Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive168

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Help needed at Category:Disputed non-free images as of 9 September 2008[edit]

Several hundred images have been tagged by FairuseBot (talk · contribs) for lacking a fair use rationale and added to Category:Disputed non-free images as of 9 September 2008. I am not arguing with the mass tagging, but I would like to request that other editors do what they can to add appropriate fair use rationales to keep the images from being deleted. I have added a few, but I can't do them all. --Eastmain (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a gadget that helps to add fair use rationales to articles, but I've never used it, so I don't know what it is. Corvus cornixtalk 21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I assume you mean FURME. It's a great tool. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec) Yes, WP:FURME. But you need to know what you are doing to use it. Using it poorly is worse than not using it at all. Carcharoth (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Less than half of the images are in danger of being deleted: most of the images have fair-use rationales for at least one use, so FairuseBot will come along in five days and remove them from articles without a fair-use rationale and from the category. --Carnildo (talk) 22:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please watch me[edit]

Resolved: Sock blocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hrafn#Please_read_my_recent_edits_...

Hrafn and his buddies are about to kick me off. "His" hierarchy of consortial editors (using the same username, passwd, and /or email communications) might now kick in. I would like you to restore my good name as Doug youvan, Nukeh, and MsTopeka, as one in the same. I do not have the editorial skills or ability to do anything other than what I have already done, because I focus on content and edit in good faith. I am sorry for breaking rules, but this consortium is just to fast and well skilled in WP rules for me to do otherwise. MsTopeka (talk) 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a clue what you're talking about. Please explain precisely what it is you're asking an admin to do. --Tango (talk) 05:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Diffs? Where has hrafn harassed you? And do you have any proof of your accusations of sharing usernames and passwords? That's a serious charge. Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Given that User:MsTopeka has kindly admitted to being a further sock of banned User:Doug youvan/User:Nukeh, could somebody please ban 'her'. HrafnTalkStalk 06:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
There he is, hrafn, and I believe that to be a consortium of editors, and a proxy of www.kcfs.org with many editors on the same username. It's possible all edits are piped through Krebs at kcfs, but I don't know anyone who could figure out how to detect such technology. I'm now in their home state, but I will not make any legal threats here. They defame my real name, Doug youvan. One has made a threat of violence. One of their goals is to control WP articles that are supportive of certain public policy positions, such as NO Intelligent Design being taught in school. ID is now a mess on WP and elsewhere, but it tracks back to the ideas of Arrhenius, one of the fathers of thermodynamics.
My cv includes 8 years of teaching in 2 departments at MIT in chemistry and biology, 20 years ago. Since then, I was the CEO of a biotech company, worked in aerodynamics, cosmology, mathematics, etc. I am Hrafn's worse nightmare in a public debate because of my background in research level science in many fields. On the other hand, his goal appears to be only to influence public policy, e.g., the Kansas State School Board elections. They pervert scientific articles on WP simply to make Darwin stand and ID fall, because they believe ALL of ID is a trick to get Creation back in the schools.
I broke some WP rules to catch these guys, so what do I do now? I have accumulated evidence here: http://www.childpainter.org, a master website that has links to other websites. I ask you to look at http://www.wikipediaversusthegodofabraham.org. You will also see that MsTopeka has recently tried to alert fellow WP editors to a potential IPO of WP, and has also looked into MACIDs for security reasons. These are not the efforts of the typical bad troll or socketpuppet. They are more akin to an ACLU activity with the goal of continued Freedom of Speech in a society that has lost much to the war on terror, which appears to be the delusions of a dry drunk, Prez Bush, and his money grubbing pals. Please do not lump all Christians in his bag. To do so will recreate 1935 Germany with Chrstians taking the place of Jews in the present day. Hrafn (and Godwin, a pun) would love to see that happen.MsTopeka (talk) 13:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Above, I read "that this may be a jimbo / arbcom decision in some way (hopefully we'll get clarification in due course)" on PD. If that is a method unknown to hard working, common, everyday editors, it appears we have still another problem. MsTopeka (talk) 14:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
ROFLMAO -- I think this pretty much sums 'Ms Doug' up. I've added a report on WP:SSP. HrafnTalkStalk 14:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what WP:SSP is. So, I ask a senior admin to defend my position. I appear to be pro per (court analogy) in Hfran v Youvan, where Hfran is highly skilled. I am a scientist, mathematician, and proponent of fair play - not a WP "attorney" like Hrafn who wins arguments in article content based on skills in admin stunts. MsTopeka (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Try clicking on the link, then you'll know what it means. --Tango (talk) 21:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, do review MsTopeka's edits. Certain words involving living under bridges come to mind. Corvus cornixtalk 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Subbridgulation? Guettarda (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Are the words defined in Webster's Underthebridge Dictionary? Edison (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh well, at least we have new words to describe a certain Red Hot Chili Peppers song and sound all smart and everything. Orderinchaos 06:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate[edit]

Please delete Archbishop Jovan (John) VI of Ohrid which is a copy of Jovan Vraniskovski. Thanks.--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking care of it. Fut.Perf. 20:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
(laughing) This solution didn't occur to me :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I've done a "history merge", combining the two articles. I've also taken the freedom of doing a bit of a re-write, for neutrality. The text was rather biased in favour of his church; we shouldn't be making a judgment on whether his group or the official church are canonically legitimate or not. We'll just be saying who regards who as what, but not who is right. Fut.Perf. 20:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw the new version, but there is one more thing and I'm sorry I discuss it here but here the talk began. The non-clerical name of Jovan Vraniskovski is actually Zoran Vraniskovski so may be it will be better to be moved under that name. I don't feel sure to move articles yet and that's why I'm asking :)--Алиса Селезньова (talk) 07:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

changes to the templates for Birth/Date age - Still unreseolved[edit]

I previously wrote up this issue and it was archived without resolution so I am writing it up again. The linking for birth date and age templates has been removed which is causing the dates to not link within templates., Infobox military person for example. Although I see under the WP:Dates where someone changed the wording I cannot see where the change was determined through discussion or consensus and therefore should be corrected. If the decision is to not link dates in general fine but it should still be linked in templates such as infoboxes. Additionally,if this is the desire is to not link dates then the bots and AWB that correct dates need to be reviewed (because they are still changing date formatting) and the millions of date links on pages that currently exists needs to be removed. Until someone can show me where this has been changed based on a majority decision and not just a user thinking that its wrong then I am going to continue linking dates.--Kumioko (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ask User:Tony1. He has a page explaining where consensus was reached. See User:Tony1/Information on the removal of DA. Earlier thread was here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Does he plan to delete all the month/day/year pages once they are completely orphaned? Seriously, what is the point of all this? — CharlotteWebb 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
That point did strike me as well. There must be some cases where we link to years. I suppose from calendars and timelines rather than articles? And from timelines within articles. I think the point is that linking a year is OK, but linking the date and month is pretty pointless. Though knowing all the instances when a date is mentioned in Wikipedia could be useful in some circumstances. But that more linking dates for the sake of using the "what links here" function. We also have "x in year" articles. Tony's argument that there is vast amounts of overlinking is valid as well, and particularly the point that unregistered readers see a mess (though I thought everyone knew that already - I think half the people that create accounts do so in order to improve their reading experience and to access the reading preferences such as 'skins'). Carcharoth (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Although I see Tony's point I do not agree that not linking dates at all is the answer and it seems as though he has become the defacto owner of the date formatting for wikipedia. I have reviewed his comments as well as the comments of the supporters and opposers and here are some things that I notice/concerns that I have:
  1. The Opposers and the supporters all have a good point but the supporters opinions seem to be favored heavily.
  2. Tony's page states that the majority support it but when you look at the vote it didn't clearly define support and the number of users who voted was relatively small.
  3. There are bots and apps tat edit dates on pages that need to be modified.
  4. There are millions of date links that need to be unlinked if this is kept.
  5. There are hundreds of date pages that will need to be deleted if this is kept.
  6. I believe that a change like this that affects so many pages and edits should have had more publicity before it was implemented.

--Kumioko (talk) 21:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that this debate has been going on for years and has taken place in an enormous number of different places, too many to be easily linked to. In 2006 the whole thing blew up into a wheel war, see relevant block logs. Tony has been consistent and persuasive, and I think he's (probably) right that the significant opposing viewpoints have been answered to the satisfaction of a majority of those who have followed the debates all along. Of course, since this debate affects basically every article and (as you note) a great many templates as well, lots of people are going to notice the actual changes who were not aware of the debate, no matter how well it's publicized. But in this case, consensus of everyone whose watchlisted pages would be affected would be simply impossible (since that's all editors), and there has to be some kind of move forward at some point. Like you I see both sides here, but I also see the downside of continuing the debate for, oh I don't know, another three years. . . Chick Bowen 05:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
In those earlier debates, was the issue of "what is the purpose of year, month and date articles", addressed, and whether such articles should ever be linked and if so from where? Carcharoth (talk) 07:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The links to such pages are only to be removed where they serve no purpose. Where they serve a purpose they will remain. Therefore, the pages will remain, since consensus is that there is a purpose to having on this day in history pages and chronology pages. Hiding T 09:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to CharlotteWebb et al.: If all or even a tiny proportion of year-pages were like 1345, we'd be putting them up as FACs, highlighting them in The Signpost and generally being rather proud of them. But they're not like that: I recently surveyed a sample right back to pre-Christian days and found them to be most unsatisfactory stubby, fragmentary lists. But even if year-pages were worthy of proper articles/lists, there's an insuperable problem: they provide information about a whole year for the whole planet, and by definition are hard to justify as links that add significantly to the understanding of a topic at hand. If there's one relevant fish in the ocean of a year-page (that is, one that is not just a stubby little collection of one-line statements, it would always be better in the article itself. Year-pages are actually a great idea for something quite different: diversionary browsing. While many editors work to discourage enticements to divert from our focused article through year-links, if more year-pages could be worked up into good articles, I'd be the first to promote them in their own right as worthy for a certain class of reader. There's the challenge.
I think for the most part I agree with the concept of what this is doing but I think that a change of this magnitude is creating a LOT of work. I also agree that many pages with linked dates have that date linked too many times unnecessarily. For me 1 link in the article and maybe one for the infobox if applicable and thats enough. But to not link dates at all to me is an extreme measure. I also agree that many of the date pages are nasty and need work but that could also be said of the articles themselves. I think one way to fix this might be to setup a project to start reviewing these date pages and if there aren't many items on the dates page then we roll them up to the next level (if 19 January 1988 only has 2 items then we roll it up as a sub section under 1988). Many also need to be assessed.--Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Response to the issue of autoformatting dates in templates: This is quite a different issue from the linking of years and other chronological items. It's simple: templates that generate dates need to (1) avoid linking them and (2) allow editors to choose between the two standard formats, US and international (some citation templates seem to like ISO, which is permitted in ref lists). This arises from major changes to long-standing practice, in MoS (main), MOSNUM, MOSLINK and CONTEXT last month.Tony (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
For me the biggest problem here is that there is no standardization for the page names (some are 19 January and some are January 19) and some dates even have 2 or more pages, 1 for each format and seems to be based on who created it. I understand that dates are displayed differently in different places but if the article name is 19 January then the link should reflect that rather than an unnecessary redirect for the sake of symantics. If someone in Great Britain created the article as January 19 then those of us like me in the US should be content with that format and display it as such unless we can come to some sort of understanding that dates and articles about a date will be displayed a certain way (perhaps based on the most commonly used format). Again I am not trying to be a pain here but it appeared to me that there was no follow throw of dealing with the 2nd and 3rd level effects of abolishing the date links.--Kumioko (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought about doing a request for comment but I have decided to let it go, although I don't completely agree with it, it has met concensus and after trying twice knowone else seems to think its a problem so I'll get behind it and proceed editing.--Kumioko (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this actually a blockable offense?[edit]

I made a comment recently, found here, and was threatened with a block.
Since I was trying to be nothing more than honest, direct, and complete, I certainly didn't intend to harrass, berate, or, uh, vandalize? And yet, I was threatened with a block.
If I actually did violate some policy, then I'd love to be updated on Wikipedia's new ruleset. (This isn't an issue of wikilawyering here. Even if I violated a rule of thumb, I'd even want to know that)
And yet, if I break down everything I said, each component still seems to be both accurate and reasonable. No, a sockpuppet isn't the same as a forged signature. No, it's not good form to protect someone's talk page in response to an attack they made against you personally (there's never a shortage of other admins who will do that for you, to avoid conflicts of interest). No, removing people's comments from talk pages aren't 'minor' (and, yes, the difference is just a minor clerical issue). Yes, a non-admin can see if a page has been deleted.
So, what, precisely, have I done wrong? And, more importantly, were my crimes actually blockable offenses?
(btw, please reply here, not on my talk page, as this is a dynamic address and I may not see it there)
(btbtw, it's up to you if gwen should be notified about this here. I'm asking about my conduct, so I really don't know if it's necessary) 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, not in itself (but Gwen may or may not have information we do not at this point?). If it were a blockable offense, you have been blocked by now. Synergy 21:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, you could simply look at my contributions to see if there is, indeed, any other information that would warrant threatening me with a block. However, since it was a reply to that specific comment of mine, I have to assume that my crime was there. 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm giving Gwen the benefit of the doubt. I have no opinion other than to say that its not a blockable offense. Synergy 21:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
No, apparently it's personal. I tried asking what I did that warranted the threat. Her response was absurd personal attacks. (you can see part of our dialog here)
This is getting absurd. Is she always like this, or just having a bad day? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought it appropriate to leave GG a notice, and did so. DGG (talk) 00:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what I see: Hayabusa2938's only edits were vandalism, including a disruptive, deceitful comment on the talkpage of a BLP. Hayabusa was also quacking like User:Mythstory (an already blocked user) and was thus blocked. Then this IP shows up, jumps head-long into this dispute and defends Hayabusa, using comments such as "wikipedia is indeed censored". Now I can't speak for User:Gwen_Gale, but it looks like they don't like ducks. ~ Ameliorate! U T C @ 00:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, for some reason you came to my talk page and lengthily defended both this bit of vandalism/disruption along with another meaningless shred. Do I smell footwear in the laundry bin? Waterfowl in the pond out back? I'll still be more than happy to block you, if you like. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, don't play with your food and don't feed the trolls. Playing with the trolls, on the other hand, is okay... as long as it's on your own talk page... I think. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me. I take great exception to what both of you are saying.
Addressing things in the order that's easiest to address, this was actually a mistake. At the time, there was a minor factual error in the article, which that editor was correcting on the talk page. (Apparently, Letterman made some stupid joke about a fictitious brother "ment-ally ill", and the article confused it with another nickname of Jong-il himself. That editor was just pointing out the mistake in the talk page) Gwen made an (honest) goof, and deleted the person's comment, confusing it with nonsense. I left a note on her talk page that, even though it was obviously just a mistake, she should still be a bit more careful. I then worked with another editor who saw the notice on her talk page to improve the article (namely, we decided to remove the whole stupid section from the article, since neither of us felt it belonged).
Gwen knows full well that this was the context of that note, and yet she's chosen to call it a "meaningless shred". I don't know what she even means by that, but the irrefutable fact of the matter is that she misread something, and mistakenly deleted a good faith comment on the talk page.
Secondly, I never defended any vandalism/disruption/anything-else. I corrected some minor notes about what she'd said.
  • She said someone had forged their signature. That was false. It probably was a sock, but that isn't the same as a forged signature. For someone who seems fond of talking about ducks, it seems strange that she'd take exception to using the right words to describe people. (a sock is a sock, not a forger)
  • Since I was talking about the subject anyways, I did point out that it really wasn't appropriate to lock a person's talk page just for insulting you personally. note: I didn't say that his page shouldn't have been locked. That would've been defending him. I just said that someone else should've done it. Tell me, who here does feel that an admin should be the one to punish people who insult them personally? Nobody? I thought not.
  • After then commenting on how particularly offensive it was or wasn't, I then pointed out (to Cdogsimmons) that the comment didn't belong on that article talk page anyways, since it wasn't constructive (thus defending Gwen's position). I assume Gwen didn't take offense to that. She's yet to be particularly specific about what, if anything, I've done wrong, so I still don't know.
  • I then told Cdogsimmons that he could see the deletion logs for articles himself (thus dispelling the myth that admins were entirely 'disappear'ing articles). This was to defend admins in general. Again, I assume that nobody here has a problem with that, but I'm really starting to wonder here.
  • Finally, I very briefly defended the deletion of the article being referred to (against the point of mythstory/hayabusa). Perhaps this is where Gwen thought I was defending hayabusa? By suggesting that he was wrong? I have no clue; she never explained herself very well.
Simply put, I find it both disconcerting and tiring that IP editors are treated with such disdain.
I've been threatened with a block, and not a single person has yet to explain how that would have been remotely warranted.
I've been insulted, and called a troll, with no explanation of how that could possibly apply to me.
Gwen has lied (and I do not use that word lightly!) in saying that I defended hayabusa. (If you think I'm wrong, find a diff. Until you provide one, do not accuse me of doing things I never did!)
I've then been threatened with another block, by someone who's still yet to identify a single thing I've actually done wrong. Not a violation of any WP policy, not a violation of any rule of thumb, or general preferred behaviour. Nothing. You want to ignore me? Fine. But do not threaten me with a block unless you plan to have a bloody reason for it (and how insane is it that I even need to say that?). Do not call me a troll, or a defender of vandals, unless you have something to back it up.
For any logged-in editor, you need to provide diffs before you start throwing around accusations and insults (and even then insults aren't preferred). Why should that be different for IP editors? 209.90.134.118 (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, 98% of the time I'm a GG fan, but I don't think it's too much of a stretch of AGF to accept 209.90's description of events. I don't know anything about Hayabusa or Mythstory; perhaps Gwen knows he has a history of impersonating uninvolved IP editors. But based only on what I see here and on her talk page, there's a decent chance that 209.90 is getting unfairly characterized.

I suspect part of the problem is that Gwen saw the Hayabusa thread first, even if 209.90 posted there after the Kim Jung Il section. To be fair, I would be pretty suspicious too, if someone with no previous contact with me showed up on my talk page to bring up minutia (sp?) about the treatment of an obvious troll like Hayabusa. I'm not sure I understand why 209.90 felt the need to comment on that. But still, based on what I see, it's not suspicious enough to invoke WP:DUCK. And the problem is, if 209.90 is actually not trolling, he's being treated really poorly.

That said, 209.90, I'm not sure what you want now. Forced apologies aren't real, and not worth demanding. If you're concerned about the threat of a block, I'm confident Gwen won't block you for anything, especially if you avoid her talk page. If you don't want GG to think you're a troll or vandal, well we can't control what other people think; there are lots of people in real life who don't think I'm wonderful (idiots, mostly), and I've managed to survive that. If you're trying to raise awareness that IP editors often don't get as much AGF as other people, that's unfortunately true, and you may have demonstrated that here. If it helps, there's at least one person who doesn't think you're a sock. That might be the best outcome you can get here. --barneca (talk) 13:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin take a look at a multiple article AfD please[edit]

Resolved: Issue gone away as it looks like there is enough keep votes for the whole series that the decision is going to be keep. Dpmuk (talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

At the moment this AfD is dealing with several articles at once, however both myself and another editor are unhappy with the articles being grouped together for the reasons stated in the AfD. I think it would be best if this one was nipped in the bud before too much discussion had taken place (it's generating a fair bit of interest) and the AfDs listed separately (which is obviously best dest by an admin as it would be a possibly controversial early close). Obviously this is only my personal opinion and a reviewing admin may disagree but I thought it best to raise it here as if splitting is to occur it's obviously better to do it before there's too much discussion. Dpmuk (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I left a question in the AfD asking if it should be split up into 11 separate AfDs. If you think there is a consensus for splitting or rearranging, you could ask here for it to be rearranged. EdJohnston (talk) 03:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Suspected hoax[edit]

Resolved: Speedied under G1O. Caulde (speak) 18:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Joshua tolbert appears to be a hoax, I have prodded it, but should it be an AfD (which could be closed more quickly, I understand)? DuncanHill (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I have AFDd it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joshua tolbert. On a side note, twinkle is doing extremely odd things when sending things for AFD at the moment, anyone know why? Brilliantine (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the article as an unsourced negative bio. It was not supported by a single source, as was likely an attack on some unknown individual. I know he was supposed to be dead, so I ignored some of the rules. I have assumed that there is likely some unknown target this was aimed at. Kevin (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit section links on this page broken?[edit]

Is it just me, or do the edit section links lead to the wrong sections? Brilliantine (talk) 02:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This happens when, as you click on a section edit link, a previous section is removed, or an additional section is added somewhere above the section you are trying to edit. Usually it's because a section or sections have been archived. DuncanHill (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops, my mistake. Just never come across that before. Must have been just after archiving then, it was many, many sections out. Sorry to bother. Brilliantine (talk) 02:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That's OK - I only know because I had a similar problem at the Ref Desks, and someone explained it to me! DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct[edit]

Would someone please reopen Wikipedia:WITCHHUNT → Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It appears to have been improperly closed and I think the RfD needs a conclusion to prevent the page from migrating back to a redirect in the future. Thanks. Suntag (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with a speedy close. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the problem is more that the creator of the redirect closed the discussion, stating he'd turned it into an essay, when it's actually just a blank page with three tags: {{Underconstruction}} {{essay}} and {{humor}} (and it's been that way for nearly 2 days). MfD could always do the trick (add WP:JIMBODOESNTCARE while you're at it). - auburnpilot talk 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
If it was MfD'd, couldn't someone just turn it into a redirect, and speedy close the MfD saying the MfD no longer applies because redirects should be listed at RfD? -- Suntag (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Burn the witch! Guy (Help!) 12:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, for the moment I've userfied the two incomplete ones to User:Prom3th3an/WITCHHUNT and User:Prom3th3an/HEADSMUSTROLL .--Tikiwont (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A sudden wave of Image talk: test pages[edit]

It seems to me that in the past few days, a variety of IP addresses have been creating test pages in the Image talk: namespace, where the corresponding image exists. Any idea what's going on? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Could be a coordinated attack from somewhere, or just one of the Many Mysteries of Wikipedia (such as "why do people ask the most random things at Wikipedia talk:Signatures???"). John Reaves 11:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do we even have an Image talk namespace? Looking at recent changes [1], it seems their only purpose is wikiproject tracking and random people asking random questions that no one will ever see to answer. Great namespace, ranks up there with Help talk. :) MBisanz talk 11:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
And Category talk... Stifle (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Should we put up, in the Image Talk: section of Mediawiki:newarticletext, some sort of banner directing users to the sandboxes? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It could be done better using a namespace edit-notice. Maybe something pointing them at the WP:MCQ or some sort of image discussion page. I'll try to code something later and bring it here to show. MBisanz talk 13:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
IPs can't create new articles, but they can create new Talk pages. Probably found out they could mess around that way. Corvus cornixtalk 19:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
As promised, here is the proposed edit notice {{Visibility-IT}} MBisanz talk 01:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. -- lucasbfr talk 07:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Added to MediaWiki:Editnotice-7. I might code up version for the Help talk: and Category talk: namespaces at another point in time. MBisanz talk 16:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I coded up {{Visibility-CT}} and {{Visibility-HT}} for the Category and Help talk spaces, is it worth coding one for Portal talk, or is that namespace actually watched. MBisanz talk 20:02, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I looked, portal talk gets like 15 edits a day, so I coded {{Visibility-PT}} and put it in the edit notice. MBisanz talk 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiVersity is an important resource that admins can use to help with conflict resolution[edit]

"Wikiversity strives to provide useful services to WikiMedia sister projects. A continual problem facing Wikipedia is finding good sources to cite. Many Wikipedia editors have a specific agenda and are perfectly willing to cite poor and unverifiable sources to support claims that are made in Wikipedia articles. Wikiversity is a center for scholarship in finding and critically evaluating sources. Wikiversity participants are encouraged to create Wikiversity pages corresponding to any Wikipedia article." - http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikiversity_and_Wikipedia_services - - WAS 4.250 (talk) 04:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you spamming a page that hasn't been edited in a year? There are not even Wikiversity pages for many basic topics, let alone "any Wikipedia article". Why would we go looking for help there? Fram (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I quoted from that page because I think it is a good idea for some conflicts to be sent to WikiVersity where ORIGINAL RESEARCH and multiple points of view are allowed without regard for notability. People can flesh out their arguments and sources there and then be referred to at wikipedia in a discussion here about whether some of it might be appropriate to add to a wikipedia article. People who work poorly with others can go to WikiVersity and not be stepped on by all the rules we have here. It is useful as one more alternative when trying to sort out a dispute, especially when original research or poor interpersonal skills are involved. WAS 4.250 (talk) 07:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity. Apart from the fact that most editors want their stuff to be on Wikipedia and not some side project, I doubt that Wikiversity would be happy to get all the fringe science (not to mention the completely trivial things we routinely remove here) from here. And I don't see how "poor interpresonal skills" would be better suited for Wikiversity than for Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't see many conflicts here being solved by removing them to Wikiversity, either. I only am suggesting that you guys keep the possibility in mind for those few cases where it might be helpful. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
What, so the POV-pushers go there, hone their arguments and then come back to cite their peerless research on Wikipedia? Sorry, I don't see how that helps at all. Guy (Help!) 08:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
You are right that it would not help in cases like that, Guy. I only suggest that it be kept in mind as another tool available in admin work. A tool need not be useful every day for it to a useful tool to have available. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not see how OR is allowed at Wikiversity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

(<---)I mean that there is no rule there against it just as there is no rule there against three reverts. In practice that means that the rules lawyering that goes on at Wikipedia and the efforts here to concentrate on rule enforcement rather than on what best helps the project is missing from WikiVersity so that at WikiVersity people can revert four times and not be blocked and can source claim A and source claim B and conclude using logic that claim C is true. We prohibit that at WikiPedia for the good reason the it introduces POV pushing, undue weight, false claims and non-notable claims. At WikiVersity, people are allowed to research things. For example, there is a project to create information that does not exist elsewhere on when specific species of plants flower, That is original research. It is a good thing for a 'Versity to do. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


We now have a test case. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doctorlloydmiller&diff=237481056&oldid=237231373 WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

So at Wikiversity he can post his own research and so on. How is letting him edit over there helping Wikipedia? Your message linked above seems more about getting experts to join Wikiversity, than about helping conflict resolution on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It helps only in the way that transwiki of fancruft to fan wikis helps. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Palin-related articles still need watching[edit]

Our Sarah Palin article still has a number of neutral editors watching it. Some other Palin-related articles could still use more editors watching them:

I sense anti-Palin partisans are starting to get the upper hand, but we still have problems from pro-Palin partisans as well.

There are several related redirects under discussion for deletion.

Political related but not directly tied to Sarah Palin -- could someone look at My Dad, John McCain. I'm out of editing time today but it looks problematic.

Finally, articles newly linked to Sarah Palin appear at the bottom of Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah Palin. It would help to have some grown-ups checking this periodically. (Ditto for some of the other candidates).

There are the upcoming Canadian elections, but I'll save them for another time …
--A. B. (talkcontribs) 18:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The list you offer above looks highly suspect. How on earth could one argue that wolf hunting needs watching because someone inserted one sentence about Alaska's latest policy towards wolves under Palin. This is a relevant point to the article, and the article, as well as others that you mentioned above, should be allowed to reflect such points.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 18:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, generally articles about general topics should not mention policies in various coutries unless they are somehow notable. We don't want to list every country/state that has wolves in it, and how they treat them. That is not the focus of the article. Anyway further disucssions about content should be redirected to the various talk pages of the specific articles. —— nixeagle 18:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has continent subsections, including one on North America, and as the only state with contiguous wolf territory, Alaska is the only state in the US in which wolves have never been endangered or threatened.LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
LamaLoLeshLa, I'm not sure what you mean to imply by calling the list I posted "highly suspect". At various times, the Palin angle has received more much more weight on the wolf-hunting page for example. I'm just asking some more folks to add these pages to their watchlist. You certainly don't have to. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 19:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Please excuse my phrasing. It was not the nicest choice of words. LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Finally, articles newly linked to Sarah Palin appear at the bottom of Special:WhatLinksHere/Sarah Palin. ← Not necessarily true.
The links are in order of page_id e.g. 19096270 for Alaska Public Safety Commissioner dismissal, 19261104 for Lipstick on a pig. These are roughly in order of page creation (except for very old pages). It is not according to the date/time that the link was added as this info isn't stored anywhere (and can only be determined by comparing diffs).
Linking to Sarah Palin from a two-year-old page, for example, will cause that page to be listed somewhere in the middle of the list, not at the end.
CharlotteWebb 20:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I've watch-listed wolf hunting out of morbid curiousity. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Charlotte, thanks for the clarification. I did not know that. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 00:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting a photo[edit]

I am trying to post a photo for my boss on his Wikipedia page, but I've been blocked from doing so. I am not a regular contributor or editor to Wikipedia, and have no interest whatsoever in being a regular editor or contributor. I am merely trying to update a page that features my boss -- a California State Senator.

If anyone can provide me with some help -- I sure would appreciate it. Thank you,

Bill

Responded on user's talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done --Rodhullandemu 00:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Since the copyright of that image may be dubious (did the copyright holder release it under GFDL), and needs to be confirmed through OTRS, I uploaded Image:Sam Aanestad.jpg as a potential backup. - auburnpilot talk 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've already forwarded the permission to OTRS. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary unprotection of Template:ArticleHistory[edit]

I would like to request that Template:ArticleHistory is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for Wikipedia:Good topics. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. Arctic gnome, an admin who is also in charge of WP:FT, has already said that he would see me do it[2] - rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per WP:BEANS). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —kurykh 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that's true, but I think that was more because he suggested the sandbox because he didn't think of me asking here (I was more using the citation to demonstrate that he trusted me with it, sorry, I should have made that clearer). Franamax asked for exactly the same unprotection a couple of days ago, and had his request granted[3]. To do the changes in a sandbox would be an absolute nightmare, as I'd have no way of testing whether they were working as I want them to, as it all involves templates adding a large number of categories. And obviously whatever I create in a sandbox wouldn't be transcluded onto lots of pages - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You can transclude your sandbox onto test pages to test the sandbox version. Just play around a bit with several different sandboxes and transclude them onto themselves if you want to do transclusion tests. You might end up with the sandboxes in live categories for a few minutes, but as long as you disable the transclusion quickly, that should be OK. Goodness knows there are enough user subpages in "article" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The proper place to request edits to a template is using the {{editprotected}} on the template's talk page. Most admins want specific edits, though, which is why sandbox use is encouraged. Also, playing around on the live versions of high-use templates is generally a Bad Thing™ because it fills up the work queue a lot (basically 'cuz it makes other edits take longer to show up). It also helps reduce the impact of bugs in the code. And there's WP:BEANS stuff, of course. I highly recommend doing some work in a sandbox first, and making sure the edits are all kosher (bug wise). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmmmm, fine, not entirely happy but I'll give it a go - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week a request to unprotect ah has been raised here; why aren't changes raised on proposed on the ah template talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was following the lead of the first request. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
ah, I see :-) A request on the template talk page might be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
For reference on the "first request", see the archived AN request which links to several threads discussing the specific problem, the reprotection, the followups with interested/involved parties and the resulting change to the MediaWiki software at r40499. Franamax (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise it was later questioned. Anyway, I'm now in the process of sandboxing - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the changes required, I shall now bring the request to Template talk:ArticleHistory - rst20xx (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see the plan before, looks like an interesting idea. Brilliantine (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment[edit]

Any suggestion on what (if anything) to do with Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment? It does not seem to be about the project's involvement in Black College and University recruitment. It might be an essay. I don't know. -- Suntag (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a November 2005 effort to recruit students and faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities to become Wikipedia editors. I'm not sure whether this is a legit essay topic. Suntag (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
MFD? D.M.N. (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Fclass (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This dates from a time period when there were a lot of efforts to find more editors, particularly those with expertise. See meta:Academics for a much broader discussion. The points on that HBCU page are valid; I say tag it with {{essay}} and let it stand. Chick Bowen 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, all. The essay may "reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors" but may not be "a poor candidate for broadening" per Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. Gonzo fan2007 marked it as a historical effort, which seems to perfectly characterize the page. Suntag (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporary unprotection of Template:ArticleHistory[edit]

I would like to request that Template:ArticleHistory is unprotected for a few days, so I can implement the changes needed for Wikipedia:Good topics. In theory an admin could do the changes, but the whole process is pretty complex, and I'd rather get on with it myself. Arctic gnome, an admin who is also in charge of WP:FT, has already said that he would see me do it[4] - rst20xx (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not to deflate the balloon, but Arctic.gnome asked you to create the modified version in a sandbox, and then implementing the entire modified version in one edit, not that we unlock the template for a few days so you can whittle away at it (not because you are untrustworthy, but because of other stuff that I won't say per WP:BEANS). That's my interpretation of his remarks. —kurykh 17:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that's true, but I think that was more because he suggested the sandbox because he didn't think of me asking here (I was more using the citation to demonstrate that he trusted me with it, sorry, I should have made that clearer). Franamax asked for exactly the same unprotection a couple of days ago, and had his request granted[5]. To do the changes in a sandbox would be an absolute nightmare, as I'd have no way of testing whether they were working as I want them to, as it all involves templates adding a large number of categories. And obviously whatever I create in a sandbox wouldn't be transcluded onto lots of pages - rst20xx (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You can transclude your sandbox onto test pages to test the sandbox version. Just play around a bit with several different sandboxes and transclude them onto themselves if you want to do transclusion tests. You might end up with the sandboxes in live categories for a few minutes, but as long as you disable the transclusion quickly, that should be OK. Goodness knows there are enough user subpages in "article" categories. Carcharoth (talk) 19:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
The proper place to request edits to a template is using the {{editprotected}} on the template's talk page. Most admins want specific edits, though, which is why sandbox use is encouraged. Also, playing around on the live versions of high-use templates is generally a Bad Thing™ because it fills up the work queue a lot (basically 'cuz it makes other edits take longer to show up). It also helps reduce the impact of bugs in the code. And there's WP:BEANS stuff, of course. I highly recommend doing some work in a sandbox first, and making sure the edits are all kosher (bug wise). Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmmmmmmm, fine, not entirely happy but I'll give it a go - rst20xx (talk) 19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the second time in a week a request to unprotect ah has been raised here; why aren't changes raised on proposed on the ah template talk page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, to be honest, I was following the lead of the first request. Sorry - rst20xx (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
ah, I see :-) A request on the template talk page might be more efficient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
For reference on the "first request", see the archived AN request which links to several threads discussing the specific problem, the reprotection, the followups with interested/involved parties and the resulting change to the MediaWiki software at r40499. Franamax (talk) 00:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realise it was later questioned. Anyway, I'm now in the process of sandboxing - rst20xx (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have made the changes required, I shall now bring the request to Template talk:ArticleHistory - rst20xx (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Didn't see the plan before, looks like an interesting idea. Brilliantine (talk) 06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment[edit]

Any suggestion on what (if anything) to do with Wikipedia:Historically Black College and University recruitment? It does not seem to be about the project's involvement in Black College and University recruitment. It might be an essay. I don't know. -- Suntag (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a November 2005 effort to recruit students and faculty from Historically Black Colleges and Universities to become Wikipedia editors. I'm not sure whether this is a legit essay topic. Suntag (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
MFD? D.M.N. (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Leave it alone. Fclass (talk) 22:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This dates from a time period when there were a lot of efforts to find more editors, particularly those with expertise. See meta:Academics for a much broader discussion. The points on that HBCU page are valid; I say tag it with {{essay}} and let it stand. Chick Bowen 23:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the feedback, all. The essay may "reflect the beliefs of a limited number of editors" but may not be "a poor candidate for broadening" per Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays. Gonzo fan2007 marked it as a historical effort, which seems to perfectly characterize the page. Suntag (talk) 04:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Recurrent IP vandalism on Hippopotamus[edit]

Resolved

Done. — Werdna • talk 09:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See [6]. Suggest temporary semi-protection. Jayen466 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please add this to the Wikipedia:Requests for page protection Thanks Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Please redact the last sentence of your response. Wikipedia does strive for civility, and that sentence borders on the incivil. Corvus cornixtalk 20:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't see what's uncivil about it. It was justification for me doing it here in stead of WP:RFPP. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Corvus, your tersely-worded demand for redaction is itself rather incivil (not to mention slightly bureaucratic). Hope this proves to be enlightening - Badger Drink (talk) 07:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Since when is "please" a demand? Corvus cornixtalk 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Scandalpedia[edit]

Presenting the latest Wikipedia rip-off: Scandalpedia. It's actually a campaign site of the Liberal Party of Canada for the forthcoming election. --RFBailey (talk) 01:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh. A backburn. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Larf. I can't think of any greater hypocricy than for the Liberal Party of Canada to be attacking others for their "scandals". Resolute 14:41, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to support them (scandals and all) since I am an anybody but Harper/Conservatives person and have to go for the lesser evil. -Djsasso (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Isn't there the NDP to support? (Then again I seem to recall they had a scandal a while ago...) Orderinchaos 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
note, as an Australian editor, the above post should be taken as entirely and deliberately random rather than an attempt to engage in serious political debate :) Orderinchaos 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
lol. I'm glad for the note. ;) The NDP is completely unelectible in Alberta, which is where Djsasso and I are. Neorhino.ca would be a better choice. And I'm not joking, at least in my case. I won't speak for Djsasso. Resolute 15:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
An NDP candidate isn't even running in my riding thats how unelectable they are here federally. It's Conservative, Liberal, Green or Canadian Action Party (which appears to just be some guy doing it for giggles based on his bio) -Djsasso (talk) 15:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I live in Canada but am not a citizen, so don't get a vote. This is just as well, as they all seem as bad as each other and I don't think I could choose any of them...... --RFBailey (talk) 01:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL re doing it for giggles... that's what we have the LaRouchites for :)) I was just making the point that every party has scandals. Making jokes about other elections makes me feel better about my own (noting that the Liberal Party of Australia is like your Conservatives.) Orderinchaos 07:02, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Abuse Filter: Last call for objections[edit]

I'm intending on filing a bug requesting the activation of the Abuse filter extension on Wikipedia in the next few days. I'd like to ask that anybody who has an objection to the activation of this extension make that objection known on the talk page.

In brief, the extension allows automatic filters/heuristics to be applied to all edits. Specific rules can be developed, such as "users with less than 500 edits are blocked from moving pages to titles which match this regular expression: /hagger/". Of course, the rules can get quite a bit more complicated – I've developed, for example, a rule that blocks all grawp vandalism with a 70% success rate (and blocks the IP address of the user doing it), with about 2-3 false positives per year (I checked it on the last year's worth of moves).

We're planning on treading carefully – most abuse filters will be tested for a few days (in "log only" mode) before being brought to full force ("block", "disallow" or "throttle" modes), and to start with, we'll allow only members of a specific group to modify the filters, although this group will be assignable by administrators.

For those interested, full discussion has occurred at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter, and there is a documentation page on MediaWiki.org. For the more adventurous among us, you may test out the abuse filter itself on my test wiki; you're free to ask me for admin rights to have a better look at it.

Thanks, — Werdna • talk 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose implementation until such crude and drama-inducing features as "removing all userrights" and "adding a block log entry for established accounts" are removed. Daniel (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that the private info shouldn't be there. If such information is necessary, it can be checked by any checkuser; otherwise, it should remain unknown. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It is intended that the 'degroup' option is to be left out. I've discussed this with you on IRC, and still think that leaving a block log entry is essential for all blocks done. — Werdna • talk 09:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

How can an extension block an account? Rather, who would the block log say did the blocking? John Reaves 09:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A special pseudo-user called 'Abuse filter'. — Werdna • talk 10:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting moved to Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Vote (moved from WP:AN).Werdna • talk 09:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? Since it is a community-wide discussion, it is certainly better to have it in a community-read location. Risker (talk) 10:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No. Why are you moving the discussion to a low traffic place? NonvocalScream (talk) 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've boldly bolded the move notice. user:Everyme 10:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm boldy considerding moving it back. I may however, instead place notes on T:CENT and VPT. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm a little bemused at the response. It's been on central discussion twice, on VPT twice, and I was just getting a sanity check by posting on AN right before posting to bugzilla. This was supposed to be a quick check to make sure there were no outstanding objections, not a massive straw poll. In any case, straw polls don't belong here. The notification should be here, with a link to the poll. That's how I see it, anyway. — Werdna • talk 12:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy Development[edit]

Where has the policy (who gets what rights, what rules get set, et cetera) been developed? Can someone point me to the page? NonvocalScream (talk) 03:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

See [7] NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 03:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

TERMINALFOUR Page - Request for Reinstatement[edit]

Resolved: Draft moved to mainspace. — Coren (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I've recently been hired by TERMINALFOUR to develop TERMINALFOUR's online web presence. I've noticed that the TERMINALFOUR page has been blocked because it didn't meet the standards of Wikipedia.

I would like to submit a compliant article under our trademarked name "TERMINALFOUR". I have created what I believe to be a factual and compliant article, which I'm happy to submit for your review.

Is there anything else I can do to assist in this? Thanks for your time! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Traffic 1 (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia isn't an advertising site. The fact that your page is factual doesn't mean that it's neutral. Please read Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
As Od Mishehu says, you should read up on WP:COI first. Then you can create an article somewhere in your userspace (at User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour for example) and then ask for recreation after we all could have had a look at what you want to present. But I doubt it can satisfy WP:NPOV. SoWhy 10:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, I've created User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour for you guys to have a look at the content. We're open to any suggestions! :)Traffic 1 (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you mind if I go into the page and format it a bit? The reference list at the bottom is missing, so it's a pain to evaluate the sources at the moment. Thanks - Brilliantine (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Not at all! Any help greatly appreciated. Thanks-Traffic 1 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, the sources are good enough for an article to exist. However - you will need to rewrite the article a bit, focusing it around what the sources have to say about the company rather than about what the company has to offer. Sentences such as "Site Manager enables business users to create and manage large and complex websites, and to create and manage a suite of eForms / Self Service applications." have a very sales-type feel to them and are not very suitable for an encyclopaedia for that reason. I don't have time right now, but if you need some help reworking it I might be able to give some more concrete suggestions later. Brilliantine (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
That would be great! I'll make the suggested changes above, and when you have a spare moment we can compare notes. Thanks again for your helpTraffic 1 (talk) 16:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How does this look? I'm not sure which the correct capitalisations are, so I've toned it down a bit cause it hurt my eyes. Brilliantine (talk) 03:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
That looks fab! I can now see the difficulty with the initial copy, thank you so much for all your help so far. The caps in the company name are trademarked though, so they'll have to remain. I've made those changes for your review. You've been so helpful.:)Traffic 1 (talk) 11:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't use typographical conventions in trademarks unless they are overwhelmingly used by sources (like with iPod). In general, that means that uppercase trademarks are presented in usual title case. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
OK no worries! I've corrected that for review. User:Traffic 1/Terminalfour Thanks :)Traffic 1 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for everyone's help, especially Brilliantine!Traffic 1 (talk) 13:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This has to be a wind up - the company trademark comes top on google even above heathrow terminal four. I hardly think that is the sign that a company that needs to hire somebody to develop a web presence. MickMacNee (talk) 11:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? it's practically a hallmark of it. Having a good WP page is an excellent SEO tactic. Being top Google hit for whatever doesn't guarantee notability. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Some context - WikiProject Spam link/user/page info follows. MER-C 13:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages
Sites

terminalfour.com: Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintoolsAboutUs.comDomainsDB.netAlexaWhosOnMyServer.com

Tracking URL
Users
  • I'm tempted to mark this as {{resolved|No}}. Guy (Help!) 16:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I see the temptation but the current draft looks interesting. It might meet WP:CORP (not quite sure. Right now my guess is it doesn't but there are many references used which appear to be indepedent sources). Anyways shouldn't this discussion be over at DRV?JoshuaZ (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
      • The content is not yet very good, but the sources undoubtedly establish sufficient notability to meet WP:CORP. References 1 & 3 especially are very in-depth and independent. I will attempt to work with Traffic1 as to the content. Brilliantine (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
        • Yeah, the draft is now mainspace-worthy, and meets WP:CORP without breaking a sweat. It's not the best, but it's certainly good enough; so I've moved it to mainspace. — Coren (talk) 12:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter McCullagh being vandalized[edit]

the page Peter McCullagh has been vandalized three times in as many days. Any way I can get a semi-protect for a week or so? Sorry if I'm in the wrong place, never requested this before. Pdbailey (talk) 23:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC) Sorry, vandalism by anon IPs in all cases. Some include adding negative claims, all include large deletion. Pdbailey (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The normal place is Requests for page protection, but they will probably tell you no unless you have a really good reason. 1 defacement a day is pretty slow for IP vandalism. With a few more people watchlisting it (I've got it listed now), the reversions should be pretty quick. Protonk (talk) 00:03, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly, the first revert claimed that the subject had stolen some academic ideas from Gauss Moutinho Cordeiro and claimed them as his own. Cordeiro is Brazilian, and all those 3 vandalising IPs resolve to ... Brazil. Black Kite 00:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say something about that too. My first thought was "someone doesn't like their new stats professor", but the brazil bit kinda threw me off. Protonk (talk) 00:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I've semi-protected for a week. Bearian (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Request to create template with protected title[edit]

I request creation of Template:⇄, which is blocked since the title has been included on the local title blacklist. The purpose of this template is to provide a short (since it will be used in every line of a table of chemical equations) way of writing the ⇄ character so it will render properly on Internet Explorer. The text for the template will be as follows:

<span class="Unicode">&#x21c4;</span>

Hgrosser (talk) 04:45, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to give it a name that people can actually type? Mr.Z-man 19:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe a redirect from {{rightleft}} to there could serve that purpose. –xeno (talk) 19:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 Done {{rightleft}} = {{}} = ⇌ Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
NonvocalScream (talk) ⇌ NonvocalScream (talk) I had to try it out. NonvocalScream (talk) 02:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Editors Alastair Haines, L'Aquatique LisaLiel, and Ilkali are subject to editing restrictions for one year: a limitation to one revert per page per week and a general parole against disruptive editing. Alastair Haines is further placed on civility parole for that period.

— Coren (talk), for the Arbitration Committee, 21:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In the text of the decision you've linked to, User:LisaLiel is substituted for User:L'Aquatique. Which of these is correct? — Dan | talk 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
LisaLiel is correct. The users on whom the editing restrictions have been applied are: Alastair Haines, LisaLiel, and Ilkali. I have stricken and amended the above announcement as appropriate. Anthøny 21:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, the error is entirely mine; I have accidentally substituted two usernames while preparing the announcement and failed to notice the mistake while posting. It was, well, a clerical error. :-) — Coren (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Is Category:Media requiring renaming still used?[edit]

Hey, I recently stumbled across Category:Media requiring renaming. Is it still used? Because it has a backlog of more than 400 files. And do admins have the possibility to rename media files or do they have to reupload those files like everyone else? And if so, is there still a bot for this task, because it seems kind of tedious to do manually...anyone an idea? (Sorry, if this is the wrong place to post it, I was unsure if here or at Village Pump or at Bot requests or somewhere else, but I figured that some admins might know it best). Regards SoWhy 14:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

This was a function of BetacommandBot before its de-botting. User:Nixeagle has indicated an interest in pursuing it at a later date, so maybe bug him to get coding. MBisanz talk 15:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I will post at Nixeagle's talk page and if he does not want to pursue it, I will put up a request at WP:BOTREQ. SoWhy 17:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki can rename images through the move function now, but it hasn't been enabled on Wikimedia sites because it's still being tested. MER-C 09:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Forgery?[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to see here. — Coren (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone explain to me why this edit in which one editor changed another editors vote in a pole is not forgery? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it reverted an obvious attempt to willfully insert invalid data into said poll and adversely affect the results? — Coren (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is the Al Gore article locked down? Not only that...[edit]

Resolved: No action required--Tznkai (no TS to allow archiving)

it reads like it is written by Al Gore and his cronies. It lacks a Criticism section. Other celebrities, such as Joe Arpaio have one. I have provided eleven (so far) sources that justify it having a criticism section. Currently, it is POV as it favors him and his "good side". 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I was going to place what I've found myself, but the article is locked down, preventing that. All evidence is in the Talk Page of that article. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone clean that up to make it NPOV as well? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 10:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It's only protected against anonymous and new users. Any established user can edit it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me for saying but words like "cronies" and "good side" do not inspire much conviction in me that you are much more neutral. If you truly believe this cannot be changed by discussing it at Talk:Al Gore, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP. Whatever the outcome, this is the wrong place for it. SoWhy 10:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, you should read Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. The vast majority of what you have linked does not fall into the 'reliable' category. Blogs and forum postings are unreliable, and opinion pieces are only reliable for the writer's view of a subject.
Secondly, there is a substantial amount of criticism in the "Post-Vice Presidency environmental activism and Nobel Peace Prize" section, and in the article Al Gore and the environment.
Thanks, Brilliantine (talk) 10:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
How many of those sources are "unreliable", etc.? 205.240.146.248 (talk) 11:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
The USA today one is an editorial, so the only thing it is reliable for is Peter Schweizer's views on Al Gore. The second one is a blog, and the author is not notable or relevant enough for their opinion to be notable in this context. The third and fourth links are broken. The mediamatters one is a reliable source for the statement 'Hannity is critical of Gore' but not for anything else. Fox News links are both broken. Williamtheimpeached is of course an unreliable attack site. Freerepublic forum postings, as with forum postings anywhere, are unreliable. AOL video link does not work for me. The realchange page is a load of unsupported allegations.
Something about your contributions here hints to me that your editing might not be entirely serious, however. Brilliantine (talk) 11:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Try the two FOX News links. Fixed them. 205.240.146.248 (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Why is it locked down? To prevent it from being hijacked by NPOV-agendists like yourself. It is protected against new users and those editing from an IP address, and after looking at your intent here -- calling others "cronies" and then adding in unreliable sources such as blogs and right-wing web-sites (that of course are critical of Gore), you don't seem to be here to factually and neutrally add content regarding Al Gore. You can always request unprotection but I doubt it'd pass. seicer | talk | contribs 13:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

And edits like this only further my case. seicer | talk | contribs 13:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
You mean this edit --Enric Naval (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

As this is our regular visit from Fox News Guy, I've removed his rantings from Talk:Al Gore as not furthering the development of the article. Revert-Ignore, if not full-on RBI, seems to be the best approach here. — Lomn 13:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Rantings aside, if I'm reading it right it's been semi'd for a year. That's much longer than it ever should be. It should be unlocked on general principles. RxS (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Usual practice is to indef semi highprofile targets for persistant vandalism &c. WilyD 13:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? Where is that written down? What I see is semi protection to be used as a temporary measure and not used pre-emptively RxS (talk) 13:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea. But the semi-protection on George W Bush, Muhammad, whatever have all been there forever - the moment they come off, they have to go back because the IP vandalism goes up, up, up. It's not pre-emptive, it's responsive and "for a long time", because it's needed "for a long time". WilyD 16:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. However, policy does say they should be unprotected from time to time, just to verify that anon disruption is still an issue. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
NPOV or not, Al Gore is a "good guy" - and has a Nobel Peace Prize to verify it. This IP address user may be trolling folks. The article (as its history shows) has been subject periodically to IP attacks. I support continued protection, or semi-protection, with periodic release from any level of protection, just to see if still needs protection. Bearian (talk) 19:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
He arguably brought this on himself by inventing the internet. Smiley.svgCharlotteWebb 20:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Making a change to Template:Archive box[edit]

First off, I'd post this at WP:RFPP but I need a bit more than just an edit to a protected template. I posted a suggested change at Template talk:Archive box#Adding link to Index? and I need an admin to make this change (which I think will not be controversial). But I need an admin with some template editing skills, so that it works only if an Index exists or, preferably, if one specified the link to it with a new optional parameter. So could someone make such change for me? (I think it should look like the box I created myself to incorporate this but with that aforementioned switch (I am not good at such template editing)). Regards and TIA SoWhy 11:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, {{archives}}? (/me wonders once again why we still have 45643563 slightly different archive box templates) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't like {{archives}} because it uses "Archive 1" instead of just "1" as links. Which proves your point, I think a master archive template where this could be changed with a parameter would be nicer. But as long as we haven't got that, I'd still like {{Archivebox}} changed ;-) SoWhy 12:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
However, I'd put the optional Index link "inside" the box, not within its header. Preferably right above the archive links themselves. user:Everyme 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The exact location can be changed. I just think it should be included somewhere. And as I said, if it's an optional switch, it will not annoy those people who have no index files. SoWhy 13:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
You can use "auto=yes" to display only the number (that's why I've got it set to on my talk). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Are there that many? user:Everyme 13:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
There's 130 overall, though I'm not sure how many are meant for talk pages. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Looking at Category:Archival templates, there appears to be 130 ... which is still a lot more than one would expect. --Kralizec! (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Chris was explicitly talking about a big number of archive box templates. Category:Archival templates lists all sorts of archive templates, such as archive headers. Still, 130 seems many. user:Everyme 13:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)r

Sceptre block evasion[edit]

Per a private request, I ran a CheckUser enquiry into the edits of Z388 (talk · contribs) and a possible relationship to Sceptre. This relationship is  Confirmed. I do not have any doubt at all about the link between the two. The check also revealed that the following accounts are also sockpuppets of Sceptre:

I have blocked all of these as abusive sockpuppets -- although there does not appear to be anything wrong with their edits in themselves, this is block evasion.

Moreschi recently changed Sceptre's indefinite block to one of two months' duration (block log) as a "final chance". Given the above findings, this probably needs reconsideration.

Sam Korn (smoddy) 16:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in effect, Sceptre is basically banned, not just blocked? how do you turn this on 16:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
If it wasn't considered a community ban, it probably should be. The block should go back to indefinite IMHO. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm moving it back to an indefinite ban. Evading blocks and bans is a no-no.--Tznkai (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
May I ask: what is the difference between a block and a ban? how do you turn this on 16:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
A block is directed against an account, a ban against the person. A block is a purely technical matter, a ban is a somewhat esoteric social construct (which is enforced e.g. through blocks). See Wikipedia:Banning policy. user:Everyme 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Ermm No, a block is against the person also, it would be pretty pointless otherwise. You've been disruptive so we'll block this account, feel free to continue with another account... See WP:EVADE your definition of being against the account would make this pointless as it would be impossible to evade a block just directed against an account. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
So basically there's no difference? how do you turn this on 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The ban is the social construct, blocks one mechanism for enforcement of a ban (though blocks will be used other than for ban enforcement), see WP:BAN. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
So if you evade a block, you get punished for the same reason as evading a ban? They sound basically the same to me, except a block is the technical part of it and the ban is the part that says that person can't edit. how do you turn this on 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the accounts be tagged accordingly? user:Everyme 16:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Personally, I'd be inclined to simply reset the clock. Scepte is an annoying immature individual but they do make good edits when they have a mind. Indef and permaban seems a little kneejerk right now but given our history I'm not going to fight in the trenches for him. Spartaz Humbug! 16:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Kittybrewster 16:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sceptre was on an indefinite ban for harrasment, so resetting the clock brings us back there, but I am unfamiliar with the details. Also, an administrator who understands the autoblocker will want to review the block.--Tznkai (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
At least one of those "harassed" (I would have called it childish name-calling, myself) put it down to childish behaviour and asked for an unblock. Something those who were here for the original discussions might remember. The block log entries rarely tell the whole story. Carcharoth (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I endorse the stated relationships (among Sceptre, Z388, TUATW, and Gridlocked Caravans) as  Confirmed, I ran checks myself. At the very least I think a reset to restart the 2 month clock is justified. I leave the rest to the community's discretion, for now. Oh, and thanks again to Risker for some spadework in this matter, and to the WR poster who first spotted the possible connection. ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Can someone clarify what "stated relationships" means, and what the checkuser confirms, for those of us who have never filed a RFCU and have no idea what that entails? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Sam said the other accounts were "sockpuppets of Sceptre". That's the stated relationship. I ran similar checks to what Sam ran, and my interpretation of the results is that they indeed confirm the relationship Sam stated. (i.e. that Sceptre was the controlling account). I hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 16:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really. I'm talking more about the technical details- how the stated relationship was established, what the evidence was. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would have thought that you already knew that a checkuser isn't going to tell you that. Spartaz Humbug! 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Correct. I'm surprised that a user who has been around as long as David has would even ask, actually. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess I just haven't been in many drama-fests in my time. So how are these socks proven then? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Er, that's the same question. There are a number of ways of telling, but a CU isn't going to tell you which one was used in this case. Black Kite 17:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Augh! (head hurts) I must not be making myself clear... what exactly does the checkuser action spit out and how do we determine the likelihood of socks based on it? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Basically? Checkuser can reveal IP range similarities and suspicious timing. That combined with shared interest, tone, and other suspicious activity can reveal a series of logins to be the same person.--Tznkai (talk) 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There is other technical information that CU can pick up as well. Black Kite 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I support resetting the block to 2 months. Sometimes long-time contributors who end up with a block like this don't have the patience to sit it out. A few resets should be used to get the message home before moving to indefinite. And with respect to User:Tznkai (who I am not familiar with), they have recently returned from a two-and-a-half year hiatus. An edit on 8 February 2006 was followed by an edit on 4 September 2008. I can see from User talk:Tznkai that Tznkai has recently been reaccepted as an ArbCom Clerk, but I would reiterate what has been said elsewhere: it is best to ease back in gently. At the very least, reading the threads around the Sceptre block should be done, and not just going by what is stated in the block logs. For the record, Tznkai has said "I am unfamiliar with the details". Carcharoth (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would also support a reset. Sceptre is a valuable content contributor, and I think this block may just have been a clear note to him to shape up. The socks' contribs were not abusive, as has been pointed out. GlassCobra 17:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support an indef block now. It's pretty clear cut that his final chance is gone, no need to AGF anymore. Wizardman 17:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick note: it turns out the relationship between two of them is obvious. I've also blocked sleeper sock