Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:42, 15 October 2010

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

If you are unable to post here follow this link to post at my unprotected talkpage.

I will do my best to speak clearly and avoid "bad language" unless you let me know that you are happy for me to do otherwise.

Unless you request otherwise, if you post here, I'll reply here (I'd suggest you watchlist this page to make sure you see my reply). If I post on your talkpage, I'll watchlist your talkpage to look for replies there.

I'm currently: overwhelmed with real-life issues. I'll be dropping by sporadically, real-life permitting.

Click here to leave a new message.

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

Indonesia vandal again...

Yesterday, the Indonesia misinformation vandal silently did it again. He used another "proxy": 12.50.249.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). He vandalized two articles that day, but I might inspect the programs he tried to add to the said two articles as he may have vandalized them too. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected both articles for a month. Let me know if you find any other "targets". I've not blocked the IP, but if there's evidence that they're continuing to use that IP I will block it. TFOWR 13:51, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've investigated that he tried to add Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy! into the Televisa and TV Azteca lists and it's pretty obvious the guy ain't Mexican. Wheel of Fortune has a Mexican version, but not on the two channels I mentioned and it's impossible Jeopardy would have a version there as well. The articles for the two shows are untouched, but it seems this guy is sure pretty desperate. Just stating my opinions since action has been done somewhat. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 13:58, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose as we lock down more and more articles the desperation will worsen. It'll be interesting to see what happens when the first batch of one-month semi ends... I suspect I'll need to re-protect. Hopefully sooner or later the message will sink in and "our friend" will go off and find another "game" :-) TFOWR 14:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he's doing it again. The address now: a New York based address 155.212.21.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 14:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked, pages protected. For what it's worth, the attacks do seem to be slowing down - I suspect the change from Indonesian IPs to international proxies have caused our friend problems. TFOWR 14:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Feedback

Hiya,

I know you help out on the helpdesk (great stuff), and wondered if, perhaps, you can also help some users on WP:FEED? It is quite similar; mostly newly-created articles looking for some basic info on how to improve the article. If you have a quick look over recent feedback given, you'll get the idea; anyway - it was just a thought; if you ever can help out there, please do, because it quite often gets backlogged. Cheers!  Chzz  ►  05:06, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

...just had a quick look, it's not somewhere I've been before. It looks like new-page patrol, but with more interaction? Aye, I'll give it a whirl! I'll wait until my caffeine levels have reached a sensible point... TFOWR 09:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and now that my coffee-levels have approached normal levels - where did my 10/10/10 post get to, eh? Eh?! I waited in all day, so I could retort with this Scottish news story ("Birthday boy Clark Walker can't wait to be ten on 10/10/10"). Very shoddy, Chzz, very shoddy! I expect better news delivery come 11/11/11 ;-) TFOWR 12:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE

Just seen your instructions for new sections at BISE but haven't yet added templates to the articles. Will do so later unless anyone beats me to it. BTW, a couple of other points; Sanctions on civility imposed on Triton and LevenBoy, so what tone of writing can I use that they can't? Also I see I was blocked. It doesn't matter now, but the reasons given were outrageous. I was merely expressing an opinion. I wasn't being uncivil. There seems to be a group of admins who have nothing better to do than search out block targets. Shame on them (and I don't include you). LemonMonday Talk 16:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA apply to all editors, but it's safe to say that extra scrutiny will be applied to LevenBoy (and Triton Rocker when their block ends). Additionally, there are guidelines like WP:TPG which editors are expected to follow, but which LevenBoy and Triton Rocker must follow.

Regarding your block, you'd need to take it up with the blocking admin, or raise it at WP:ANI - though the latter option obviously will draw additional scrutiny.

Incidentally, the two issues you've raised at WT:BISE, I've left a note about references - it'll be far easier to make the case for your proposed changes if you can demonstrate that there's a valid case for British Isles. TFOWR 16:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I think all statements I've referred to are currently unreferenced anyway, but we can interpret the usage is various ways without a reference in some cases. Reference hunting is a debilitating sport and honestly, it's not needed. LemonMonday Talk 17:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's up to you but I'd have thought it's easier to change from the status quote if you make a good case to do so. TFOWR 17:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Polls

It is here. You state, "A snow close, with everyone agreeing with the bleeding obvious. TFOWR 17:39, 10 October 2010 (UTC)" The bottomline is, everyone did not get to agree. You agreed for them. You shut the poll after a few hours. Looking at the first poll, we have no idea what they might say until they do, and a few surprised arose in that. Individuals appreciated having the poll. My reading of WP:SNOW is "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." In this case, the complete opposite was more likely to be true. There would/should/could have been an easy unanimous agreement. A clear consensus. But we dont know now until we run it. I am logging off for today at this point. If you would like to re-establish good faith, just allow the polls to run without disruption wherever on the BISE pages you feel they they belong but get fair attention. Thank you. --LevenBoy (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Just wanted you to know that I'll be gone indefinitely. Thanks for the help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for the heads-up. Email me if you need anything - and all the best! TFOWR 09:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Cowbells!

Made me laugh - thanks for the link! Careful With That Axe, Eugene 10:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries! It's the first thing I think of whenever someone says "more..." And that article has everything - Saturday Night Live, Christopher Walken, Rawk music...! TFOWR 10:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE civility

As much as I appreciate the reasons behind the recent..."accusation"... by RA of somebody being a SPA, I reckon such talk should be kept to a minimum. If they aren't, it's slightly rude at best. If they are, such accusations would probably just bring more trolling and clutter to the discussion anyway. If an editor really feels this, they could probably bring it up at noticeboard-I-haven't-memorized-yet. Of course, I'm not in any way suggesting RA was doing something in bad faith and this is not a criticism on their actions at all. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree. I haven't seen RA's comment yet, I'll find it and raise it with RA as needed. Thanks. TFOWR 10:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Found it, and done. RA doesn't post at BISE that often, and I doubt they associated their comment (which would be normal for, say, an AFD) with the issues we're trying to avoid at BISE. TFOWR 11:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fmph's comment was also offbase, and I feel slightly more derogatory. I also think it's wrong, as the page is meant to discuss all these issues, but that may be besides the point. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 12:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think I'm offbase, why not tell me? I certainly don't think we should be filling up the page with every usage of (Great?) Britain and Ireland and asking if it needs to be changed, especially without references to indicate that it should! Fmph (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Fmph, I was just continuing the previous conversation, didn't think of it. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think the comment was that bad, but Fmph, while you're here, do avoid general, non-specific comments. In this case I'd already raised the issue of references with Lemon Monday, both at BISE and above. Specific examples can be raised at BISE for any reason, though obviously making a decent case for a change is going to be more effective. If participants don't feel an adequate case has been made for a change they can simply note that and move on: my preference (the lazy option) will be for the status quo unless a decent case is made for change. TFOWR 13:44, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure. I wasn't really pissed with Chipmunkdavis. Just passin' by here and kicked up some dust on the way. Sorry. Fmph (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

x2 --RA (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE Conkers summary comment

I was surprised. But you said Far too much wikilawyering on both sides. It's discussions like this one that give BISE a bad reputation. Please clarify where there was wikilawyering. --HighKing (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Both sides, instead of stating their arguments neatly and coherently, chose to pick at others' comments. I mentioned this to you and BW at a recent SPI, but the other participants as well should be aware by now that what's needed is brief statements for or against, not endless nested threads. Comparisons with hurling, if needed at all, need to be made in the first - and only - statement. There is rarely, if ever, a need for a second statement. TFOWR 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

In future, can I suggest that we avoid neatly stacking editors into "sides", and then tarring each editor in each side with the same brush. I know you need to be (seen as) fair and evenhanded and balanced. And sometimes that means you can't be seen to be always coming down on just one side - even if one side is causing most/all the problems. But you can over compensate and it then becomes unfair to to dole out smacks and punishments to "both" sides in an attempt to seem impartial. --HighKing (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. However, in this case I saw both "sides" wikilawyering, both sides engaging in the multi-threaded arguments I'd been trying to discourage. When closing a discussion one side will typically "lose". I view that in the same way as protecting a page at "The Wrong Version" - it's largely inevitable. In this case both sides argued poorly, and one side appeared to be rewarded for that. That's unfortunate, but unavoidable. I'm not going to use closing statements to "punish" bad behaviour - there are sanctions for that - but I will use closing statements to point out bad behaviour. The close in this case was done based on the evidence available when the discussion was closed, and I believe my statement reflected that evidence as fairly as possible. That new evidence was brought up after the discussion was closed is a separate issue, and one that also concerns me. I need to discuss this (privately) with "counsel" and the other admins to work out how best to deal with this. Clearly the best interests of the project dictate that articles reflect, accurately, all available evidence but there does need to be a way to enforce arguments being made during discussions and not right after closing. TFOWR 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I responded to the conkers close at the BISE page to keep it separate. As to the "wikilawyering", perhaps I misunderstood. I wasn't considering the behavior of threaded responses to be wikilawyering, but it seems that it's precisely what you're referring to. In that case, yeah, there was tons of it, but, to my eyes, there was four main protagonists (not counting the sock) for this behaviour, and naming and shaming would be better than lumping everyone into the same boat. Briefly, as to the conkers close, it's impossible to present evidence (so that it's available at the time of close) if you're going to materially change the article and introduce new facts in your resolution. If I break out your resolutions I find that you've essentially ruled in favour of the argument that conkers is not traditionally played in Ireland and the colonies. Fine. But then you've created a new fact to discuss the areas of distribution where we can find conkers being played. Outside the scope of BISE. Unless your position is that this is an alternative reading of the existing text (fine), in which case nobody has had the opportunity to discuss it (not fine). --HighKing (talk) 13:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the wikilawyering was about more than the multithreaded discussions, though the claim/counter-claim is a large part of it. There was too much focus on opinion, and not enough on sound arguments backed by policy or precedent. You made four comments, for example - only the first had any real value (an opinion backed by several references): the rest repeated your opinion or made redundant analogies to challenge other editors' opinions. In one case you discounted the Lonely Planet guide, despite using it yourself as a ref. That is what I mean by wikilawyering. Anyway, as I've said at BISE - if you're unhappy with the close, I've already stated how to challenge it: take it to Black Kite or Cailil. TFOWR 14:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

In one case you discounted the Lonely Planet guide, despite using it yourself as a ref. That is what I mean by wikilawyering. That is simply untrue and extremely disingenuous of you. Lonely planet is a publisher of many different books. I referenced from a book called "British language and culture" which discusses many examples of British language and culture, and it has a section on conkers. I dismissed the "Ireland" guide because it was using an event listing to list the "Irish Conker Championships" as proof that conkers is a traditional Irish game. My comment was clear on that. --HighKing (talk) 16:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

HighKing, look, I'm sorry you don't agree with the one example I gave of you wikilawyering. And I'm sorry you disagree with how I closed the discussion. But I stand by my admonition that you - and all other participants - need to start making better, more coherent arguments. And I stand by my position that if you want this re-opened you're going to have to take it to Black Kite or Cailil. I'm not prepared to set a precedent for "hector TFOWR until they re-open a closed discussion". If you do want this discussion re-opened, I'd be grateful if you could move forward with it promptly - there are (tangentially) related issues which I'd like to discuss with Black Kite and Cailil, and I want to wait until you're spoken to them so I don't prejudice their decision. TFOWR 16:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, apologies. Let's draw a line under conkers and move on. --HighKing (talk) 17:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries, apology accepted, similar apology extended from me! This has raised an interesting procedural issue, however, so all the pain has had some value ;-) TFOWR 17:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

A favour

I'm likely to be much less active than normal for a little while and thus not able to get to my talk page in a timely manner. Any chance you could keep an eye on it and the alternate talk page and handle any concerns over admin actions, especially the "why did you delete my blatant copyvio" threads. How you handle it I'll leave up to you. I trust you, so, as ever, I won't consider it wheel-warring if you decide to reverse my actions. I'll try to look in on ITN when I can, but my connection is dodgy so I probably won't be on as often as I'd like. Much appreciated, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's no problem. You've plenty of TPSs to keep me straight, so I don't think I can do too much damage! Hope the connection issues sort themselves out soon - I know from experience they're a right pain. TFOWR 07:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

BISE resolving and action taking, template question

When an editor has made the change and marked as done (which I just did with a couple of the resolved discussions) do they change the template or is it you who does that after reviewing their edits? Sorry if you've said this somewhere else already. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I have said it elsewhere. I've been doing it, but I've no objection in principle with having other editors do it, so long as the "conclusion" parameter is accurate. Personally, I'd love to get other editors to do it ;-) I'd imagine there will be discussions, though, where the "conclusion" is lengthy and doesn't easily lend itself to a neat paraphrase, but "other editor" can always leave those ones, or ask me what the paraphrased conclusion would be. (Oh, and thanks for "done-ing " the ones you "done-ed " ;-) ) TFOWR 17:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and WT:BISE

I haven't used User:Lightmouse/monobook.js/script.js recently. Can you raise the issue with the editor that is using it? Lightmouse (talk) 13:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Will do (in fact, I think I have already - I'll need to check). Apologies for blaming this on you, I had already worked out that you weren't to blame! TFOWR 13:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks. Lightmouse (talk) 13:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Horse Cat. Vandal

Can you nab this dude for me? NLinpublic (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably not! I'm not sure what I'm looking at, or why? Regardless, WP:AIV is your best bet - unless I'm familiar with an editor (usually a serial sock-puppeteer) you'll get a far quicker and better-informed response from the relevant board - AIV in this case. TFOWR 15:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I had something else going on and didn't have time to type out a longer message. I filed a report at AIV, and the "Megafauna Man" was blocked. It just got annoying to sit there and warn him four times, then revert every edit he made AQAP. Nolelover 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Another question

Can someone be blocked for removing speedy templates multiple times? Saimoom created an article and I tagged it as spam shortly afterwards. He has since removed the template four times, and I have no idea where to go with it. What's the proper place? Nolelover 18:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Article creators shouldn't remove speedy tags once, let along four times. Warn them - I think there's probably a standard template for removing speedy tags though I can't say for sure - and if they persist take it to ANI. In this case I'll have a word with them... TFOWR 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

...or, seeing as they'd been warned multiple times, up to and even beyond a final warning, I blocked them for edit warring. TFOWR 18:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nolelover 19:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) {{uw-speedy1}} {{uw-speedy2}} {{uw-speedy3}} {{uw-speedy4}} WP:AIV. GiftigerWunsch 20:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I note that Nolelover and other editors appear to have used these warning templates though. GiftigerWunsch 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    • They are on Twinkle. Should I go to AIV or ANI though? Nolelover 20:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

      AIV. So long as they've been given a final warning you should be fine. TFOWR 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I really ought to check my tools more often - I see them all now in Twinkle... Oops! TFOWR 20:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WonHwaDo

Why You deleted post about Korean Martial Art WonHwaDo? --78.60.73.85 (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It was proposed for deletion back on 15 June, and no one objected within seven days. If you want, I can restore the article, however I'd strongly recommend you work on the article - it has very few sources, and would quite likely be sent for a deletion discussion if it wasn't improved. TFOWR 20:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Troll

Westconnector (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Charles Karel Bouley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User Westconnector‎ is vandalizing the Charles Karel Bouley page. Would you please make them go away? Could be a sockpuppet, again! or just another troll. I bow to your judgement ;-) Namaste...DocOfSoc (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Looking into it. TFOWR 22:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Left a message. I'm not seeing anything too troubling at this point, but I'm absolutely unfamiliar with Bouley. The "homosexual activist" claim seemed incorrect, but not unduly troubling. I couldn't see anything to back up the claim that Bouley's partner had AIDS, and I feel a claim like that really should be backed by by a decent reference. The article used as a source (for the cardiac arrest claim) made no mention of it, which tends to suggest the claim isn't true. I'll keep an eye on things... TFOWR 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Andrew was HIV positive, he did not have aids, it was the subject of the malpractice suit. Karel is the opposite of the "Gay activist" he is not accepted generally by the gay community. Karel has said many times he is NOT a gay activist.We have already fought this battle several times on WIKI. Also this could be a sockpuppet of SRQ. If you want more history, I have a ton of it. Take care. xoxo DocOfSoc (talk) 23:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

GREAT message :-D DocOfSoc (talk) 23:24, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC

WP:BRD allows me to make more than one edit to the article per day, even when it is subject to a 1RR limitation - discussion here - yes, no, maybe? There is no actual action required or requested just a comment for future reference. Off2riorob (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:BRD is only an essay. a 1RR restriction on an article only applies to reverts - you can edit the article normally (but be careful - an edit that reverses a previous edit - in whole or in part - counts as a revert). Disclaimer: I've not yet looked at discussion. Will do in a second. TFOWR 22:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, read the discussion. BRD isn't an exception to 1RR - am "R" between a "B" and a "D" would still be an "R" - you can't evade 1RR simply by discussing your second revert. I don't know what edits are behind the conversation, so I can't comment in detail, but reversing any part of another editor's edit can count as a revert: A "revert" in the context of this rule means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part. It can involve as little as one word. I'd be reluctant to argue that at ANI or ANEW without having more detail, however. TFOWR 22:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Adding a BISE template

Sorry to be dense TFOWR and thanks for your helpful explanation and for adding the discussion bands under Kurt Jackson. To fulfill my duties I need to add the BISE template to the Talk:Kurt Jackson now - what exactly do I put on it please? Thanks for your help and apols - still a bit unused to some of the technical issues around here! Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is going to sound bad because I don't actually know the answer! There are a couple of templates: {{BID}} and {{BID2}}, and I'm not sure which one to use. Leave it for now, and I'll check with Codf1977. I think it's BID2... but I'll check. TFOWR 09:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

OK - in an odd way, it's comforting to know that an admin can be as clueless about processes as me. :) I think that was a compliment. (?) In the meantime, rudderless, the ship plows onwards.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 09:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)