Misplaced Pages

• Administrators
  • Main
  • Incidents
• Bots
• Bureaucrats
• Centralized discussion
• Closure requests
• Education
• Interface admins
• Main Page errors
• Open proxies
• VRT
• Oversight
• User permissions

• Biographies of living persons
• Copyrights
  • Questions on media
  • Problems
• Dispute resolution
• External links
• Fringe theories
• Neutral point of view
• Original research
• Pending changes
• Reliable sources
• Resource requests
• Scalable vector graphics
• Spam
  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
• Style
• Titleblacklist
• Translation

• History merges
• Mergers
• Splits
• Moves
• Protection
• Importation
• XfD
  • Articles
  • Redirects
  • Categories
  • Templates
  • Files
  • Miscellany
• Undeletion

• Conflict of interest
• Contributor copyright
• Edit warring and 3RR
• Sanctions
  • Personal restrictions
  • General sanctions
  • Contentious topics
• Sockpuppets
• Usernames (Requests for comment)
• Vandalism

• Arbitration
  • Committee noticeboard
  • Requests
  • Enforcement
• Edit filters
  • Requested
  • False positives
• Questions
  • Help desk
  • Teahouse
  • Reference desk
  • New articles
• Requests for comment
• Village pump
  • Policy
  • Technical
  • Proposals
  • Idea lab
  • WMF
  • Miscellaneous
• WikiProject proposals
• Discussions for discussion

• User talk:Bart Versieck/Archive 1
• User talk:Bart Versieck/Archive 2

• Current status: > Awaiting posts.

Hello! Please, append your message at the end of the page.

This page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III.

Welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Goeiedag/Hello Administrators' noticeboard, welcome to Misplaced Pages!

Here are some tips:

• Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
• Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
• Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
• Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~).
• Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
• Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
• Use the Show preview button
• Provide an Edit summary
• Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
• Take a look at Consensus of standards
• Create a User page
• Be bold
• Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Misplaced Pages is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the Edit this page link. Misplaced Pages convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Misplaced Pages has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks, and happy editing.

Your draft article, Draft:Clara Auteri

Hello, Bart Versieck. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Clara Auteri".

In accordance with our policy that Misplaced Pages is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Misplaced Pages, and happy editing. Liz 00:57, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Clara Auteri

Hello, Bart Versieck. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Clara Auteri".

In accordance with our policy that Misplaced Pages is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages, and happy editing. Liz 21:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Misplaced Pages, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Global deleted image review

FYI, a discussion about allowing commons sysops the right to view deleted images on any wikimedia project is happening on Meta here: m:Metapub#Global_deleted_image_review -- Avi (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful information. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A pleasure. -- Avi (talk) 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please help me

My user name was blocked a long time ago, even though my page had information typed in from other wikipedia users that my name should not be blocked. And yet I got blocked anyway.....the person who blocked me thinks im some white nazi person or something when im not. Im actually Indian. My user name is User:Aryan818, can you please unblock me? Ive been blocked for a billion years now. 71.105.82.152 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The foregoing message was posted to one of the MedCom pages. Sunray (talk) 03:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This account is not blocked, according to the block log. Kevin (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Could be an autoblock - what message comes up when you try to edit? Hut 8.5 06:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The actual account may be ARYAN818 (talk · contribs), which is indeed indefinitely blocked. ANI discussion may be of interest. Admins may want to browse the user's deleted talk page as well; especially of interest would be this edit (admins only), which was from May of this year and is an uppercase personal attack more than anything else. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this diff from the above IP is also of interest. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that adding "DO NOT BLOCK THIS USER" to one's User page does not apparently prevent admins from blocking one. Now, the IP's contribs are overwhelmingly to Indian related topics (with the notable exception of this rather scary item) but without access to deleted contribs I can't offer much more info. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose unblock, for the record. It was a good block at the time, and I don't see that anything has changed since then. -Hit bull, win steak 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose Nothing has changed since this ANI discussion. It is unlikely that the user, who claims he is of Indian background, has the name "Aryan," a word which doesn't exist in any Indian language; the Sanskrit word for "noble" is "Arya." Besides, even if his name is Aryan, he should find another user name, since "Aryan" offends many people. If my parents had made the mistake of christening me with one or all of the seven dirty words, it wouldn't give me the right to demand those usernames as an act of filial homage to parental stupidity. No reason why Wikipedians should be wasting their time on this tired nonsense. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 19:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tim Russert tributes

As you may have seen there is currently a huge argument going on at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tim Russert tributes - unsusprisingly I guess given the emotions likely to be engendered by the death of a popular figure. The one of interest to admins is going to be the final count. Currently the tally of votes stands at around 33% keep, 33% merge and 33% delete. How should a closing admin interpret this? I would count the merge votes as votes not to keep the article and turn it into a redirect. Any thoughts? DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

seems like a textbook illustration of no-consensus. DGG (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It's WP:NOT#MEMORIAL - as with anything that violates policy, it should be deleted, consensus or no.

Just say "NO" to WP:FUR 12:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up re Huggle

Gurch seems to have vanished, shutting down Huggle as his final act (, ). User:Atyndall has since reactivated Huggle, but without Gurch to keep an eye on it, users are already starting to make their own tweaks to the configuration. Be aware that unless/until Gurch comes back or someone else takes over the maintenance, it may get buggier & buggier. As a last resort, Huggle can be shut down by restoring this version and protecting the config page; unless we start getting problems, I don't propose doing this at this stage given the disruption it will cause to those who use it. – iridescent 18:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Erratic behavior. Enigma 18:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well per WP:BOLD, and to prevent possible disruptive Huggle changes, I went ahead and fully protected the config page. No prejudice against reverting if this level of protection is deemed unnecessary. —Travis 18:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think restricted established editors from editing the config page is a bit extreme, why not semi protect it instead? There's more chance of a new user or an IP from vandalising than an auto-confirmed member. We've never had problems before with the page being vandalised. ——Ryan | t • c 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Ryan. Semi would be good, not full. Enigma 18:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think gurch is gone for good, but he may not be able to edit much or at all for the next few months :( delldot talk 18:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Gurch isn't an admin, full protection will restrict him from editing it if/when he returns. I'd oppose full-protection for that reason, as long as someone's watching the page closely. – iridescent 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so maybe I overreacted. Back to semi, then. —Travis 18:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

As a general note to everyone who's followed the link here from WP:Huggle/Feedback, if I see any signs that Huggle's playing up I won't hesitate to shut it down despite the annoyance this will cause to its users, and would urge anyone else to do the same; as with bots, it works at such high speed (20+ edits per user per minute sometimes) that "shoot first and ask questions later" is IMO the appropriate action if it seems to be faulty. – iridescent 18:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I came here form the feed back page. The whole point of the config is so that the huggle users can edit it. Anything that they are not meant o be able to change is configured into the actual program. I will watch the config page until gurch gets back (if he comes back) and I will also log all things to be fixed onto a page so the feedback page doesn't become too backlogged. The config page is already semi protected and that should be enough. If anything is playing up with huggle then please add it to the feedback page. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Though WP:OWN applies to many pages it is ridiculous to start messing around with the page just because of Gurch's temporary leave of absence. Its a great tool that Gurch has provided and there's no need to fool around it. I do think the semi-protection is a bit unnecessary but hopefully it will help people understand that the config page shouldn't be tampered with.¤~Persian Poet Gal 19:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not commenting on the deeper issue, but semi-protection makes perfect sense; huggle users are approved for rollback (and therefore no doubt autoconfirmed) and able to edit semi-protected pages. –xenocidic (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi protection isn't really over the top. Following WP:BEANS (not saying what) but you can change one line and mess up one line in that config and suddenly everything goes wrong. People wouldn't notice straight away and then there would have to be one major cleanup from damage. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 19:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that someone (preferably an admin) should add a notedire warning on the page about exactly what will happen to you if you edit the page and accidentally cause other people to make errors in their reverting. J.delanoy_adds 19:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, if I see anyone deliberately disrupting it (as opposed to a well-intentioned but wrong "improvement"), they'll be explaining their actions via {{unblock}}. AGF is a core policy, but not when it means potentially disrupting thousands of mainspace pages. – iridescent 19:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI: The page was originally semi’d back in January. —Travis 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we're all overreacting. The page has never been vandalised in the history of it's existence. The only questionable edition was by User:Xp54321 and his edits were in good faith. ——Ryan | t • c 19:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding what I was saying above about adding a dire warning to the top of WP:Huggle/config, even if an edit was a good-faith attempt to try something, there is still an insane potential to mess up hundreds or even thousands of pages within a very short time. And it would be nearly impossible to fix all of the mistakes because they would be made by like 30 or 40 different establishd users and admins, so you couldn't just go through and rollback like you can with a spambot or a vandalbot.

Basically, what I'm saying is, we need to make sure that people know what the potential consequences of their actions could be, not only in the form of blocks/nudges/permanent blots on reputation, but also the tremendous and almost irrevocable damage that could be done to the entire project in a very short period of time. It's like allowing random people to mess around with the firing mechanism of a Teller-Ulam device sitting inside a tank of liquid deuterium and lithium 6. J.delanoy_adds 19:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest 20 edit per minute is pretty rare unless you are only taking a glance at each page and it is during a peak time. There are currently over 15 user huggleing on the english wikipedia and together they only made a total of 19 edits per miniute. Over time that is still quite big but if something went wrong with that it shouldn't take long to fix. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe add something saying "If you want to propose a change do so at on the feedback page" or something similar. Otherwise looks good. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 20:03, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I must be blind (maybe make that line a bit bigger? :D) ·Add§hore· /_Cont 20:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Change the line that reads "Vandalising or making test edits to this page could result in an immediate block." to "Vandalising or making test edits to this page WILL result in an immediate block."

I cannot imagine the amount of damage that could be done if someone made a very small change that went unnoticed for a while.

Also, shouldn't all the subpages of Template:Huggle be full-protected? None of them should ever need to be changed, and (WP:BEANS, so commented out) J.delanoy_adds 20:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the part about dogs and cats living together, and mass hysteria. Perhaps a little atom bomb symbol, instead of the red stop sign? Font needs to be bigger, in red, and more panicy (How do you spell panicy, anyway?). And more exclamation points, please (where, exactly, to put them can be at your discretion). And finally, of course, a note somewhere (Misplaced Pages:Village Pump/Vandal noticeboard perhaps?) to further advertize to vandals where they can cause the most damage. --barneca (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC) Comment was based on a template that has since been removed, and comment was snotty anyway, so stiking out. --barneca (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Dammit, just make Gurch an admin and full-protect the config page ;) J.delanoy_adds 20:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that I could get behind 100%. But it's been tried. :( --barneca (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what Gurch should do is move Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Config to User:Gurch/huggle_master.css and make Huggle look there for instructions. I've suggested that to him, but he either didn't read or didn't want to do that, for whatever reason. J.delanoy_adds 20:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the config being open to edit is so that people can edit it :D. Putting it on his user page .css would kind of stop that from happening. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 20:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the point now is, Huggle is an incredibly fast and widespread tool. Vandalism to the config page has enormous potential to almost irreparably damage Misplaced Pages. I do not think that just anyone should be allowed to play around with it like that. Allowing only Gurch and admins to change the configuration page is a the only viable solution, IMO. J.delanoy_adds 20:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not just anyone should be allowed to edit it but restricting it so only gurch and adims can edit it is, in my opinion, a bit too protective. Also to change the location of the page at this stage would mean a re release of the current version of huggle and also making all previous versions useless. Also this would be a global change for all for the wikis that huggle is used on (commons,meta,bg e.t.c) meaning the inactive gurch would have to create an account on each of these wikis for the .css user page to be viable. I think thats about all I wanted to say. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 20:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Er... we all have an account on each of thise wikis. – iridescent 21:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppsy, didn't notice he had a SUL. Well this would make things a bit easier if that is the way that we want to go. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 21:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, though, that the config page is good just semi'd. If there are changes that shouldn't be made by people other than gurch, he can hard code them in. If it ever becomes a problem, we can deal with it, but I don't think it is now. delldot talk 21:28, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I could probably throw together a bot that would revert edits to the page by non-rollbackers (or non-admins other than Gurch, or whatever) Standard procedure is it'd need Bot group approval though. Pseudomonas_(talk) 21:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That in my opinion would probably be a good idea if not the best idea. (I was acctually thinking of proposing this a bit earlier) ·Add§hore· /_Cont 21:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Per conversation with gurch he will not be coming back to wikipedia. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's unfortunate, did he tell you why? Or is it personal? ——Ryan | t • c 22:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope he didn't tell me why but knowing him I respect his decision. I will try to keep ontop of keeping huggle up to date. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 22:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

With Gurch gone apparently forever, we should have another .NET programmer take over maintenance, the source code is up for grabs, there's a link at WP:HUGGLE (for convenience, it's ). Someone has to take over maintenance and construction, a quick look at the WP:Huggle/Feedback page shows quite a few outstanding program bugs and requested features. Anyone volunteer? Calvin 1998  23:19, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bot policy is to unflag a bot if its operator/owner leaves the project (even temporarily). Considering the power of huggle, it should be disabled until Gurch returns, or someone agrees to take his place. giggy _(:O) 23:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I think it should be shut down until either Gurch returns or someone volunteers to continue the project. One of Gurch's last edits was to deactive Huggle so I think we should keep it that way. I'm going to be bold and at the same time, peeve off many members. ——Ryan | t • c 23:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Much as it will annoy everyone, I agree with Ryan. – iridescent 23:35, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily disabled

In light of the above, I've temporarily protected the config page in the "disabled" state. Once this is resolved, anyone feel free to unprotect if that's the consensus. – iridescent 23:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I will develop huggle further. I am in the process of learning .net and have already had the huggle source for quite some time. I have already fixed a few of the bugs in the current version and hope to release a newer version soon. Gurchs version "0.7.11" had many bugs and he didnt give it to me so "0.7.10" is acctually the most up to date version currently. Anyway I cant say I will be as good as gurch was but I am willing to try to fill his pace. (dam edit conflicts)·Add§hore· /_Cont 23:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally would feel more comfortable with someone already proficient in .NET taking it up. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Same with everyone else, quite obviously, hence my comment above. There's a more or less list here (all the people with the ".NET programmer userbox"). Crude and incomplete, but if someone can find a trusted user in there... I personally didn't find one within the first 150 transclusions. Calvin 1998  23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Here's the disabling. I don't think it should be reversed until someone is willing to do everything Gurch did - bug fixing, dealing with user problems, development, etc. etc. giggy _(:O) 23:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well if anyone else does come out for this then please ask me for the latest source (I see where you are comming from giggy) I would be willing to "try" to develop and fix bugs(I have done 3 already) and have always dealt with user problems on the feedback page but really there is probably someone better suited to it than me ^^. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 23:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Also just a small point but on the config page "enable-all:false" should work :> ·Add§hore· /_Cont 23:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Giggy. Check my talk archives; during May-June I was reporting bugs to Gurch virtually every day. Remember, unblocked & malfunctioning Huggle will leave a string of blocked users, users stripped of rollback rights etc; when you do reactivate it, make sure you get it right! – iridescent 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I think disabling it entirely is too extreme at this point, especially given how useful the software is. If there are concerns about how to proceed, why not just acivate the "admin-only" option ("require-admin")? That way, we don't lose a powerful tool in vandal-fighting. --Ckatz_spy 23:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree thinking about it as having it enabled without gurch here isn't acctually going to make much of a difference compared with if he was here. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 23:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Huggle should remain deactivated entirely until someone experienced enough can maintain it. Even if you limit it to just sysops, if it were to malfunction, who would be skilled enough to rectify it? With the power of huggle and it's already dented reputation here on the project, we'd be crazy to continue using is unmanned ——Ryan | t • c 23:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't meant to sound flippant, but are there actually any admins who use Huggle? Aside from (occasionally) Persian Poet Gal, and a few edits from myself when I was testing the software, I don't think I've ever noticed a huggle-edit in Recent Changes from any admin. – iridescent 23:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Epbr123 does (did?). giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course you haven't. Huggle gains you adminship. You don't use it after adminship. Okay, that's all from me. Going away now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with disabling of huggle at least till we get word from Gurch or we find someone who can maintain huggle. I'd wait a few weeks to a couple of months.--Xp54321 00:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the use by admins, I've certainly found it very useful for late-night vandalism cleanup. --Ckatz_spy 00:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We could always protect Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Users and use it as an approval list for now. This way all users already on the list or who have already used huggle can use huggle and continue fighting vandalism but no new users (maybe users that will make mistakes) can use the program? What do you guys think? ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Good idea but still there's the chance of a bug.(Like the one I encountered that got me a 15-min block) and without Gurch we'd be in much trouble.--Xp54321 00:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ye, Xp is correct. No re-enabling. Use Twinkle. giggy _(:O) 00:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If there is a bug then report it, To be honest I don't think there can be any more bugs in this version that have not been found as it has been out for months with no new versions released. Just wondering Xp54321 which bug is this? If there is a bug that got you blocked for this long and it was a serious bug with huggle then please post it at Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Feedback and then yes if it is serious I see a reason for huggle to be disabled for now. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why would we disable it? It is a stable tool, working properly, not causing any problems. Seems silly to turn it off, all the edits made by it are the responsibility of the editors, not gurch's, so it is nothing like a bot owner being away situation. I recommend it be re-enabled immediately. So, I am going to reenable it, WP:IAR (this will unarguably improve the wiki) until some sort of consensus is formed here. Prodego 00:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It was a bug in a previous version. He had his Huggle rights revoked yet was somehow still able to access the program. If a verified user list were to be agreed via consensus then I think the current user list should be scrapped at least down to the core users and then only accept trusted, well established users until we can 'acquire' a maintainer. I do agree, most bugs are ironed out now but would we be willing to take that risk? I think Misplaced Pages will suffer without huggle, it filters vandalism a lot more efficiently than Lupin's anti vandal tool ——Ryan | t • c 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with user list option.--Xp54321 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I also agree but stripping down off the huggle user list? Maybe just taking off the last weeks additions to the list? ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, It's not like I have a huge problem with it even if there are errors, except for the times that is freezes when I close it out, other than that it is a perfectly fine tool and like they said, the page has never been vandalised in it's entire existance, why move to protect it now that Gurch is gone? It's not like he spent 24/7 on Misplaced Pages when it was running in the first place, just my opinion but I really do think you should turn in on temporarily so we can continuing reverts on vandal edits and see how it goes from there becuase now I have to use VandalProof, a program I am not use to AT ALL, to start my reverts. Notify us if anything changes in the situtation please! --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I'm just wary about continuing the use of a very powerful program without it's maintainer around. Therefore to limit potential abusers, if we were to activate it again, the user list should be limited. There are so many users listed here ——Ryan | t • c 00:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's got to be someone out of the millions of editors on Misplaced Pages that can run it. If nothing else, why not just e-mail Gurch and see if he'll fix any problems that come up? I strongly suggest Huggle be reactivated, as Huggle was the most efficient and accurite tool for vandal fighting. IMO, Misplaced Pages relied on Huggle, and will never be the same without it. Juliancolton 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You only have to have used huggle once to have your name there thats why there are so many. I dont see how allowing all in that list to have access would be a problem.. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we keep it enabled unless there's a problem that Addshore can't handle? No reason to assume there's going to be a problem until there is one. If a user on that list creates a problem, we can deal with them individually. Nothing about gurch's presence made people not abuse huggle. delldot talk 00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(5xEC) The list needs cleaning out anyway, why not now? Calvin 1998  00:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec x a million) Addshore, for the exact reason outlined above. No offence Xp54321 but I'm using you as an example. He had his rights revoked, he was still able to edit. I bet there would be many other users who'd be willing to exploit a bug to harm the project and like I said, if there's no maintainer to fix these bugs then Huggle's reputation goes downhill even more. ——Ryan | t • c 00:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321's bug was in a version of huggle that was allot older. This version should be virtually stable other than the few bugs which have been pointed out on the feed back page (none of which can get your rights removed) the majority of bugs are just huggle crashing freezing with unhandeled exceptions. Yes there could be users willing to exploit bugs but they would need to have rollback :S. And iff rollback got given to someone that would exploit bugs (i know it has bene but hey) i would start to wonder why. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not just let whitelisted Huggle users just use it? I mean whitelisted users are really the ones who are trusted in the first place, right? I don't see the big deal if everyone is worried about people who will abuse the program. --♣ẼгíćЏ89♣ (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no, any user with 500+ edits is auto-whitelisted. Calvin 1998  00:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean the userlist not the whitelist. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

But the userlist also contains users who don't have rollback. Remember, the program automatically adds you to the user list and the rollback requirement was a recent addition. So think of how many NEW members are on that list. Another reason to strip it down ——Ryan | t • c 00:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes but the program currently is only enabled for those with rollback per a config setting. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

We're not referring to that - we mean that the list has far too many people that either can't or don't use huggle. Calvin 1998  00:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I see that huggle has been enabled again regardless of all the security concerns and whatever else we've been discussing the past few hours...so this is all irrelevant ——Ryan | t • c 00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enabled until consensus is reached here, which it hasn't. Calvin 1998  00:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

While I am glad that it has been enabled, the past discussion is not irrelevent, as it has been enabled until consensus to disable it. Juliancolton 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Was consensus ever reached for the disabling of huggle in the first place? I can now just see us tied in knots :D ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not put someone in charge until (if ever) Gurch returns, Addshore isn't a bad idea, and chop the approval list smaller to make this transitional phase simpler? Useight (talk) 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll has expressed interest in maintaining Huggle (along with AddShore?). This solves the no maintainer problem. Calvin 1998  00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I support re-enabling the tool. Huggle already carries a responsibility waiver, and for people like me whose connections crash and burn on Twinkle... Sceptre 00:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of all the people who abuse/misuse Huggle, there are plenty of people who are capable of controlling and properly using Huggle's power, in spite of all its problems/bugs. Is it right to take away this tool from people who have done nothing wrong simply because some people are not capable of controlling Huggle?

Also, with regards to Giggy's comment above about bots, Huggle is decidedly not a bot. The problem lies not in the tool but in the users who do not know how to control it. I have used Huggle since version 0.6.1 (in February) and I can attest that if a user really knows what they are doing, there is nothing (within reason, deliberate errors in programming don't count) that software can do to to make them make mistakes. Unfortunately, the converse is also true.

What Huggle needs is an approval list similar to VandalProof's. Since Fritzpoll is an admin, he should blank WP:HUGGLE/users, full-protect it, and force Huggle to ensure that a user is on the list before they can use the tool. That would keep out all the riffraff. J.delanoy_adds 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always use the built in config settings. User must:

• Have an account X days old
• Have a rollback account
• Have over 1000 edits

meaning as soon as a user is over these he can run huggle be automaticly added to the list and not have to waste admins time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addshore (talk • contribs)

Nope, the features don't work, unless you fixed them? Calvin 1998  01:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Nobody knew that they didnt work to know to try to fix them :> I will add this to the list of TO FIX :D ·Add§hore· /_Cont 01:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support a manually-managed fully-protected whitelist for the moment (pending consensus on other eligibility criteria), assuming we have an admin prepared to do the additions, and someone who wants to take responsibility for making the decisions. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I too would support an approval list per what Pseudomonas said ——Ryan | t • c 09:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there's enough vandalism these days to justify keeping things going. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and while I'm opining, if the config page can be fully-protected that'd make me feel more comfortable. Pseudomonas_(talk) 09:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Well, if that works, cool. Would be much easier that an approval list. Or, if you want, I could be an "approval" person, if you went the route I suggested. I have been using Huggle since vs. 0.6.1, nearly four months. In the last 10000 reverts made, I have less than five nudges, as far as I can remember. (that last part was my resumé, hope you enjoyed it :P ) J.delanoy_adds 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling we won't be needing that, since we have found a suitable replacement for Gurch (Fritzpoll, see below), which should nullify all arguments (unless I missed something?). Calvin 1998  01:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the random babbling... it's 21:34 where I live, and I got less than 3 hours of sleep last night, (A/C on the blink....) and my BCL (blood caffeine level) is dropping... See you guys tomorrow! J.delanoy_adds 01:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion continued two sections below. Calvin 1998  19:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm...I may regret this

If you still need/want someone, I happen to be a "proficient .NET programmer", who has a passing interest in programming for Misplaced Pages. I'll offer my services if people want a maintenance man like me. Just let me know Fritzpoll (talk) 00:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritzpoll yay! Well I think this is good. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You're just the person we were looking for... Calvin 1998  00:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're sure you want to put up with all the hassle... J.delanoy_adds 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

*huggles Juliancolton 00:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If fritz can fix the bugs and acctually do the code i'm sure I can cope with sorting out the feedback page, changelog e.t.c to take some of the work away from you :>·Add§hore· /_Cont 00:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It can't be worse than navigating the minefield that was getting FritzpollBot approved, can it? Off to bed - I'll wait until I get online tomorrow for anyone to object, then I'll check over the source code and get familiar with it. As GEOBOT is still warming up, this will not be a distraction (before Blofeld gets worried) Fritzpoll (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well given what this discussion has already gone through I don't know why anyone would want to say no to you :D. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I for one have no objections to Fritz taking over huggle, though I am sorry to learn that gurch has left wikipedia. (I've been working on a program to help the simple english wikipedia, so I've been away for a while...) Thingg 01:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

YAY!!!Huggle will be okay!!!Thank you Fritz!!!--Xp54321 01:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fritz, I chatted with Gurch before about possibly hosting Huggle on SourceForge. He never objected to doing so, and showed some interest in it, but the idea just fell through the cracks after no more action was taken on it. Perhaps now would be a good idea to do that? Gary King (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle is on SourceForge already :) (and the source, too) Calvin 1998  03:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The URL being http://eocp.sourceforge.net/huggle/0710.zip for the current Huggle version - by the way, Fritz should know that and keep it that way (and making sure to update the current source code, etc.), and it's hosted by Atyndall. But all that will come after he accepts the position. Calvin 1998  03:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not a public project there; you don't see it when you do a search. Gary King (talk) 03:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

← True. Perhaps talk to Atyndall? Calvin 1998  03:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just hosting huggle on another sf.net project's webspace but I have now applied for an actual project for huggle (It's under the unix name gurch because 1. It honors is original creator, how may have now moved on from the project and 2. For some reason the unix name huggle doesn't work). The site says it could take 1-3 days, once that is done I'll upload the source code and files. Anyone who wants to have developer status to the project should sign up for a sourceforge account then email me and I will add the permissions required. I'll also put the Huggle source code into SVN.  Atyndall93 | talk  08:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Atyndall93 i am currently the only person with the most up to date source so send me an email or something hen you need it. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 22:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Just regarding the svn I can really see huggle getting in a big mess if we try to put it on the svn. there are many files (about 440) and frm's e.t.c. I think it might just be better if we stick to one main dev and if that dev cant fix something then they pass it onto the next person. Fritzpoll has now been given the most recent version of the code and has started trying to fix more bugs. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 19:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mellie/Gurch

• Didn't know where to mention this, but I could probably get Mellie to talk to Gurch. she can be very persuasive. Steve Crossin (contact) 11:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed Steve's comment above. This may prove useful. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Well, here's the thing. I know her better than anyone, and I know that Mel and Matt are good friends. Mel's a very persuasive girl, and I'm sure she could convince him to come back. I'll ask her to make a cmt here though. Anyway, what do people think of this? Steve Crossin (contact) 13:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Let him be - he's obviously extremely stressed out and doesn't want to be part of the project at the minute. We should respect this and he'll come back in his own time. It looks like we've found someone to help out with Huggle, and he can obviously resume that himself when he's back. Let the guy sort his issues out himself. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Well said Ryan, I agree. I'm pretty sure gurch is going to come back when he's ready. delldot talk 13:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• There's a difference between persuasive and forceful/coercive, but, we will let this one rest. Let him come back when, and if, he's ready. Steve Crossin (contact) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I think he should be left. I only managed to talk to him for around 30 mins and his last message to me went along the lines of leave me alone. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 14:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, leave Gurch alone... (and as a matter of fact, huggle is doing quite well w/out him...) Calvin 1998  19:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well he did make the latest version all I did was compile it, sort out the pages, downloads e.t.c but I agree gurch should be left alone, if he wants to come back he will. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 22:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protection?

Now that it's been re-enabled, can it be semi-protected instead of full? Enigma 17:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was only full-protected to prevent anyone re-enabling it, and keeping it full to prevent vandalism violates the protection policy... Calvin 1998  19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It was declined hours ago ——Ryan • (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

After some discussion, as I said at RFUP, some people may disagree with the full protection. I've found out that some people do agree with it though. Thoughts are welcome here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I commented there - my message was: Fritzpoll is an admin, if/when he takes over AddShore as the main developer, he'll be able to edit the config. Calvin 1998  20:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The page should stay protected - Fritzpoll is an admin. If it's over his head he can disable huggle; the wiki won't end. giggy _(:O) 23:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. No one saw fit to protect it ever (since one time in January) until iridescent wanted to disable it. Now it needs full protection forever and ever? What happened to protection not being preemptive? The page has never been vandalized. Plus, if you're protecting the page, why not protect the whitelist, too? That even more than the config page shouldn't be edited. Finally, iridescent even said it was temporary. " * 19:38, June 23, 2008 Iridescent (Talk | contribs) changed protection level for "Misplaced Pages:Huggle/Config" ‎ (Temporarily protected pending resolution of this discussion )" I don't see how this indefinite full protection makes sense at all. Enigma 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify since I see this generating more flames on my talkpage; at no point have I ever disabled Huggle. I protected the config page (which was initially protected by TravisTX), for a very short time until it was decided whether to leave it running. At no point have I ever changed the configuration in any way. – iridescent 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(To Enigma) The configuration page has had a lot more attention as a result of being linked off AN and it will undoubtedly have caught the attention of vandals, seen as some people went into a lot of detail above about how destructive a tool like that could be if the configuration was messed with. It's now become a higher risk page where it wasn't before. Seraphim♥Whipp 08:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Just like to throw this into the discussion. At this point in time admins should / would not make any helpful contributions to that page because they don't know what to do e.t.c. The only things admins would do is to disable it. The users that want / need to change the page are generally non admins and now have to work through admins wasting admins time and it just a bit peculiar. ·Add§hore· /_Cont 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if it were to have it's semi restored then that would stamp out the possibility of anonymous and new users from vandalising. These two groups of people are more likely to vandalise the page than established auto-confirmed users. ——Ryan • (talk) 11:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider me in

Fine - no objections in the past 48 - I'll start looking at this tonight and tomorrow and along with AddShore, I will start looking at bugfixes. If I can get stuff uploaded to the SF page, I will, but I've never done that before! Cheers, Fritzpoll (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Good i agree we defiantly need you :> I have already used the extent of my knowledge fixing one bug :D ·Add§hore· /_Cont 17:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to make one think clear from the outset about my volunteering here for this: I see this as purely the role of a "caretaker". Huggle is considered to be very useful by the community, and clearly needs maintaining/updating and I am willing to do this. If and when Gurch returns, I will not hesitate in returning this job to him upon request. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Baseodeux

Baseodeux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is deleting quoted informations in the article Central Europe. He's also ignoring this consensus. --Olahus (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe try discussing with user on their talk page? If that doesn't work, an RfC may be in order. Juliancolton 00:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Splitting up AN/ANI

There is a discussion on Misplaced Pages talk:Administrators' noticeboard regarding the possibility of doing away with AN and ANI, by splitting their purposes into other existing noticeboards. More eyes appreciated. - auburnpilot talk 21:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, AuburnPilot, for making a redundant post below, but it's also worth saying that I am not advocating any change to ANI. — Dan | talk 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe double posts will double the visibility... - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it turns out I may have to advocate changes to AN/I after all. I was hoping not to have to start there, but it looks like many people don't see AN as especially problematic. — Dan | talk 23:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User talk:193.40.12.39

Hi, this IP has a long history of messing around with Michael Jackson albums, discographies, templates. I have been reverting him for ages, never paying much attention to the fact that it was the same editor all this time. I just checked his edit history of recent edits, they are almost all to various MJ articles and all of them are incorrect. One particular edit was of some irritation. With some sarcasm he edited the article to call Thriller 25 a re-re release. He also removed HIStory as a studio album from the Michael Jackson template. It is a studio album. He has had multiple warnings and isn't in the least bit helpful. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Shall I take this to a different noticeboard then? — Realist (Who's Bad?) 06:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, is anyone home? This IP has now declared that an article belongs to him , can someone please do something. Has everyone gone out for a party and forgot to invite me. :-) — Realist (Who's Bad?) 08:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Rod. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

using image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg for circumcision

hi there, i'm requesting the use of image:Human_penis_flaccid_and_erect.jpg for an article on circumcision. I do not know why this image is "protected" whereas the other penis pictures on the page, such as image:Flaccid-erect.jpg are not. Requesting to either "unprotect" the image or allow it to be used in the circumcision article. Revasser (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. You are free to add the image to the article now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because that one has been used for image vandalism and the others haven't. Hut 8.5 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:R._Baley and User:Raul654

I wish to get some relief from what I consider to be abuse of administrative privileges by User:R._Baley, and recently User:Raul654.

The relevant discussion threads on the user talk pages can be found at:

• User_talk:GoRight#POV_pushing_and_BLP_vio
• User_talk:GoRight#Solomon.27s_article_on_the_Singer_article
• User_talk:R._Baley#Mr._Connolley.27s_Bio
• User_talk:R._Baley#William_M._Gray_bio

The interaction with User:R._Baley began with my addition of properly sourced criticism to William M. Connolley's BLP. User User:R._Baley has basically told me that I am not allowed to add any criticism of Mr Connolley to his page regardless of the quality of the sources or the validity of the criticism, lest he block me forthwith. Personally I find such a stance to be outside the norms of behavior on Misplaced Pages, but never the less I have respected his demand.

Today I added a properly sourced section to Fred Singer's BLP which discusses the on-going smears that occur there as discussed by a published author on global warming deniers, Lawrence Solomon, who knows Fred Singer personally. User:Raul654 objects to my addition but given that it is properly sourced, that my edit accurately reflects the content of the article, and that the position expressed is obviously relevant to the Fred Singer BLP. Whitewashing this content is inappropriate given that it addresses concerns regarding the accuracy of the content on his BLP.

Note that User:R._Baley has now threatened to block me if I write anything that even mentions Mr. Connolley anywhere on the site, again presumably regardless of the validity and appropriateness of the information presented.

I would ask that these individuals be instructed to cease and desist in their stalking of me and the continual reverse of my properly sourced contributions. --GoRight (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with other editors, that is exactly what WP:Dispute resolution is for, not this page. (mutters about instructions and bold text). Calvin 1998  04:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna agree with Calvin, this really isn't going to be solved here, if you wish to pursue the article content discussion, I suggest WP:BLPN, if you take issue with the admin actions (of which I don't see any, yet), I suggest Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges or it there is a critical time nature to it, WP:ARBCOM. MBisanz 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I will take the content issue to WP:BLPN as you suggest. As for the use of admin privileges I seem to be in a catch 22. If I add the content and he blocks me what am I to do? You seem to be saying that I have to let him abuse his privileges, as he clearly indicates he will, before I can complain.  :( Anyway, I appreciate your support. --GoRight (talk) 04:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't need to wait for them to block, I'd get other people involved in the content issue before editing the article again, maybe requesting a comment on the article content at Misplaced Pages:RFC#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_templates.2C_or_categories would get more eyes on the issue. MBisanz 04:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I checked these links and see no such abuse as alleged. Proceed with dispute resolution by asking others to take a look. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

GoRight, for what it's worth, and I myself have taken Connolley to task on one or more things in the distant past, your edit to his bio was POV. If you'd like to discuss it further, I'm willing to do so in another forum. On another note, the New Yorker article you were referencing is a famous article in Misplaced Pages history because of the (mis)information it contains regarding Essjay . Cla68 (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both for you input and consideration. --GoRight (talk) 06:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Accmailtext update

Could someone update MediaWiki:Accmailtext to reflect that it is not necessarily the user creating the account who is the owner of the created account. -Icewedge (talk) 08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing...

could someone act upon my request at User_talk:Luna_Santin#Request_block_extension, I was unable to catch her before she quit for the night. -Icewedge (talk) 09:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, Luna is male. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Leftover Grawp article

In keeping consistent with this idiot's MO, a now-blocked sock created a seemingly legit but nearly contentless article about the Cambodian town of Amleang. He sometimes starts out with a legit edit or two so as not to attract attention and then boom! On comes the usual garbage. Any way of finding out who his IP is so they can shut him down? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Towns are notable - removed the speedy tagging. giggy _(:O) 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

... only to have it deleted by Bongwarrior regardless. Sigh. giggy _(:O) 09:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned users can't edit. I had already deleted it before I noticed the tag was removed, so apologies for that. Still, I think we can wait for a real user to create this article at some point. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Got it. El_C 09:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Candy bar cakes

This would appear to be a recreation of the PAMCAKES article which was salted by an administrator. The article creator seems to be trying to circumvent the restriction, despite having had multiple warnings about advertising. I don't know if this counts as something to be taken to AIV (as I suspect the user isn't online now), or whether it can be dealt with by other means. CultureDrone (talk) 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And as a follow-up question, on AIV where it says the user must be online now - does that literally mean right at this moment, or 'within the last few hours' ? CultureDrone (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Classifying this as vandalism would be a stretch, but I deleted the article as a reasonable G11 (as tagged). — xDanielx /_C\ 11:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Barnstar

On User talk:Jeanne boleyn a barnstar of "Racial Purity" . Content of user's page suggests to me that user may not be aware of the implications. Ning-ning (talk) 10:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

From some of her contributions, I'd say she is very well aware of the connotations. The Barnstar should go.DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP is absolutely aware per its contribs. Removed. giggy _(:O) 10:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I saw this on her userpage. My politics are far- right; I'm a Monarchist, I believe in God, and I despise the current PC mentality. Clearly she didnt care about the connotation. This should probably be monitered. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This less than civil "editor" just left this message on my talk page. Could an admin resolve it. .— Realist (Who's Bad?) 06:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given the editor the standard "free speech does not apply on Misplaced Pages" speech. hbdragon88 (talk) 06:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, I was concerned about this comment; I have the right to detest the PC mentality, which is rearing it's hideously ugly head right at this moment and breathing it's foul, rancid , stifling breath into my face and trying to strangle all individuality and freedom of thought. Which is a person attack against myself. Seriously is my breath that bad? — Realist (Who's Bad?) 06:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now she has reported me to another admin seen here. Please this is a little silly. — Realist (Who's Bad?) 07:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I really don't see that as a personal attack. It seems to me to be an attack on the general movement of the PC culture, not on you. You are reading too much into that, as you are to the Pigman thread. They are entitled to be riled somewhat, as are you. Just let it go now I think, move on, if they act in a racist manner in the future, then they will be blocked. Woody (talk) 08:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say diffs like this suggest to me that the editor should be very closely monitored for both racism and personal attacks. She has apologized to the target of that attack, but still I feel that she should be watched. DuncanHill (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Hill, I should inform you that I am married to an Italian, two of my children are Italian citizens as well as half Italian by blood. In fact, my 17 year old Italian son is beside me now. I have seen hateful remarks directed at the British, the Irish, Americans,Jews, etc. I have never used an ethnic or racist slur. I always profusely apologise when I let my impulsive temper get out of hand. Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own. I have the right to my opinions as you do your own. Monitor me if you wish-it's your right to do so as it's my right to protest this bullying.jeanne (talk) 12:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't give a damn if you are a woman or a man, if you make offensive racist comments such as the one I linked above, or say that you appreciate a "barnstar of racial purity" then I will call you on it. Profuse apologies are all very well - but to complain when an editor rightly removes racist material from a talk-page is to me very suggestive of your underlying attitude. DuncanHill (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way - thanks for calling me young - I don't get that much nowadays! DuncanHill (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"Might I suggest that you men resent a female who has strong opinions of her own? I'm sorry but I feel ganged up on by a group of young men because I'm a woman whose political views do not coincide with your own" - oh come on now, you surely realise that you're skating on thin ice. Appart from all else, everyone knows that internet users are unisexual, as it's very rare that a user goes their whole life without being mistaken for the opposite gender ;). Now, in case you're being serious, I can assure you that anything going on here has nothing to do with anyone's gender, just as it has nothing to do with anyone's race, religeous belief, political views etc. _TalkIslander 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As a lurker on the AN page, I think I can safely say that sexism is not an issue, since gender is mostly not evident in a username. Some of the most revered members on Misplaced Pages are women. I think people are taken back by your opinions, as you stated on your user page that you are prone to expressing them as you wish. --Moni3 (talk) 12:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The most ironic part of this controversy is that there is no such thing as an "Irish race" or an "Italian race." There are no human races. The only way such people differ is in culture. Even people from lands as distant as Africa are almost identical genetically to people from Ireland. Humans are far more similar to each other genetically than other animals. What a idiotic barnstar! And her comment that somehow an Italian should feel guilty for the actions of his ancestors is also ridiculous and offensive. Even though I am also of "Celtic" ancestry I find such chauvinism deeply offensive to my humanity. No one, regardless of their surname, deserves to be addressed in such a manner.--Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 13:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Very well put, Hello I'm New Here. DuncanHill (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Duncan. :) --Hello. I'm new here, but I'm sure I can help out. (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as there's no such thing as race, how can I be called a racist? You just walked into that one with your eyes wide open. Also, I AM MARRIED TO AN ITALIAN, TWO OF MY CHILDREN ARE ITALIAN, I DID NOT PUT THE CELTIC CROSS ON MY TALK PAGE I AM NOT A RACIST. Now can we call an end to this pathetic farce of an Inquisition?!!It really has become, like, totally BORING, so if you'll excuse me I'd like to take a jaunt over to YouTube and have a wee listen to The Undertones, Cockney Rebel and Lene Lovich, so I can really be entertained. CIAO.jeanne (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not a racist, yet you express appreciation of a "barnstar of racial purity". You are not a racist, yet you only want to see "Irish faces" when in Dublin. You are not a racist, yet you base an apology on an editors "Celtic blood". Bollocks. DuncanHill (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Beware of new Grawp tricks

Grawp's most common IP range is under a hard block. He has figured out a new trick to get the block modified so he can vandalize.

He makes rapid vandal edits to the IP talk page (which is the only page he can edit while hard blocked, ). Some unsuspecting admin blocks the IP for "vandalism" anon-only and ACB. However, single IP blocks override hard blocks, so this now allows him to edit from that IP using previously registered sleeper accounts.

When dealing with IP vandalism from the Grawp range (mostly 71.107.x.x and 71.108.x.x) check for rangeblocks first using the rangeblock finder on the IP talk page, and then protect the IP user and talk page if necessary, or hard-block the IP, but do not soft-block the IP. Thatcher 11:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Enlightening. Thanks. Rudget (logs) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not fix it so a single block doesn't override the rangeblock? Jtrainor (talk) 14:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Jtrainor. Isn't this a bug that should be fixed? Or has it already been filed at Bugzilla? hbdragon88 (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I think that's deliberate, so that if there's a "good" IP caught in a rangeblock, it can be unblocked. What we should do is have a bot or someone with AWB drop a note on all the talk pages there, with a summary of Grawp's new trick. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: what about an option in the block form that disables the ability to unblock an individual IP when setting a rangeblock? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 19:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That bot/AWB idea of Nwwaew's is a good one. It should be on the userpage, though, not the talk page (or both), as I would imagine the first thing that would go woul dbe that notice. Neıl 龱 19:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Would it be simpler to include Grawp's ip range as part of the "sensitive ip addresses" notice on the block form page, with a note to hard block ip's rather than soft block. I admit I don't pay as much attention as I did to that template, but it would be of assistance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, other vandals are also creating sock accounts for Grawp. I caught JtV doing it yesterday. If certain vandals persist in that and wish to make a career of it, they also risk rangeblocks (yeah, even on telecomitalia.it) - Alison 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I ran into that yesterday and wondered what was up with that. I protected the page, but didn't issue a block. Another admin did. Anyways, it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP. The rangeblock finder is easy enough to use, but it's yet another step that I would have to remember to use. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Seconding and emphasizing the above comment, “…it would be nice if the block screen would give a warning that a range block is in effect for a particular IP.” —Travis 20:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thirding. Has anyone proposed that anywhere? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened bugzilla:14634 requesting currently active range blocks be listed on Special:BlockIP, all inerested parties should feel free to add appropriate comments. The ball is now in the developer's court to determine if it is practical to add this enhancement. --Allen3  21:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... you guys should know about 76.172.178.99 which was editing mainspace freely without receiving any prior block to mine, I don't think that this one was using that particular trick. - Caribbean~H.Q. 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that's Grawp. Enigma 06:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Doppelgängers aren't of much help either, but I don't think that by a matter of chance this user appeared today a few hours after a series of Grawp moves. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, that's pretty clever. Sad that someone wastes what is probably a gifted mind on vandalizing Misplaced Pages. After looking again at the conversation above, I agree that the block page should prompt somehow or have a notice that the IP is already blocked via rangeblock. That would effectively solve the problem, as I doubt admins would block anon only if it's already part of a hard rangeblock. Enigma 06:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Empty talk pages and speedy deletion

I nominated at about 50 talk pages for speedy deletion under {{db-blanktalk}}. The were talk pages of redirects with trivial edit history (only the addition of a project banner which doesn't apply since the main article is a redirect). See for example here.

Anthony.bradbury, an administrator, reverted all the tags and moreover, it started removing all the removal of the project tags. See here.

The same user claims in my talk page that "blank article talkpage is not, repeat not subject to deletion". Who is right in this case? Me or Anthony.bradbury? Can I tag empty talk pages of redirects with trivial edit history for deletion or not? Can I remove the project banners from redirects or not?

Comment: I was tagging until 11:26, the administrator wrote me a message at 11:28 and I immediately stopped tagging. I took 2 more messages after that where the second one says "let me put it this way. If you do not stop tagging empty talk pages for speedy deletion you will become a possible candidate for blocking". -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Notified Anthony.bradbury of thread. –xenocidic (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• If an article is redirected then the talk page should either be redirected (if there's been previous discussion on the page), or deleted. I'm not sure it matters too much, but either way - there's no need to keep blank talk pages hanging around for redirects. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
• I agree that deletion or redirection is more appropriate than a project tag for a redirect page. –xenocidic (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• My reasoning for deletion or redirect is as follows: a project tag on the talk page of a redirect will artifically inflate the number of articles under the project's care. Since these talk pages have virtually no history except for the project tag, they should qualify as a "non-controversial deletion". While a redirect would also be appropriate, I don't think it's particularly necessary. –xenocidic (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Yup, the project tag should be on the target talk page so it doesn't need to be on the redirect. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Copying from Paul Barlow talk page:

Db-talk reads: "This page may meet Misplaced Pages’s criteria for speedy deletion, as a talk page of a page which does not exist, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion."

Db-blanktalk reads:"This page may meet Misplaced Pages’s criteria for speedy deletion because it is a blank talk page with no substantial edit history."

In the second one it doesn't say anything about article that doesn't exist. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the wording on the template is irrelevant. It is the wording of the criteria that matter. Please read the actual Criteria for speedy deletion Paul B (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Blanktalk is under G6 and not G8! Read it more carefully. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

--

Comment: Please note that Anthony.bradbury wrote to to "go to WP:DRV if you feel that you have been seriously disadvantaged". But the DRV is for the case of deleted articles and not for the case of declined speedy deletion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could always take them as a group to MfD? Ryan Postlethwaite 13:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it clear that G8 applies to these cases? Moreover, was the admin wrong to revert not only my tagging but my blanking as well? -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on your definition of "article". If a redirect is not considered an article, then G8 applies. –xenocidic (talk) 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This type of thing has annoyed me for a long time. If there is no history worth saving on any page, especially talk pages, why not just delete them? It's not like they can't be created again if there is a legitimate concern. J.delanoy_adds 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-adding the project banners is incredibly silly to me, as all that accomplishes is to clutter the related category pages. If deleting such talk pages is not to happen, then either leave them blank, or redirect them to the talk page of the redirect's target. If talk pages of redirects aren't supposed to be deleted, even if there is no useful history required for GFDL purposes, then {{db-blanktalk}} should be TfDed. Resolute 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, for before. G8 applies if you consider that redirects are not articles. But G6 (blanktalk) applies in our case. I started a discussion in Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Empty talk pages and speedy deletion as well. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You could also go to MfD, get them all deleted, and then use that as an argument that there is consensus to consider this to be under G6 --Enric Naval (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Some admins already have deleted some articles under G6 and/or under "Orphaned redirect talk page". Moreover, I nominated many articles in Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Empty talk pages of redirects. I think the problem was cause because some admins are unfamiliar with G6/blanktalk. -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

This is bonkers. They should all be redirected to the talk page of the article that the redirect points to, it's pretty straightforward. Redirects are cheap. Neıl 龱 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It should be made very clear, these kinds of pages do not fall under any criteria for speedy deletion. -- Ned Scott 09:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That's utterly ridiculous: of COURSE they fall under speedy criteria, being useless talk pages for non-articles. --Calton | Talk 11:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A lot of things are speedily deleted that don't strictly fit the criteria. Often, it's because common sense is applied. These could be deleted, and it's certainly better to delete them then leave them as pointless project-tagging spam, but the best result is for them to all be redirected to the relevant target articles' talk page. Neıl 龱 13:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Ned Scott replaced db-blanktalk with a redirect to db-talk. I reverted back. I thunk there was a consensus about db-blanktalk. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Is it really necessary to discuss this further? The pages served no purpose, and in the absence of a better solution they could have been deleted based on CSD3, G6 or G8. However, this would really depend on interpretation of these criteria. Since the present case is not a rare one, if the criteria were intended to apply to such cases routinely, they should be updated to reflect this explicitly. The reason it hasn't been done is that WP currently has a slight preference for solving this problem by redirects instead. In a sense everybody was right, and we just have a communication problem. It will be solved as soon as everybody stops thinking about it and makes sure to go into any future encounters with other involved people without any prejudice, and without any bad thoughts other than "I must make sure we are not about to have another misunderstanding".

Magioladitis, is there anything for which a redirect isn't enough? If there are people around who re-add project templates to talk page redirects, then they should be told not to do it. --Hans Adler (talk) 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

When an article is redirected, its talk page can be redirected, not deleted, even if the only edit to the talk page was to place a project tag on the talk page. The placement of project tags is part of the history of things around here, and there is no reason to lose the edit history of such talk pages. In the past, I've just blanked such talk pages, but if you do that, some wikignome turns up to delete the page. If you redirect the page, another wikignome turns up to delete the redirect because "there are no links to the redirect and it has no history". Projects wanting to keep track of redirects (article redirects, not talk page redirects) can to that using templates on the redirects. I suppose a similar sort of template could be placed on talk page redirects to replace the "project tag". See Category:Redirects by WikiProject for examples of how article redirects (normally those left behind after merges) are handled. The reason this is done is to preserve significant edit history preceding the merges. Carcharoth (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Suspected copyright violations

...is backlogged again; some of the entries are a week old. All users are welcome to help out. shoy 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing what I can to help out, but more eyes would really be great. GlassCobra 23:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: Please do not make backlog requests on this page. As the template at the top of this page points out, the proper procedure is to add an {{adminbacklog}} template to any area that is backlogged and requires administrative attention. --Dragon695 (talk) 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Global rights policy proposal on Meta

There is a proposal for a policy governing global user rights on meta - this is an umbrella policy, meant to guide the creation and implementation of new user rights and to require that new rights proposals respect the input and independence of local projects. Its available at m:Global rights.

There are currently three proposals for global rights active on meta, for an idea of the scope of this. All are relatively recent - global sysops, global view deleted images, and global rollback. The proposals are written by different people, with different principles in mind, and do not necessarily guarantee the ability of local projects to opt out or govern by local policy the use of these rights. Avruch 14:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, a technical way of local projects opting-out has been created and will probably be used. See m:Global rights#Opting out (or in) of global rights which is a proposal to govern all global rights. Greeves 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Right... I wrote the proposal. I'm just announcing its existence ;-) Avruch 16:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Untangle please

I inadvertently created a bad tangle of redirects when I redirected Skybox to Skybox (band), which is not notable enough to claim first rights. Skybox (disambiguation), to which the Skybox (band) article creator (Anthony5429) redirected (diff) the original Skybox redirect page, should be deleted after the problem I created is untangled with the page histories properly preserved.

I ran into an unexpected patch of acute severe dyslexia which is preventing me from cleaning up after myself—very sorry!—so another mop-wielder is needed. — Athaenara ✉ 16:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have sorted this. TerriersFan (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much, TerriersFan! — Athaenara ✉ 17:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please block 2 disruption-only accounts

Two obvious disruption only accounts:

• Bonerjams08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism-only account and also violates account naming conventions.
• Surfing4turf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Linkspammer only and also violates naming convention (see contribs).

Originally reported to AIV and declined as they "haven't been warned enough" or "haven't been disruptive enough".

As an aside, I'm seriously thinking about starting an RFC about the AIV noticeboard. The idea that we wouldn't block a blatant linkspammer or a blatant vandalism only account (both of who violate naming policy) because (sarcasm)TPS Form 286-B wasn't filled out in triplicate, notarized, routed upstairs and stamped by the clerk(end sarcasm) is counterproductive. I appreciate the hard work of the folks who watch the board but there should be a lot more common sense and a lot less bureaucracy on AIV. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I've just indef'd the bonerjams one, the 2nd one has only made two edits so I'm still hesitant to block that one on that alone. I agree that blatant vandalism-only doesn't need the full gamut of warnings. –xenocidic (talk) 17:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the usernames warrant a block complicates the issue, but leaving that aside, I have no problem with either one being declined at AIV. I'm more aggressive than some admins when I watch AIV, and I might have blocked Bonerjam if I had run across the report, but if you look at the timing of the report, it is quite likely that he never saw a single warning until he saved his last edit, and he stopped after that. An hour later, well after he's stopped, you reported him to AIV. I don't see the lack of common sense involved in asking for ONE warning before blocking; especially since it is quite possible the one warning did the trick. Zero warnings for a vandalism-only account is a reasonable position, I suppose, but asking for ONE warning is not unreasonable, or deserving of scorn.

The second user also quite likely only saw their first warning at the same time they saved their last (i.e. second) edit, and stopped. However, they were reported to AIV anyway two minutes later, having never editing after seeing that warning. Again, one warning is not too much to ask. Quite a few "spammers" start out not knowing any better; it's the ones who continue after being warned that we should come down hard on. --barneca (talk) 17:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, if it hadn't been for the username, I would've probably let it slide for a bit as well. –xenocidic (talk) 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to {{usernameblock}} the second as it's clearly linked to the website the user added. Is there any reason not to do that? Kevin (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Block review of JimFoley69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanity check, please. No previous blocks, no rank abuse or incivility, just a SPA who targets one member of a teaching facility. I see no evidence, especially in regard to the username, that this account has any intention of contributing usefully. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good block, it might not strictly fit the definition of vandalism, but the edits also had BLP issues and image copyright issues. Mr.Z-man 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also just deleted the image - per the IfD template and my rationale above. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The user made identical edits to a indefinitely blocked user, so clearly a good block. I have also deleted the abusive edits. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

What is notable and what isn't notable

Although I have been on wikipedia for a while now, I am getting rather confused about what meets the notability requirements. A number of English football (soccer) clubs (such as Garstang F.C. have been put forward for AfD, however, the reasoning for their deletion is not based on any policy but on what are descibed as "generally accepted notabilia requirements for English clubs" which apparently are agreed on the WP:FOOTY project but no-one seems to know where it was originally agreed. I am sure all these clubs will end up being deleted as that just seems to be what happens, but there just seems to be a lot of ambiguity over what is and what is not notable. And some well written and well sourced articles are being deleted. Thank you. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The article says that this club is this club plays in a league that is at the 11th level of the English football league system or "football pyramid". You should ask on WP:FOOTY at what minimum level an english club needs to be play on to be notable. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If memory serves me, clubs in the top seven tiers are considered inherently notable. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 01:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The policy of clubs from the top 10 levels was originally on WP:CORP, but was unilaterally removed in this edit. However, it has remained as a well-estbalished consensus since amongst WP:FOOTY members as shown in this discussion in March 2007, and in all the previous AfDs mentioned in the Garstang one. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I've stayed away from football aside from Norwich City for the last year or so, but in my day it was always "top 10 tiers of the pyramid or fully professional" as the criteria (that "fully professional" bit was to let AFC Wimbledon stay, I believe). I don't see any reason to change that. – iridescent 00:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Special:MostRevisions

I don't know if this is the right place, but I don't really see any other place on Misplaced Pages where it can get easy attention.

Somebody needs to fix this, it's year and a half out of date. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT is where the devs look. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you reposted there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

There's Something Wrong with this...

I need some help with American Airlines Flight 77. There seems to be some odd problem. Not sure if it's just on my computer, though. The page ends abruptly at after the references, does not display the FA-Star, does not display the {{Sept11}} or {{9-11 hijackers}} templates, and does not display the categories. I've looked through the code and haven't found anything. I've purged the page and no luck there either. Is there something up with my computer, or is everyone seeing this? Help, please. -- VegitaU (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not happening to me... try clearing your browser cache. And by the way, the help desk is a better place to ask these things. Calvin 1998  01:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

That worked. Sorry to bother you guys here. I wasn't sure where to ask this. -- VegitaU (talk)

There's a problem with The Martin Luther King jr. page

One of the users, Malik Shabazz, has tried to block some of my accurate edits about MLK's ties to some people who were investigated by the FBI for ties to Communism. I hate to say it, but the user is violating the neutral point of view and good faith policies. I am only trying to say how Myles Horton was never proven to be a Communist, and the user continues to block my edits. While I respect this user's want to reduce hate, unfortunately Jared Taylor, the editor of the white nationalist newspaper American Renaissance, has tried to label Misplaced Pages as "propaganda" of black nationalism in one of his articles yesterday. If we do not include more facts about MLK's ties to alleged Communists, we may very well expand the White Pride movement. Me, I hate racism. Thank you.Kevin j (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Though this doesn't reflect on the reverting, I don't concern myself one whit with what the White Pride movement views the world, no more than I would the Flat Earth Society. Were I motivated to do anything by the White Pride movement, I would be very concerned about my sense of reality and self. --Moni3 (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Kevin j is adding original research. His source barely mentions Dr. King and doesn't mention the SCLC or its critics at all, but he has spun it a lengthy sentence about how critics tried to discredit the SCLC by its association with the Highlander Folk School (the subject of his source). — ] (] · ]) 17:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Specifically, the source says "On the 25th anniversary of the Highland Workshops in 1957, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was the featured speaker." Kevin j has written "Critics of King's organization tried to tie him with Communism through a speech he gave at Highlander Folk School in 1957; the school's head, Myles Horton, had been investigated by the FBI at the time for allegedly being a Communist, but had repeatedly denied being a supporter of the Communist Party and was never convicted of the charge." Trying to write about critics of King or the SCLC based on a source that only mentions that a speech by Dr. King is WP:OR. — ] (] · ]) 17:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Having spent ten minutes looking at the diffs, I tend to support Malik Shabazz's take. Kevin j appears to be adding unsourced information, MS appears to be checking the sources and reverting, Kevin j has decided to forum shop to AN. Per Mon 13, Kevin j's arguments (that we should change our article because of the possible opinion of that article held by a repulsive group of losers) is not very compelling. I respectfully suggest Kevin j should slow down and consider very carefully what he is about. Meanwhile, there's nothing to see here. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Mr Tagishsimon, you are wrong. The ADL has stated recently that the number of internet activity has increased among white pride groups.Kevin j (talk)

Which does not amount to an argument for adding unsourced assertions into articles, does it? Nor does the increase of internet activity mean that the information you were trying to add was either appropriate or required, even were it sourced. There is, in short, no connection whatsoever between the internet habits of so-called white pride groups, and your editing of the article, except in your head. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, YOU ARE MISTAKEN. You are not seeing things from a neutral perspective sir. YOU OBVIOUSLY DID NOT READ MY SOURCE-WHICH YES, I DID INCLUDE- AND ARE JUST BELIEVING ANOTHER PERSON'S OPINION.Kevin j (talk)

Hmmm, ALL CAPS. Not exactly the best method of getting everyone to take you seriously. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick browse of the OR edits Kevin J made to the MLK article, and some other recent edits make his claim that his edits are somehow motivated by a concern about expansion of the White Pride movement a bit tenuous. If anything, they seem the opposite, including adding info to Brown v. Board of Education he originally gleaned from that great anti-racist crusader Lew Rockwell. In any case, editing that is guided by concern abuot the White moron movement one way or another is a no-no. Boodlesthecat 20:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's see a little AGF here, folks. I'm inclined to suspect the possibility that a well-intentioned, young and naive (and not highly literate) editor may be the problem, rather than any covert racist agenda. I could, of course, be wrong. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed...the editor might very well be simply well-intentioned, young and naive (and not highly literate). Boodlesthecat 22:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Gaming the system

I'm having a problem on the Solar energy page with an IP user. This user has insisted on a lead graphic which I and many others have objections to. I tried an RfC to work out a resolution back in Nov-Dec and despite a 6 to 1 vote to remove this picture it keeps coming back. Why should something this simple be such a big problem? The issue bogged down the GA process and it looks like it's going to kill the fledgling FAC process. I think if there were other regular editors on the page this IP would go away but it's basically just me and periodically Itsmejudith. I've brought it up here twice before with no response. I'd love some help. Mrshaba (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I restored the image. I worded the summary wrong. But I suggested you all go to the talk page and discuss changing the image. I will warn the user for Edit Warring. Rgoodermote  00:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. We've discussed things extensively: Rfc Pictures, Images (note: Apteva is a sock the IP uses), Picture change, Image selection. Others have had issues with the picture here. It ticks me off that someone could carry on so long against so many different people. Mrshaba (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If the IP continues just label the image removal vandalism. Because it is clear that the image is agreed upon.Rgoodermote  00:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh my... Thank you so much. Mrshaba (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

65.69.81.2

Edits by 65.69.81.2 seem to limited to inappropriate edits. How is this handled? Bebestbe (talk) 18:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Warn (as you have done) and if the behaviour continues, seek a block. -Tagishsimon (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. In the future, please take cases similar to this to AIV. Thanks :) seicer | talk | contribs 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Need a second opinion

I don't know if I am in the right place, so I apologize up front for that. I am a new contributor here, and I thought I was making good decent edits. But, I feel like I got a back handed accusal of Conflict of Interest sneaked in with a Welcome, which I felt to be patronizing for the real warning. Can someone take a look at 1) my edits; 2) the history of my talk page (I deleted the "Welcome-COI" note); and 3) the message I left on my user page, and tell me what I have done wrong? If things aren't right just tell me and/or block me. Best O Fortuna (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're a new contributor, deleting warnings from your Talk page so early in your career is not advisable. User:Herbythyme tends to have good judgment about external links, and you could probably have a conversation with him as to what links might be included per our Misplaced Pages:External links policy. The COI warning is routinely given when it appears possible that a new contributor might have promotional intent. Your addition of links, combined with your user name which suggests you might have an interest in an organization based in Fortuna, may be what gave rise to that. Having a sensible conversation with Herby would be a way to dispel that impression. Using the word 'vandalism' in edit summaries when removing removing a good-faith edit by an experienced contributor is not likely to win friends or influence people. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the warning BEFORE I added any "External links", other than as references. I had not added a link to the "External links" section. The "History" section did not have any references before I added some. The person should have looked at the additions, not just because they were links, but how and why they were used, before slipping in a warning under a "Welcome" banner. I think it was cheap, and discourages me and possibly other new users. So, tell me what I did that was wrong? This beating around the bush, or hinting, double-speak, isn't sitting well with me. Best O Fortuna (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay: you've asked for a second opinion. Here it is, square on the nose. Are you ready? Having looked at your edits, as well as the timing of the COI message, I can find nothing wrong with your actions, and on the contrary, in the time dedicated to looking at your work, I judge it to be of higher than normal quality. My view: Herby was a way too quick off the mark with the COI. Hope that helps. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Potential ban evasion?

I'm not really sure how to proceed with this one, so I'm just posting about it here. Artaxiadisaloser (talk · contribs), a new account, just made this somewhat inflammatory post on a talk page. The comment mentions the banned user Artaxiad, so I'm wondering if this new user is somehow involved with whatever issues went down with that. This doesn't really strike me as a WP:UAA, but I thought I'd bring it to someone's attention. *shrug* — HelloAnnyong 00:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Banned as an obvious sock. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 01:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)