Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:17, 6 May 2009

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Dispute at Manual of Style (icons)

Hi. I would like some uninvolved folks to look in at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons) if possible.

Oicumayberight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) wishes to make certain changes to the guideline and initiated an RfC towards that goal on 16 March. As no apparent consensus had been reached after six weeks, I removed the two tags in the guideline (I was not involved in the discussion and it seemed to me to have run its course). Oicumayberight restored the tags with the edit summary "Tags should remain until disputes are resolved."

As it seems only to be this one editor who wishes to change the guideline, it seems unreasonable to restore the tags in this way. I also have concern that by adding a somewhat biased section title to a comment I made in talk, the editor has effectively refactored what I wrote. The discussion may be seen at Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons)#Removing tags before dispute is resolved. I am not invested one way or the other in the outcome, but it seems to approach WP:POINT that this one editor seems to be trying to hold the guideline hostage until they get their way. Maybe Oicumayberight will listen to other admins if they are able to speak to them.

Best of luck and thanks for reading. --John (talk) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Am I the only one that is concerned at the Manual of Style being some sort of administrative/dispute deathtrap with the end result being its contents ignored by a large, perhaps overwhelming portion of our writers?--Tznkai (talk) 15:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean,. That would be a shame as any professional quality publication has and uses a manual of style or a style guide. Maybe as this is partly a user conduct issue I should have gone straight to AN/I instead. --John (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who wishes to remove tags should show some patience. The last resolution on that page took almost 2 months between the time the tag was placed and the time that the issue was finally resolved . It's an exaggeration of the dispute to call it an attempt for one user to get his way. The guide was expanded with the WP:CREEP overreaching attempt to capitalize on prior success with a broader, more vague scope, in violation of WP:BURO. Four other users have noted similar problems with this guide on the talk page just this year, not counting those who've noted problems in the 5 other archives and countless article talk pages where the WP:MOS guide was treated as a WP:policy. Even if I was the only one, WP:Democracy is not the way to develop guides or policies. A resolution before dispute tags are removed is wikipedia's way, not just my way. And I'm not assuming that the resolution will be what I hope it will be. Oicumayberight (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai, bit harsh, I think. I believe tension around the style guides is just part of the cost of doing business. They are a rock, an anchor for WP, and important for its transition to a professional outfit, despite intermittent complaints from a few editors who don't like centralised advice (they own their own language, etc). Possibly many WPians don't know that MOS exists, but if they work at the high end (FAC, etc), they soon find out. My own writing improved significantly when I started to consult MOS and sibling pages regularly. Tony (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is harsh, but my own experience confirms Tznkai's opinion. Unless the folks there wake up to the fact that for the MoS to work they have to settle for advising, not enforcing, a standard style, it will drift towards irrelevance. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Whatever the philosophical differences we may have about the proper role of the Manual of Style, can we agree in terms of procedure that after over a month without consensus and no current discussion of the proposed changes and no support for them when there was a discussion, taking down the tags would be reasonable? --John (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

@Tony, perhaps I am being a bit harsh, but the value of a manual of style is directly proportional to its clarity, stability, and universal acceptance. I'm not seeing it yet.--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually Tznkai is being tactful. There are relatively few places where MoS carries real weight and the difficulties in fixing it are so severe that it is easier to avoid the venues where it matters. Durova 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

While this stance may represent a pragmatic one for particular users, I think that as long as we do have MoS pages they should adhere to the established norms of our DR process. This doesn't seem to be happening. --John (talk) 13:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's one solution that could reduce the scope of the problem. Misplaced Pages already accepts multiple citation styles and variant national spellings, mainly based upon whether an article is internally consistent. There's no inherent need to create a complete manual of style from the ground up. Except for the parts that are wiki-specific such as header instructions, we could mark most of the internal MoS historical and allow editors to use any mainstream style guide they want. Outside of FAC that's mostly what's happening anyway. Durova 14:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(unindenting) Durova, that would be exactly what I'd like to do, but I was sucked into that crazy little world when some someone decided to edit war with me over some linking to some dates. (I left Misplaced Pages for a while because of that.) There are some people out there who see the MoS as an excuse to start fights with other editors instead of a means to resolve disputes. FWIW, I believe any efforts to enforce the MoS by means other than persuasion ought to be considered disruptive & accordingly shown the door. -- llywrch (talk) 22:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, one constructive step forward would be for someone to start compiling the parts of MoS that can't be duplicated via standard reference works. Perhaps by drafting in user space. Think you know MoS well enough to attempt it? You're certainly experienced enough on the wiki side. Durova 06:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I probably could, but I don't have the time. (My weekend was filled with Real Life chores -- like most of my weekends.) But anyone with some common sense could extract it using a few of rules: (1) what can be verified to conform with the standard style guides; (2) those which educate editors on specific practices, like the sections concerning personal naming conventions; (3) those which were written to minimize conflicts, e.g. about American/British English, the AD/BC vs. CE/BCE preferences, etc. As for em/en dashes & the proper use of icons... I wouldn't object if those sections were editted thru a judicious application of WP:MfD; if there is no consensus, there is no standard for style, QED. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

A dispute? At a Manual of Style page? Well, this is simply shocking. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all very interesting. Am I to take it that as a project we no longer have an effective manual of style and that the consensus among the admins who read this page is that it is ok for one user to hold a guideline page hostage by adding tags to it until he gets his way? --John (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

We don't have an effective MoS, because it isn't stable. I am more ready to dive into Arbitration Enforcement full time than I am willing to step proverbial foot into the mess of MoS disputes. I do not think I am alone. The stakes are way to low, and the disruption far to high. No, it isn't particularly ok for the behavior thats going on to go on, but I honestly don't care enough to get involved. What damage is being done by this instance of stubbornness? Other than the outright silliness in using a tag meant for article space in project space. Block him, negotiate with him, start a thread on ANI, do whatever it is you want to fix it, I have no objection. I think the bigger problem is that our manual of style seems to have far more disputes than it is worth - the very value of a manual of style comes from its stability. I am not by the way suggesting that we enforce a stable version of the MoS, but that the people who edit the MoS had best get their collective act together if they expect the rest of us to use that document. Or, some very enterprising administrators can go forth and resolve the dispute, however they can.

Good luck to whoever does that, and tell me how I can help, but until someone shows me how this matters in the Big Picture, I'm not available.--Tznkai (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this particular MOSICON is just that, an attempt to enforce what I see as a matter of subjective personal taste. My involvement is to improve it and make it more of a guide, not a poor substitution for policy. But I agree with most of the feedback here. The MOS isn't worth the disputes that surround it. The MOSICON is worse than most of the MOS because of advocates attempt to enforce what can never be objectively convincing with the recent expansion to include generic icons. And John isn't being very honest when he claims that he doesn't care either way or he would be disputing my points, not my methods of disputing. John is among the advocates to keep it as controversial as it is. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

With a respectful nod to Tznkai's opinion, the bitterness and triviality of the MoS disputes render the area a sinkhole. An ethnic or religious dispute on Misplaced Pages has real relevance because this is the world's most popular reference source. Consider the Greek nationalism ethnic disputes: the Greece article got over 400,000 page views in March.; Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style (icons) received exactly 1384 views during the same period. One would think that a Wikipedian who has over 250 featured credits and studied writing in graduate school would be writing featured articles; I've written only two FAs. And a principal reason is because I'd rather work within a sensible featured process than get pelted with en-dashes and ellipses. I'll be uploading a restored photograph from D-Day shortly after finishing this post: not the beaches at Normandy but a synagogue in New York City that stayed open 24 hours that day for services and prayer. It's quite moving. On the whole, that's a more productive use of content volunteer time. If it were possible to trust the Chicago Manual of Style on minor points and get serious feedback about article structure and content at FAC, this site would have more featured articles. Durova 00:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Since MOS pages seem to have special rules, can't someone go to Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style (icons), pretend that it's a normal article and try to resolve the dispute? Garion96 (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to make the entire MoS a 1RR zone. You revert war, you get blocked, end of story. Eventually people working on the MoS will learn to not treat the style guidelines as a battlefield or the blocks will accumulate until they become infef and we get rid of the people who aren't willing to change. A win-win situation. Perhaps a civility restriction as well, though that might only be necessary at MOSNUM. Mr.Z-man 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Block feedback requested

• Footage (talk · contribs)
• 59.93.201.74 (talk)
• Jown dutta (talk · contribs) Claimed previous account per this edit. Uncle G (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Those of you who've encountered me know that I hang out at WP:CP a lot these days. I don't do a lot with blocks. Hence, I wanted to invite some feedback on a situation. I came upon User:Footage on investigating the copyright problem with Bharigaan. I discovered that though the contributor had been advised about copyright policies and had been blocked for violating them before, he was persisting in placing text from previously published sources. I tagged several problem articles and blocked for two weeks. He requested unblock and was declined. I made an effort to further clarify our copyright policies to him.

Today I discovered that he was not only evading his block with the IP (as made obvious by his pattern of edits, viewable in deleted contributions particularly), but has used it to restore that problematic text to publication.

For the sake of comparison, the article on Assamese marriage:

This is just a sampling of material drawing from three of the pages. There was quite a bit more. I've placed this here for the benefit of non-admins who cannot view the now deleted article but would like to see the kinds of duplication under discussion.

I blocked the IP and reset the clock for the block on the user, for block evasion. But I am concerned that this restoration to publication indicates that the user may not understand or (if he does) intend to comply with our copyright policies. Misplaced Pages:Block#Evasion of blocks that extension of a block might be appropriate if the user continues disruptive behavior while evading a block. How would others handle this? --Moonriddengirl 17:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright violations too

It's worse than you thought. I went through his image uploads. Telltale signs of a copyright violator there: claims to be the creator of various images of widely varying quality, most of which have missing or incomplete metadata. In two instances he didn't bother to take off the commercial watermark, and in a few others I found non-mirror sites that used the same images. Of the unattributed blog post images, all blogs predated the upload to Misplaced Pages. Details below. Durova 18:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Commercial watermarks:

1. File:Bhatkerela.jpg BDShots.com watermark still on image
2. File:Jute plant.jpg GFICL watermark on image

Independent source located at Google Images:

1. File:Pointedgourd.jpg
2. File:Graculaindica.jpg
3. File:Terpsiphoneparadisi.jpg
4. File:Francolinusfrancolinus.jpg (source attributes USDA, uploader claims it’s his own work)

Other files with missing or inadequate metadata:

1. File:Trphookan.jpg
2. File:Longbean.jpg
3. File:Bananaplant.jpg
4. File:Machal1.jpg
5. File:Machal2.jpg
6. File:Bhogalibihu.jpg
7. File:Posola04.jpg
8. File:Jorhatcollege.jpg
9. File:Physalisphiladelphica.jpg
10. File:Currybanana.jpg
11. File:Ipomoeabatatas.jpg
12. File:Luffaaegyptica.jpg
13. File:Cicerarietinum.jpg
14. File:Drumstick.jpg
15. File:Bambooshoot.jpg
16. File:Changghar.jpg

Yes, you're quite right. This is much worse than I'd thought. I had some suspicions about a few other articles, but I had no idea that there were image issues as well. :/ --Moonriddengirl 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Think this qualifies for the Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations clause that says "In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used." ?? Durova 20:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm on very tight time this evening, but I would say that if any of those turn out to be blatant infringement after the last block in January that this may be a bit worse than that. I'm not encouraged by the contributor's restoring text to publication after having been explicitly told why he could not. If he's also been blatantly ignoring copyright policies, then I don't know if we can afford his continued contributions. We don't have the manpower to monitor potentially problem editors, and I'm not sure how many chances we should give. --Moonriddengirl 21:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Pointedgourd.jpg, uploaded April 8, 2009 is an exact copy of an image used at a Blogspot blog the previous August. Even the pixel size and the file size are the same. Durova 21:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Those bad uploads sealed it for me. I've extended the block to indef. He's been here a year, and he knows our policies. This is one editor we can do without. Blueboy96 22:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that's a good call. We have a contributor who restores copyright infringing text while blocked and who has uploaded blatantly copyrighted images even after having been blocked for image copyright violations. Not good. --Moonriddengirl 01:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Indef is absolutely right at this point. The only justification for unblocking this editor would be for them to acknowledge their copyright violations and commit to respecting copyright law in future. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• An indefinite block for the protection of the project is indubitably the correct course here.

  I bear further bad news, Moonriddengirl. I picked one page at random from the new pages listed in this editor's contributions. It was Snakes in Assamese Belief. It cites Jogesh Das' Folklore of Assam as its source. The book is more than the article's source. The article is word-for-word, sentence-for-sentence, identical to portions of the book. (You can easily confirm this for yourself by picking two or three phrases or sentences at random from the article and entering them into Google Books. This book is what comes up, usually complete with the rest of the sentence as in the article, and identical preceding/following text.) The bad news is that all of this editor's contributions are suspect as copyright violations. Tamol in Assamese Culture also turns out to be word-for-word, sentence-for-sentence, identical to portions of that same book. Fish in Assamese Culture, Bhekuli Biya, Assamese taboos, Assamese beliefs and superstitions, Sadhukotha, Musical instruments of Assam, and Assamese kinship: same problem, same book. (In some, Indian English spelling has been changed to U.S. English spelling, "neighbor" for "neighbour" in one case, for example, which might throw you off.) That's not even all of them.

  Worse yet: Despite the attention resulting from Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bhogali Bihu, portions of Bhogali Bihu are still as the article stands now, lifted from that book. Search for "Boys roam about in the dark stealing firewood and vegetables for fun", for example. So despite being rescued at AFD, the article is polluted by initial, and subsequent ("come back home carrying pieces of half burnt firewood for being thrown among fruit trees" exactly matches the book) copyright violations.

  It doesn't even end with just one book. Ali-Aye-Ligang is lifted en bloc from page 27 of The Mishings (Miris) of Assam: development of a new lifestyle by Jatin Mipun (Gian Pub. House, 1993). Uncle G (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Also Ambubachi Mela, Daranga Mela and Bhatheli. Everything on User:Footage/Articles needs to be checked. I marked those three as copyvios. MER-C 03:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Radha Govinda Baruah from . He claims authorship of this one, but it was "written" by Amioxomiya (talk · contribs). MER-C 03:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • I've spiked most of these per CSD G12, as Footage was the author of most of these and essentially the sole contributor. Blueboy96 10:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Check out the deleted revisions. Footage really did create this one, the day before Amioxomiya re-created it. It was deleted the same day for blatant copyright infringement. Uncle G (talk) 20:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Bihugeet, Nisukoni geet, Biyanam and Oja-Pali. MER-C 10:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Zapped as well per G12 ... as I mentioned earlier, that definitely applies since Footage is the sole contributor, and no one else has made substantive edits. Good grief ... I wasn't around (at least not actively) for the Sturm und Drang that resulted from Primetime, but is this what it was like to find all of his copyvios? Blueboy96 10:54, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Hmm. Proposed handling. I think what I'll do is open a section at WP:COPYCLEAN with a pointer to his contribution list. I'll also have a glance at his contribs to see if he's done extensive work in other articles that aren't listed. If so, I'll ask User:Dcoetzee to run a scan. (He does great stuff with that, like his list of remaining problems for GrahamBould at the Gastropod cleanup.) Although that project still has limited membership and we already have two massive infringement cleanups going (the one of which seems neverending), others may help evaluate those articles. It might be worth proactively blanking them with the CP template, the way we did GrahamBould's. With the images, should I pile the images that are on Misplaced Pages and not already deleted on WP:PUI for evaluation? I'll have to notify a Commons admin about the ones that aren't here, but there are a couple who are used to be harassed by me. :) --Moonriddengirl 11:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Durga Puja in Assam is sentence-for-sentence identical to the source cited as its reference. The sentences are sometimes in a different order, but that is all.

    Festivals in Assam is a compound copyright violation. Its summaries are taken from the several subordinate articles, all bar one of which (namely Bhatheli, Durga Puja in Assam, Daranga Mela, Ali-Aye-Ligang, Shivaratri in Assam, Doul Jatra, Asokastami, and Mohoho) are themselves copyright violations from various places (mostly the aforementioned book). The one exception is Bihu, where Footage added a copyright violation, taken word-for-word from the source cited, to an existing article. The non-summary sections are direct copyright violations, and aren't original writing by this person either. For examples: The "Jonbeel Mela" section is taken from this WWW page ("Copyright © 2002-07 Assam Tourism") and the "Dehing Patkai Festival" section is taken from this WWW page ("Copyright©2008 All About Assam.com All Rights Reserved.").

    Ironically, Redtigerxyz just replaced one of the articles listed by MER-C above with a redirect to Festivals in Assam. It's not that easy, Redtigerxyz. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

  • More of the same: Ainaam, Malita (ballad), and Zikir and Zari are all from the aforementioned book by Das. There were several exact text matches in each, with merely some subsitutions of nouns for pronouns and vice versa. Uncle G (talk) 19:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Bongeet is another one from the book by Das. Borgeet is slightly more complex, but turns out to be a word-for-word copyright violation of each of the sources cited, where cited, including several paragraphs lifted wholesale from this WWW page ("Copyright © 2007-2008 onlinesivasagar.com(Abhijit Borah)"). Uncle G (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Chitraban from which itself is a copy of a newspaper article. Astaraag (Sunset) from . Baramahi geet and Deh Bisaror Geet from the usual book. MER-C 12:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the images? Sometimes when an editor has an exceedingly poor track record of copyright compliance our sysops delete everything suspicious. There's no need to run through the PUI gauntlet since the odds of this person returning to editing and cooperating are very slim. The three lists I provided above are already prescreened for compliance: I haven't listed anything that had a valid fair use rationale or complete camera metadata. Let's just zap the ones here. Durova 15:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine by me. Listing them at PUI is only likely to delay handling, unless somebody should come forward with startling new evidence. In which case, they're easily restored anyway. I'm almost finished with today's batch at WP:CP, so I'll go ahead and compile a list for a Commons admin of those not hosted here. --Moonriddengirl 16:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

More images

• File:Lofagreen.jpg
• File:Matikaduri.jpg
• File:Jilmil.jpg
• File:Posola.jpg
• File:Posola2.jpg
• File:Khutora.jpg

These all have consistent metadata and don't show up on Tineye. What should we do with these? MER-C 12:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm ... unless another admin knows something I don't, they should probably stay. It's just proof that Footage knew our copyright policies. Blueboy96 14:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep them. We've seen people before who mix copyvio uploads with genuine original work. The difference is obvious to my eye: in addition to the complete and consistent metadata, these are mundane local subjects for the uploader and they're shot with the same style and same level of proficiency. No reason to doubt that this is legit. Durova 16:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Or they were just all taken from the same person. Mr.Z-man 18:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the metadata would be incomplete in that case. It's the first thing we screen for. Durova 18:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Community ban

Holy ... effing ... crap. Uncle G's evidence spells out the worst case of plagiarism I've ever seen since Primetime. I move for a community ban. Blueboy96 19:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

• He's been indeffed and I can't imagine an admin who would unblock him without a pretty astounding reason. Protonk (talk)
• Support. To formalize. In the remote, remote chance that someone is insanely optimistic enough to consider allowing him back, he'd better work to eliminate the entire mess he's created. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Yep. MER-C 10:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support, though, honestly, my "worst case of plagiarism/infringement ever seen" bar is really high. :/ (Can't compare that to Primetime, with which I'm unfamiliar. :)) --Moonriddengirl 11:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• per protonk and WP:BAN this is redundant. Any user whom no admin is willing to unblock is already banned. We don't need to start a ban discussion on every indef user. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 11:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, then ... creating an entry at WP:LOBU. Blueboy96 14:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

• Support - If not de facto banned already by default (although I think it should be de jure anyway). — neuro 16:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support reviewing the above thread, I think it's appropriate. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Support - as one of those pollyanna admins who almost always seems willing to unblock anyone, I have to say that not even I would touch this one. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone: No-one — no-one — is going to seriously consider unblocking this person without some exceptionally strong assurances that xe will start contributing original work. Looking at the account's deleted contributions, xe has been violating copyright since at least March 2008, when Nancy deleted Devicharan Baruah Girls' College as a blatant copyright violation, and has clearly ignored the warnings about copyright violation that xe was given at the time. From what I've reviewed so far, there's little evidence that this person has ever written original prose of any significant size of xyr own. (Several articles where content didn't come from an outside source are just copies and pastes of existing Misplaced Pages content from other articles written by other people. Elective Subject, for example.) You can help far more by, instead of adding to a vote that is in practice going to be totally pointless, looking through Special:Contributions/Footage, User:Footage/Articles, and User:Footage/Contributions and checking for copyright violations. Blueboy96 reports that xyr mouse finger is getting tired from hitting the delete button. And I've spent some hours doing nothing but copying and pasting sentences into search engines. Fewer votes and more people using their tools to assist in the cleanup would be most welcome. Uncle G (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, as the person who initially proposed the ban. I initially proposed it because the evidence uncovered by Uncle G indicated a user who, at least for now, should have had his editing privileges revoked. But with what's emerged now, this guy has put the project in so much legal danger that no admin who wants to keep his bit (or doesn't want to face being Checkusered as a Footage sock) will ever unblock him. Another step, I think, is to find out if he's contributed on other projects. No doubt given his wanton disregard for copyright that he's done the same thing on other wikis. Blueboy96 14:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Evidently, the formalities matter to some people. I'm all about cleaning up. We still haven't finished with the last guy. :/ I'll go see what's going on with it, now that I've caught up with the day's other copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl 18:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

In cases like this, I'm in favor of removing every image the editor has added and article he has created, and reverting all edits where it is possible. Once people see that plagiarism will cause all their contribs to go up in smoke, they'll have less motivation to try it. Looie496 (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no edits on other projects but registered on commons, new and as . MER-C 11:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Looie, see my post above. In addition to several legitimate original photographs this editor also wrote fair use rationales for others. The rate of copyvio is too high to permit him to continue editing, but don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. He did do the project a little good. Durova 16:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Potential copyvio on Therapeutic hypothermia?

Hi. I saw that there was a request for a third opinion on Therapeutic hypothermia, so I went over to lend a hand. After editing parts of the article, I started to realize that it seemed a little too good to be true. After a little searching, I realized that pretty much the entire article is copied from http://www.cardiaccarecritique.com/programs/hypothermic/index.php. There may be sections that are different; I don't really have the time to go through each section and check it against the link. But enough of the article is the same that it's cause for concern. Since it seems like this article should exist in some form (previously it was at Induced hypothermia, from the looks of things) but I'm wondering how to proceed. Should I just toss on a copyvio tag and add it to the list at WP:CV? Should I just purge all the text and leave a stub article? What's the best course of action? — HelloAnnyong 03:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick follow-up: the article is listed in the Intensive care medicine template. — HelloAnnyong 04:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked into this and I'm not sure this is a copyright violation on Misplaced Pages's part. The article evolved beginning with one big edit almost a year ago (sorry for the lack of diffs) and evolved from there with many small edits, which actually brought it closer to the version hosted offsite, suggesting that ours might be the original. Further, the offsite version uses numbered citations contained within non-superscripted brackets, which is extremely unusual, and the numbering of the citations is as far as I can tell the same or very similar to that on our version of the article. What makes it even more unusual is that although their references are in the same order as Misplaced Pages's, but are not numbered. The whole thing smells like they copied Misplaced Pages's article, and made some formatting changes, removed all the citation requests, etc. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me like ours came first: among other things, there are some errors in the handling of the "degree" symbol that would occur if you copy Misplaced Pages's UTF-8 article and paste it into an ISO 8859-1 webpage. Further, they don't show up in archive.org, which is a good indication that the webpage is new. --Carnildo (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Someone needs to contact that website then; copyright violations are never fun. Ironholds (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that this is not unusual. It's always good to verify (and I'm glad you followed up, HelloAnnyong), but we see these routinely at WP:CP. One that stands out to me was an infringement on a county government website. Whoever wants to contact the website might wish to use the procedure at Misplaced Pages:Mirrors and forks, although of course DMCA take-down would require a substantial content contributor from that article. It looks like the sort of site to me that might actually respond well to first contact by linking to the Misplaced Pages article, but you never know. --Moonriddengirl 12:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh, alright then. Thanks for looking into this, guys. Didn't want to start tossing around copyvios without justification. — HelloAnnyong 13:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have made an attempt to contact them using the form on their web page. I included the information that they would be able to use the article freely if they acknowledged the source and licensed the content under the GFDL. Looie496 (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's possible that the material may have been simultaneously written for both sources. The principal author write only on this topic, inserting sections of hypothermia into a number of reasonably appropriate article, but has also written an article on a hypothermia machine, Arctic Sun medical device, which may possibly be notable (there are references beyond those in Misplaced Pages article at http://www.medivance.com/html/contributions_references.htm, I think the most useful course might be to inquire about COI. DGG (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) DGG, I'm not sure how much that's going to help. The first contributor was Spencer233416, and by the time he did most of his editing, all the current text was in place. That user hasn't been active since August 2008, so I highly doubt we're going to get an answer about his being a COI. Then again, if we go way back, the bulk of the text was added by 67.176.57.53, and based on looking at the edits made, I think that that IP and Spencer may be one and the same. Also, that anon IP last edited in early April, so I'll leave a message on their talk page. — HelloAnnyong 21:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Fare strike

I've just stumbled across this page and it appears to be somewhat out of control, with a lot of posturing, accusations and evidently some pretty major disagreements. I've left a civility reminder, but I suggest some people keep an eye on it. Exploding Boy (talk) 06:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

File:NDALogo.png - mea culpa, admin help requested.

I just uploaded the logo of the National Dental Association over logo of the National Dance Association, without checking first. Would an admin please revert to the previous version of the file, the National Dance Association logo. Apologies and thanks in advance. – ukexpat (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

This is done. –xeno 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the speedy action. Much appreciated, I will be more careful next time.  – ukexpat (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Biophys continuing harrassment

Biophys was warned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive191#Ethics_of_sharing_an_account only in the last week after a set up on this very noticebard that accusations of people sharing accounts is harrassment. This is now continuing against User:Offliner at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Petri_Krohn. Making continual accusations against editors whom one is in conflict with over various articles is harrassment, and the filing of a sockpuppet report and the continuation of accusations of sharing of accounts and the like, is continuing this. Biophys has been warned many times, including at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes/Proposed_decision#Biophys, where he got off scot-free, because he promised not to do engage in such behaviour again. It is perfectly clear that he has continued such behaviour, even after getting off with nothing after his latest round of harrassment against myself. That he is now chosing to continue accusations against other users shows that this is egregious behaviour that has not stopped, and which for indications will never stop. Use of functions such as sockpuppet reports and AN, etc, does not give editors free reign to make accusations left, right and centre against editors with whom they are in content disputes with. He is well aware of Misplaced Pages:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions and it is now time that for admin intervention here against this behaviour. --Russavia 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

What "warning" are you talking about? I received no official warnings with regard to anything you are talking about. Filing an SPI investigation is not a harassment.Biophys (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry Russavia, but the only harassment I am seeing here is of Biophys and by you. Your post contains a series of misleading statements. Biophys was not warned (there was no consensus, although I'll agree that several editors were advised to discuss one another - primarily you and Biophys). Asking for sockpuppet investigation of a banned user is hardly a harassment (otherwise half the admins here would be guilty of it). Citing proposed arbcom decision which did not pass is hardly helpful. Biophys behavior in the last AN thread was civil and conciliatory, your behavior, however, seemed and still seems indeed to fall under Digwuren sanction (which you cite yourself...) on battlefield creation (if this thread is not aim at harassing Biophys and creating a battleground, I don't know what is). I suggest that to stop this wikidrama, we put both (to be fair and not split hairs who is more guilty) Russavia and Biophys under a parole that will prevent them from discussing one another, with the exception of formal DR procedures. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree to be placed under such parole, together with Russavia. That would save some time to WP administrators. No one wants to hear the constant bickering here.Biophys (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• The Checkuser case was accepted and clearly has merit at least investigating. Where's the beef? - Biruitorul 23:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• This certainly seems unwarranted, with Russavia seeming suggesting that they begin stalking Biophys' contributions. I would support the suggestion by Piotrus before this gets ugly. Martintg (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately, this has been already ugly for a few months. I would like to ask for some form of protection from this user (at least of the kind suggested by Piotrus). R. repeatedly reported me at the ANI for no reason, promised to invite others to fight my edits, and indeed, openly invited Offliner here, LokiiT here, Kuban Kazak here, DonaldDuck here, as well as some others who reverted my edits telling "I restored Russavia version". This should stop.Biophys (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Might I suggest that a Request for comment might be in order? --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The Checkuser proved negative: . In Russavia's case, despite the negative result Biophys continued to make baseless accusations and I'm afraid that this will also happen in my case. Note that in the report Biophys called me "basically an SPA" and made other personal attacks as well. In October, 2008, Biophys had filed another report against me, which also proved negative: . Biophys' continuous accusations have to stop. Admin action is needed to make sure that they will. Offliner (talk) 13:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Admin assist

Could I get an admin or two to take a look at the section of my talk page titled Help? Apparently some of the current and former members of the band Scarling. are in some kind of dispute over their Misplaced Pages articles and their various boyfriends/wives/etc are now jumping into the mix. I'm away from home this week, and simply don't have the time or ability to look into it. Thanks, - auburnpilot's sock 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• It's a veritable mini soap opera. For the benefit of any administrators trying to make head or tail of this sorry mess, here's what appears to be the cast of characters:
  • Godblessyrblackheart (talk · contribs) — has been self-identifying as Matthew Eilers in numerous edits (example) since 2008, and claims to be the boyfriend of Kyle Justin, but has also self-identified in copyright licence statements as Kyle Justin
  • KyleJustinD (talk · contribs) — self-identifies as Kyle Justin himself (example)
  • Xtian1313 (talk · contribs) — self-identifies as Christian Hejnal, husband of Jessicka (example)
  • A Mysterious Un-named Figure who edited for a few days in November 2008, and whose identity our principal charactes have had All Sorts of Fun, throughout the first few acts, guessing based upon who edited whose message board outside of Misplaced Pages
  • Chorus
• Our story so far is a bewildering tale of multiple massive conflicts of interests on everyone's part, legal threats (libel and breach of contract), vandalism accusations, sockpuppetry accusations, incomprehensible complaints, BLP content that doesn't check out against the sources cited for it, and talk page archive refactoring, spread across multiple administrators' and non-administrators' talk pages, their own talk pages, article talk pages, and articles themselves, for several acts. To add the spice of French farce to Italian opera, we also now have the characters arguing about "outing" (example), when they have all self-identified long since.

  I'm not sure what administrator action is appropriate here, or even what administrator action is even being asked for. The deus ex machina finale to this little production, of ringing down the curtain on the lot of them, is quite a tempting one at first thought, though. Uncle G (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• Maybe these parties could contact WP:OTRS if they really wanted to substantiate their claims that they are the people they say they are? I'm not sure what actual good that would do, but it at least would possibly get them off of the backs and talk pages of the people they're probably at least annonying now. John Carter (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All I know is that I am now listening to a bit of Jack Off Jill, and will soon move onto Scarling. I wonder if they are trying to promote themselves, or if there is really some dispute that needs resolution - not necessarily by admins. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:I already forgot

• I already forgot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - indef blocked in November 2007
• Television rules the nation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - started editing in December 2007, last edited in April 2009; self-admitted reincarnation/sockpuppet of "I already forgot"

Discovered while investigating the nonsense redirect that currently exists for User talk:I already forgot. 24.186.165.121 (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Just in case it's not clear, in this edit of IAF's talk page, TVRTN's edit summary is "blank my old talk page and redirect". Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but it's a bad cross namespace redirect. 24.186.165.121 (talk) 02:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 02:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Great job!!!

well i just wanna say u guys r doing a grt job!!this site is as useful as it gets!!!

i wanted to put a compliment but i couldn't find a place to put it,so i thought i'd put it here hope i'm nt violating anyhting!!! :P

saying again u guys r doing a great job!thumbs up!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr hiran (talk • contribs) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It's nice to hear compliments. There's always lots of work to be done. Feel free to become a volunteer and join the crowd! :) hmwithτ 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Test books and junk books

One of the options provided by Special:Book is to save a book to one's userspace. This feature appears to have been the subject of a lot of misuse: a quick look through Category:Misplaced Pages:Books shows that the vast majority of books being created are either tests or misunderstandings of the book system. (For instance, a lot of books include nothing but index pages like Main Page, Portal:Contents, and random project-space pages; contain only one article; or consist of attempts to write an article.) What I'm wondering is:

• Can any of these be speedily deleted from userspace? Which ones, and under what criteria?
• Can they be prodded? My understanding is that {{prod}} isn't allowed in userspace; however, as books are automatically created in userspace by default, is this an exception?
• If not, is it acceptable to remove Category:Misplaced Pages:Books from these books or replace it with another category in order to keep the contents of the category useful? Right now, the category is only really useful for finding examples of how books aren't supposed to be used.

I've constructed a list of obviously useless books (ones which contain no links to articles) at User:Zetawoof/BadBooks. Any thoughts? Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect the general CSD criteria apply. I don't think prod does. MfD for stuff that can't be speedied? Protonk (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

PROD will not physically work anywhere outside of article space. --ThaddeusB (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Pity. Would CSD G2 (test page) be applicable to these sorts of pages, then? Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Technically, G2 doesn't apply to user space and I'm not seeing any other obvious match. That isn't to say no admin would speedy these pages - I just don't personally know what criteria would qualify. (I'm not an admin, so I don't really know though.) WP:MfD is the main way to get things deleted from user space.

I don't, however, see any problem with removing the Category:Misplaced Pages:Books category from things that obviously aren't "books" in the WP sense. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod works outside of article space it seems. It does give a big nasty warning, but it adds the page to prod categories. I don't know if it ever adds them to dated prod cats. Off to check. Protonk (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, dated prod can be triggered as well (guess that should make sense given the template is the same). Protonk (talk) 02:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't actually place the page into the relevant date category though, which means it will never actually appear on the "expiring day" and thus will never actually be deleted. (Plus the closing admin would surely not delete the page anyway, since it isn't eligible for PROD.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It does place it in that category. Since I removed the prod on User:Protonk/Tsand you can't see but you can check for yourself by either reverting on my userpage or just substituting a prod outside of article space for a short while. Protonk (talk) 03:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We've been here before. Read Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 33#G13 Books. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... it doesn't look like that discussion ended particularly conclusively, though. By way of experimentation, I've tagged a couple dozen obvious test books with {{db-test}}. So long as they all go through, I'll continue the process and stick anything questionable through a mass MfD once all the obvious cases are handled. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm noticing that a ton of the test books are attempts to write books from scratch, rather than to create a collection of articles. Any ideas for a tweak to MediaWiki:coll-intro _text to clarify this, and maybe to add a link to Wikibooks for the prospective authors? Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you reverted your db-test tagging of those books. G2 is quite clear about it not being applicable in userspace and I we don't need to set up those clearing the CSD queue up for failure. When I remarked above that the general criteria applied I should have been more specific. Protonk (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

They've already been deleted, mostly by Icestorm815. While the CSD description says it doesn't apply to pages in userspace, the initial decision to make G2 not apply to userspace pages appears to have been to ensure that user sandboxes were left alone. Without exception, every test book I've tagged for deletion was clearly the result of a new user experimenting with the Special:Book wizard. Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fair. When I get back from school I'll start a thread over at CSD on this. I am just incredibly wonkish when it comes to CSD decisions. Protonk (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ping me on my talk page when you do. I'd like to be involved. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

→ Discussion now at Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Amending or clarifying general criteria for books. SoWhy 06:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Splite table Toronto - Ontario

Anyone have any idea what this is? Note to creator not replied to. Exxolon (talk) 00:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the last Ontario provincial election, all voters were asked if Ontario should switch from a first past the post system to a mixed member proportional system (Misplaced Pages page here). This probably has something to do with that. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 00:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I've added a intro, moved it to Ontario electoral reform referendum, 2007 detailed results and linked it from the main article. Exxolon (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem, everything looks good. --Patar knight - /_{contributions} 01:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mixed Excitation Linear Prediction

Can someone knowledgeable check the recent edits by Special:Contributions/71.102.129.140? Can't tell if constructive or not. Exxolon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like they were just cleaning up an article. Keegan 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine to me too. --Salix (talk): 20:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png

File:Fuzzy squirrel in wiki-land.png - Can someone please undelete this image locally and mark that it should not be moved to Commons, as it contains an image that is only PD in the US? Thanks. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 18:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Kind request to revert move of an article, (Macedonia related by ARBCOM injunction)

In 20th April 2009 Mactruth moved the Macedonian culture (Slavic) article, to Macedonian culture (ethnic group) here . Mactruth did not undo the move in due time after he was informed of the ARBCOM's temporary injunction on moving Macedonia related articles

He stated consistency as the reason but the new title is also syntactically wrong, since Slavic is an adjective that was about the culture while "ethnic group" can be applied only to peoples. The resulting phrase "ethnic group culture" is not English proper. Mactruth has pushed in the past the kind of pseudohistory mentioned in the article about pseudohistory. That is "the pseudo-Macedonian theory, claiming that the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia are descendants of Ancient Macedonians and speak the same language". Mactruth uses various anti-Greek terms in his user page and other absurd claims "Greek language was extinct in 1630" and straightforward hate language like "the Greeks were more barbarian then the barbarians."

In the light of the above, removing the word "Slavic" from the title about that culture, might not have been in good faith. I am only hoping this move will be reverted just like the temporary injunction states. I cannot move it since I am an involved party. Thanks in advance Shadowmorph (talk) 08:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The requested move is at Misplaced Pages:RM#4_May_2009 Shadowmorph (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The move clearly falls within the scope of this injuction, but I also cannot undo it, because I am an involved party. Anybody listening?!--Yannismarou (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I am discussing this with a few Arbitrators at the moment, but I think a better place for this would be at WP:AE. Tiptoety 19:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys, why all this bureaucracy? Can't somebody just go and do it? I mean, it's not as if it was a big deal or anything, and the parties to the arbitration are actually even in agreement on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I just needed a second to review the specifics. As such, I have reverted the move per the injunction. Tiptoety 19:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Creating a redirect link for Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi

Please can you permit a redirect from Ghazanfar Mehdi to Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi to be published. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabibhassan (talk • contribs) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

cant you do it yourself?  rdunnPLIB  12:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The page was actually moved to Ghazanfar Mehdi (per WP:MOS), and Dr. Ghazanfar Mehdi redirects to it. hmwithτ 14:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I did that. I could have sworn I posted here mentioning that, but evidently I only thought about doing it (exams on the brain atm). Gave the article a quick tidy, but still some key fundamentals remain a little iffy. - Jarry1250 15:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Requesting neutral opinions regarding WP:WRONG and WP:PROTECT

In response to a request for page protection at WP:RFPP, I protected WP:NOT. Of course, I protected the WP:WRONG version - and by wrong version, I mean the version that many editors, (including DreamGuy, Kww, Gavin.collins, and myself) think is wrong.

My question is, did I do the right thing? All opinions welcome! SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a policy page. If there's an edit war the default needs to be the longstanding version, not whatever somebody who comes along and who doesn't respect consensus decides to do. I think that should be the policy on article pages too, but it's epecially important on policy pages, otherwise you get edit warring and people getting away with distorted versions of policy while the page is locked. DreamGuy (talk) 17:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Its 2 sentences and its protected for 3 days; its not like the whole policy is in flux. The correct solution is to discuss and try to come to a quick resolution, not sit around and discuss whether the protection was good. But since we're already here, protecting then reverting to the version you think is better (except in cases of BLP or coppyvio issues), is much wronger than protecting the wrong version IMO. Mr.Z-man 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's what policy says too. It earned me a trout, though. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A trout undeserved, by my opinion. Of course, Misplaced Pages will likely collapse into a steaming pile of useless code during these three days where (gasp!) people will have to talk on the talkpage instead of simply writing over the top of each other. Endorse protect, don't CARE what version. Keeper | 76 17:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

A trout undeserved in my opinion as well, despite me having started the thread at ANI. I can understand that SheffieldSteel probably would have encountered more resistance had he reverted to what he viewed as the better version. In this case, the right thing has happened: it was protected in the wrong state, it was discussed, and people agreed that it was protected in the wrong state and changed it. The only thing I would have done differently were I SheffieldSteel is that I would have opened this discussion immediately and flagged the opening of the discussion in my edit summary.—Kww(talk) 17:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Appologies to SheffieldSteel for my over-reacting. I suggest you review your membership of Category:Wikipedians open to trout slapping; like check-in staff at airports who wear Clip-ons, you might like to reconsider how you decorate your user page for the same reason :p --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 18:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

My comment here is redundant to my comments about this issue in the half dozen other parallel venues. :) I think there is a natural, unavoidable tension between WRONG and POLICY that can't and shouldn't be resolved through caveats and provisos. That space is rightly occupied by the judgment of the protecting admin. I can understand the frustration felt by people and the false sense of urgency that the incipient edit war instilled in us all, but you were within your rights to protect that page. Had you reverted it and protected you would have been castigated for violating PROTECT at the expense of supporting POLICY. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In defense of SheffieldSteel, I believe that by protecting the version he disagreed with, he did the right thing. The intent of page-protection is to end the bickering & edit-warring, not to gain an unfair advantage. And since the act did end both, & led to a consensus to endorse his favored version as the default version. How about instead of slapping SS with a trout, someone cook him one? Properly cooked in a skillet over an open flame with a fresh vegetable & a side dish, trout can make an enjoyable meal. -- llywrch (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Om nom nom nom. Thanks for the feedback everyone. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Transient top & sidebar weirdness?

First, I am one of those oddballs who doesn't use the default MonoBook Skin -- I use Classic because (IMHO) it looks better. Anyway, twice today I've opened a page to find entries missing from the menus along the left side & at the top. The first time it was when I glanced at LessHeard vanU's talk page, which led to wonder what kind of Wikimedia wizardry had he performed there; after poking around, I refreshed his page & the weirdness vanished. I figured some vandal modified some of the base templates that are combined to create the Misplaced Pages pages, someone else reverted it, & I moved on. Then, just a few minutes ago I encountered this again -- & immediately had a look at the Recent Changes page, but failed to identify exactly which templates were modified. And I suspect that no one would let a vandal repeat that trick twice in a few hours. Is someone modifying these templates to fix some unreported problem? If so, I suggest they test all proposed changes against all of the standard skins to minimize user frustrations. -- llywrch (talk) 19:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been seeing some weird things as well in a variety of places, like my talk page, and my watch list

(diff) (hist) . . m Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Check Misplaced Pages‎; 15:27 . . (-1,244) . . Drilnoth (talk | contribs | block) (etc)

would get reduced to something like

() () () (||) () ) 

is that what you are seeing as well? This probably belongs at WP:VPT, most of the clever folk watch there. –xeno 19:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. When I saw it on LHvU's Talk page, & noticed that the "Edit this page" tags had vanished (along with everything else except "Printable version" at the top, & almost everything along the side except "Donate to Misplaced Pages" & "Random article" along the side), I thought "Boy, he really wants to hear less van everyone else." -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Like File:Missing history.png? I've been seeing that quite a bit lately. - auburnpilot's sock 19:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the rub. –xeno 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

If there ever was "wikimedia wizardry" on my talkpage, I assure you it would not be of my doing - I would be the Rincewind of any wikimedia wizard order. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I got it too a couple of hours ago. My guess would be that those nasty developers have introduced a server bug somewhere. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI I just filed a bug report about this. Looie496 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I've also been seeing missing entries in the side bar. For example, I just went to the Community portal and all I see in the side bar is the search box and the list of languages. If I hover my cursor over the areas where the other entries would normally be, I can click on them, but they aren't visible. I use Monobook. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, I've been getting this for a week or two. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Weirder & weirder. Let's all blame Microsoft. >:-D -- llywrch (talk) 22:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Usually a good scapegoat, but I'm using a Fox =) –xeno 12:46, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What should I have done here?

I'm putting my block here up for review. And if correct, what template should I use? If you look at this edit history, we have Wikistupidity (talk · contribs) editing (vandalising) and then Wikiconspiracy (talk · contribs) making the same edit. I'm not sure if I should have blocked the new account, blocked the old (I did give him/her a 3RR warning), or what. We also have Truth cola (talk · contribs) who may be the same editor. I'm off now, anyone can undo what I've done if I was wrong. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I blocked Wikistupidity, and looking at the history of that article, I semi-protected it for two days. Blueboy96 21:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

GREAT! You blocked Wiki-Stupidity, that's fantastic - could we throw a little salt on that as well? ... oh... wait, you're talking about a User name ... sigh ... oh well, it was a dream come true for a second there. — Ched :  ?  05:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

User:I COME IN hope

Hi, all. I've seen this guy pleading for leniency via different sockpuppets. I'm all for AGF, but I don't want to overturn a block without first checking in over here and getting some feedback. If he's sincere, I think he'd make a good editor given his enthusiasm. Wouldn't be the first reformed vandal we've ever had. Any suggestions as to how to proceed? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

What I tried on simple before he got blocked for his actions on en: Unblock and mentor. I'm not around 24/7 though, so a second mentor will probably be needed. (By the way, the user is User:SchnitzelMannGreek, for those who didn't know.) Knight-Lord of the Infernal Penguins 02:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a shot. I used to mentor problematic users back in my "Lucky 6.9" days. Diggin' your new username, btw.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I never knew that was you. What I did know then is that you'd be back :) Keegan 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I would like to point out Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/SchnitzelMannGreek. I am not very confident this will work out, but I guess we can try. Tiptoety 04:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing License

Hi, please fix the license with the today "In the news" Mainpage image File:Mikhail Saakashvili, Davos cropped.jpg. The license is {{cc-by-sa-2.0}}, see its original on Commons File:Mikhail Saakashvili, Davos.jpg. Thanks, --Martin H. (talk) 02:47, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

When it got brought over to wikipedia from commons they copy and pasted the licenses and our syntax is different then theirs. I tried to fix it with similar templates and licenses. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 03:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

thx :) --Martin H. (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Stats on RevisionDeleted

The RevisionDeleted function came into use at the end of January, and has been used by oversighters since that time while it's being tested and refined.

RevDel allows deletion to both Oversight and admin levels (the latter works but is not yet fully enabled for communal usage). It allows deletion/undeletion of log entries, as well as selective deletion/undeletion of posts.

Some details, and initial stats, are at WT:SIGHT#Usage of RevisionDeleted.

FT2  07:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Yay! More copyright problems!

I'd hate to bring bad news, but I've found another one.

Dger (talk · contribs) List of all articles created.

Looking at a few more articles, at least Greenish Blue, Polygonia progne and Oreas Comma were copied too. By his user page, he's a PhD. It's not like he wasn't warned. There are no excuses whatsoever. MER-C 13:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm encouraged that this is a relative newcomer, which means this isn't going to be as extensive as some and that the contributor may either not understand the policy or not know how to verify permission. (I haven't closely evaluated the sources, but I did look at this one: . Permission would have to come from the copyright owners of The Butterflies of Canada. I'll look through the contrib history, list what I see at WP:CP, and drop the standard "nothanks", which includes information on how to verify. --Moonriddengirl 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards