admin can do it, but yes I've been doing it recently. I've approved you, good luck! Scarian 16:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You thoughts, part 681

Thunderbolt (Norwegian band). What do you think? It passed an AfD eons ago (supposedly) I think it's due for another. You? Libs 142.167.92.127 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't speedy and I don't want to AfD. But I have PROD'd; I see no sources proving any of the claims on the article's talk page. Sorry for brief reply, recently unbanned user User:privatemusings made an error that I gots to fix. Scarian 01:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect a COI on the page as since I was issued a false vandslim warning simply for prod'ing it in the first place. The page was recently moved and the previous version was prod'd by Funeral.I think it's worth a second nom. It was an nn in 2005 and is still an nn now. 142.167.92.127 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The COI IP 85.164.145.57 was pissed at Funeral for prod'ing the page and vandalised his talk page eith a prod tag. The IP got an account User:Nondel and acted like a d*nk and stuck a vandal warning on my temp talk page. I suspect someone closely ASSociated to the nn is insulted that he and his band are a bunch of nobodys. :D 142.167.92.127 (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Also... it's pretty much a given that Tbshouldlive and Nondel are the same person and if both vote on the AfD then something smelly socky stinky is going on and drastic sock measres will have to be taken. A few new 'red link' accounts may suddenly appear to vote on the issue... time will tell. 142.167.92.127 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

So, as the count goes...

• IP 85.164.145.57
• Nondel
• tbshouldlive
• nonscarian
• Noban

Is that it so far?

Have another coffee :D . 142.167.92.127 (talk) 02:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

East718 is a good chap! Time to turn in Pat.... Get some sleep! Wiki will still be here in a few hours when we go.. "back to work". 142.167.92.127 (talk) 03:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you get a check on IP "85.164.157.152" and "Username-2008-02-19". I think they may be the same person which means they have voted twice on the nn AfD. 142.167.92.127 (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I expect the IP vote can be struck as a block evasion vote. I suspected that "username" was actually a sock for Uselos. Bit the IP is in Norway. It has a, brief but similar, edit history to "username"... it's what tweaked my suspicion that Username was editing out of the IP range. (and reduced my thoughts that it was a uselos sock.... a meatpuppet maybe still though) 142.167.92.127 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

PS also... Usernames vote just added a bunch of spam links to a bunch of retarded fanzines that don't meet WP:RS... so his attempt to support his own vote sprt of backfired. It could still go if editors interested in quality vote. 142.167.92.127 (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Led Zep

Good work reverting edits made by a non user. We need to all chip in like you did to continue to make wikipedia great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom.mevlie (talk • contribs) 02:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Want a success?

Look at Extreme Elvis. Why is this here? 142.167.92.127 (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts

I think Multi-necked bass guitar should be re-directed to Double neck guitar. Do you concur? 156.34.226.160 (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Is it in the middle of a discussion to be merged? I can't touch it without consensus. I'll take a look at the appropriate place. Scarian 23:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Bah, I did it anyway. And I cleaned up the article too. Scarian 23:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Avoiding Undue Weight....

Of course if Oasis makes GA, then to avoid undue weight...Blur (band) really needs to be polished up too...] (] · ]) 23:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why Ban Me?!

Hello.

I created a page for GSWClan at the weekend - but due to you i have had my account blocked.

Instead of taking such a authoritan and power-tripped approach to blocking my account WITHOUT advising me or telling me what im doing wrong is just pathetic.

It was the first page i created and I apologise if you think i Vandalised wikipedia but i think you will find you are wrong.

Misplaced Pages say: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

My attempt to improve the site may have been misguided or ill-considered as i thought anyone could post anything. Like what im typing now is my PERSONAL opinion and CANNOT be considered vandalism.

I guess you just call it vandalism so you dont look bad and all the entries on your page make you look like a saint.

Not that im totally bothered - i just think you need to get a life off the web, and i for one will not bother using or adding to wikipedia ever again in my life. So pleeeease!! BLOCK, BAN and EXCLUDE ME!!!! Thats all you are interested in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.68.31.231 (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)