Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive102

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Tolkien literature stubs etc[edit]

I noticed that articles about JRR Tolkiens fiction are prolifereating "beyond all believable bounds". I have left a message at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Middle-earth#ref_desk_questions linking to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#literature_-_notability_-_serious_question_.(re_ask.).

At one point every place/person/thing seemed to have an article - much has been done to compact this see "Category:Middle-earth_lists" and "Category:Middle-earth"

However "Category:Unassessed_Tolkien_articles" contains yet more (and it looks like a lot of these have been created without the slightest attempt to add references).

Personally I would think the majority of these are "non-notable". This is why I leave this message - at least for administrators to judge whether they are or not. (There might be some discrepancy between what is notable for other literature and what is notable for Tolkien - however by standards of say articles relating to Shakespear they seem non-notable)

With that in mind I suggested a migration to a tolkien specific wiki at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#literature_-_notability_-_serious_question_.(re_ask.).

(Please direct me to right place if this is the wrong place to mention this) I just wanted to bring this to your attention - if it is a non-issue so be it. Thank you. 13:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Search engine[edit]

I spotted this: [1] A search engine that searches Wikipedia. Just thought people might like to know. >Radiant< 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You can constrain Google to only search Wikipedia by adding "" to your query. From a quick comparison of some less used terms, Google does a better job. -- JLaTondre 11:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There are several Firefox search engine extensions for Google searches of Wikipedia. Quite handy. / edg 11:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Todays Featured Artical[edit]

Could an admin have a look at today's featured artical- Australia at the Winter Olympics. My reading of WP:NOPRO says that it should never be full-protected, and only semi-protected in response to extreme levels of vandalism. I have filed a request for unprotection here as well, but thought this might move it a bit quicker. Thanks Theone00 12:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it should only be move protected so I've undone the semi protection. Thanks for the heads up. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The image for the Today's Featured Article blurb on The Bus Uncle[edit]

Hello, I was delighted that The Bus Uncle was chosen to be Today's Featured Article on September 7. However, I have an issue that requires the assistance of an administrator.

As you see in Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 7, 2007, the image is simply that of a bus. It is not relevant to the incident at all. As a result, the reader might not get the point when reading it on the front page. So, I will be grateful if an admin switches the image with the one on the right Image:Unclebusscreenshot.jpg (My suggested shot), which is a screenshot of the video used in the article. Thanks.--Alasdair 13:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

We had that image specifically, but was changed due to licensing issues. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice advert[edit]

International Conference on the Gulen Movement is actually quite a well-done advert. It might even be a notable conference, as we have an article on Fethullah Gülen. Anyone know the best way to tone it down so it doesn't come across as a conference brochure? Carcharoth 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates and venues need to go or be subtle-ised (yes I just invented a word). The speakers need to be reduced down to just the key speakers and the links to the 3rd party sites should be removed since its unessessary. Some of the pictures need to be removed to such as the houses of parliment since they have borderline relevance. Personally, I think I'd AfD the whole article and recommend a merge and delete into Fethullah Gulen since conferences are rarely noteable unless its a seriously major event like say the G8 sumit. Alternatively squash the content down into a paragraph or two section on Fethullah Gulen and then redirect that page into it. I think the chances of anyone finding "International Conference on the Gulen Movement" via a search are remote though hence me favouring AfD over a redirect.WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The proper way to deal with a page like this is {{db-spam}}. I've handled it. - Jehochman Talk 14:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Would you mind running an AfD on it? I'd be interested to know what AfD regulars think of the notability, or otherwise, of conferences. I've just spent some time categorising lots of conferences that were in Category:Conferences. I'd say that some conferences really are notable. Solvay Conference for example. But even the less notable ones are still more notable than some things we have articles on, so I don't think this is clear-cut as a speedy. I'll remove the speedy tag, cut the article down to size, and then people can AfD it if they want. Carcharoth 14:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
There. Done. The difference is here. See the old version, and compare to the new version. Carcharoth 15:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Proxy check?[edit]

See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123. The user's latest sockpuppet's first edits were to a bunch of articles about anonymous proxies. How do we check if this person is using one? Or do we even need to? Sancho 17:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Those IP addresses look like a simple dynamic IP. I can test the newest one if you tell me which one it is, however. --ST47Talk·Desk 17:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The newest was User:Mondo6. Sancho 17:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, then you need to ask at WP:RFCU for a checkuser to run an IP check - not likely to happen. It looks like he just has a dynamic IP anyway. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Okay thanks anyway. Yeah, I won't worry about a checkuser. Sancho 18:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Uneeded userpages for sockpuppets, et al.[edit]

I've been having a bit of a disagreement with another admin over the page User:Go Get a Hole. This page was expressly created for the purpose of holding a sockpuppet template. I hold the opinion that there is absolutely no reason for this page to have ever been created and that it is a waste to create pages for templates. What's wrong with the notice on the talk page or the block log itself? Why glorify vandals? What about denying recognition? I know that many people to this and I don't think I;m getting anywhere with him so I'm brining up the issue for discussion. -- John Reaves 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that notices on talk pages should be sufficient. User pages and categories (such as Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of ....) are unnecessary and violate WP:DENY. --After Midnight 0001 02:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's a checkuser-based block (ie. confirmed), it can be helpful (essay). Daniel 03:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The categories do have uses. If someone makes a report on the incidents noticeboard saying "User:X is User:Y evading his indefinite block, he's done it several times before," these categories help find other examples of sockpuppets to compare against. Sometimes similarities with the main account are not enough to justify a block, but when you can also check the user's behavior against prior socks, a better case for sockpuppetry can be made. If these categories didn't exist, how would prior socks be found to compare against? Doing a text-search on the block log? As someone who regularly uses these categories when trying to figure out who the disruptive new sock in my watchlist is, I challenge the claim that they're "unnecessary." Picaroon (t) 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I too think they are useful. Doppelgänger accounts using the {{Doppelganger}} tag? Not useful. --Iamunknown 04:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not challenging the usefulness of the categories, just the usefulness of creating pages for the sole purpose of adding a template. -- John Reaves 04:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a point of fact - no one can violate WP:DENY because it isn't a policy, but rather an essay. That said, I think it's really a matter of usefulness, which is of course hard to codify. The categories are certainly useful when dealing with a prolific and sneaky sockpuppeter, but I agree that someone creating Mikesux1, Mikesux2, Mikesux3, and so on probably doesn't need to be tagged. Natalie 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)



LessHeard vanU 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please ask him not to mention my name in a degrading way in edit summaries. See Magyarization history page. Squash Racket 18:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Both editors commented to about edit summary civility. LessHeard vanU 20:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Peachoid article[edit]

I can't work out what's going on here, an image was deleted and some editors are removing the redlink to the deleted image, but other editors are re-adding the redlink. I checked on the talk page but there isn't anything about it there. I was going to removed the deleted link myself, but there seems to be a slight edit war going on about this, so I don't want to make a wrong edit. Maybe someone who understands wants happening could lok at this? 19:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I just looked at the talk page again, and it seems a discussion has just started as I was writing the above comment. I still don't understand why a link to a deleted image is being kept in an article though. 20:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game[edit]


Could an uninvolved admin take a look at and consider speedy/snowy closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Appalachian State vs. Michigan football game? It's overwhelmingly keep and that article is about to get a lot of attention. There is an amazing photo from that game - - that is making the email rounds. The author agreed to change his license terms to meet our licensing needs so that we could use it. Anyway, he put a link to the article on the photo page and it is going to start getting some traffic from that link. We don't need deletion notices scaring off potential contributors especially when there's about zero chance we're going to delete it. Would an uninvolved admin examine the discussion and, if you feel inclined, consider closing it? Thanks. --B 20:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Closed as speedy keep. There is no realistic possibility of deletion on this record. Newyorkbrad 20:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. --B 22:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD backlog[edit]

There are 200+ AfDs that could use closing. Extra pairs of hands very welcome. See WP:AFDO... WjBscribe 01:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

NPWatcher requests[edit]


Can some admin approve the users at User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Checkpage? It's been 6 days since the last approvals. Thanks. --Michael Greiner 03:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

 Done - everyone looked sane... WjBscribe 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Upper Peninsulan War[edit]

The classic hoax article "Upper Peninsula War" was until recently archived for posterity at User:Hanger65/Upper Peninsula War. That page, like that user, no longer exists; it was deleted August 27. Now that article is apparently nowhere to be found on WP. People still want to see it, though, including me, which is why Wikipedia:Silly Things still links to it.

I propose that an admin retrieve it, move it to a subpage of his user page, and change the link on Silly Things accordingly. --zenohockey 03:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If it falls under the current creteria for WP:BJAODN, then I think it should be undeleted, moved to there, all links to it updated, and the redirect deleted. Otherwise, I think that there is no place for it at Wikipedia. Od Mishehu 07:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It was deleted as a sub-page of BJAODN as a result of the BJAODN MFD. I suggest going to WP:DRV if you intend on restoring it. — Moe ε 07:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • It was on DRV last week, and endorsed here. >Radiant< 09:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • To anyone who saw my angry rant here, sorry. I don't know why I flipped out on this stupid little thing (it's late). Anyways, I do think it should be noted that individual BJAODN stuff was not addressed on these MfDs or DRVs. The closing of these discussions is more about a group of admins saying "we're tired of talking about it" rather than something the community actually decided. It doesn't matter, I know, but people's hate for BJAODN was because most of it sucked really bad, but not all of it. A DRV of "Upper Peninsulan War" is not a bad idea, and it's unfair that it got grouped into the bulk of crap that BJAODN had become. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion. I've done so. --zenohockey 01:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I had not noticed this before, but the MfD actually supported keeping the Upper Peninsulan War. I have noted this in the DRV. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting user talk pages[edit]

Wikipedia:User page says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." However, I see many admins continuously revert users on their own talk pages for removing warnings, or even worse, protecting user talk pages for that reason alone. A registered user should never have action taken against him for removing warnings from his talk page (no reverts, blocks, protection, etc.). That's quite simple I think.

Now it does get slightly more complicated with IPs. However, I think it's logical that an IP removing a warning from his own talk page should still be allowed. All vandalism patrollers should investigate a vandal's contributions immediately after reverting the vandalism - and personally if I see that they have edited their talk page recently, I always check out that edit (along with all the other suspicious ones in their history). Seriously - it takes like 5 seconds more effort for the patroller (click the "diff" and glance to see what the edit's all about, if it's a removed warning then take that into consideration when you give your own warning).

The dumbest thing I see is admins getting in edit wars over the talk page of a currently temporarily blocked IP or user. Who cares if they are removing the warnings? Obviously there is an entry in the block log, and when I am doing vandalism patrol I don't care about previous warnings (i.e. warnings given more than 24 hours earlier), but I do care about previous blocks. Anyway, I am just annoyed about seeing so many admins waste their time reverting user talk pages because they believe removing warnings is vandalism... ugen64 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason to post this, like a current situation happening right now, or is this just some rant? — Moe ε 05:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think there is a point. There remains a small but vocal group of users that believe that warnings should remain as a Black Mark on people's talk pages for an indefinite amount of time, and will react harshly to users who remove their warnings, and/or edit war over it. This behavior can be quite biting, but I'm not sure how to do anything about it. >Radiant< 08:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think the rule should be: A user may remove old warnings from his/her talk page, though archiving is better. A user may not remove new warnings from his/her talk page - such a removal should be reverted. Od Mishehu 10:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That's precisely my point. This has been discussed dozens of times, and such rules are generally held to be instruction creep, and missing the point of warnings. Whatever practical purpose warnings might have in the minds of people using them, does not excuse edit warring to keep unwanted text on a user's personal talk page. See also WP:BURO. The problem here is that people pretend that what you suggest is hard policy, even though it's not, and that these people are biting the newbies. >Radiant< 11:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Reverting warning clearances often generates more disruption than it's worth. Here is an example of what should not be done - the user was blocked for a week because of it, for some reason. There would be less problems all round if they were left alone. Blocking admins and vandal patrollers know how to check block logs and edits to the talk page. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
A policy may be needed. I've seen many confident assertions that deleting warnings is entirely wrong. I reverted such an IP page today — a vandalism-only account that had deleted previous warnings — on the assumption that WP:AIV might treat a user differently without visible warnings. I'm also aware of a few editors who are certainly not newbies, but selectively delete bad news from their Talk pages; that just seems kind of wrong.
Until now I've been presuming this to be a case-by-case thing. / edg 11:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
My take on it: If the user is deleting the warnings because he understood them, and will not continue, there is no point getting into a petty fight with him over it. If he continues to vandalise, just add them back when you add your own warning, as he obviously should read them again, having proven either:
  1. his misunderstanding of them, in which case you are doing him a favor by adding them back, to read again
  2. a will to disrupt wikipedia, or evade a block, in which case the removal of the warnings constitutes vandalism.

It's the same with any content, you can deleted portions of an article if you like, but doing so with the intent of disruption only, constitutes vandalism. Identify the reason the user removed the warnings and add them back only if he continues to vandalise after having removed them. But please don't start a fight over someone who removed a warning and then stopped vandalising, stamp out vandalism:yes, stamp out vandals:no. Jackaranga 11:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It is very simple - if someone removes a warning, they have clearly seen it. What good purpose does edit-warring to put the warning back serve? None, and the person trying to get it put back there is just as guilty as the person trying to remove it. Probably more so, as at least the talk page belongs to the person trying to remove said warning. People are entitled to remove any information they recieve on their talk page (we can see the history, it's still reviewable). They don't need to archive a thing. A seperate policy isn't required, but some sort of mention on WP:USER wouldn't hurt. Neil  12:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm still seeing two different approaches here. I think understanding "a will" to bad behaviour is normally an assumption of bad faith. So while Jackaranga's version is closer to what I've been understanding, I can still see policy problems, at least using that language. Meanwhile I think Neil's saying this reversion is never, ever needed. Would making this official introduce problems? / edg 13:04, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The reason I posted this is because I see it happen all the time, and it actually interferes with vandalism patrolling more than it helps. For example, after reverting on a user's talk page, users often leave a warning about "vandalism" - so when I see that, I assume it's legitimate vandalism and not someone misunderstanding policy. I've also seen AIV reports that claim something like "user blanked talk page after final warning" expecting us to block them... I just thought that if I posted it here, maybe a few people who didn't know about the (lack of) policy would read it and notice, and also if anyone had a compelling argument against my line of thinking that would completely sway my opinion (or something). ugen64 15:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on the noticeboards and I have never actually seen an admin agree that they will block users for removing warnings from their own talk pages. I will and have blocked users for edit warring over warning notices on other people's talk pages. If you see users insist that warnings must be left, point them to WP:USER#Removal_of_warnings or WP:VAN under Discussion pages. Thatcher131 15:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
It has happened that an administrator has blocked an editor for blanking their talk page, and not the editors who revert the blanking. This disturbing blog post by Kelly Martin is rather revealing. Investigating the matter further is even moreso. :( --Iamunknown 16:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And the block was reversed appropriately. It's too bad the admin in question was not open to further discussion. If this happens routinely with this on another admin, an Admin conduct RFC would be appropriate. Thatcher131 16:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I revert the blanking of anons' Talk pages because the anons are not the owners of their Talk pages. Is this the wrong thing to do? Corvus cornix 16:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

IP talk pages seem to be more of a grey area. I'm not sure of the cost/benefit ratio of requiring warnings be left versus allowing them to be removed. Comments from others? Thatcher131 16:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I usually don't leave warnings on an IP talk pages unless it has an edit history with more than one or two abusive edits. I agree it's not worth it for a single offense, or a couple so well-spaced they are likely by different editors. / edg 16:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think it's important to leave warnings on IP talk pages, because in general admins who frequent WP:AIV won't block anons unless they've been given four warnings. So if you revert an anon and don't warn them, then they'll get several more chances to do damage instead of their apparently constituionally allowed four. Corvus cornix 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The "four warnings" thing is only arbitrary. Personally, regarding AIV reports, I block as long as the last vandalism was after a recent (eg. only minutes before) "final warning". There is a reason, after all, why Template:Uw-vandalism4im exists. ugen64 21:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes. I never block people based on the amount of warnings they receive, but rather on their most recent actions. Having been warned is relevant; whether it has been two or three or five warnings is less so. >Radiant< 09:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You know guys, you can consider the fact that if the user removes the warnings they have read and or know what they are. Just simply watch for more vandalism, and resort to blocking. I'm sure there are cases where users "test" and then blank their talk page, and either a) stop editing, or b) become productive. In either case, there is no point in telling that user you can't do that!!!, all that leaves is the impression that we have arcane rules (not saying we don't), and editing the site is a complex endeavour. These warnings are nothing more then pre-written text intended solely to inform new editors about what we consider vandalism, and where a better place to test would be. Yes they are also used to "track" a user's vandalism history, but so does their history. (you can tell if a user has had prior messages by noting that the now blank talk page is a blue link, rather then a red link). From there just check the history, and if they have vandalised before and have seen the warnings, simply report to WP:ANI. —— Eagle101Need help? 01:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

'See also' section[edit]

As far as I know 'See also' section is not for mentioning whole Categories' names AGAIN, but for specific articles related to the subject. See Magyarization 'See also' section. Squash Racket 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • That's correct. DrKiernan 12:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boris Stomakhin[edit]

The above arbitration case has closed and the final decision is located at the link above. Vlad fedorov is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 14:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:DerHexer giving infinite blocks[edit]

Hello, I am not complaining about the usefulness, or validity of the blocks User:DerHexer makes, but I noticed that sometimes he blocks users infinitely block log] (example), on his own accord. If you read Wikipedia:Banning policy#Decision to ban it states the groups that can give an infinite block (ban). Just wanted to check if this is normal, I thought administrators could only give an indefinite ban. Jackaranga 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

  • This is common practice. Note that the user is indefinitely/infinitely blocked; bans are an entirely separate issue. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between a block and a ban. Bans are a community sanction removing the right of users to edit. Blocks area technical restriction on an account's ability to edit. You might want to read Wikipedia:Blocking_policy instead, especially Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Duration_of_blocks. WjBscribe 16:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I was just wondering if it is normal that he is giving infinite blocks, when administrators only normally give indefinite ones. I thought an infinite block could only be used as a way of enforcing a ban, whereas an indefinite block could be used for the usual cases of vandalism. I just thought it was a good system whereby the users could contest their block. However infinite allows no contest, and is quite different from indefinite. (from wiktionary infinite = Boundless, endless, without end or limits; indefinite = forever, or until further notice). Infinite just seems a bit severe, and I haven't noticed any other administrators giving infinite blocks (which would amount to a ban in effect). Jackaranga 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The blocking software treats infinite and indefinite the same way, which I agree is semantically inappropriate. No doubt some developer could explain why both options remain. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The software seems to treat the two words the same. The block can be undone either way, so there's no difference on the software level. I wonder why the block log says 'infinite' rather than 'indefinite', though? (I blocked my sockpuppet temporarily as a test and it said 'indefinite' in the block log.) --ais523 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I guess to be able to place a block in order to enforce a ban, as a ban is infinite. Jackaranga 16:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, indefinite does mean that there is no finite limit; so the block is technically infinite, so they should be synonymous. The fact that blocks can be lifted so what is currently an infinite block may prove to be finite in the future, while remaining indefinite, is one of the pleasant vagaries of the English language, but I don't see it as an issue that needs to be addressed by a developer. -- Avi 20:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Another Image Suggestion for The Bus Uncle Today's Featured Article blurb[edit]

Another suggestion.

Regarding the TFA blurb on The Bus Uncle, I've taken a picture of a Route 68X bus on the street with my camera phone, and uploaded it to Wikipedia as shown to the right. I'd like it be used as the image on the blurb, since the incident involving the Bus Uncle occured on a Route 68X bus, so it would be more relevant to the article, rather than a random photograph of a bus on an unrelated route.

I'd appreciate it if any admin could make the change to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 7, 2007. Thanks.--Alasdair 05:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It is off the mainpage now, so it is moot. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I know, it will be on the main page in 2 days from now. So there is still plenty of time to change it. So if anyone could do so, please consider.--Alasdair 07:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Done (this is on the main page 7 September).--Chaser - T 08:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks great. Nice job, Alasdair. --Masamage 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cascading protection[edit]

Something I've noticed while working on this is that cascading protection also affects commons images, such as the main page image for today's FA. I don't think this used to be true. Did someone make a software improvement to cascading protection so that it spills over from ENWP to commons? (I uploaded that image locally just in case I tipped our vandal friends off to something I missed.)--Chaser - T 08:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See commons:User:Zzyzx11/En main page. I believe an admin over there manually includes images that will be on the main page here on a protected page with cascading protection. No fancy software.-Andrew c [talk] 18:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Cool. I was confused b/c there was no note of what page the image was transcluded or linked to. Thanks.--Chaser - T 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

::Protection seems to cascade to commons, via the missing image page on en.wikipedia. i.e. I don't think it is possible any more for an admin to inadvertently fail to protect an image on the main page. You only have to look at the page about vandalism on encyclopedia dramatica, to see what happens otherwise. Jackaranga 18:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and very risky Andrew c. Jackaranga 19:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Keeps[edit]

"This article was nominated for deletion on XXX. The result of the discussion was speedy keep."

Talk page boxes with the above text should usually be avoided, for reasons outlined in WP:DENY, since it's primary effect is to draw attention to discussions started by trolls. 16:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is true sometimes but not all the time. There are also good-faith nominations that draw a respectable response, and the discussion is closed early because of a substantial preponderance of keeps, or sometimes because the article is improved while the AfD is pending. I do agree that a nomination should not be immortalized on the talkpage when it is trollish or frivolous. Newyorkbrad 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have personally, in good faith nominated an article that appeared to be blatant advertising of a NN product. After the AFD was started, it quickly came out that while the article was poorly written, it was a very notable product in the UK (not where I am from), and the article was speedy kept. I think the tags are also important to show a trend of trolling. I.E., if there is a talk page with 3 speedy close notices on there, a new afd on the article would hold little validity. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes the nominator changes his mind, after having been shown valid reasons for keeping the article, and the nomination is withdrawn, resulting in a speedy keep. Jackaranga 18:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Need clarification on GFDL[edit]

Apparently there is an issue where a teacher is having students all edit under one ID. I know this violated WP:USER WP:U but the teacher is wanting an exemption. I believe multiple editors editing under one ID violates the GFDL but would like a second opinion. Please see discussion here. Thanks.↔NMajdantalk 20:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No group accounts. The accounts could be User:Mrs Smith's 7th grade class 001, User:Mrs Smith's 7th grade class 002 and so on, but group accounts are not permitted for a variety of reasons, not just GFDL. See Wikipedia:Username_policy#Sharing_accounts. Thatcher131 20:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
But for God's sake be nice and help the teacher work it out. Thatcher131 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


RealBigFlipsbrain (talk · contribs) has what some might describe as an inappropriate userbox on his/her userpage. The userbox deals with domestic violence against women and is, in RealBigFlipsbrain's words, intended to be "humorous". I've always read WP:USER and WP:UBX as not allowing this kind of box. Thoughts? --MZMcBride 00:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have seen this userbox before. I am not aware if that account was blocked or not...or if this is the same user. I have decided to remove it. If this user readds it, I think it merits at least a 24 hour block.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm trying to find the discussion where this userbox was brought up. Can't seem to locate it in the archives. This version is actually toned down...the original said "this user supports domestic violence against" women in the exact same template. This however, still is not appropriate as it is.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)



I made a mistake when reverting a image on this page; Image:Uncyclopedia logo.png and block this user; User:USApr0n. Thank you. [2] Jet (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Old revs deleted and editor blocked. — Moe ε 04:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)



Not quite sure what went wrong here. I think this user (Likebox (talk · contribs)) was trying to submit a report to User:ClueBot/FalsePositives, but ended up creating the article Likebox in the main namespace by mistake. This should be fixed, and the article deleted as an obvious mistake. 23:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I fixed it. Wonder why our otherwise speedy new page patrollers didn't get this one. Picaroon (t) 23:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
While the new page patrollers generally do a great job, I regulary go through the "old" new pages (e.g. 12 hours old), and there are always quite a few who have slipped through (nonsense, attacks, blatant copyvios, ...). It's unavoidable with the amount of new pages that get created. Fram 08:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

A long rant by Maxim[edit]

Yes, I apologize to everybody who has to read this excessive rant... maybe not excessive, maybe not a rant, but still I trying to make a point without causing a disruption.

All admins know CSD. Almost every RfA that passes mentions CSD. A big portion was to help out at C:CSD. But, in my opinion few do. The rest of the work is left to user like me who delete huge amounts of material almost everyday.

Roughly five days ago, I was considering leaving. I was exhausted. For a long time during the summer, I was the only admin who would clear out the PROD backlog. I would go through 200 pages of junk. Nobody said thanks. Yet while a person presses one red(for twinkle users, for example) button, presses a few more to put a warning on the vandal's talkpage, and promptly receives a barnstar. Afterwards, I had a little review, and another admin suggested I try to expand my horizons.

I did. I started clearing out the mess that is the image categories in C:CSD. Quite often I have lists of 200 nearly identical deficient image description. No fair use rationale, no source, no copyright tag... the list goes on. I delete all of it. The only comments I recieve is to repeat CSD I7 to other users, or answer, "Why was my page deleted?". I try to do it to the best of my abilities, but as a human being, I have my mental and physical limits.

Admin CBM was the first user to explicitly thank me for clearing out the mess we know as replaceable fair use images; thanks a lot!! It actually means something to me since being sysoped on June 30th, and deleting 4000+ article and images with about 3-4 weeks wikibreak in between now and then. Yet, no other admin has helped me much, as I notice. There are backlogs to be nuked, and when Quadell is taking a well deserved break, I'm around alone at this time.

So here is what I'm asking for. Every sysop, ff online, has the time to delete 25 images from those categories. It's not much work, if you're like me. If 20 of us pitch in, we'll be 500 images deleted more. You can do the math from there on. I don't know how to do every category well. I'm still learning now. Before adminship, I worked only with article not with images. But then the need arose. As a matter of fact, there's a six-day backlog one of the two I8 categories. I can't do them. I badly need some help. It's not that hard.

Oh, did I forget to mention that we have roughly 100 articles and 150 images in the main C:CSD?

Yours truly, Maxim(talk) 01:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not surprising few admins help out with image deletion. Any admin who does so is guaranteed kilobytes of insults and talk page trolling, and hardly anyone will step up to defend them. Videmus Omnia Talk 01:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Image deletion is often more difficult if you have no idea about fair use - and lots of admins don't. Maxim, if it's exhausting you, go and do something more relaxing. You're a volunteer here. It's not your fault, or your problem if there are high backlogs. (And if you think backlogs here are high, look at commons.) I didn't mention CSD in my RFA because I didn't intend to do it. There's often good articles tagged 10 seconds after creation by some zealous new page patroller who can't be bothered to check the validity. On one time I did clear CSD I probably removed more tags than deleted articles, before I got sick of it.
But really Maxim, please don't expect a thanks or a reward. If you've got to the stage where you get annoyed that you aren't being appreciated anymore, and you aren't actually editing for enjoyment, you should really consider what you're doing here. Majorly (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh and 6 days is nothing compared to one month regularly on Commons :( Majorly (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2007
Our nonfree use policies are only vaguely based on fair use law. Detailed knowledge of the law is not required in any way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I can confirm the comments of Videmus Omnia. There is a lack of agreement about many significant things at WT:NONFREE, but the image deletion backlogs are still there. Admins who deal with them must deal with harassment because of it (see my talk page). I have been attempting to find some answers about common issues that arise, but with very little luck. My recommendation for admins who feel frustrated by the deletion process is to stop deleting images for a while; eventually we will find some consensus on how to deal with them. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a good suggestion. If the image deletion categories backlog for a few months, perhaps the Foundation will figure out what they really want for a non-free content policy here. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Before deleting an image, please first consider whether the image itself is appropriate for Wikipedia and, if so, whether it can be reformed by adding a use rationale or appropriate copyright tag. The very need for written use rationales, and the form in which they appear, has been seriously questioned, and deleting otherwise good legacy images in particular over the issue is problematic and can be disruptive to the project. It is great to see people put in hard work. If you want recognition and thanks rather than alarm from the newbies there are certainly tasks more amenable to that, no? Wikidemo 02:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The worst alarm doesn't come from the newbies, they rarely complain. It's the longtime editors (and in come cases admins) who cause the worst grief and hearburn over non-free content. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess someone forgot to tell you that being an admin is a thankless job. -- John Reaves 02:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree the issue of thanks isn't so important. The difficulty is that even when the deleting admin is clearly following the written policy, there is little institutional support for them. The main discussion forum, WT:NONFREE, is almost completely ineffective at obtaining answers to direct questions of fact (is this image use acceptable?) that I pose there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, some people there are probably telling you the right answers, but that's not much help if that is drowned out by contradictory information and opinion from other people... Carcharoth 02:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And if you either delete or replace their pet image, your blood and head is asked for on a silver platter. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it about images that gets people so wound up? Deleting text or articles isn't nearly so contentious (other than certain problem topics). Raymond Arritt 04:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem arises when users upload images with insufficient tags. Users should not be able to upload an image without adequate tagging. Why for example is it permitted to upload an image with a "for non-commercial use only" tag, when we know that the image will be deleted? The upload process needs to change so that loading of untagged or badly tagged images is blocked. DrKiernan 06:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have recently uploaded images, both here and at commons. I found the instructions at commons far easier to follow and understand, so I would suggest that the upload process here is changed to mimic the commons process. Catchpole 07:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I pitch in at CSD every so often, though I don't touch images. Personally, I think the backlogs are very good compared to when I started tagging articles for "speedy" before I was sysopped. (And AIV is unrecognisable - I've given up trying to help, as reports are always dealt with faster than I can react).

Oh and if you want thanks, editing is the way. I have had quite a lot of compliments for my editing and next to none for admin actions (with a notable exception just yesterday). I think this is right - we're here to build an encyclopedia... in any company, who gets the credit - the people who do the main part of the business, or the cleaners, typists and tealadies? Not necessarily "fair", but fairly natural, lol. Anyway, I for one appreciate anyone who ploughs through anything in CSD. I'm finding an increasing number of wrongly tagged articles there and it's hard work checking the articles and also whether orginators have been appropriately contacted. So from me, thank you to everyone helping on the backlogs. --Dweller 12:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound trite, but if removing content has left you burnt out, why not try adding or improving content? I find that to be much more rewarding. Just because you're an admin doesn't mean you can only do admin things. --W.marsh 12:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please move Template:Csdref-i9 to Template:Csdref-i8[edit]


The old CSD I8 (attack image) got moved to CSD G10 (attack page) and so CSD I9 (image now on commons) got renumbered and I9 is now the new I8. A few things weren't cleaned up when that happened, and one that only admins can fix is this:

After you do that, please consider editing Template:Csdref-i9 for the new CSD I9 (suspected copyright violation.) Or I'll do that if you leave me a talk page note. Thank you for your awesome administrative potency. ←BenB4 14:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Usual practice is to NOT renumber, but to mark as superceded. See for examples WP:CSD A4, A6, A8. GRBerry 15:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well it must have happened before the usual practice was in place. ←BenB4 15:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Duh. ←BenB4 15:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User page collection of material against others proposal[edit]

There is a proposal at User page: Collection of material proposed language to address user page posts about other Wikipedians at MfD that do not rise to the level of a WP:CSD#G10 speedy delete attack page. Please participate in that discussion. -- Jreferee (Talk) 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of banknotes and related articles[edit]

I'd like some people experienced in local copyright laws, both here and on commons, to look through this article, everything in this template and related images for non-free content violations and possible copyvios such as this one. It's a lot, and I neither have the time nor the knowledge of the various copyright laws concerned. MER-C 11:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed many flags on the commons are tagged as PD-Self also, "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain.", which is absolutely incorrect, as the flag either is in the public domain already or it is not. Making a verbatim copy of it doesn't make the author the copyright holder. It seems though to be a case of "don't ask don't tell". Jackaranga 11:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That article probably should not exist. Not only does it use non-free content in an excessive way, but it makes out to be more of a picture book than an encyclopedic article. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
encyclopedia can and should contain pages of illustrations--even paper encyclopedias have done so ever since the capability became available. Th only relevant question is copyright. DGG (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You have convinced me that it has encyclopedic value, though I would like to see some more text content to go with it. I agree that copyright is an issue, but so are our own non-free content requirements such as WP:NFCC#3a which says we should use as few non-free images as possible. I suppose though it could be argued that due to the subject of the article they are all needed. I am not sure. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 01:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal on the loose[edit]

Recently a vandal named "Darth Vader is your father" recently has created sock puppets. He CLAIMS he has a dynamic IP and will use it so he can create a bunch of socks. His usernames often go by the theme "The road to a zillion usernames" and "The road to a trillion usernames" and such. They often attack other admins. Be on the lookout for these accounts. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Darth Vader is your Father —Preceding unsigned comment added by JetLover (talkcontribs) 03:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd user edits[edit]

See Charlotte Hatherley (talk · contribs). How should this be dealt with? Girolamo Savonarola 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for inappropriate username: see Charlotte Hatherley. ~Eliz81(C) 05:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren opened[edit]

An Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, has been opened. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC).

(Empty comment for archiving reasons) Fram 07:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Encouraging edit-wars[edit]

User Rjecina started Wikipedia:Croatian Wikipedians' notice board and now he encourages croat users to join and help each other in edit wars. See [3], [4]. Paulcicero 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be nipped in the bud. It's a sad fact that national "notice boards" have been used for organised POV pushing in many other cases, but we shouldn't stand by watching how yet another such monster gets organised. Somebody should very clearly tell this user they and their addressees will incur long blocks if they continue with votestacking practices like this. Fut.Perf. 23:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The line between certain WikiProjects/"Noticeboards" and organized POV-pushing has often been blurry, but this is clearly well over that line. MastCell Talk 23:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the editor should be pointed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Croatia where the editor does not appear to be a participant. Carlossuarez46 18:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


DatingTraining (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been creating spam articles, such as Ebay store, etc. her/his userpage is also an advertisement. I suggest mediation? Block? Help me. What should we do? World Arachny 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already slapped a {{db-spam}} tag on the user page -- pure coincidence, I didn't see this notice before I did -- which is what ought to be done to all spam disguised as user pages. And yeah, it looks like, based on the talk page warnings, to be solely for creating spam, and should probably be blocked forthwith. --Calton | Talk 08:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And the link turns red while I'm typing the above: fast work, that. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


Looking for a likely article in need of your admin services? Wikirage is the latest and greatest Wikipedia data mining tool. This tool lists the pages in Wikipedia which are receiving the most edits per unique editor over various periods of time, such as over the last hour. With such fast editing, rollbacks, 3RRs, valdalism, etc. are likely. This site seems like a good, constantly updated watch list. There is a write up here. -- Jreferee (Talk) 12:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Drop a word by the Signpost? DurovaCharge! 13:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Good call. Also, W3ace developed the tool in case anyone to thank him. He's been discouraged by Wikipedia (see this), but thinks that Wikipedia "can serve as an fantastic way to study human nature and how the non-tech world interacts with Social powered media." A little WikiLove may help get this talented person back into contributing to the Encyclopedia. -- Jreferee (Talk) 17:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars on Main Page templates[edit]

What should be done to discourage edit wars on the Main Page templates? This used to happen when non-free images appeared in Wikipedia:Today's featured article, but that happens less often now that some people try and spot such images before they reach the main page, but it still happens with borderline In the news entries. At the moment, there is a slow-moving edit war with people using admin tools on the protected Template:In the news to add and remove the Luciano Pavarotti entry. What is the best way to discourage this? The normal procedure of removing stuff and discussing before replacing, doesn't work well here. By the time the discussion is concluded, the "recently updated" criterion for In the news items might no longer apply if the event took place a week ago. Also, the Luciano Pavarotti article is now recieving a lot of attention, with fair-use images being tagged for deletion, and various clean-up tags being placed on the page. While this is good in one sense, it would be nice if such clean-up actually took place, rather than having thousands of readers viewing the article with clean-up tags all over it. Carcharoth 14:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for IP[edit]

Please could someone extend the anon-only block on IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) from 1 year to indefinite.

It is a fixed IP address used as a proxy by a large number of public library users.

There has been a lot of vandalism from that address. Whenever it happens, people leave warning messages, and these run a significant risk of reaching innocent users instead, who maybe know nothing about the internals of the project. Okay, so it says:

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make any unconstructive edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant warnings.

but this is of little relevance to the great many users who are not interested in editing anyway, and just want to read articles. Presumably those who use the site in a purely read-only fashion are the large, though silent, majority of visitors (stats, anyone?) Showing such people pages and pages of warnings is not good PR for the project.

There have been a series of blocks in the past, and all that happens is that whenever the block expires, the cycle begins again. There is no reason to believe that this pattern will change. I believe that it is much better to have the address permanently anon-blocked, as this will enable the User Talk page to be kept free of further warnings.

More generally, I think that where persistent vandalism is found to originate from shared IP addresses, these addresses should be anon-blocked indefintely and any warnings archived, as the pattern of repeated short-term blocks and lots of warning messages doesn't work well -- and causes more work too.

Thank you.

Boghandel 14:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It's practically unheard-of to block IP addresses permanently, but I see the point. For the record, the current block will expire on 11 July 2008. Shalom Hello 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think we can take the chance on having to revert a bit of vandalism. Who knows, somebody useful may show up. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barrel children (2nd nomination)[edit]

This AfD has been open since 8/26. Could an admin look into it, please? Thanks. --UsaSatsui 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

☑Y done. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Gratzie. --UsaSatsui 15:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Romanianization 'see also' section[edit]

Please someone put back those links[5] as I don't want to break the three revert rule. I stated my case at User:Tankred's and User:Dahn's talk page, but I got no answer. I tried to ask questions on the article's talk page too, but it somehow won't display them.
Romanianization is a form of discrimination connected to the Treaty of Trianon just like the links that I'd like to provide. I think they should be included there, so the reader gets an idea of the whole concept. Squash Racket 03:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Try bringing your concerns to the article's talk page instead of addressing individual editors. Also, if necessary to get more opinions, you can always file a WP:RfC. Even if you know you are right, edit warring isn't going to get you anywhere. Raise consensus for your changes if they are reverted. Consider WP:BRD. -Andrew c [talk] 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
As I told you, tried to bring it to the article's talk page, but it won't display it (see page history), I don't know why is that. Squash Racket 14:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There was a fault in the page coding. I've fixed it, and the talk page is now editable. DrKiernan 14:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
We'll see. If they didn't answer on their own talk pages even though they were online, why would they on the article's page? But technically it's possible now. Squash Racket 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about missing the part about the page not loading correctly, I'm glad DrKiernan fixed it. As for those users, wikipedia is more than 2 users. If they don't reply to you on the talk page, and others agree with your changes, then you on your way to having consensus to include the content. It is their loss if they don't participate.-Andrew c [talk] 19:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dmcdevit and moving images to the commons[edit]

  • Is this user using a bot on his normal account contribs? And is this permitted ?
  • Also is as regards the template and the project for moving PD images to the commons, is this not trying to resolve the problem by the wrong end ? If a bot can just say all PD images should go to the commons, then why does wikipedia allow users to upload images with a PD license ? As it is now a bot is going to have to make thousands upon thousands of edits, for ever and ever. It is extremely basic logic that if you want to empty an entity you have to block the entrance first, or the task will be never ending. The system on the French wikipedia, is better: if an image is PD it gets tagged as a possible candidate for the commons and then if a user would like to use it on the English wikipedia for example, he just clicks a link, and a script transfers the image across to the commons.

Why go to the trouble of creating all sorts of PD templates, if they shouldn't be used anyway ? Sorry if I am ranting a bit, the objective of making all PD images easily searchable is commendable, but this is the wrong way of going about it. Also it makes it harder for wikipedia users to watch their images and check for vandalism. For example PD maps of obscure subjects could easily be POV modified for example by Serbian and Russian nationalists (as often happens to articles) without anyone noticing for a long time, because the image would be on nobody's watchlist. To empty a sink you have to turn off the tap! Jackaranga 15:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The vandalism argument is entirely bogus, in my opinion; it becomes watched on Commons instead of here (and I'd gather that their RC log fills up slower than ours, making vandalism a bit more likely to be caught immediately); I've seen plenty of images on my watchlist just sit for hours on end before I caught the vandalism (ie: it happened right after I went to bed, and I see it at some point the next day), so you can't say that images being kept on Wikipedia are mystically imbued with the inability to be vandalized (not saying you specifically are, but that's the tone that several anti-Commons arguments tend to have). You can still keep images in your watchlist, even if they don't exist here, which means you can watch to see if people have uploaded a local copy of a Commons-residing image (though I don't think new users can do that). EVula // talk // // 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Yea I can watch deleted pages too, I just like to be able to watch the images I uploaded though, and see if anyone uploaded a new version (this wouldn't show if they uploaded a new version on the commons). My main question was though, why try to empty wikipedia of PD images without first stopping people from uploading them ? It will just never end, if a supermarket is trying to close for example, they must first close the entrance, before trying to get people out. Also as the vandalism thing goes, if you look at Image:United States Australia Locator.png for example, someone replaced the USA by Australia and nobody noticed until I reverted it back after 4 days, and yet everyone (hopefully) knows where the USA and Australia are. This will be even worse with more obscure subjects if the original creator can't watch his images anymore. Wikipedia encourages me to upload images as PD, and it's users now tell me I shouldn't have. Just remove the PD option from the image upload page, or make it redirect me to the commons, then I can at least add the page to my commons watchlist. Also I don't think Image:Kuwait-Iraq barrier.png qualifies to go to the commons, the policy says "Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles.", yet I have a short explanation about it, on the image page, it's not a huge explanation but there is no point in me rewriting the whole article. Jackaranga 16:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
On the upload form, it says "If you are uploading a file under a free license (not fair use!), please upload it to Wikimedia Commons where it will automatically become available to all projects." I understand it would be easier to force users to go to the commons, but moving the files isn't that much of a hassle, and it seems "nicer" to not force users to get an account elsewhere after they just got one here. But you are right, maybe one day we will redirect users to the commons. Next, I'm not sure why the Iraw/Kuwait map wouldn't be appropriate for the commons. And third, if you are uploading a lot of images, and interested in keeping track of their versions, you could consider getting an account with Wikimedia Commons. There you can watch pages, and upload new files.-Andrew c [talk] 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok thank you for the answers, sorry if I was a bit reactionary. Jackaranga 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, but why was this reported to the administrators' noticeboard, instead of, say, asking me if you had any questions? What I'm doing is simply normal practice; let me know if you want to know more about Commons and stuff. :-) Dmcdevit·t 20:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

C:CSD (not a rant, and it's good news)[edit]

I have uploaded a screenshot of C:CSD completely empty, Image:Empty CSD.jpg. No image categories, no images, no articles. And best, I did relatively little work. Maybe the rant did have some effect on C:CSD. I hope so. Maxim(talk) 12:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because you are a relatively new admin, but I've seen CSD completely empty lots of times. Majorly (talk) 13:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Still plenty to be done. GDonato (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Famous last words... x42bn6 Talk Mess 16:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Learning about notability[edit]

When is an article not notable? I wrote an article which seems like a decent article but some people want it deleted. I am not arguing the merits of the article here (so I won't name it) but wanted some advice about learning what is notable.

I'm not trying to pick on other article but some articles are notable for some reason? Mrs.EasterBunny 16:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability, especially Wikipedia:Notability (people). Conscious 17:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Can anyone see a reason that BetacommandBot tagged Image:Eden logo.gif‎? It states what article it's fair use in, has a logo fair use raitonale, proper licensing, a source, etc.. — Moe ε 02:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you ask the bot owner? --ElKevbo 02:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It did the same thing to Image:CrystalTokyo.jpg. Everything seems exactly right. --Masamage 02:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot did this to a lot of images... it was blocked and now is turned off. Maybe he'll fix it before it runs again? --W.marsh 02:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably because neither of you used the word "rationale" in the section title or something silly like that. You just wrote "Fair use for ...", not "Fair use rationale for ...". Jackaranga 02:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed this too. Just yesterday, Betacommand tagged an image I uploaded. It had a fair use rationale, but it just didn't use the template. I was wondering what was up, but clearly it's something, and it wasn't just me. Does it tag every image not using the fair use template? Those are the only ones with which I've had a problem.  hmwith  talk 19:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
All of the tags from yesterday have been reverted. there was an error. βcommand 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Who approved this task? This seems like something a bot is blatantly incapable of performing in a non-disastrous way. --W.marsh 03:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Im scrambling around at the moment, Ive got discussions on at least 3 pages, As soon as a complaint as raised I shut the bot off, less than 2 minutes after it was posted. Im trying to figure out what broke, Ill report more when I figure out what happened. (sorry for the problems)βcommand 03:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Since this Bot is a steady target of complaints, & Betacommand is making a good faith effort to respond to these complaints, why not centralize all comments or complaints at the Bot's talk page? Or simplify these matters at one page everyone can agree on? -- llywrch 18:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I proposed by edit to temporarily suspend I6 over this. Beyond the apparent bot malfunction there has been some serious discussion about whether a written rationale should be required and whether it is appropriate to speedily delete legacy images for lack of rationale, given that the prior arguments that the Wikimedia Foundation was requiring us to do that turned out to be untrue. Further, as I've pointed out for some time but never made a formal case for because we seemed to have an informal truce on the matter, the bot is not approved to be doing this kind of tagging. The logical place for the conversation would be had at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Wikidemo 03:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Heh, good luck. As I recall the foundation even said they never intended to require a specific rational for stuff like album covers, where it would always be the same rationale anyway... but people chose to keep the image hoops firmly in place. --W.marsh 03:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I6 should not be suspended as the bot has been reverted. βcommand 04:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Jebus, marsh, considering the massive amounts of edits BCB does, I'm betting it has a much lower error rate than most bots on Wikipedia. This little incident is nothing. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why is there a daily thread about it here? I ran a bot that made 30,000+ edits and it never got mentioned on AN or AN/I once. I realize people love the fact that this bot helps delete fair use images, but that doesn't mean people can't report errors or ask questions about it. No one ever answered my question, by the way. --W.marsh 12:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that any CDS should be suspended due to being mis-placed on a page. If any admin, before deleting an I6 image, makes sure that it is, in fact, I6 deletable, then we shouldn't run into problems. Od Mishehu 08:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but since when did we allow bots to make hundreds of edits per minute? --- RockMFR 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Since developers intervened in the CydeBot situation. (See Cydebot Block from WP:BOWN archives.) As long as the bot checks maxlag and has a bot flag (to avoid recent changes flooding), it should be fine. GracenotesT § 04:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It appears the approval is Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BetacommandBot Task 5. Elapsed time from request to approval was 5 hours; we've had a lot more, and more mixed WP:AN and WP:ANI commentary since the approval than is logged there. GRBerry 15:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked again[edit]

This does not belong in articles.

I'm a programmer too and I understand quite clealy that no software can be bug-free, but the amount of problems with this bot is ridiculous. I blocked it for messing up galleries and using self-referential images for templates intended for mainspace. MaxSem 17:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

you know, letting me know there is a problem would have been enough. per WP:NFCC non-free images can only be used in the mainspace. removing it from the template is 100% correct. as for the galleries I was un aware of that. please unblock and TALK instead of BLOCK. βcommand 17:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think BC is right about template not using FU images, even if they are only meant for the article space. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
But a template is meant to be transcluded into the main space. What's the difference, in terms of fair use rights, if an image gets onto a page via a template versus via directly inserting it or subst-ing the template? To us, it's a technical difference, but to the outside world (i.e. attorneys who get paid $300/hour), they wouldn't know or care how the images are getting onto pages. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
our policy clearly states that Non-free content can only be used in the mainspace. βcommand 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I had to look this up, and you're right -- per Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images#Fair_use_images_in_non-userbox_templates, fair use images aren't allowed in templates at all, because someone could transclude a template onto a user page or somewhere else where the fair use image shouldn't be allowed. The More You Know... --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Also see WP:NFCC#9 βcommand 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By the same token, why can't the bot just let people know there is a problem with something in their userspace and let them fix it? A gentle notification will be received better than a robotic edit that messes up pages, just like a note that the bot is misbehaving would be received better than a block of the bot. --W.marsh 18:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

W.marsh, that has been tried with very little success, as it stands BCBot is reverted a lot anyway even when I show the user the policy and I then remove, the user just adds it back. βcommand 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Beta, the issue was not removing it from the template, the issue was that the bot added a self-referential image to replace it - which is a Bad Thing. Could you please program the bot so that when it removes fair use images from templates, it actually removes them, as opposed to replacing them with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg? Picaroon (t) 18:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

not a problem ill do that. βcommand 18:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

How about a technical fix: {{#if:{{NAMESPACE}}||This is only shown in mainspace.}}? (No, I'm not seriously proposing this as a solution to the issue at hand, but the possibilities certainly are intriguing....) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I will help BCBot and the others who do the removals to not only answer questions but fix whatever else might happens. I am also going to remove some instances from the articles right now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


Since this issue is under discussion here I've unblocked the bot. Chick Bowen 23:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Not blocked properly[edit]


Hi. Following the report to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chaosdevil101 removed no fair rationale tag using sockpuppet again, it was decided that User:Chaosdevil101 would be blocked and a block notice was placed on the user's talk page but accoding to the block log, the user has not been blocked. Could an admin please take a look. Thanks. Tbo 157talk 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, a block does not show up in the log - until you try and block, whereupon you are advised that the editor is indef blocked. I will drop a line to the blocking admin User:John Reaves to see if the log can be updated. LessHeard vanU 21:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Tbo 157talk 21:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That is indeed odd. I don't know why it isn't showing up. -- John Reaves 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It is always good when two admins agree... ;~) LessHeard vanU 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. If the user is blocked then im sure the log wouldnt bother anyone.Tbo 157talk 22:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I think I've seen admins discuss this before. In that case, someone unblocked and then reblocked. The block log then reflected the editor's blocked status. Can the admin(s) involved please check to see if this has been filed as a bug? --ElKevbo 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a longstanding bug which has been discussed before, where sometimes the block shows up here but not here. If a user has been blocked it always shows up in the Ipblocklist. -- zzuuzz (talk) 11:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Try unblocking and reblocking with the original message. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Plan to remove spoilers from article space and place them in project space[edit]

Can we get some more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Professional wrestling#Here's what we'll try? (Not here, there.) I am concerned at the "solution," cutting spoilers out of articles and putting them on subpages of the wikiproject, The Hybrid (talk · contribs) is planning on implementing on wrestling articles, based on a "concensus" of project members. I think a consensus of the community at large should be required for this change. Picaroon (t) 02:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Lui clemente[edit]

Please check this user's uploads. It's been uploaded as PD but it obviously isn't (they're all logos). --Howard the Duck 06:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

BOT shut off[edit]

See User_talk:OsamaKBOT. Complaints are mounting higher about this not functioning properly. Operator does not seem responsive. Please advise/take appropriate action as I do not know what that is in such a case.Rlevse 23:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar enough with the bot to tell, but if it truly is malfunctioning, block it. -- John Reaves 23:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
The bot isn't malfunctioning. The most common complaint seems to be "there was already a rationale - why did the bot add another tag?" But if you look at the images they are talking about, you will see that the images contained fair use tags but no source, and the fair use templates clearly state that a source is required for fair use images. Therefore, the duplicated templates (i.e. "fair use" template & "no source" template) are perfectly appropriate. ugen64 01:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not totally accurate. It tagged some of mine as needing a source when they had one.Rlevse 01:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
And here is an example of what Rlevse is talking about.-Andrew c [talk] 01:48, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
I have notified OsamaK of this discussion. The bot is not currently operating, so there's no point in blocking it now. Please just compile the appropriate changes that need to be made and make sure the operator is aware of them. Chick Bowen 03:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. Is there any problem with last 1000 edits ;). I think not. People ask me ("I have taken this photo, what do I do" and "How would I recall the specific web site almost 2 years ago?" and other question, look at my replies in their users talk). Thanks all.--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please}}|OsamaK}} 13:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As recently as two days ago there have been. I know that for a fact. Also, your attitude that your bot doesn't make mistakes and your often refusal to address concerns is not helping your case. If your bot continues to misbehave it will get blocked.Rlevse 16:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure, any bot makes mistakes should be block for 12 hour at most without "Automatic block", I talk about many mistakes not one or two ;). Have a nice day.--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please}}|OsamaK}} 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing this matter over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Another bot problem. The logos tagged for deletion from Sept. 5-7 include many of the most prominent companies in America, on articles that are several years old, where there is no legitimate question about the logo's source or appropriateness for the article. Many of these, if not most, are not even copyrighted. The initial feedback, which I support, is that it's a bad idea to be tagging old logos and other comparable images that are self-sourcing, and that these should not be deleted until we figure out how to add the proper sourcing data. The issue isn't errors so much as the disruption to the articles from purging a large number of old image files that are otherwise appropriate for Wikipedia. We'll probably ask that deletions be suspended on these and that the bots not go after large groups of legacy images without further discussion. Thanks, Wikidemo 16:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they have been here so long makes it more urgent to give them proper fair use rationals or remove them. If they get deleted it is not as though they cannot be gotten again. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the bot is using the wrong tag too. [6] That needs a no rationale tag, not a no source tag. Alpta 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It's without source also.--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please}}|OsamaK}} 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
At least the version of that image I see does not have a source - where did we obtain the image from? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, in the last one I try skipping any images with source, I make this list using AWB and Regex.--{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:NAMESPACE}}|User talk|{{subst:#ifeq:{{subst:PAGENAME}}|OsamaK|OsamaK|OsamaKReply? on my talk page, please}}|OsamaK}} 14:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Image history confusion[edit]

Resolved: though lessons still need to be learnt! Carcharoth 13:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone look at the history of Image:Pavarotti.jpg. It seems that the original photo of a waxwork in the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, got overwritten with the photograph of the Stade Velodrome performance in France! This is causing an immense amount of confusion! Can anyone sort this out?

From what I can work out:

  • [7]: The original waxwork image got deleted on Wikipedia at 00:47 on 7 September 2007 with the comment "at Commons".
  • [8]: The Commons deletion log history of the waxwork model shows lots of deletion and undeletion as a derivative work, with the final deletion at 11:21, 8 September 2007.
  • The confusion really started when the Stade Velodrome image got uploaded on Commons with the same name as the previous waxwork image, on 14:40, 8 September 2007 (see the image log linked above).
  • [9]: The original Stade Velodrome performance photograph (commons:Image:Luciano Pavarotti 15.06.02.jpg) got deleted at 22:50 8 September 2007, on Commons, because it was a duplicate of the newly uploaded picture. Surely the later picture should be deleted and the earlier one kept?
  • The upshot of this is that Wax museum on Wikipedia, which was using the waxwork museum image, for some time showed (link to old version) the picture of Pavarotti performing at the Stade Velodrome, with the image caption claiming this is a waxwork in the Venetian Hotel in Las Vagas.

This is a complete balls-up, to put it mildly. The full timeline of what happened will be a lesson in how not to handle this sort of thing. But for now, can anyone suggest the best way to fix this so that talk page and deletion discussions refer to the correct pictures? At the moment, Image talk:Pavarotti.jpg and the IfD discussion here make no sense because of this Commons deletion/re-uploading/Wikipedia deletion fiasco. The system most definitely failed here, in multiple ways. Carcharoth 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


This image have no source information for verification by others. User:Wolcott are persisting in the removing my tag {{Di-no source}}. The Wikipedia:Image use policy is always demand the source in point 2. There are no words about dates, then the image can have no source. Alex Spade 09:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Since Wolcott is the person who uploaded the image, he should be able to give his source. If the image had been uploaded in 2004, say, then I would think some more lenience would be appropriate to let editors research the source. But this image was uploaded in November 2006. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Two million articles[edit]

We've passed two million. Who was the lucky Wikipedian and what was the article? I hope it was a good one. DurovaCharge! 08:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

El Hormiguero, apparently ~ Riana 08:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations User:Zzxc, I suppose. Not too bad of a new article either. --tjstrf talk 08:31, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I see a different title getting named at Talk:Main page. DurovaCharge! 08:32, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Wait - or Sum of absolute transformed differences. Let's see what happens! :) ~ Riana 08:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#2_million_articles_2 DurovaCharge! 08:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

El Hormiguero was created in February and Deleted, can't see how it would qualify.w3ace 18:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If it goes like 1.5mil did, then there are probably 5 or so that can claim to be the correct one (due to constant deletions making the number fluctuate), and the "official" one will be whichever is considered the best/most interesting. --tjstrf talk 08:39, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Block request[edit]

Hello. I don't know if this is the right place to request a block. However, I will write it here, feel free to correct me and let me know where I am supposed to report such issues.

User:Bolekpolivka has been blocked for 24 hours several days ago for breaking the 3RR rule at {{Jeseník District}} template. After his ban ended, he continued reverting with two user names. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bolekpolivka has confirmed User:Weissundblau is his sockpuppet. User:Bolekpolivka, together with his sock, made total six reverts 07:16, 11:02, 14:07, 14:29, 14:40 and 14:58. Therefore I request block for User:Weissundblau, as his sockpuppet and proper block for User:Bolekpolivka for sockpuppetry, repeated 3RR violation on the same page in several days and 3RR violation using sockpuppet. Thank you. - Darwinek 20:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Weissundblau should be indef blocked. I am not sure about the lenght of duration of Bolekpolivka block - should we go with a week, two or a month? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:41, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinitely block the sock, and I'd be okay with 72 hours, or a week as a block. Based on his extensive email complaints to me, he doesn't understand what's wrong with his actions. It doesn't surprise me at all to learn that he resorted to sock-puppetry over this. --Haemo 20:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
This has actually already been done, so I think this is resolved. --Haemo 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD deletion backup[edit]

AfD articles are adding up. Is there an admin around who'd like to look at them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talkcontribs) 23:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hel Hufflpuff?[edit]

There's more of them:

These usernames all follow his theme. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 02:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not strictly. There are no contribs yet from any. I'd hate to be the guy who says "Nah, that's nothing" and mass vandalism ensues, but... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grawp Move log. Last time, Muhammad stayed at Muhammad raped little children, and he was a known prostitute, aka male whore. He worshiped Satan and sacrificed babies in his name. for 19 minutes before anyone noticed :/ Jackaranga 02:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

...and we're blocking. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
By the way, is there clearly defined policy on..."preemptive" blocking guided by common sense? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if there is one specifically, but we do it all the time. I just blocked a bunch more of these. Antandrus (talk) 03:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Wow. might be an interesting read. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Alphabetical. How tidy of him. HalfShadow 03:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly where I got them from. :) Let me know if you find any others not starting with "Grawp." Antandrus (talk) 03:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[50px-W] lacks alt text, affects all disambiguation pages[edit]

This graphic is missing an alt text. Affects all disambiguation pages.

$ w3m -dump |head
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up Free in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Jidanni 20:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, but where are you getting this from?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
(ec) You seem to be referring to the Wiktionary logo image in {{Wiktionary}}. However, that image does have an alt="" attribute, which should hide it from non-graphical browsers. If this does not work in w3m, I'd suggest that's their bug, not ours. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I believe the user is referring not to the Wiktionary logo, but to Image:Disambig gray.svg (thus "all disambiguation pages are affected"). The source code has an empty alt tag for that image (in addition to the wiktionary logo). I do not believe this is w3m's fault because it shows up in our source code. If this was my personal site, this would be an easy fix, but since I don't know the process of editing the source here (contact the developers?), I can't be of much more help. Whatever the fix, I'd be curious to see the process and results so I can enhance my knowledge. -Andrew c [talk] 00:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, the code is

 <span><a href="/wiki/Image:Wiktionary-logo-en.png" class= "image"
 title="Wiktionary-logo-en.png"><img alt="" src=
 width="50" height="54" border="0" /></a></span>

and I'll ask a w3m person take a look. (<span> wasted). Jidanni 00:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually - he asked me - I maintain lynx. Lynx does not show the "50px-" (it shows an unnamed link, e.g., "[LINK]") which can be suppressed Tedickey 20:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Filed bug as it must be a lack of alt text. P.S., only 1/10000 of users would like to see the image page instead of the link that the image is all about, even though that is the next link. Jidanni 16:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nationalist edit warring and noticeboards[edit]

Please review these edits of mine: [10] and [11]. As far as I'm concerned, having sections on noticeboards for editors of nationality X inviting editors of this nationality to join in with nationalist edit war Y is a spectacularly bad idea. The nationalist cancer is quite bad enough on Wikipedia without this sort of shit making it worse. Moreschi Talk 15:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. WP:MfD, anyone? These noticeboards seem to have been around for awhile (the Serbian one, anyway) with very few participants, and their main use seems to be to provide us with canonical violations of WP:BATTLE and WP:CANVASS... At most, there should be a "Balkans noticeboard" or something which would transcend specific nationalistic identities. Of course, even that would probably be a disaster. MastCell Talk 15:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
In my thinking it is better to leave this in today situation. Why ?? If you block or delete this notice boards nothing will change because they are living important (example:article for deletion) messages on local community portals. For example I will show this: "Трг/Архива Serbophobia" . If you take this words with copy/paste and put it in google you will recieve 2 hits on serbian wiki community portal ..Rjecina 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi -> well said, this labelling of people by their nationality (both subject of articles and editors) is a poison that is much too prevalent. Anyone would think we were operating in South Africa, where your worth depended entirely on which community you came from. PalestineRemembered 20:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What complete and utter crap. Edit-warring along nationalist lines across Wikipedia is blatantly apparent to anyone with half and brain and open eyes. Unlike the South Africans, I have made no judgments as to the merits of different communities: I have simply said that editors of different nationalities spend far too much time fighting over nationalist disputes. Check through arbitration cases, both historical and present, to see the truth of this! Moreschi Talk 09:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm with Moreschi here. Anyone may check the ongoing request for deletion of Template:POV Russia to make sure than, when the issue concerns several conflicting nations, people tend to opine along a pre-established pattern and it's rather easy to predict their opinions. Something needs to be done with ethnic cliques that ruin the project by turning so many areas into battlegrounds. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Please review my deletion of Urban blight[edit]

I speedily deleted Urban blight as a copyright violation. It was also little more than a dictionary definition. I know that this is an important topic that can lead to a government seizing affected properties due to eminent domain, so we need an article here. Unfortunately, I tried to paraprase the definition and could not come up with something satisfactory. Could someone please review this speedy deletion? Jesse Viviano 02:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Seems fine, that site is unlikely to be plagiarizing us, so it seems this was a copyvio. I'm not 100% sure we need an article here, Urban decay could and does define this under the "Examples of decay" section, so I've redirected to that article, pending further discussion. --W.marsh 13:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For Admins' Notice[edit]

User:Angelofdeath275 and User:Angelofdeath275/Policies_and_Guidelines#I_will_blow_off. 14:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you try talking to the user? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not think talkin to me would be hard. So I'll blow off a few rules. Its the blatent truth; there are some rule a I not like. Its better than making up some fancy lie as to why I would not follow some as I cannot stand lies. Or, maybe because your an IP-user that you feel this concerns you. Seriously, you could have left a message on my talk page at least first.... THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 15:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you like them or not, you'll be expected to follow them. android79 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And for heaven's sake tone down your signature. Mackensen (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreeed... in any case, you can ignore the rules, but don't be surprised if there are consequences. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And this really has no point being in the administrator's noticeboard.. but yeah that signature hurts my eyes. Cowman109Talk 16:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
It has something to do w/ blood and death! Shocking! -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 12:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted Article Archival[edit]

I've noticed that a popular page has been deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Webkinz_pets. I see all the communication back and forth as to why people have decided it should be deleted, my question is can you get access to the content other than through Google Cache which will soon be deleted ? w3ace 17:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you set up and authenticate your email address in your preferences, I can email you the page contents. Though I'm not sure why you would want it, consensus to delete was quite strong. Mr.Z-man 18:48, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm interested in whether or not the information is publicly available more than I'm interested in that Article. I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the delete process. Are these pages forever available to Administrators? w3ace 19:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, unless they are oversighted (which is only done if it contains personal info or libel and even then it can be restored by a developer) all revisions of deleted pages are available to admins forever (barring some sort of massive loss of data from a server crash or something). Mr.Z-man 19:13, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Editors can still get copies via this page or by asking an admin in this category. Cheers!--Chaser - T 19:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
"all revisions of deleted pages are available to admins forever" - umm, no. This is a common misconception. See here:

Deletion means deletion. The deleted page archives ARE TEMPORARY TO FACILITATE UNDELETION OF PAGES WHICH SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DELETED and are subject to being cleared or removed AT ANY TIME WITHOUT WARNING. --