Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Betacommand (talk | contribs) at 18:14, 19 March 2007 (→Request for help on spamblock dispute). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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)

Elvis Impersonator

My well-sourced contributions to the Elvis impersonator article have repeatedly been removed with unconvincing arguments by one user and his supposed sockpuppet. See , , ,, , , . May I ask you to keep a watchful eye on this article. Thanks. Onefortyone 15:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

And I politely ask that everyone keep a close on this editor - a really close eye. He/She seems to have a thing about turning whole articles regarding some celebrities into a perverted assortment of tidbits relating to their sexuality. Take a look at his/her talk page, as well as the Elvis Presley, Nick Adams, and James Dean articles; its really quite disturbing...--Dr Onion 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As everybody can see, this sockpuppet has deleted material supported by several modern university studies. See , , . Onefortyone 22:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit war continues. See , , , , , , . Onefortyone 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

You missed this one. Of course an edit war will continue when some fool keeps overwhelming whole articles by obsessively putting in pointless cherry-picked quotes and innuendo.--Dr Onion 02:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, sockpuppet, these quotes are not pointless or innuendo, but quotes from major academic studies dealing with Elvis impersonation. You are only deleting what I have written. Where are your relevant contributions to the article? Onefortyone 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For prior discussion of related issues, see generally Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone and Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Elvis. Newyorkbrad 00:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that arbcom member Fred Bauder has admitted that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources..." He also says that "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant points of view regarding a subject. Removal of other points of view is a violation." Therefore, user Lochdale, who frequently deleted my edits, was banned from Elvis-related articles. See . Could it be that he has reappeared as User:Dr Onion in order to harass me? See his contribution history. Onefortyone 02:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:WikiLoco

Persistant vandal, infrequent edits. Plethora of warnings. Please comment (first two AN posts had no comments). McKay 14:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing useful edits: and what could be well-intentioned but poorly thought out edits, in addition to some patently unacceptable behavior. Some of the edits that he was given vandalism warnings about (1, 2) might well have been good faith. Given the subject matter that the user is focusing on, and the mild severity of his disruptions, I propose that this user be adopted by a more experienced editor. Maybe mentorship would turn WikiLoco around. My go-to guy for this kind of thing in the past has been Ryanpostlethwaite. Thoughts? A Train 14:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Reform is always better then exile.. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

While I agree, He doesn't reply to comments on his talk pages, or on comments placed on the talk pages of the pages he's viewing. I would not be opposed if he reformed, but Right now, I can't trust anything he puts on the page. Sure, some of his edits are constructive, and those are easy enough to determine, but it's the unsourced, probably incorrect edits that is causing the trouble. McKay 15:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if a) Ryan is willing to take him under his wing and b) if WikiLoco is amenable to being mentored. If not, then let's consider a different route. A Train 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, sorry for the late resonse here, lets just say I'm ill. Just left a note on WikiLoco's talk page, explaining the situation and offering mentoship. I'll keep everyone posted on the response, cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 21:33, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Just though I would comment. He frequently posts unsourced and speculated dates for games at List of Virtual Console games (North America). He adds release dates that are just speculation on his part and has been doing this for several weeks. I want to assume good faith, but he does this every week. TJ Spyke 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On a very similar note, he keeps changing the japanese release date on the Animal Crossing (Wii) article to "TBA" when it has been announced as 2007 (and cited within the article) as of nearly a month ago. Yet he continues to delete the release date and cited information nearly every day for no reason. I'd love to see the guy reformed, but he's currently being kind of a large annoyance. Thores 06:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppet? WikiManiac64 (talk · contribs). I've seen a few of his edits be very similar to WikiLocos. McKay 16:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste merges from deleted articles

I believed that it was not acceptable to do a copy-and-paste merge from a deleted article into another article without attributing the original authors as this violates section 4(B) of the GFDL. However, an administrator has informed me that this is acceptable, because the AfD has closed. Could somebody please clarify this for me. Thanks --Pak21 16:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not acceptable, the authors have to be attributed. Could this just be a language misunderstanding between the two of you? Or something else going on? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

If all the previous authors agree to releace thier contributions under the PD then it would be ok... otherwise a copy&paste merge is not acceptable. However, a good solution is to undelete the article and convert it into a redirect. Then you can can make the merge and have the old history to satisfy GFDL. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The administrator has just asserted that it is acceptable because the contributions are in the deleted articles history. I would have thought that it must be viewable by anybody. Cheers --Pak21 16:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the section of policy only applies to AFD's in progress. AFD's since deleted can recreate sections of their deleted material into another article. For instance if the article on George W. Bush's dog is deleted, the attribution remains in the first page's history, and the information simply can be added into the G.w.b. article instead. This happens all the time on AFD. Why is this a problem? But anyway, J.Smith brings up a very easy solution, we'll just undelete the article and make it a redirect, problem solved. ⇒ SWATJester 16:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You would have thought correctly. The GFDL doesn't just require us to know who our contributors are, it requires us to attribute those contributions publicly to the right person. Unviewable deleted article history doesn't do that. Gavia immer (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There, problem solved, the histories are now public and the articles are restored as redirects.And Gavia immer, it doesn't seem that GFDL 4B mentions anything about having it be public. ⇒ SWATJester 16:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It was still not exactly resolved. You have to at least mention which article you copied the content from in the edit summary (per WP:MM); reading the GFDL, I'm not even sure that's enough, but it's typically all we do. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. The material is already in there, all I did was fix the undelete/redirect. In order to properly get the edit summary in there, would you suggest removing the material and then reinserting it immediately afterwards with the article mention?⇒ SWATJester 19:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree this is resolved. Firstly, there is still the issue of what is correct, and secondly, I'm don't think those articles should have been undeleted anyway - they are fundamentally original research which has no place on Misplaced Pages, although that may be considered to be a separate issue. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pak21 (talk • contribs).

It doesn't matter whether they were original research: they are blanked and redirected. The original research is gone, it's not there because there is no more article, there is just the redirect.⇒ SWATJester 16:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The content is not original research since none of the criteria for what is excluded have been met by these examples, and they are based on simple calculations (also not OR). Confusing the fact that those credited have chosen names for months with original research is akin to crediting me with original research everytime I chalk up a math example during class, simply because I selected variable names myself. These are well-constructed examples of their kind, the authors are generally well respected in their fields, and none of them have produced the calendars for profit, or in the expectation that they will gain wide useage. 1. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 05:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I haven't read this section properly but it is not clear which articles are being discussed here. Can someone please tell me? Clearly I can't comment on specifics, but I can say that the requirements in this respect are that if the content is publicly available then the history must be publicly available, including history from other pages which have been merged into a page. --bainer (talk) 12:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The content dispute here is over Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar, Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar and Simple Lunisolar Calendar, and other proposed calendars I have nominated for deletion over the past month or so. However, that doesn't really need to be settled here. What I see as the more important issue is that an administrator actively involved in closing AfD debates is propogating his own incorrect view of the GFDL. Cheers --Pak21 14:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• The articles are: Hermetic Lunar Week Calendar, Simple Lunisolar Calendar, Meyer-Palmen Solilunar Calendar, The 30x11 Calendar, Sol Calendar, New Earth Calendar, Bonavian Civil Calendar, Pax Calendar, and Symmetry454 (where an attempt was made to get all of these calendars considered together to establish a precedent on how to handle this material ( discussion here).

Nonetheless, where the result has been 'delete,' Pak has purged all reference to these calendars in parent articles as well (including redlinks and passing mention), such as List of calendars and Calendar reform . SwatJester stepped in when discovering Pak accused me of copyvio over an attempt to merge material from two articles to Lunisolar calendar, although clearly (to most) none was intended. I am seeking clarification on how much of this material can be merged back to appropriate parent articles, meeting Wiki guidelines and to avoid potential conflict with Pak's interpretation of guidelines. Since this discussion is now here, I'd appreciate suggestions where possible. Kind regards, --Greatwalk 21:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Your merging of the deleted material was a copyvio, whether intentional or not, as as such had to be reverted. The GFDL is not something we can disregard just because an editor isn't aware of its implications. 2) As for the actual merges, excepting Pax Calendar, not one of these articles had a single reliable source to back it up and as such is original research. It is not a "trivial calculation" as you claim: the example of a trivial calculation given in WP:ATT is that of calculating percentages for readily available vote tallies. For example, can you please explain the pattern of "abundant years" in the Simple Lunisolar Calendar? If not, it's not a trivial calculation. --Pak21 23:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1.) No, it didn't need to be reverted, it needed to be credited (and I did not need to be threatened with punitive action to accompish either).

2.) Yes, I can explain it and so could a schoolchild in a gifted mathematics class. It is a weak section of the article, though. --Greatwalk 01:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Odd? Or am I just a Luddite?

I came across a brand new user today whose first three (and so far only) edits were to their monobook.js. Does that seem strange to anyone else, or does that happen regularly? Code isn't really my thing. Natalie 23:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

It depends. They might be a user from another Misplaced Pages who was registering their username to avoid impersonation or for use at a later date and decided to fix their en account up so it functions like their old one. Or they could be the welcome-message vandal from a month or two ago. Wait and see, and assume good faith in the meantime, is my recommendation. Picaroon 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Welcome message vandal? Not familiar with that one. Natalie 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

. Picaroon 00:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I second the "it depends." Really, I only come across that kind of contribution history by accident and not on RC. I just assume that the user knows what they're doing, and I usually follow the contributions for a couple days and then move on. 99% of the time it's just someone making a new start or some sort of alternate account. Teke 05:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's quite normal. .js pages only exist for registered accounts. So people who don't edit wikipedia but regularly use it may want to customize the way they view wikipedia. I've set up accounts for other people on their computers before so they can view wikipedia with popups. --`/aksha 10:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Especially if there's an ongoing pattern, it couldn't hurt to keep a closer eye on that sort of account, I think. But I'd agree, it doesn't necessarily indicate any foul play -- some people may be incoming from other wikis, may finally be registering after a long period of anon editing, or a few other benign explanations. As with kinda "iffy" usernames, it can (and sometimes should) attract our attention, but provided they make good edits, it doesn't seem a pressing problem. Only exception to that, I think, is if they're an abusive sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Teddy.Coughlin

Teddy.Coughlin (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · sockssuspected)

This new user is adding a bunch of nonsense and false info to car articles, morover, those relating to Saturn Corporation and its vehicles. He added info on the Saturn Aura saying it is sold as the Saturn Fuga in Taiwain, but I looked it up, and no such thing as the Saturn Fuga. He is pretty much just going around messing up a bunch of car articles providing unsoured false info, and I would like if proper action could be taken. Karrmann 14:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest saying something to him first. If you're 100% sure that he's adding a hoax, you can put {{subst:verror1}}. Patstuart 14:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz (talk · contribs) has been warned recently (on February 20 by myself and March 8 by Cyde) to start contributing to the encyclopedia and stop treating Misplaced Pages as a social network. If you look at the user's contributions, the last main space edit was October 14th. Since then, in the last 5 months, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has accumulated over 700 edits almost all to user space. Since the warnings to try to contribute to the project, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz has continued to sign autograph pages and work on his own user page.

People argued on Qmwnebrvtcyxuz's talk page at User_talk:Qmwnebrvtcyxuz#What_are_you_doing_here.3F that blocking him is inappropriate because the user's 8. But at what point do we draw the line then? Do we wait until he's 10 before we force him to stop using this as MySpace? All he's been doing is working on his signature, his user page, and showing off his signature at other autograph books. Any thoughts on this situation? Metros232 21:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Contribution count for "Qmwnebrvtcyxuz" -- Ben /_HIST 01:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he's just had a birthday recently, so he's 9 now, not that that's a key difference. His father's username and e-mail are on his userpage, so you might want to raise the matter with him as well. Newyorkbrad 21:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I say leave him be. Hes 8 and by the time he has anything useful to contribute to the project he will be a wikimarkup wizard. Mike _{(T C)} 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

We should offer him the compliment of treating him like a grownup, and expect him to abide by the same policies as grownups. If he's not ready for Misplaced Pages now, he can come back later, and he'll be welcome then if he's willing to contribute to articles. EdJohnston 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Ditto what Mike said. If he had no edits to articles at all whatsoever, I'd be concerned. - RedWordSmith 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

"That's a hard question. I don't answer hard questions."
– US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens.

Oh, to be a Supreme Court Justice right now. As much as I might hate having to answer hard questions, I hate worse having to give hard cold answers. My soft sympathetic side, like that of others above, agrees with letting an nine-year-old learn-by-playing until he's able to contribute to the project. Aw gosh, isn't that cute. At the same time, I'm keenly aware that the moment an exemption for nine-year-olds becomes policy, we will suddenly learn that every poorly-behaving user is also nine years old. Among the many things Misplaced Pages is not, may I suggest we include long-term playground, day-care, or club-house? Everyone starts out new; we extend everyone a few (sometimes quite a few) chances to try things out, experiment, make mistakes, learn by doing. But, what, two years? Four? How long until Not-MySpace kicks in? I'm sorry, I really truly am, but MySpace is thattaway. -- Ben /_HIST 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why isn't he blocked under the username policy? JuJube 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

  It passed RFCN Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

He does have some article contributions, from last summer, when he presumably had more wiki-time and energy (and perhaps a collaborator). Newyorkbrad 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that RFCN debate sort of failed to come to a reasonable conclusion. _InBC 23:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Other than the stated articles, most of the other edits to articles within the user's first 50 edits were removing "expert needed" templates from articles, which doesn't really constitute constructive editing, IMHO. MSJapan 00:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• The name is non-random, not even apparently random, if you look at a QWERTY keyboard. Top row left-to-right, interleaved with bottom row right-to-left, until you run out of paired letters. Clearly ordered, non-random pattern. -- Ben /_HIST 00:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You can say it is not random, but it is apparently random. The first 20 digits of Pi aren't random, they sure look like it though. _InBC 15:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone noticed that he's not actually contributing to the encyclopedia, and just social networking? No constructive edits since October of last year? It's time for a "time-out" block for this kiddy. ⇒ SWATJester 07:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with that assessment, however, it appears that it's not necessarily a popular opinion to hold...so that's why I brought it here for comment. Metros232 15:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Misplaced Pages is a serious project, boys. No place for kiddies.--Kamikaze 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I wouldn't go that far. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, that includes "kiddies." We don't mind "kiddies" editing, so long as they're held to the same standards as everyone else, Metros232 16:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • • Ok, so if we hold everyone to the same standards, then we should block this kid just like we block full-age users that use wikipedia as a social network. ⇒ SWATJester 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Seriously, you don't think a 9 year kiddie can properly understand and apply the same standards as people past their 20s. This is only an example. Misplaced Pages is full of many. Just look at this sweet little fella--Kamikaze 16:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with Ben, Swatjester and EdJohnston: we are not a playground, the rules apply to everybody. If he doesn't contribute to the encyclopedia, let's just block him so that he may play somewhere else. Sandstein 18:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ed

Ed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In an e-mail I received from Ed, he wants me to indefblock his account because the user Soothsayer.03 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (mentioned somewhere on these boards concerning spamming through the Wikimedia software) knows his passwords and whatnot. I have simply replied to him that he should change his passwords, and I have not performed the block.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

How long ago was the email? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, what if it was Soothsayer.03 who emailed you? Maybe it would be worth blocking the account, but making it clear the reasons for doing so on the talk page Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I say shoot first, ask questions later. If it was Ed, the account might be compromised. If it was Soothsayer, that's even more reason to believe that the account is compromised. Hbdragon88 23:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Ed is requesting that his autoblock is lifted, which was caused by User:Soothsayer.03 being blocked indefinately (see the talk page for the reasoning), I'm not sure if I'm buying it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The e-mail was sent at 15:03 UTC and it was from Ed's account. Around the same time he went on Wikibreak for the reasons stated in the e-mail.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I say we block for 3 days and see what happens Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Can a checkuser be performed to see if Ed's IP has changed to a different location in the past day or two? If it's in the same area, that won't tell us very much that we don't already know, but if it's in a very different location, then we'll know that it's likely compromised. Wodup 00:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

According to WHOIS, the IP used by Soothsayer.03 was coming from Naperville, Illinois and Ed says he's from Chicago which they are relatively close, so the account being compromised is highly unlikely unless the other person who compromised it lives in his general area. According to Ed's talk page, he says Soothsayer.03 was at his house, and says she abused his e-mail or something he was unaware. I would unblock the autoblock and watch the account for a while. — Moe 02:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note I have requested this checkuser to assertain who exactly is requesting the unblock Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 02:55, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser showed that Ed's reason for being autoblocked was correct and so his autoblock has been lifted Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unblocking! I really appreciate it. I'll keep tabs on my girlfriend and make sure that she doesn't abuse WP anymore.--Ed 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Simon Gipson

Hi

I'm rather new, so I wasn't sure whether I should outright remove an image or report it first. On Simon Gipson, there are two photos. One has the caption 'Simon Gipson (left)'. This is ridiculous because the figure on the left of the photo sort of looks like Kermit the Frog. I've never seen a photo of Simon before, but I think that that picture wasn't very clear - if it was him in the suit, it's not a clear picture, so it should be removed? The second picture is a very far away shot of two people, and you can't even see their faces. Please review these and tell me on my talk page whether you've removed them or not. Thank you

Seventy ... dot ... 01:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, another user mixed up left with right. I changed the caption to Simon Gipson with Kermit the Frog, hoping that users are able to tell who is the frog and who must be the other guy. On the second pic, there is also left and right mixed up (now corrected), this makes me believe someone just swapped the pics without changing the cations. -- Chris 73 | Talk

Actually, I'm not too sure whether the man on the right is Simon Gipson or not. Anyway, it's unclear and should be removed, shouldn't it? Seventy ... dot ... 01:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like other pictures of S.G. on the web, should be him. While the image won't win a featured picture award, I think we should keep it, especially since it is under a free license -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the second pic? Seventy ... dot ... 02:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

That is copyrighted, and may have to be deleted eventually -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright. I'll remove the image from the page and you can delete the image later. Seventy ... dot ... 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Seventy Dot has just been indef blocked as a sockpuppet.⇒ SWATJester 07:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for help on spamblock dispute

Some of you may have seen my post at the Village Pump about adding a website to the spam black list. Some may even know about the passionate dispute about this website over on meta. Now it's reached a new low: in responding to a complaint about this dispute, Betacommand has decided to (1) intimidate the editor by dropping names about who he rubs elbows with, as well as (2) a gratuitous f-bomb.

I'd hit him with at least a warning about WP:CIVIL, but I am not impartial in this matter. I would appreciate it if some uninvolved Admins could monitor this situation, though. I have a feeling that tempers are only going to go higher. -- llywrch 04:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um. While it wasn't the nicest way of saying it, how on EARTH is this useful for writing an encyclopedia? Sites that are selling you something typically aren't good sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a single fact on that page that I could source to it. _InBC 05:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is not a useful page -- I assume both of you are referring to the same page. I am puzzled why you picked that one; which one of the almost 300 links from Misplaced Pages led you there? However, there are several useful pages on that website; here's one -- www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramesses2squeens.htm -- & this is another -- touregypt.net/featurestories/ramesses2intro.htm -- a Misplaced Pages article had linked to. Both have only a small advertisement at the top of each. The links that were disabled were added by a number of different Wikipedians & many have been around as long as 3 years -- so they've been frequently reviewed. But why are we talking about the content of a webpage here? -- llywrch 06:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I left Betacommand a message. —Quarl 2007-03-18 09:52Z

Beta has decided to revert my administrative decision to whitelist a single link to this domain. You can follow the conversation here. Admittedly I was on the fence on this request... but the link was being used as a source so I felt it would be useful to let the editors of the article make the call as to if it was a reliable source or not. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is all what the editors involved really want: a chance to discuss the content of the website. However, Betacommand has shown a stunning lack of tact & flexibility here even before I came into this, which is in marked contrast to the civil behavior of the others who support the blacklisting. None of them have resorted to obscenities or arrogance, & if provoked ... simply ignore the person. I'm beginning to wonder if the problem here is mostly Beta. -- llywrch 18:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my post at meta, Forking discussions over four pages is not good, I tried to have the discussion at one place, meta. Llywrch proceeds to spread and fork the issue over many pages and tries to bypass the blacklisting of a site (yes I requested it be SBL'ed) instead of attempting to address issues questions were raised of where the request was made and not on the validity of our reasoning. I cannot add things to the SBL as I am not a meta admin. the attempts to fork the discussion and bypass an ongoing discussion frustrated me, as i have been unable to sit down and address the issues, due to being in meetings all weekend. please see my most recent post to m:Spam talk. Betacommand 05:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Your response is disingenuous, Beta: there is no "forking discussions" here. I am responsible for starting only three related conversations: one on Misplaced Pages: Village pump (policy) about the manner this website was placed on the spam blacklist; a second on meta arguing to remove the website from that list; & this one, asking that some of my fellow Admins monitor those two conversations because tempers were growing heated. Using your reasoning, this conversation has been "forked" to two other venues: KyraVixen's talk page, and to the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist here on en; I have not participated in either of those related conversations.

Again, I would like to observe that other participants opposing me in this discussion -- for example, KyraVixen & Beetstra -- have been able to discuss this matter in a civil & productive manner, unlike Betacommand. I honestly don't know what his problem is, but Betacommand's unhelpful attitude began before I raised my concerns, & has been expressed to other Wikipedians. At this writing, he has continued to use abusive language towards other editors & failed to apologize for his earlier mistakes. I'm close to the point of having no more good faith to extend to him, & have begun to wonder if it would be appropriate for me to move this discussion to WP:AN/I or WP:RFC. -- llywrch 17:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it be noted that I have made several attempts to discuss the issue especially on meta. I and other users have repeatedly pointed out that touregpyt is a poor site (limited text, high rates of advertising, and that it is primarily a site designed to sell stuff). there have been repeated attempts to point out better sources that are not primarily commercial. instead of addressing the issue in question llywrch makes statements that do not address the issues raised., instead the comments do very little to address the issue. When I called him out on that he basically asked for me to be blocked on meta so that he could get the site off the SBL. (Yes I did use some strong language but in cretin situations there is a need at no point have I broken policy remember wikipedia and meta are not censored thus "my language" did not break policy) I have pointed out and requested Multiple times that instead of fighting for a poor site to be removed from the SBL we work together and find better sources that incorporate the mission of wikipedia and the WikiMedia foundation Free non commercial content. Instead of taking my offer to help llywrch continues to push for links to this site. Betacommand 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance in IDing possible sock

I had blocked Billy Ego (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) earlier for edit warring (for which he was also blocked for 8 hours today). In discussing my block privately, it was brought up that this user may be the role account (and anarchocapitalfaci-economist or however he identifies himself) RJII (talk · contribs · block log). I do not know how to ID such socks, so I am requesting that anyone who has knowledge of the RJII "group" to ID this sock and block it indef.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete AfD in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sexual repression

Hi, I made a mistake of creating an Afd instead of an RfD to delete a redirect for Sexual repression. I went ahead and created the RfD, but need help getting rid of the AfD -- right now it has both. I shouldn't be up this late! Thanks, --Shirahadasha 08:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've delisted the debate from the log page, and have deleted it per your request as the only substantial editor of the page. In future, you can probably use {{db-userreq}} for this sort of thing, or request a "housekeeping" deletion with {{db-g6}}. Martinp23 09:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Image changes in 3ds Max

A user has persisted in changing the screenshot image in the article about 3ds Max from the standard 3ds Max interface to an interface where a separate plugin (Orionflame) is used. After the second time I reverted his edits, I left a comment on his talk page to ask him to discuss the change at the article talk page before adding the image again. Yet he re-added it again today. What's the proper procedure here? It's not breaking the 3RR if I understand it correctly - is it instead regarded as vandalism? I'm unsure. --Strangnet 09:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not vandalism by any reasonable standard. Vandalism is any deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and absent that purpose it's not vandalism. You've taken the first step in dispute resolution by discussing this with the other editor, now you need to seek outside opinions. --bainer (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted User:Jeffvll's changes and will talk to him. —Quarl 2007-03-18 10:15Z

Persistant attack page creation

There is a persistent vandal creating multiple usernames to re-create a particularly nasty attack page about a Misplaced Pages editor (see my deletion log for details). I'm going to bed right now, if someone can keep an eye out to make sure that link stays red that would be great. I've blocked them several times but to no avail. VegaDark 10:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The thing to do here is prevent the page from being recreated. I was going to do this for you but some other admin already did. I have notes on how to do this at: User:Rlevse/Tools#prevent_page_recreation. Rlevse 11:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I've been wondering how to do that. Although there are several things they could do to get around that when simply creating attack pages, so mentioning it here seems reasonable. VegaDark 18:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Shortcut Requests for Speedy

Good afternoon (GMT time) all; I've closed an MfD as keep, but later revised the decision. Under normal circumstances a delete-close would be done by a sysop, but it was my responsibility to rectify my mistake, so I'm requesting an administrator to delete all of the archives located here. This is as a result of consensus achieved here.

This includes all the pages in each subsection, down to #Misc.

Kind regards,
anthonycfc 13:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• OK, I'm on it. I have expressed concern before that much of what the so-called "sandboxians" do is social networking, this is a good example. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Right, done. We really ought to do something about Misplaced Pages:Sandbox/Storytelling - "Welcome to the Storytelling area where you can write stories and fan-fictions." This positively encourages the development of skills we do not want exercised here. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to crack down on WP:NOT violations around here. _InBC 15:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Policy inquiry: Users for the webspace, not the articles

I hate to sound negative, but I've run across a few people lately that, well, aren't really using Misplaced Pages for the articles, but rather the webspace. I've stalked this board for a while and seen other cases where actions have been taken, but I can't remember when they were so I can't look them up. I found these two through recent changes and category cleaning.

• NEMS Enrichment Science Classes (talk · contribs): A user hosting stuff on Misplaced Pages for a class. No other contributions, no response to a talk page message.
• MEJenkins (talk · contribs): Around since December 2006, this user has performed 0 edits to article space and provided no response to a query on his talk page. No edits since December 22nd. His userspace contains two articles that appear to be parts of a company brochure or product plan.

So, what's the policy on things like this? Logical2u_{Review me!} 13:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, WP:USER pretty much says that we should frown upon the use of the user and talk pages for personal use (or stuff that's not related to the project). So I think this is grounds to MfD the pages, but only after you have tried to discuss the problems with the user. Many new users aren't aware of policy as well, and thus it would only make them angry if you MfD'd them without warning. Maybe try contacting the users again, and if there really is a problem and they don't respond, MfD any page that seems to be in direct contradiction to the policy in WP:USER. _└┘talk  13:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Usually just propose deletion per WP:PROD. Addhoc 13:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Spot the difference

See if you can see which of these two Associate Professors in Faculties of Education is the real thing: User:Nesbit, User:Sue Rangell. Guy (Help!) 14:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Sue Rangell is the newest account. Sue's first edit was to create a complicated userpage exactly like Nesbit's. That makes Sue Rangell most likely the impersonator. Do I win a cookie? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

image:ironyalert.gif

Who would ever question the credentials of someone on the Faculty of Education at an osteopathic medical university which has no faculty of education, located in DeMoine Des Moines? Over this obvious phony? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC) P. S. Admittedly, I'm relying on Misplaced Pages for my information on Des Moines University, since http://www.dmu.edu seems to be down...

I would ignore the credentials, true or not, they have no bearing. _InBC 15:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Dpbsmith is being sarcastic about Nesbit's credentials or not, but you can find Nesbit and his web page by searching for the school on google and entering his name in the search window or by going to academic programs, faculty of education, and faculty members and finding him and his web page under associate professors. I couldn't find DeMoines University any where and the medical school has no faculty of education. In general the credentials are worthless to me, but because of the copying of the user page, I am now concerned about what else this editor may have copied, and I think this should be checked. KP Botany 19:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess I needed the irony alert, huh? I was being sarcastic about Sue Rangell's credentials. That is the user page that misspells Des Moines University, and claims that Sue Rangell is on the faculty of education of a school that, as I noted, appears not to have any "faculty of education." What I called the "obvious phony" was a link to John C. Nesbit's impressive web page hosted by Simon Fraser University, with his photo and a few scores of publications. So, yes, I thought that the situation was so clear that I could jokingly refer to Nesbit as the phony instead of Rangell. I must remember never ever ever to be ironic in an online venue. Sorry. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, good grief, it took me 5 months to find the undo button on edits, you expect me to see the obvious alert you posted right above your message? KP Botany 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Answer I'm not sure what's going on with you, but you have been shooting a lot of venom around lately. The Cut/Pasted info from Nesbit's page has been RESOLVED. There is no sock puppetry, and there is no identity theft, and it CERTAINLY has nothing to do with the FAC. You have gone through great lengths to derail the whole FA process, and I'm not sure why. You have made personal attacks against me and I don't know why you have done that either. If I had known that nominating a page for FA would have invited the attention of a stalker-type, I would never have done it. This entire experience has taken all of the fun out of Wiki for me, and I'll certainly never nominate another page again. Sue Rangell 19:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Can you explain why this version of your user page, which up to that point had been edited only by you, says that "Sue Rangell is an educator in the Faculty of Education at DeMoines University?" This statement continues to appear in numerous edits by you, to be removed (without explanation) in this diff. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Please cut out the personal attacks, Sue. You called me a loonie on your user page, now you're calling me a stalker. Your incredible FAC nomination brought this attention upon yourself. It is so out of line with all FAC criteria, that I had to check to see if you were a banned user or some new user making a joke nomination. Even other users on the FAC are not sure the nomination was done in seriousness. "Object. Given the huge amount of work that needs to be done, it's difficult to take this candidacy seriously." KP Botany 20:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• My last Comment Not that it's ANYONE's business, but when I came across Nesbit's page, I saw that we had similar backgrounds, and I liked the layout, so I copied it to my user page as a template. I have been working on replacing his info with my own, then all this venom came up today. There is no sock puppetry. There is no identity theft. There is only this ongoing harrassment by KP Botany. I hope you admins do something about him, and people like him, because at this moment I would be normally doing my patrolling, but this whole experience has taken all of the fun out of wiki, and quite frankly I feel like quitting altogether now. This has been, frightening, embarrassing, saddening, and upsetting, and instead of having a good time here, I'm just sitting here crying at my keyboard. Sue Rangell 20:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of your edits are...well, interesting. Why did you put a vandalism warning on an article talk page? Why place citation needed tags in bizarre places as you did here? IrishGuy 20:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

User Nesbit's talk page, "My apologies Nesbit for the cut and paste, and I have taken down the offending material, I won't get into how it happened, but I want you to know that I was unaware of it and not responsible," (emphasis added). Why indeed. KP Botany 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• User:Sue Rangell, I don't understand what you're saying. You say "I liked the layout, so I copied it to my user page as a template. I have been working on replacing his info with my own." How can this be reconciled with a history that shows you created your user page initially on http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Sue_Rangell&oldid=114126641 on March 10th], as a clone of Nesbit's page except for changing his name to yours; then, over a period of a week, from March 10th until today, during the process of editing your user page three times on March 13th, six times on March 14th, five times on March 16th, once on March 17th, you never changed or removed the very first sentence on the page, "Sue Rangell is an educator in the Faculty of Education at DeMoines University?" Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• And why do you use a signature which adds every page on which you use it into the category of pages that need source citations? Dpbsmith (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Because the user has an extremely weird sense of humour? (Feel free to toss that out.)

While I'm here: I seek permission from KP Botany to quote the "Oh, good grief" gem on my own talk page, because I soooo identify with it. — Athænara ✉ 08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it won't include those pages in the cat, because the cat is only applied to main-space usage. But it is weird. Rich Farmbrough, 11:33 19 March 2007 (GMT).

I don't think there's a significant problem here. Rich Farmbrough, 11:40 19 March 2007 (GMT).

Request review of my block of User:RayTomes

I have blocked User:RayTomes for one week after recreating Category:Cycle for the third time (deletion discussion 1 and 2.) User:SilkTork, RayTomes' advocate, requested me to unblock him which I would do under the condition he mentored RayTomes. However, he does not see any problem with Ray's behaviour and, in fact, is encouraging it, therefore I declined (full discussion). I request other administrators to review my action. —Ruud 17:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I welcome this, and thank Ruud for posting this thread. I would add this is the message I left on Ruud's talk page which prompted this request: "My advise to Ray Tomes is on his talk pageUser_talk:RayTomes#Misplaced Pages:Association_of_Members.27_Advocates.2FRequests.2FFebruary_2007.2FRayTomes: "My suggestion now will be that we hold any action on the Category:Cycles until The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and List of cycles have both been through a discussion and survived. With support and credibility from consensus we will better able to proceed. SilkTork 18:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)" Clearly there is no provocation to disruption, instead there is a decision to go through consensus. Your refusal to unblock is becoming very contentious. Ray Tomes is not disruptive. Your initial decision to block him was unsound, and your continued refusal to unblock him is provocative. I would, at the very least, like to see you consult with another Admin about this as I suspect you've allowed personal feelings cloud your judgment. SilkTork 17:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)" User_talk:Ruud_Koot#Unblocking_of_User:RayTomes. SilkTork 17:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Repeated recreation of deleted-by-process material is disruptive, pure and simple. Wikilawyering to the contrary provided in the links is precisely why I think advocacy is a really awful idea that should be shut down. Don't think I can see too much wrong with the block. Moreschi 17:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not "recreation of deleted-by-process material". Fistly the original deletion did not follow process. There was a majority for keep, an incorrect count and I was falsely accussed of voting more than once. It was my complaint about this that lead to the appointment of SilkTork who has been ensuring that proper steps have been taken. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A) Ray Tomes was blocked for following my advise. He was blocked without discussion. He has followed Wiki procedure. If anyone is at fault here it is me rather than Ray. B) At 18:26, on 17 March 2007 I gave Ray the advise that "My suggestion now will be that we hold any action on the Category:Cycles until The Foundation for the Study of Cycles and List of cycles have both been through a discussion and survived.". Ruud later stated that he would unblock Ray if I advised him not to create that category again. I pointed out that is what I have done. The procedure now is to look for consensus on other areas of cycle theory, if that consensus is not found then there is nothing more that can be done. Having fulfilled that requirement there seems no continued reason to block Ray Tomes. SilkTork 18:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

"Ray Tomes was blocked for following my advise" so are you saying you advised him to ignore the outcome of the deletion and recreate it, rather than engaging in discussion with the deleting admin or taking it to deletion review? Yes you've now advised him not to do it, but from reading his talk page, I can't say it seems he agrees with you. Can I ask a question about what you believe the role of an advocate is? You seem to basically be supporting him however ill-advised his actions, rather than pointing him the right direction to resolve any issues. --pgk 18:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see my above comment that the original vote was not to delete, procedure was faulty. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• To answer the first question. I understood the category in question to have been deleted in Sept 2005. Enough time to have passed to have another go. I have since learned of the more recent deletion. My advise has changed. To answer the second question. I believe my role is to support editors to resolve conflict through discussion. I will confess I am not making the best out of this case, but I still fail to see where Ray himself has gone so wrong as to justify a block. I have been engaging in some dialogue regarding this case, and I would have thought some contact with either myself or Ray about his recent actions - a warning, perhaps - might have been more useful than a block. It has never been my policy to be confrontational or to deliberately abuse Wiki. But mistakes may occur. However, discussion usefully resolves errors. Things like blocks seem harsh in the circumstances. SilkTork 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dammned if I can make much sense out of that, but I'll try. Blocked for following your advice? He re-created a twice-deleted category, which is disruptive: you surely didn't advise that? The article/list on which the category might rest are now at AfD: under those circumstances I can see nothing wrong with the block. Moreschi 18:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

This is encouraging, but at the same you denied that recreating deleted articles is disruptive and you even restored The Foundation for the Study of Cycles yourself. Not realizing that this is problematic behaviour, makes me doubt you are fit to mentor Ray (my condition for unblocking him earlier.) —Ruud 18:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not a twice deleted category. The first category was a wider one including many articles relating to cycles. The second one was a much narrower one. The original one did not follow procedure and the majority vote was actually to keep the category. It was my complaint about this that led to SilkTork getting involved. Please read all the material that he has and you will find no fault on his part. The new category that I created is a narrow one - simply articles that are very specifically about particular cycles. There can be no reasonable objection to this. People like Christopher Thomas who maintain that I am pushing something that has nothing at all to do with this are constantly muddying the waters. I will not answer his lies because for every lie I answer he adds three more. This has NOTHING to do with Harmonics Theory. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Foundation for the Study of Cycles was never deleted under consensus. The result of the discussion was no-consensus. While researching into Ray's case I found a link to the article which was a redirect to another article. At the same time I saw that an article with the title Foundation for the Study of Cycles had also been redirected. Looking at the edit summaries it appeared initially that someone had attempted to merge the two articles but instead created a redirect to another article. I undid that. Upon further investigation I realised that the article had been subjected to that discussion, and despite the non-consensus, the article had been merged, so I stood by my undoing of the redirect. I left messages on the talk pages of those involved, and suggested a new Afd take place on that article as there is doubt about it. So. In short. I did not recreate a deleted article. Also, I have previously advised you of this situation as recorded in the links above. Would you please strike out the accusation I restored a deleted article. SilkTork 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Looking at the comments on his talk such as "I complained about a vote for category cycle (or cycles) deletion and asked for a case to be heard.". SilkTork was assigned to the case." seems to indicate he thinks you are some sort of authority who could rule on the dispute. Further "SilkTork re-established the article on FSC...", Although you may not have been aware of the apparent confusion as to your role, and the subsequent misunderstanding concerning the deletion of the category, it looks to me like you've got far too involved in this. --pgk 19:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  Add to that I notice you've voted to keep in the other AFD hanging off this, It seems hard to portray you as a neutral advocate helping someone through a dispute. --pgk 19:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD for the FSC page is here. The votes were 6 delete, 3 merge to Edward R. Dewey, and 4 continent keep votes (2 contingent on a rewrite satisfying WP:NPOV, and 2 contingent on establishing notability). Neither occurred, so it ended up getting merged to ERD (counting the contingencies, that's 6 delete, 3 merge, 0 keep; not counting contingencies, it's still 9:4 against keeping as a separate article). Portraying this AfD as an endorsement of the page, as SilkTork appears to be doing, is very misleading. --Christopher Thomasun 19:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am becoming aware that my actions in this case could have been better. I have not researched enough, and I have not consulted enough with other people. There appears to be greater history to Ray's involvement with Wiki than appears from the available records. I am not, however, convinced that all my actions were bad, nor that Ray should have been banned without a warning. In retrospect my advise to go ahead and recreate the category was unsound, as I hadn't looked enough into it. I still, however, defend my action in undiverting the Foundation article and suggesting it be put to the test of another discussion. And I still feel that Ray is currently being punished incorrectly. He will not recreate the category, and only did so under my guidance. His previous attempt at creating the category occurred over a year after the original one was deleted, and it was done slightly differently. His record on Wiki doesn't show him to be a disruptive person. He seeks out advise and acts accordingly. My own record on Wiki also shows me to be a not disruptive person who follows advise. Under these circumstances - would Ruud please reconsider the block. SilkTork 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am unhappy that you are backing off here SilkTork. You have acted quite properly at all times as far as I am concerned. You have looked into things thoroughly whereas Ruud has not. He acted without looking at the background. Ray Tomes 04:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked Ray. Please keep in mind that a number of the articles he has created have been deleted and that his contributions are therefore more extensive than those that will be revealed to you. While mentoring him please point him to WP:ATT, WP:RS, WP:EL (do not link to your own website) and WP:NPOV (especially the part of not giving undue weight to non-mainstream points of view.) Having mostly ignored those policies the past 3 year will likely mean the community is not going to be very tolerant if he continues to do so in the future. —Ruud 20:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. SilkTork 22:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Userboxes/Profession

I suggest the removal of all non-professionals (ie. podcastors, beach bums) to another page. A lot of the categories are nothing close for being professional.--Cahk 19:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:GUS, start moving them. Yanksox 21:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Amazon

This is going to be a long job. we have many thousands of links to amazon.com, a lot of whihc are either links to the Amazon product page, clearly inappropriate, or to Amazon customer reviews, which fail WP:ATT. I have already found the first individual to resist removal of such a link, insisting that we need a link to the Amazon sales page for Screamers (1995 film) to support the vital data of its VHS release date (not clear whether that's NTSC, PAL or both). Now, I could be wrong. Maybe the VHS release date really is' terribly important, and we really can't include it without linking to the Amazon sales page because it really is the only source for that data and it really must be attributed (unlike most of the rest of the article). Or I might be right, and we should not be linking to off-the-page sales pages. More input, please. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've delinked hundreds of "informational" Amazon links in the past - ie just to the product page - though I've not previously seen any used as a reference per se. In this case I'd leave it, but wouldn't drop any tears to see it go, and would rather like to see the data wind up on IMDB so we can cite that... Shimgray | talk | 20:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Uh, my opinion is simple: isn't there a better source than Amazon? About the only links I'd leave would be those on Talk pages: it preserves context & allows you to evaluate an editor's judgement in useful ways. -- llywrch 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If IMDB isn't considered a reliable source, why is Amazon? I wouldn't ask my local branch of WHSmith to confirm information although I might go and look it up in an actual book there and refer to that as the source. Spartaz 21:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

In terms of ISBN and release date information, it's super-reliable for books, and even more reliable for music and movies. Often, for older things, it's the best available reference and is completely appropriate to use, like in JzG's Screamers example. "Links to avoid" isn't "Links never to use at any point whatsoever," it takes a wee bit of thought rather than a blind massive delinking. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Forgive my scepticism but on what do you base the assertion that Amazon is super reliable? Also, I rather resent the tone of your response. Do you really need to use such stark language to get your point across? You have heard that you catch more flies with honey? --Spartaz 21:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Because I rarely see Amazon get anything wrong? I use it as a reference for basic information often, as it's easy to read, informative, and has traditionally given a good track record for accuracy. As for my tone, I'm no longer interested in catching flies, but simply having the proper thing occur. Considering the scare tactics involved in getting us to the point of nofollowing any links that don't make money for the Foundation and how we're "inundated with spam" to the point of making a oft-abused CSD out of it, I automatically blanche at even considering this sort of action without some more thought than "clearly inappropriate" when no such clarity exists. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you click an ISBN in Misplaced Pages, you have the option of checking the validity... by visiting the Amazon site. I'm guessing this because the Amazon site is... well... super reliable. Addhoc 22:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you should reach a page that gives you the option to check against many, many online libraries, not only Amazon. We are independent of the store. -- ReyBrujo 22:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but if you're lacking an ISBN because you don't actually have the book in front of you, it's certainly the quickest and best source out there for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

A way, yes. A quick way even. Quickest? Not important. Most reliable? No. The most reliable way of getting an ISBN is probably the Library of Congress or some other authoritative reference. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking from personal, professional, and Wikipedial experience, I'm not convinced that's true in the least. The LOC doesn't even have multiple versions or ISBN information for an edition you may be using. Example a) The Stinky Cheese Man, an award-winning book: One ISBN reference, and nothing about the 10th anniversary edition that has new stories, let alone paperback editions. Example b) A Nightmare in Ecstacy, an oral history of sorts about Ed Wood that I'm using for research here right now: no listing. Both of these titles in all their editions are easily found on Amazon, reliably so. So no, LOC is certainly not nearly as reliable as the retail site of record with the largest title base in the world, and that's just talking books. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Is personal experience a suitable way of judging the reliability of a source? How would you know if they were wrong? You are effectively arguing that they are reliable because because you said so! Surely you can do better then that? Spartaz 22:17, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly a way, given their track record. You trust a source more and more by using it and relying on it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

So, why not Buy.com, BestBuy.com or any other seller? -- ReyBrujo 22:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You won't hear me complain. Different strokes for different folks. All I know is that, given there's no real policy reason to outright remove them or forbid their use as citations, I'd rather not have people jump through hoops. Want to remove random external links that don't add anything to the article? Be my guest. Want to start removing citations? I have a problem with that. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the information appearing there is updated by users. We can't use wikis as reliable sources, so we should not depend on IMDB or Amazon. -- ReyBrujo 22:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Tracklisting, ISBN, publisher info? No, they aren't user-created. Also, IMDb is a reliable source for casting and such, those aren't the user-created content. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, you can update the cast and tracklisting, but I can be wrong. By the way, why is this discussion here instead of WP:ATT? -- ReyBrujo 23:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Because of the apparent clarion call for people to start doing something about this, probably. We got off track, but it's not a useless discussion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nuke 'em. Amazon's info isn't really mediated, it's supplied by the publishers themselves, so not really reliable, no matter how much faith you have in them. There's also the most obvious problem of their being a purely commercial site, which Misplaced Pages has no business favoring over any other online bookseller, AND that the {{ISBN}} pages already handle the the job of locating copies of the books, if anyone wants to find them, making Amazon links unnecessary, to boot. As for video release dates: who cares? --Calton | Talk 00:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Experience trying to replace invalid ISBNs suggests that *no* potential source of information should be ruled out, when trying to find correct book details or movie details. The submitter of this complaint, User:JzG, picked a case of the American VHS release date of the movie Screamers (1995 film), that might appear trivial since who cares about the exact release date, but we might have to undo some fairly sacred policies in WP:ATT if we want to place obstacles against using a correct source of information. Note that the fair-use publicity photo used to illustrate the Screamers article came from the very Amazon entry that Guy proposes we disallow the use of.

An {{ASIN}} template was created specifically to simplify making valid Amazon references in case this was the only way to provide online-checkable book details. This template is now in use for about fifty main-space articles, for example ASIN B00086U61Y, now validly used (in my opinion) for a rare out-of-print book cited in our Dartmouth College article and published in 1932. Without this reference there would be no way to tell that the book even exists, or to verify the spelling of the title, the author, or the publisher. (ISBNs came into use about 1970, so it has no ISBN). Nothing is more frustrating than to find an entry in a reference list that you know is wrong and have *no* online source of information for fixing it. If Amazon is the only thing available, we should use it. This doesn't replace ISBN references, of which there are about 70,000 in WP, and there is almost never a valid reason to use an ASIN when an ISBN is available. The need for ISBN-fixing, and the use of ASINs, is explained at CT:INV. EdJohnston 03:12, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Using Amazon -- one specific commercial bookseller -- as a reliable source for a rare and out-of-print books borders on the ridiculous. The Library of Congress -- perhaps you've heard of them? -- has a catalog, is actually official and reliable, and has been around a lot longer that 1970, and they catalog using their own system -- here -- with their own cataloging number system (for the example, LCCN 32011910 and LCC call number LD1438 .R5) used by libraries in cataloging their holdings. Where, exactly, do you think Amazon got their data from in the first place?

Frankly, {{ASIN}} ought to be nuked, ASAP. --Calton | Talk 04:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Although WP has 70,000 ISBNs it has only about 100 LCCNs, for whatever reason. Actually, your LCCN link (marked 'here' in your comment) doesn't work for me, because of the session timeout in the LOC computer system (just one of the problems in using that approach). If you don't think we knew about the Library of Congress, you're welcome to peruse the lengthy Talk page at CT:INV, and its archive. And, before you nuke Amazon, would you please be kind enough to go to all fifty current uses of {{ASIN}} and replace all those valid references, including many to films, with valid LCCN numbers. (The films will usually not be in LOC, and many foreign books will not). Then, will you also research the validly-issued LCCN numbers that for some reason are not recognized by its computer system. (Examples provided on request). In answer to your question, where did Amazon get their data from, I think they got it from the publishers. Publishers are not 100% reliable, neither is Amazon nor the Library of Congress. We need to use whatever information we can get, and fact-check it as thoroughly as possible. The Library of Congress is not a magic bullet. EdJohnston 05:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The Library of Congress is not a magic bullet. Nor is it a dessert topping or floor wax -- relevant, since all three are things I never claimed the Library of Congress to be. And neither is Amazon a "magic bullet", and, in fact, isn't really acceptable at all, period/full-stop.

(just one of the problems in using that approach). {{sofixit}}.

And, before you nuke Amazon, would you please be kind enough to go to all fifty current uses of {{ASIN}} and replace all those valid references, including many to films, with valid LCCN numbers. Nope. The burden is those providing the sources, not on those who are removing bad ones. Amazon is a bad source for a variety of reasons, and if that's the best you can do or the only thing you can do, any reference relying on it probably doesn't belong in the first place. --Calton | Talk 06:19, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please enumerate those reasons? I find it very useful when people leave an ASIN or link to amazon behind; it makes it much easier to fill in the rest of the citation data. Before you nuke any amazon link or ASIN, it would be more appropriate to go through and remove all references that do not list any catalog number (be that ISBN,OCLC/LCC or ASIN), as they are far more difficult to figure out. John Vandenberg 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The ISBN fixing project has only used ASINs as a last resort, reluctantly, and at least cites them properly (you would be suprised how many "ISBN B001100XX" we find). Certainly we could consider searching out all ASIN/Amazon references and ISBN/OCLC/LCC/BL-ing them wherever possible. Incidently one advantage of the ASIN template is that it makes uses of Amazon more controllable. Rich Farmbrough, 09:43 19 March 2007 (GMT).

And incidentally, I have found and fixed at least one error in the BL catalogue so I'm fairly sure that LoC is not totally free of errors, and as for "official" what does that mean in the context of a world wide publishing industry that goes back before the LoC (or even the U.S.) were thought of? Rich Farmbrough, 09:50 19 March 2007 (GMT).

Guy, a similar task has been undertaken by Rich/SmackBot with fixing ISBNs. The bot tagged all invalid ISBNs and people manually found the appropriate ISBN, OCLC, LOC or ASIN (in that order). Getting rid of all unnecessary amazon links sounds like another maintenance task that the same team would enjoy completing. There are a lot of special cases, and as these amazon links often contain a lot of the clues to identify the precise work that was referenced by the contributor, and manual processing is the best approach to ensure the citations end up accurate without putting noses out of joint -- this then demonstrates to other Wikipedians how to properly cite their sources. The team that worked on the invalid ISBNs and ISSNs started discussing what catalog schemes would be appropriate for videos, cds and dvds (see CAT:INVALID#Universal IDs for DVDs?), however we didn't encounter those items often enough to take it further. I'm quite sure the same team would be happy to manually tackle each article if a bot can apply a tag to all articles that have a link to amazon. Many would be books, so having the same team work on them would be beneficial. The WikiProject Librarians would no doubt be able to give us a hand working out what non-commercial resources we can use. The benefit of this approach is that once we are on top of the problem, there is a team ready to address any new occurrences that appear as a result of subsequent runs of the bot. And we can be sure that new links to amazon will continue to appear regularly. John Vandenberg 11:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Good info. I will find them and see if I can recruit their interest, thanks. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

With reference to Amazon being a reliable source for the VHS release date of Screamers, I think not. Both this site and this site have the release date of 23 July 1996, and Gray Areas magazine reviewed the VHS version in the November 1996 edition. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nothing in that 11/96 review says the VHS has been released or anything of the sort. All it says is "Columbia Tristar Home Video". I find no grounds to remove the whole bit as JzG has done. Cburnett 14:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying the magazine saw the film in the cinema and decided to add "Columbia Tristar Home Video" to the review for some reason? The review doesn't mean much on its own anyway, but combined with two other sources that say a release date of July 1996, I'd say it's enough evidence to say the Amazon date isn't correct? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• LOL! Well that put us all in our places didn't it? Well done. I think we can safely nuke that particular factoid, unprotect the article and move on. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I added some comments in regards to this on the article's Talk page. - David Oberst 18:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bob Woolmer

Famous Cricket Coach (not an oxymoron in the Commonwealth) died today. His article is the number 2 link on google and I'm sure his friends and family will be seeing the article as they search for news. I just revered an anon-IP who inserted unsourced speculation that he committed suicide and left a message on their talk. I'm a little concerned that there may be other unsourced nonsense added and I'm away to my bed shortly. One edit does not a semi protection make so could I ask a couple of editors to keep an eye on the article to make sure that no other unpleasantness gets added? Thanks --Spartaz 21:05, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, its been semi-protected now. Probably a good idea. Do we need one of those resolved stickers on this now?--Spartaz 22:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind ? What do you mean ? I semi-protected the article as a direct result of your note here. But semi-protection will only prevent anonymous and brand new users from causing problems. It will have no effect on "sleeper" accounts or on misguided long-term users so I would recommend that you keep on watching the article for the next couple of weeks. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant that your semi-protecting it would probably be enough - all the problems had come from ip editors. Thanks for helping with this one. I'll continue to watch the page like a hawk. --Spartaz 05:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:Attribution

This core policy article was blanked out and rewritten by User:1066seagull. It appears to be protected -- I (a non-admin) couldn't revert. Because of the blanking/rewrite one can't easily tell if subtle changes were made to it or not. Could someone take a look? Thanks, --Shirahadasha 21:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• From comparing the pre-blank version and the post-blank version, there were no changes. —physicq (c) 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
• Yes, one can. Just select with the radio buttons the two relevant versions in the page's edit history and hit the pushbutton that is labelled "Compare selected versions". That's what it does. ☺ Uncle G 22:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

  And if you do that, this, showing that no changes were made, is the result. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Help with AfD listing

Could an administrator have a look at the four AfD nominations(a, b, c, d) that were created and see to it that they are added to the "main" AfD log list. It seems that the nominator missed step 3 in the AfD creation process and perhaps didn't use step 2 correctly either. I don't feel comfortable mucking about with these since I'm involved in the discussion myself. --Strangnet 23:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Has been taken care of. --Ezeu 23:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. --Strangnet 23:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

TFD backlog is over a week back

Can some admins get around to closing a few more TFDs? There are unclosed TFDs going back to March 8. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Two-week long edit war on Tiberium

To bring everyone up to speed...

There's an article about the fictional substance, Tiberium. For about 4 years, the article has been relatively stable. Then, on March 4, 2007, AMiB decided to purge the entire article. For the last, say, 14 days, there's been edit wars over the topic. I've been involved in it, but others have as well: AMiB purges the content, people revert it, people begin citing / improving the article, and AMiB purges it again. If you'd look at the article's talk page, one can see that it's generally AMiB versus Everyone. I'm getting sick of seeing this happen over and over, so I decided to put this here and see what'll happen. This is especially important, as it's only going to get worse when the next game in this series comes out. I'm not saying the article is perfect, but purging the entire article over and over and over again isn't the way to go about it. Scumbag 02:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I've protected the article in the version without the paragraphs upon paragraphs of original research and unverifiable info. Picaroon 02:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse Picaroon's actions. We regularly stub articles which are hopelessly outside of policy to allow for a full rewrite. Indeed, Scumbag's sequence of events isn't entirely accurate. Looking at the history, it appears to go: AMIB removes tonnes of in-universe and unattributed material, AMIB and others begin to rewrite it, Scumbag or someone else blanket reverts the entire thing, rince & repeat. – Steel 02:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect - AMIB has done exactly no writing to the article in question. None at all. He has done nothing but remove content that was properly cited, by a source that can be confirmed by anyone. Look at his last ten edits, and you'll find no content additions, only purgings. , Scumbag 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just rebuild content from AMIB's purged version as opposed to rv'ing and trying to cite all of that? I presume that AMIB is purging it again because there the article is being written in an in-universe style (or has a lot of in-universe info that isn't needed), which can't be fixed by just merely citing it. Hbdragon88 02:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I will note one thing: The next game in the series IS coming out soon, and Tiberium as well as the rest of the Command and Conquer series should be watched closely. ⇒ SWATJester 03:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Well volunteered. – Steel 03:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything was cited, which is why reverting this purge was rebuilding content. There was no original research in the article, only facts important to the game series.Scumbag 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

When will the page in question be unprotected? The minute it is, it will be restored to proper status. Not a threat, but a inevitability. It's one of the things I wanted to point out that you guys haven't understood - Tiberium is a major character in the C&C franchise, and deserves an article written like Anakin Skywalker - an article, I point out, that is written entirely in-universe. I posted this thing because I felt that any reasonable person can see that the article in question is being damaged by a single user, and that there's already considerable amount of people that disagree with his actions. It's only going to get worse, if the page remains as it is. Scumbag 06:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps, you know, you're wrong. – Steel 11:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hard to feel that way when I'm not the only one doing the reverting. I'd feel differently if I was, but given that other people are repairing the damage as well... well, it's hard to see how I'm wrong. Scumbag 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Ingsoc has been convinced to AMIB's views, so it isn't a single-user dispute. Policy is greater than what the normal editors think: policy has been decided on by everybody, and everybody must follow it for all articles. The minority of those who disagree do not overrule the majority that formed the policy in the first place. And please, Anakin Skywalker (or kyptonite, as brought up on the page) is not at issue: this is. Hbdragon88 07:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

They aren't an issue - it's only the same type of article, written in the same way. Scumbag 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that editors, when faced with the challenge laid down by one editor to cite secondary sources and demonstrate that the content of an article conforms to our content policies, instead of looking for such sources and citing them, as encyclopadists are supposed to do, wasted all of their effort for two weeks in edit warring, and trying to argue that content that requires readers to duplicate primary research at length, in order to check that content, isn't original research. I've edited the article whilst it is under protection to make a point. I've added some material to the article that is based upon secondary sources. This material took me all of 10 minutes with Google Books to find. I strongly suggest that Scumbag and others learn from this. This is what we want you to do. It's easy, it's entirely defensible against charges of unverifiability and original research, and it took approximately ${\displaystyle {\frac {1}{1000}}}$ of the time of your foolish edit war and lengthy attempts to defend your performing primary research. Now stop this sort of silly behaviour and go and do likewise! It is your own lack of proper action, in finding and citing sources that have already analyzed the game and its features, that lost you the content, not other editors. Uncle G 11:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• {Applause}. Absolutely on the money, as ever. Guy (Help!) 13:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Only problem is, he didn't find any sources for anything. All he did was cite things like "If you don't have Tiberium you lose the game". Scumbag 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Source it or lose it, I'd say, based on other discussions on this page :o) Guy (Help!) 15:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:UW redirects reminder

Hi,

Just a reminder for the strawpoll on WP:UW about redirecting the old user warnings templates to the new system which closes tomorrow. If you have any interest in this issue please leave your comments here. Original message. Cheers 10:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Abuse of admin privileges by JzG

Screamers (1995 film) was protected here by User:Majorly and User:JzG modified the page here 13 hours after the protection. JzG has participated in an edit war over the inclusion of an amazon link as a reference and his edit was to once again remove the link. I find an administrator abusing his privileges to edit a protected page due to his participation in an edit war unacceptable.

To be upfront: I have reverted twice prior to protection and I reverted JzG's post-protected edit on principle of his abuse (I'd do it even if someone added the amazon link back). However, I have also been the sole initiator in discussion on both JzG's talk page and on Talk:Screamers (1995 film).

You tell me what's worse: a link to amazon because I can't find another reference or an administrator whom abuses his privileges to continue an edit war? To me, the question is so obvious it's absurd... Cburnett 13:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Um, Guy answered you several minutes ago, and said that his edit was inadvertent. (He didn't notice the page was protected). For what it's worth, (1) I think the "remove the link" camp is right - Amazon is a great website, but for Misplaced Pages purposes, it manages to combine the reliability of IMDB with the commercialism of E-bay; (2) the original edit of a protected page is probably not as bad as an intentional reversion, which starts to edge towards wheel warring; and (3) surely this isn't so vital an issue that you couldn't have waited a day or two to talk it out. Thanks, TheronJ 13:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

So we need something bigger and better than a red "WARNING: This page has been protected..." notice if an admin doesn't notice it. And you will excuse me if me composing my post overlapped Guy's response. Cburnett 14:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need something bigger? No. It's not a problem that crops up often enough to need fixing. But it is quite easy to scroll it off the top, and the eye does tend to get a bit inclined not to see the red stuff when one spends a lot of time with WP:PT, the currency of red is somewhat debased these days.

I hold to my view that we are both taking this way too seriously. I come to this from a position of spending a lot of my Wikitime dealing with spammers, and seriously I find it really hard to believe that the date of release on an obsolete format is really so vital and so controversial as to require a link to a "Buy it here! Buy it now!" advert page on Amazon, but at least I have opened the debate and there are some thoughtful inputs above. Your view seems to be that it's a fact, therefore it must be included, therefore it must be cited, and if nobody can be arsed to find a more authoritative source than an advert then so be it. Which is another way of looking at it, not necessarily wrong, either, but again probably not worth the effort of a lame edit war. Me, I'm ashamed of both of us. Guy (Help!) 14:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If I let the reference be removed then someone will come along and remove the whole bit as unsourced. I chose policy over guideline. Sorry that you don't agree. Cburnett 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Guy owned up to the mistake already, and he wouldn't have done that if he noticed, I'm sure. Also, see the corresponding discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Amazon. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A link to that discussion on Talk:Screamers (1995 film) or User talk:JzG or my talk page would have been nice. Cburnett 14:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Put down the Spider-Man suit and step away from the Reichstag :o) Guy (Help!) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I think TheronJ summed it up well. Before Cburnett starts casting stones, perhaps he should ask himself if he could have handled this situation a little better. My involvement with this was to remove the Amazon link (once) and received a sarcastic and condescending note from Cburnett. I'm baffled that he's so concerned about this link that he was willing to intentionally revert a protected page and risk initiating a wheel war. What a terribly absurd matter this has become... ChazBeckett 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Amazon is a valid tertiary/possibly secondary source, it's inappropriate of JzG to abuse his administrator abilities to edit war. Another user has however found two other possible sources, that's good. --Matthew
    • Please read what's already been written above. Guy already remarked that he didn't realize he was editing a protected page. Cburnett did realize he was editing a protected page and proceeded to make a revert. ChazBeckett 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Cburnett was very correct in proceeding to revert such a heinous edit, I'm flabbergasted at how one would go about not noticing it was protected, to be honest, firstly it would of show in history and watch list this edit: "21:14, 18 March 2007 Majorly (Talk | contribs) m ({{protect}})", secondly there's a big honking "{{protect}}". However, I will observe WP:AGF and assume he just happened to scroll really quickly, miss the big honking box.. notice Amazon was there.. edit.. forget that it states the page is protected and put the edit through and still miss the protected box.. --Matthew
        • You're making the mistake of thinking that everyone has their user preferences set the way that you happen to have them set. Uncle G 14:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • And all I asked for was to maintain a reference per policy (WP:EL and WP:SPAM are both guidelines). Two have been found and suggested above in #Amazon. Cburnett 14:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Fine, I'm glad another link has been found. The point remains that you should be concerned and ashamed of the manner in which you conducted yourself in this whole affair. ChazBeckett 14:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And despite finding other sources, JzG has unprotected the page and deleted the whole bit. *sigh* Cburnett 14:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• I have unprotected because I have no intention of making further edits, this I made clear on the article's Talk page. I removed the factoid because we have two low-reliability sources which say one date, 23 July 1996, a more relibale source which supports that date but does not confirm it (a review dated after the first but before the second date, note it says Columbia Tristar Home Video - what it was on Betamax? a year ealier than VHS?), and the Amazon date which is dated a year later than three separate reviews explicitly of the video - in other words, a classic case for taking it to Talk. Which is, amazingly, precisely what I did, and explained why. I suggest you have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, I think you are much too worked up about this. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The talk page seems to have a consensus against the source, there are concerns about contradicions. JzG is acting properly from what I can see, the page is unprotected, so his edit is as a regular user, and he is discussing it on the talk page. _InBC 15:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It was an accident, let it go. _InBC 14:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

but we wantz teh lynch mob! admins dont gets to make dem mistakes, nope. -Amarkov moo! 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK icon Template

I copied code from {{FA}} to create {{DYKicon}}. I accidentally included {{protected template}}, which as a non-admin, I am not authorized to do. However, if this page ends up being used in a similar manner to FA it may be appropriate.

P.S. I am not sure what category to put this template in. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards