Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive90

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

Noticeboard archives


Indefinite block of RefBot[edit]

SEWilco (talk · contribs) left a rude and demanding message for David Gerard (talk · contribs) regarding the block on RefBot (talk · contribs). David Gerard asked that someone look into it. I found that SEWilco is prohibited by ArbCom sanction from converting citations manually or through a bot. I reset the block to clearly reflect the ArbCom sanction.[1] SEWilco thanked me at first, but then later left an insulting message about "mindreading".[2][3] I endorsed the indefinite block as appropriate to the sanction, because SEWilco clearly lays out the purpose of the bot in converting citations. What does everyone else think of this situation? Vassyana 18:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

  • WP:CITE also prohibits arbitrarily messing with cites. You did the right thing. -N 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
    • A program following instructions is less arbitrary than a human, but my message was about Vassyana's speculation, as the problem with Gerard's block was that it was based on imagination rather than fact. (SEWilco 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC))
This goes back quite a way, so what the intent of the bot is at this point is unclear. The original block seems fine, if there is a new purpose for the bot it should go through the approval process --pgk 19:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
That's right. The information above about the bot is obsolete and is only relevant for people running the original version, which is about five versions older than mine. (SEWilco 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC))


Resolved on User Talk:Jimbo Wales#Administrator Abuse

User:Alexsautographs and non-free images[edit]

Does anyone want to help go through and tag the image contribs of User:Alexsautographs as replaceable fair use images? User has uploaded a large number of baseball card scans which fail WP:NFCC. I also think a warning is in order as the user has already been asked not to upload baseball card images. Rhobite 22:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

My contributions[edit]

Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 00:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Database lagging?[edit]

Please add new comments to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#User contributions not appearing] to prevent having many threads about the same problem around. Thank you. -- ReyBrujo 00:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess this is where having a 20,000+ watchlist really comes through. El_C 01:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oddly enough, my contribs never messed looking at others did though, but never me looking at mine. - NeutralHomer T:C 02:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

IP troll[edit]

Resolved (talkcontribsInfoWHOIS) is having lots of fun trolling the help desk, and intentionally or not a lot of users are taking the bait. Given that I'm having trouble finding useful contributions in the IP's recent history despite their argument of a shared work connection, is a soft block an option? (I'm having trouble finding a decent warning template to use first, but there may well be one.) Confusing Manifestation 03:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Combating vandalism, but RFCU declined. Now what?[edit]

Over the weekend there was constant vandalism at Skyline High School (Oakland, California). An editor would come in, vandalize the page repeatedly, and get blocked. Moments later another editor would arrive, make the identical vandal edit repeatedly, and then that editor would be blocked. Repeat a few more times through the weekend. Most of the vandals I reverted myself have been blocked and the page has been semi-protected for a week. I asked for a checkuser on the editors doing the vandalism, but the request was declined. The identical nature of the edits make me believe something more than vandalism is going on. How should I proceed further in the absence of checkuser evidence? DarkAudit 01:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection will take care on anon edits. If there is further disruption, place a notice at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The vandals have all come from user accounts, not IPs, which was why I went the checkuser route. I also ask if I would be out of line to dispense with warnings and go straight to reporting if I see this same edit again, based on the established pattern of behavior. DarkAudit 03:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That's what I'd do. If you see identical vandalism, put it up on WP:AIV straightway and give a link to some of the previous incidents. If an admin removes without action, have a polite chat on their talk page about it. --pgk 06:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep. If someone came in with something like 'Glit Glort Bleeble Durp' instead, a warning would be necessary (until *that* became the pattern :)), but I would show that the one reported without a warning fit the established pattern. DarkAudit 18:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of citation needed tags -- vandalism?[edit]

Two days ago I added some citation tags to this list, because one of the main concerns at the recent afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with similar themes and release dates was that every film comparison should cite a reliable source comparing each film, if there are no sources cited for a particular film then it's original reseach. I even provided a detailed explanation why I was adding the tags in my edit summary, including a link to the afd that said sources were required, but now somene has removed the tags with no explanation. There's an original research template at the top of the article but people aren't going to look at that when they read the list, or when they add more titles to the list that are unsouced. Is removing these tags classed as vandalism? 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In a word, yes - the removal of maintenance tags without resolving the issue they point to is vandalism. Please use {{Uw-maintenance1}} to warn the user(s) in question, escalating to {{Uw-maintenance2}}, {{uw-delete3}} and {{uw-delete4}} if they persist. Waggers 09:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest you try to engage in a discussion with the user first. --soum (0_o) 09:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

New policy proposal[edit]

I have started up an initial draft of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a social networking site as these days we seem to need to renumerate what is currently WP:NOT#MYSPACE or simply enforce it more.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: GNU Free Documentation License[edit]

See my user talk page, towards the bottom. — Rickyrab | Talk 02:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Why? Secretlondon 14:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
People actually care this much about BJAODN? Jesus. Moreschi Talk 14:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
hey if it finaly gets them to read the GFDL I'm not going to complain.Geni 15:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I second Moreschi. Sr13 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I second Geni. — CharlotteWebb 03:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Disappearing SVGs[edit]

Just a heads up, Commons appears to be losing heavily used SVGs. I'd be on the watch out for any more affected files. -N 06:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the images affected was the state flag of Kentucky. I have no idea what it is going on, but as a Commons admin, I know about it. Just keep us posted here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not delete {{NowCommons}} images or CSD I2 description pages until this bug is fixed. MaxSem 09:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Searchtool.svg is gone too, by looking at WP:GAC. David Fuchs (talk / frog blast the vent core!) 20:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not a Commons problem, it's an enwiki problem. See this post from Brion to wikitech-l. --bainer (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne and category creation[edit]

See: User talk:Pastorwayne#It's time for more information and User talk:Pastorwayne#Indefinitely banned from category creation for the subsequent results.

I welcome comments regarding this.

Also, User:BrownHairedGirl has expressed that she would like to see this expanded to include all category editing. I don't oppose that, but I think I would like another admin "outside view" (or consensus thereof) for that, at this time. - jc37 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I think I'll respond anyway. To the best of my understanding, a single user (except for Jimbo Wales) isn't autherized to ban a user from such edits. However, if Pastorwayne created categories in some way against the rules of Wikipedia, after such warnings and blocks, he can be blocked each time for longer periods. Od Mishehu 08:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your response : )
To clarify, this isn't just a "single user" doing this, per se. I'm merely finally acting in response to what many others have been asking now for over 5 months. It's been slow going simply because I've strongly felt we should assume good faith and give every opportunity to allow the user to learn so that he may become an even more knowledgable/competent editor, and not be one who is (as he is now) currently disruptive. For the "reasons", just re-read the whole User talk:Pastorwayne#It's time section on his talk page. Also, this is considered a "partial ban", and should not be considered to be banning the editor completely from editing Wikipedia. - jc37 09:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support blocking Pastorwayne from making edits in category space. At this point, I think Pastorwayne has severe difficulties editing Wikipedia's category system. It would be better for everyone if he worked on something else. I also strongly suggest that Pastorwayne should not be allowed to add red-linked categories to articles. In Dec 2006 and Jan 2007, he was doing this extensively. At the time, he claimed that he did not understand that he was, in effect, creating categories (see WP:CAT#How to create categories). It is unclear if he will try it again. Dr. Submillimeter 08:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

  • This would seem like a good idea, including Submilli's additions. In response to the opinion that "a single user can't do this", it could also be worded like "PW has been repeatedly disruptive in editing cat space, and we'll block him if he does that again, everyone cool with that?" >Radiant< 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Despite numerous warnings and blocks, TortureIsWrong (talk · contribs) has continued to troll and disrupt RFCN so I have blocked him indefinately. He's been upset ever since he was made to change his username a couple of months back. Can someone give it a quick review? Ryan Postlethwaite 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support this block. This editor has a grudge against RFCN since he was force to change his username from MoeLarryandJesus(if I remeber correctly). Since he changed his name, he has continously trolled RFCN and overall engaged in tendittious editting. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, another thing to take into account. In his 4 months here, he has made a total of 653 edits where 221 have been to RFCN often very controversially and only has a total of 79 mainspace edits. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I think there's ample evidence as to the lack of positive contributions or improvement from this editor, and I wouldn't lose any sleep over the indef-block. Good call. MastCell Talk 18:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That editor has been uncivil as well, especially towards H and R. I see no reason to unblock this user. Acalamari 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No amount of communication was able to change this user from being a general disruption. The user made it very clear that he intended to continue as he was. The block is preventative, and useful to Wikipedia. (H) 18:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Uncivil towards H and R, so block. *giggle* EVula // talk // // 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Heh. :) Acalamari 18:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Can't say as I'm too upset about this; his overall attitude on RFCN has been very, very sour, and it seems like he always takes an extreme position just for the sake of doing so. EVula // talk // // 18:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I can't recall a situation where TIW contributed collaboratively in an RFCN discussion -- even when he agrees with the consensus of the discussion he is rude or belligerent. Leebo T/C 18:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Me neither. I endorse block for icivility and general disruption. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 19:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree: a chronic troll, he adds nothing but confllict and stress to the encyclopedia. Coemgenus 19:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll be honest, at first I really thought that indef was too much — it just didn't feel right. I then looked more objectively at the situation by reviewing the user's contribs and I was rather unimpressed. Certainly not constructive and a fair amount of disruptiveness - there is maybe a slight chance of reform but don't ask me to lead it! Indef? Perhaps, then again maybe not, it's borderline if you ask me, GDonato (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Was recently going to ask why he wasn't blocked, as he seemed to me a RFCN troll (as EVula says, always taking an extreme position for shits and giggles), or perhaps a sock of an established user used to troll RFCN. Very little useful collaboration. I'd support an unblock with the provision he not comment on people's names or sigs, though. Just a thought. Mahalo. --Ali'i 20:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I could get behind a provisional unblock as well. EVula // talk // // 20:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I could support that as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering page full of warnings at his old account (link) and a couple of blocks (link), his inappropriate behavior has been consistent since he got here. A provisional block may just turn his inappropriate editing elsewhere. --Ed (Edgar181) 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly support an indefinite block. It's been one big WP:POINT violation from the beginning. Re a conditional unblock, nothing stops him from getting another username and doing something else (provided he's not doing so already, as seems likely.) As long as he stays away from RFCN and related issues, I can't see how he would be identified.Proabivouac 21:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as he stays away from RFCN and related issues, and isn't a dick elsewhere, what's the problem? A clean slate could very well be what he needs. EVula // talk // // 21:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, it appears here that objections to his behavior largely stem from his activities at RFCN; thus I support overturning the indef block and indefinitely banning from RFCN. --Iamunknown 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
... and commenting on names elsewhere as well. You can take the troll out of Requests for comments/Username, but can you take commenting on usernames out of the troll? Mahalo. --Ali'i 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Good point; I would still support overturning the indef block; I like to believe (perhaps naively) that editors can reform. --Iamunknown 21:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would support an indef ban from WP:RFCN only, not the related talkpage at first. --GDonato (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm having second thoughts about whether he could stop being a dipshit long enough to become productive, given some of his comments at User talk:TortureIsWrong#Blocked. EVula // talk // // 21:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Am I missing something here guys? This user is the definition of a troll - look at his contribs, look at his talk page. To top all off, he's fairly good at making personal attacks (look at his talk page post block for a start). I really don't believe that a simple ban from RFCN is enough for this guy. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The main problem with this user is a bitterness over the username policy, by removing that temptation the constructive mainspace contribs may appear, there are some useful contribs if you look quite carefully. GDonato (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The problem in my eye is that the user has already shown he is unable to respect other editors that he is in discussion with. I doubt very much that he is able to work in a collaberative environment like wikipedia, he had his final chance, and abused it by continuing his trolling. He's not really here to edit the encyclopedia, he's now here to troll over usernames. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I sincerely doubt this use will act in good faith if unblocked. (H) 21:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree; this is a user who chose to spend much of his time, unconstructively, at WP:RFCN to settle a score. If he's banned from RFCN, what happens the next time something on Wikipedia doesn't go his way? I don't see constructive contributions that offset the negative, and I suspect that banning him from RFCN will refocus the negativity elsewhere, not make it disappear. As above, I agree with the indef block. MastCell Talk 22:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I think an indefinite block may be too much. The problem with this user is he has spend nearly all of his time at WP:RFCN. I support some sort of block, but indefinitely blocking this user is too much. Maybe a week while do? I think TIW is right in stating that some of the admins dislike him, and have it out for him, as they have disagreed with him in the past. I think posting this here was the right thing to do, as it allows more users to voice their opinion. Clearly this user is opinionated, but they can be so without being disruptive. I still think an indefinite block is too much for a "contributing" user. I would support a week, and increasing the time he is blocked for incivility. Wikihermit(Speak) £ 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
if you call contributing making personal attacks and trolling then fair enough. He's been blocked twice before for exactly the same thing - short blocks do not help this user. He is basically an SPA with the odd edit scattered here and there. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't call his personal attacks and trolling contributing. I think this user would be better to spend his time on WT:U, as WP:RFCN isn't the place for disagreeing with the username policy. I wouldn't call a week a short block either; the previous block was only three hours long. I think this user has the ability to contribute in a useful manner, and for only being blocked once for three hours, an indefinite block seems unreasonable. Wikihermit(Speak) £ 22:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
you wouldn't be saying that if you had been contributing to RFCN, which is basically all he does. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I use to contribute to WP:RFCN. I guess I would have to agree with you. I still think indefinitely blocking is a little extreme for a user who has only been blocked once for 3 hours, but seeing as your an admin, I would have to agree with your decision. Wikihermit(Speak) £ 22:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict x2, how could you Ryan and Wikihermit!) First, I'll say, yes I'm very much involved, so my opinion may be a little weighted :) (or maybe not). Well, anyway, I fully support the block. If you look at his contributions, you'll see nothing but trolling RFCN (except for his talk page incivility and 4 mainspace edits). This includes making things like questioning a trusted user's name, and allowing blatant violation for silly reasons. He continually denies doing anything, though many people who have been involved all clearly agree about what he's been doing (just look at the 26 sections of his talk page. Last time I checked, they were all about his trolling except one. And, when someone brings it up, almost every time he responds in a completely uncivil manner. Thanks Ryan. (And to Wikihermit, incivilty and trolling is usually something that people get long blocks for, and they usually don't even get a second chance.) --R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Watch for sockpuppets of TiW. Wikihermit(Speak) £ 22:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
They wouldn't exactly be difficult to spot (assuming they continued to go to RFCN). Acalamari 23:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Having observed this user's actions at RFCN and reviewed contribs, I feel (as I have felt for some time) that the account exists solely to disrupt RFCN and adds nothing to the encyclopedia. I feel this block is justified. Deiz talk 23:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I often agree with the user, and I think he got some leeway because of the way he got dragged into RFCN to begin with. And rightly so. But at some point, the statute of limitations on petty injustices kicks in. If not now, then not long from now. Wikipedia isn't a bloody drama site. --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Main Page/Screenshots[edit]

I'm really debating as to whether to we should be violating our fair use policy for the existence of this page. The MFD apparently closed as no consensus, which was correct, but the multiple violations of the fair use policy haven't been fixed. There are Images on this page such as Image:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png, a fair use Image, that exist soley to be on this page. — Moe ε 04:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issues make me want to cry sometimes... can we really not use pictures of our own website on our own website? EVula // talk // // 04:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So why not do as was suggested at the MfD-take the photos, crop out the toolbars and scrollbars put there by the browser itself. I don't see that we'd really need to remove the Wikipedia logo even, though we probably should ask the Foundation. However, the Wikipedia logo can be removed too, if they say using it like that is not acceptable, and then all the screenshot contains is GFDL content. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Because I wasn't involved in the MFD, all I know is I was going to nominate it for MFD an hour ago and saw the recently concluded one. Geez, guess if you want something done you got to do it yourself *frowns* I'll get to it later.. — Moe ε 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Are we sure that these screenshots even need to be considered copyrighted? The incidental inclusion of a copyrighted logo in an image doesn't render that entire picture nonfree, if it isn't the focus of the picture. For instance, we have a panorama photo of Times Square on Commons, which unavoidably has a bunch of advertising logos in the background... but the photo itself is GFDL. Likewise, it's impossible to take a screenshot of Windows software without incidentally including the toolbar and buttons. But do these trivial elements really render the entire screenshot unfree, if the vast majority of it (and its purpose and focus) is free content? *** Crotalus *** 07:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
    • For instance, Image:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png (mentioned above) is comprised almost entirely of free content. The only non-free elements are the Wikipedia logo (and let's face it, the Foundation ain't gonna sue itself), and the tiny toolbar at the top. The toolbar is mostly empty, and the only potentially copyrightable elements consist of three Aqua spheres and a small button on the left. (Titles are not copyrightable.) *** Crotalus *** 07:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I would say its fine if the browser crap is cropped out, wikipedia logo non-withstanding, the only concern would be to make sure that the images on the main page really are free. Most of the time they are, but not all the time. (I really think the main page should have only free stuff, its fitting for the free encyclopedia thats in the upper left hand corner of every webpage). —— Eagle101Need help? 07:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
        • And if the images are not free licensed? And what about attribution for the free licensed ones? I did a little research on the revision pictured in Image:MainPage-Mozilla-RedWolf.png and the photo of the Irish house of parlament is GFDL licensed, but using it witout any attribution is technicaly a violation of it's license terms. The photo of Eqbal Ahmad was a unsourced, non-free image with no fair use rationale has have since been deleted (main page standards where not always as strict as now) and I can't find that particular image of the Israeli wall anywhere (we have lots of others though) so presumably it's been deleted too. The pope image is presumably PD so no issue there. Bottom line: You need a very steady hand in order to ensure that what you get from hitting print screen while viewing a Wikipedia page is actualy all free licensed and otherwise in compliance with the license of the various included content. --Sherool (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ancient History[edit]

Somewhat inspired by the BJAODN fiasco, I took a look at some of the oldest Wikipedia pages, like George Washington. The edit history of that article seems to start on 23 November 2001. If I go to the nostalgia wikipedia, it shows 4 earlier edits... and the article seems to have existed before the earliest edit on that site.

Now, I don't think anyone would advocate deleting the article on George Washington. But I'm wondering: in order to comply with the GFDL, shouldn't such pages have a link to the edit history on nostalgia (and any older edit history that exists)? — PyTom 06:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on GFDL; I haven't read the document nor do I intend to. But I think there are a couple of answers to your question. First, it would have been the responsibility of whoever transwikied the article from elsewhere into Wikipedia to look after GFDL issues. If they failed to do so, for whatever reason, it's not our job to clean up the mess six years later. (Heaven knows we have enough other problems to worry about.)
Second, the article has changed so much since then that probably the only two words from the original that are still there now are "George" and "Washington." In other words, BJAODN was deleted because it contained current copyright violations, i.e. text which had been copied without attribution and had not been edited since then. The George Washington article has been edited thousands of times.
Third, there is no precedent for the action you suggest. Wikipedia is very strict about attributing content to the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and other public domain sources. However, there is no similar precedent to attribute material to a pre-Wikipedia wiki. If it's never been done, there's probably a reason.
That being said, you are free to leave your history link on the article's talk page. It can't hurt. Cheers. Placeholder account 07:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Read User:Conversion script and Wikipedia:Usemod article histories. The wiki was not always as it is now. Uncle G 14:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


If someone wants to cheers themselves up by deleting lots of dead redirects (or, even better, finding a good new place for them to redirect to), special redirects is pretty backed up. I've cleared half of it or so (254 of 524) but am starting to flag. Neil  14:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Category -- R Template mappings[edit]

xpost frm Wikipedia talk:Template messages/Redirect pages#Category -- R Template mappings

Just doing some routine housekeeping, found Category:Redirects_from_portmanteaus doesn't seem to have a template associated with it (presumably {{R from portmanteau}}, nor a listing in the two reference pages: Wikipedia:Redirects and Wikipedia:Template messages/Redirect pages. Hence it's no wonder the contents are skimpy to say the least.

  • I was tempted to tag it with a {{cfm|Redirects from alternative names}}, but the larger issue came to mind so I raise it here; how many 'other' such "orphaned" categories might also exist? Or is there a historic discussion and someone never carried out an implementation, or is this a "busted" CFD loose end. Hence the 'yelp' for "collective memory and skills assists"!
  • I don't really have the skills with special pages searching to run this down, but suggest that someone should run this kind of thing down that can and update the redirects reference pages accordingly. Basic documentation and editor help like this is rather important to keep up to date, IMHO. Best regards // FrankB 16:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking Standards for Anonymous Users[edit]

Are blocking standards much higher for anonymous users? It seems to me, the offense of deserves only a {{subst:uw-vand2}} warning instead of a block, considering it was a first offense, and the vandalism only amounted to adding "(Big Deal!)" on the Craig L. Thomas page. What makes this offense so egregious that it merits a block without warning? Is it because the subject of the article is recently deceased, or was one of the admins just a little trigger happy? It just doesn't make sense to me. Talmage 16:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing it with the blocking admin? Ryan Postlethwaite 16:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
While I might not have blocked it right off the bat, the blocking admin was well within his judgment to make that block. There is a lot of editing going on at that page because of the death of the senator so often it's easier to just block users right away to prevent further disruption and vandalism to a highly visible and very active page. Metros 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I would say that the fact Thomas recently died is what warranted the instant block. I've given out instant blocks myself to anon users, but usually they're just for three hours (long enough to make the kiddies lose interest, but not to hopefully effect a good-faith editor who happens to get a rapidly changing IP). EVula // talk // // 16:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Warriors (book series)[edit]

I'd like to get some more editors (and admins) to keep an eye on Warriors (book series) and all the related pages (books in the series, characters in the series, etc.). The majority of editors there are younger, inexperienced editors who do not know the proper ways of Wikipedia. This means there's a lot of original research going on (see the recently AFDed List of mistakes in Warriors (Book Series) for example) and using talk pages as fan forums. Over the last few days I've had to deleted dozens of threads on Talk:Warriors (book series) which were just gossip about the books.

So if a few more editors could please watchlist some of these articles, I'd appreciate it greatly. Metros 16:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Watchlisted a number. Some of the plot summaries are phrased in a - promotional? - way. My copyvio sensor in the corner is bleeping like nuts. Would someone like to check? I'll tag 'em for tone, at any rate. Moreschi Talk 17:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've had the same thought but can't find anywhere they might be coming from online. My other thought is that it could be off a jacket cover or the back of the book. Metros 17:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
And what do you know, by a strange coincidence some of my siblings are really into these books. I'll go and check. Be back in 5 minutes. Moreschi Talk 17:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the first few sentences of a number of the plot summaries on the articles on the books are copied off the back cover, which I assume isn't allowed. These are the ones that sound promotional and employ more complex syntax than your average ten-year-old would use. Easy to spot. Moreschi Talk 17:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Earl Douglas (radio)[edit]


Serious vandalism is ongoing on the page Earl Douglas (radio), by a variety of users. Could someone please find a way of stopping it. Thanks. Drc79 17:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi'd, expiry 15 days. I saw some of this going on earlier, didn't realise it was so bad. Moreschi Talk 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Moreschi for protecting the page. 17:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Drc79 17:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. In future try WP:RFPP rather than here, responses there are usually pretty quick. Moreschi Talk 17:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I have redirected this article to Ron and Fez (the show he's the producer of). For an explanation and to discuss this further, see Talk:Earl Douglas (radio). Metros 17:40, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


So, what is the current status of images tagged with this template? Is it considered a free image, fair use, or what? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Must be free within the caveats of the GFDL. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Except for the Wikipedia logo, everything is under one free license or another. As I understand it the logo can be used more or less freely within Wikipedia, but reuse and derivative works of it are limited. Images that don't contain the logo are free. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's exactly the reason why I was asking. The text is GFDL'd and Monobook (and all other MediaWiki skins) are GPL'd, so the only non-free element is the logo. So, what do we do with all the pages in Category:Screenshots of Wikipedia? There are literally hundreds of images with the Wikipedia globe, and the licensing template makes it appear that it is a valid free content licensing tag. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Images that have the globe should probably also be tagged with {{{Copyright by Wikimedia}}. (It might be simpler just to put the {{Copyright by Wikimedia}} inside {{Wikipedia-screenshot}}.) Whatever it is, the template used for Wikipedia screenshots should make clearer that the logo, if it appears, cannot be used freely; for now I have tried to do that simply by bolding the relevant text. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Aside from the text and the logo these screenshots also frequently contain the user's browser and a variaty of embedded images that are not nessesarily GFDL licensed. Even if only free licensed elements are shown you would have to actualy include proper attribution for the authors of all of them in order to fully comply with the licese for most of them. So IMHO most of these are anything but straight forward... --Sherool (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
But those that removed the browser GUI elements should be fine? Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Probably. But what about nonfree fonts like arial and tahoma? You wouldn't have this problem on a Linux box since they use Deja Vu fonts, but Windows and Mac computers display non-free fonts by default. —Crazytales (public computer) (talk) (main) 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
That is stretching it. If that were the case, theoretically you could sue any advertising agency for copyright violation, as the ads they use almost always use non-free fonts. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 22:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology To Wikipedia[edit]

I would like to apologize to the Wikipedian community for my recent disruptive actions. Now that I am aware of the polices that I was violating, I can further better the future of Wikipedia. The actions that I have made were entirely out of good faith and with the intention to better Wikipedia. That is my goal, like many others here at Wikipedia. I will study the polices here at Wikipedia to try and better understand them. My recent rejected nomination had opened my eyes to my actions and hopefully, in the future, these will be ultimately minimized. Redsox04 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you are referring to. (Perhaps you should copy this message to the individuals who pointed out your mistakes.) I am willing to forgive vandalism or test edits if you resolve not to repeat the mistake, and especially if (as your userpage indicates) you continue to prevent others from causing harm. If you have edit-warred or committed personal attacks against other users, you need to apologize to those individuals.
I personally have found that some members of the community are not willing to forgive me for indiscretions I committed when I was a newcomer. I may have more to say about this on another occasion. However, as I relate to others, I am willing to forgive the past and look forward to a promising future. YechielMan 05:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to rephrase my initial statement. I did not intend for this message to be directed towards the entire Wikipedian community, just the users that my recent disruptive behavior offended or effected in some way. Many users held strong beliefs that I was a vandal (which I am not) due to my recent behavior. I think that many users feel that I am a distraction, disruption, and one of great immaturity and I feel that I should address the issue at hand. My contributions are only made out of good faith for Wikipedia, not harm. I do not intend to cause such disruption but further better the operation of Wikipedia. My recent behavior in which it appeared that I was impersonating an administrator may have been misconstrued. I was not fully aware of the blocking policies at Wikipedia and may have made many mistakes as far as that is concerned. I imposed punishments that were outside of my jurisdiction and authority with the intention of blocking users who I deemed unable to follow rules that are brought forth by Wikipedia. If you look at the userpages that I have blocked, you will find proof of long term detrimental behavior and many "to-be-blocked" threats. I felt it would be in the best interest of the Wikipedian community and Wikipedia itself if I blocked them from editing Wikipedia. I think that maybe adminship would be just what I need. Then I would be able to have my opinion taken more seriously and considered longer and harder rather than posting my opinions here as an ordinary user. Redsox04 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Redsox, you realize that you didn't actually block anyone right? You only put {{blocked}} templates on pages, which was inappropriate, but does nothing to actually restrict user access to editing privileges. You learned, you know it was wrong, now rest easier and don't do it again. Leebo T/C 20:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It might be more apropos to suggest that his comments don't belong here. He's claimed to block people as an admin at least twice, has not a clue about much of anything (such as applying for MedCom with something like 150 actual article edits since February and the aforementioned "blocking" nonsense), and has been starting threads about his actions on AN and ANI for no real apparent reason other then to maybe gain attention. It almost seems like he came to WP because he thought he could be an admin right away or something, and the continued behavior he has exhibited shows that he keeps making mistakes and ignoring policy even when he claims to have "learned better", not to mention that he apparently has some recurrent issues about being just a "regular user". I know plenty of regular users whose opinions are taken seriously, but theyt aren't of a self-aggrandizing nature. Might I suggest that someone mentor Redsox04? MSJapan 20:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
All I am trying to do is make a good gesture by apologizing for my mistakes. Take it easy. I am NOT trying to gain attention but just commit a good gesture (as mentioned earlier). And if my apology doesn't belong here, than where exactly does it belong? Redsox04 19:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't belong here although the gesture is appreciated. Apologize to the users whose pages that you "vandalized" and then put the above apology on your user page or User talk:Redsox04|your talk page]]. It wasn't that great a sin and, despite what Yechielman says, Wikipedians do forgive. Just don't submit an RFA anytime in the next 30 years (heh, heh, just kidding, 3 months and 3000 edits is a good minimum).
In the meantime, if you would like to be mentored as MSJapan suggests, I am willing to serve as your mentor. Just let me know on my Talk Page.
--Richard 20:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


For Pete's sake... we're done here. MastCell Talk 00:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have asked User:Calton now 5 times to leave me alone and to not post on my talk page. He continues to do so. I have asked nicely, he continues to do so. I have threatened to report him for WikiStalking, he continues to do so. So, could an admin please help User:Calton off my talk page and tell him to leave me alone. I didn't ask for his assistance, I don't need his assistance, and I don't want his assistance. I just want him to leave me alone. Your help is appericated. Thanks....NeutralHomer T:C 22:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer has ownership issues -- just ask A Man In Black -- which his change of name from Orangemonster2k1 (talk · contribs) aka SVRTVDude haven't alleviated. Considering one of the problems that got him rebuked was actual Wikistalking -- following my edits and making pointless changes -- I can see why he thinks invoking that term will help him here. --Calton | Talk 23:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Calton, I had to switch usernames cause you could leave me alone, like you can't now. Leave me alone, stop bothering me, means just that. It doesn't mean troll around Wikipedia trying to find my posts, harrassing people on their talk page after they have asked you to stop. It means to leave them alone. You don't get that, you didn't when I was SVRTVDude and you don't now...and you won't until you are gone and banned.
User:A Man In Black and I have a difference of opinions on the TV stations here on Wikipedia. We don't see eye to eye, but we don't fight like cats and dogs like we once did. There are sometimes when we actually can have a civil conversation without getting to snippy at each other. You can be civil and not see eye to eye...and it isn't WP:OWN either. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, I think Calton went slightly over the line here. Neutralhomer, it is JUST FINE for someone who has a problem with your edits to discuss them with you. Your request to be "left alone" cannot mean that you accept no input about your edits. On the other hand, Calton, after one reply to his message about leaving him alone, the rest was pretty much unnecessary, and seems to have been done as the perpetuation of some kind of flame war or something. What worries me more is the edit dispute, because the way you two are communicating, that is not going to resolve anything. Mangojuicetalk 23:21, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If Calton wants to have civil conversation with me, not berate me, then that's great, I won't mind talking to him. But when he goes on and on and on and on and has to berate you every six words, it's to the point I want to put my head through my desk. But if Calton wants to help, wants to give input without being rude, crude, etc, then I don't mind talking to him. But if he can't...then there is nothing we have to discuss. - NeutralHomer T:C 23:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
If Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week wants to start having conversations, he ought to try NOT replying with utter nonsense, outright falsehoods, paranoia, psychological projection, and insults to my intelligence. Like this bit: It doesn't mean troll around Wikipedia trying to find my posts -- has anyone ever explained the concept of a Watchlist to you? Making changes to an article on my Watchlist, which I've edited before, regarding the same issue I edited on before is about as far away from "troll[ing] around Wikipedia" as you can get -- unlike, say, edit warring over someone else's vanity edits immediately after I've removed them. The only reason I know it's him is because he's simply repeating the same behavior in the same places -- and because he said it was him, outright. And "communication" with Neutralhomer aka Orangemonster2k1 aka SVRTVDude aka whatever-he's-calling-himself-this week consists of him making ownershipdemands untethered from policy, guidelines, practices, and (occasionally) reality, having a hissy fit when challenged, stalking my edits/inserting nonsense until called upon it by an admin, issuing a non-apology apology ("Calton made me do it!"), and swearing he won't do it again, rinse, lather, repeat. The person on the platform waiting for the fast train to Banville? Not me. --Calton | Talk 01:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Oh Calton, give it up! Let's go through these, shall we?
"utter nonsense, outright falsehoods, paranoia" - ya, what now? I don't think the truth any of those.
"psychological projection" - You just love going for that one, don't ya? Leave my Aspergers out of this, OK?
"insults to my intelligence" - Please, if you were as intelligent as you claim to be, you would have gotten the point long ago.
"...I've edited before" - You have edited KXGN before? Really? Are ya sure? Don't think so.
"edit warring" - lets see you are big time guilty there...even after an AFD you started was decided as "Keep".
"having a hissy fit when challenged" - I can't even go there without laughing.
Now...anything else you would like to accuse me of? "Hissy Fits"? Get the point, leave me alone and drop it or you will be on that train to Banville. I hear the cabin cars are nice. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I saved this page in html. What User:Calton is doing here may constitute practicing psychology without a license. It is reportable to the Internet Crime Commission and the APA. I must urge him to check himself very carefully, for his own protection. 07:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? "Get the point, leave me alone and drop it or you will be on that train to Banville. I hear the cabin cars are nice."? Um, I think you've made Calton's point for him rather nicely. Calton is a respected and trusted member of the community and part of Calton's role as an admin a responsible member of the community is correcting those who are out of step with the community's rules and conventions. And you've just demonstrated by your own actions you are such a person. So I suggest that you take take Calton's warnings to heart or you'll likely find that you have more than just Calton to complain about. FeloniousMonk 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just a quick note: Calton is not an admin. In any case, it is not just an admin's duty to enforce community conventions, it is everyone's. I think Calton could try to be a bit less rigid - not with regards to enforcing policy, but his manner of enforcing it. Riana 05:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought he was one already... That he's not is an obvious oversight on our part. He's been doing the work of one for a very long time. FeloniousMonk 05:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Just so we're clear, as I see it Neutralhomer has amply demonstrated that it's not Calton who's got the problem here. This, [4]. this and this from Neutralhomer indicate a pattern of abusing Wikipedia processes such as WP:WQA and WP:AN to gain the upper hand in a simple content dispute. I've cautioned him such disruption violates WP:HAR and WP:DE and will likely result in a block if it continues and that I suggest that he finds a corner of the project away from Calton and edit quietly there for a while. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I can demonstrate that Calton is not the great guy you make him out to be. He puts on his little act for the admins to stay out of trouble and then slams the editors. The admins not calling him on it, just makes him worse. Gimme an hour and I will get you proof of his behaviour. - NeutralHomer T:C 05:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I've asked you on your talk page to drop this and move along and contribute to the project quietly. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And Calton has not been at the very best of his behaviour either. Picking one user and warning him of abuse of process and asking him to "quietly edit in another corner" is completely inappropriate on your part. Please consider removing your warnings from NH's talk page. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
My contributions were erased completely. User Calton has ongoing and persistent WP:CIVIL problems. These comments should be re-instated for the record. 07:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
What User:Calton is doing here may constitute practicing psychology without a license. It is reportable to the Internet Crime Commission and the APA. Internet Crime Commission? Are those the people fighting the World Crime League? Or maybe it's the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants? Is BJAODN still active? I may have a candidate.
I assure you, your childish remarks aside, that this user's comments, and his conduct, are reportable. 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Since the "Internet Crime Commission" is as imaginary as the "World Crime League", I'm not concerned with your "reporting" anything. And I'd call threats to tattle to an imaginary authority figure pretty childish, myself, not to mention calling it a legal threat -- a particularly nonsensical and easily dismissed legal threat, but a legal threat nonetheless. --Calton | Talk 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
In any case, folks, say hello to abusive sockpuppeteer User: aka User:Telogen aka User:The Nervous Mermaid, most of whose contributions have indeed been erased, for very good reasons. --Calton | Talk 13:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, for very poor reasons. User: Calton misuses his position on Wikipedia for personal vengence, ongoing WP: CIVIL, and to deflect his transgressions, as is apparent here. 18:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
"Very poor reasons"? Perhaps you ought to take that up with the admins who did the actual deleting, and the people here who supported it. So what "position" am I misusing, other than as a spotlighter of your attempt to use Wikipedia for self-promotion? --Calton | Talk 19:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Calton Being Un-civil. He is a massive troller, he is always looking to fight. His personal attacks are very many, he needs to stop. I do not know why lots of people defend him, if he was someone else he'd been blocked weeks ago. He left 2 nasty comments on my talk page (one is on the archive). He was obviously looking for some mad response back. He is severely disrupting the project.--T. Wiki 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a clear example: "Could you please buy a dictionary so you can use words properly?" of his trolling. I must have used the wrong variant of (their)(there)(they're) when nicely asking him to stop attacking users on his talk page. --T. Wiki 20:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you misused the words "trolling" and "harassing" in your message Could you please stop trolling and harassing users on their talk pages. Hint: those words don't mean what you think they mean. --Calton | Talk 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
... I understand that Calton can be abrasive at times, but I don't think very many people would accuse him of acting in bad faith, of trolling, of disruption, or of looking to fight. He has been around a lot longer than many of us here, has done a lot of work to improve the encyclopedia, and we should at least assume good faith on his part. He is uncivil at times; aren't we all? --Iamunknown 21:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to make a few observations without giving Calton an opportunity to retaliate against me. First, Iamunkown, we all snap at people occasionally. But, the frequency and tone of Calton's language clearly shows a level of premeditation (i.e., bad faith). Trey Wiki mentioned being blocked "weeks" ago, but Calton has been insulting users on Wikipedia for years. It's very obvious to me that no one could maintain this sort of intensity without actually trying to be rude. He's literally had too many arguments to count. I'm talking about dozens of serious disputes that have involved multiple users and discussions. These have wasted countless hours of time and chased away many contributors. (You mentioned his value as a contributor, even though I think he's derailed Wikipedia more than anyone else.) I strongly encourage all participants in this thread to look through his talk archives. His tone doesn't seem angry, just insulting. These are long, drawn out arguments over very petty issues and with all types of people. When I get into a shouting match or a flame war, it's because I've lost control. I don't make well-thought out arguments with evidence and I don't continue shouting (or flaming if I'm online) for weeks. Some people actually do troll on purpose. Some think it's funny; others think it's entertaining; others think they're so superior to others that insulting them will teach them a "lesson."
But, ironically, that doesn't matter. We have policies against talking in an uncivil manner to anyone, and for any reason. It doesn't matter who started it first, who the participants are, and who is acting in bad faith. If there's more than one offender, block them both. But, if Calton isn't punished for violating this essential rule, he will continue his heinous actions indefinitely. He won't even admit what he is doing is wrong. I strongly believe he is planning his personal attacks, so if he realizes that his behavior will no longer be tolerated, he will adjust his planning accordingly. Any action would do, even a 48-hour ban.--Honesty 64 00:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
This is just plain artless. Here's this guy Honesty 64 claiming that Calton "has been insulting users on Wikipedia for years" -- and he joined Wikipedia one hour ago! He also claims that Calton has "wasted countless hours of time and chased away many contributors." I'm reminded of the Zen koan: How many heads can a sockpuppet have? Folks, this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an axe-grinding association. Griot 02:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Good answer. So, because my account is new, everything I am saying is untrue? We're talking about Calton--not me. Facts are facts. It doesn't matter who says them, and these are obvious and easily verifiable. You can start a new thread about my account if you are really upset about it. You're supposed to comment on the content--not the contributor. I made six arguments above, and you didn't disagree with any of them. Does that mean you don't think they're wrong? Anyone who defends Calton is defending incivility. Is incivility OK with you?--Honesty 64 06:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
So, because my account is new, everything I am saying is untrue? Yes: either you really are new and therefore can't logically have the knowledge you claim, or you're an experienced user posting under an assumed name. Neither really speaks well of your honesty. Though if you're who I think you are -- the overblown username gives me a hint -- truthfully, I'm not surprised you'd pop back up on your crusade, since your previous attempts (if you're who I think you are) to put the blocks to me were pretty much laughed off.
I just wanted to make a few observations without giving Calton an opportunity to retaliate against me And what form would this "retaliation" take? "Halt! Or else I'll say 'halt' again!"
I know how I'll retaliate against you, in my evil, viscious way: I'll ask you for the slightest bit of evidence to back up your hyperbole! Man, am I evil, or what? --Calton | Talk 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


See #Disappearing SVGs and commons:COM:VP#Missing_images; somehow deleting local image description pages is resulting in loss of data at Commons, but w/o a log event. Thanks, Iamunknown 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you speak up? - CHAIRBOY () 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, to be fair, it's kind of a big deal. There's already a big red banner at the top of the template and I guess someone with the bit could modify it to link back here but, as I see it, that's pretty much it. -- Seed 2.0 21:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the scary red banner to Category:Images with the same name on Wikimedia Commons and Category:Images on Wikimedia Commons. If someone could remove them when this is fixed, that would be great. Chick Bowen 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if this is related to the Special:Contributions lag a few days ago? It was caused by a bit of code confusing the English Wikipedia and Commons database servers. That was fixed, but if the error is still hapenning the devs need to be told if they haven't been already. --ais523 16:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The devs know already: bugzilla:10128. I wonder if the comments there mean the bug is fixed? --ais523 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Issue is resolved (and I got confirmation on Commons); I'm removing all relevant warnings from templates and categories. EVula // talk // // 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse[edit]

Have fun folks, these are the stragglers that still are using excessive fair use images per our fair use policy. It would be nice if some folks could help with the removal of these images. —— Eagle101Need help? 21:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing them isn't the problem (copy+paste into gvim, :%s/|.\{-}|\s*\(<!--.\{-}\)\?\[\[Image:.\{-}\]\]\s*\(-->\)\?\s*\(||\|!!\)\?/|/i and such, copy+paste), it is getting it to stick. I did every page from 300 down to 40ish (except a few character articles, and from my list which is slightly different) over the weekend and someone with a bunch of sockpuppets and IPs reverted all of my edits for the previous two days. Kotepho 07:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Kotepho, I noticed that actually, my contributions were mostly going through the work of one of those socks and reverting about 50 articles back to your version. -Mask? 08:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've gone through a few. How completely Wikipedia that the discography with the most images wasn't Elvis, or the Beatles, or even Britney Spears, but The Melvins... EliminatorJR Talk 18:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Is it possible for an admin to remove my user name or anything from the databases or whatnot? If not... just... do something about. I've pretty much decided I don't want to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. I'm just tired of putting up with all the people, all the people wanting everyone to "follow the rules", the rules of Wikipedia being forced on others, ect, ect... it's getting too stressful for me, and with my life being so complicated these days it's getting harder and harder for me to keep my mind friendly to the place and it's people.

So I want to erase ever being here.

If it's not possible, like I said, just do somethin' to have me removed or something. I probably deserve whatever anyway. XD

Thanks in advance. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 11:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikipedia accounts can't be deleted. Od Mishehu 12:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I figured as much. Well, I tried anyway.
I was hoping my history of existence could be removed from here. Oh well.
I'm convinced I'm not needed here. Heck, one guy claimed I hate him and that every game information must come from a manual, and I don't think he's gonna listen to me... wait, that's irrelevant... and leaving my account existent makes me feel I might end up coming back and causing more damage.
I know I'm asking a dumb question, but what other options are there? Besides just "leaving", of course. =/ --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 12:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, it might be possible, to delete your userpage and its editing history if it qualifies for speedy deletion and any subpages, provided they meet U1. If you're using your realname to edit Wikipedia, you may also want to read WP:CHU. Please note that there will be a record of any name change performed.
Personally, I would recommend reading WP:COOL and m:Wikistress before you do anything drastic though. Consider taking a wikibreak. Go outside and relax. You might feel differently about things in a few weeks. --Seed 2.0 12:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd like to take a wikibreak. But... if I do, I wanna start over from a clean slate... then again, due to the people here and what I mentioned, I don't know if I ever want to return to Wikipedia again. You can only take so much stress from a community before you just don't ever want to come back to it again, you know?
I'll look those over though, and hopefully if I do put myself up for speedy deletion, they'll understand it's a request. I'm just tired of all the trouble this place gives me... :( --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 12:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do really want to quit, you do have the m:Right to vanish. WilyD 12:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Of course. Thanks. :) --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 12:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You can also change your username. This will not change talk pages you have signed but will cause all your contributions to appear to be from "Formeruser 14" or whatever. Thatcher131 17:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Even the signatures could be changed if you ask someone who runs a bot that is approved for that particular task nicely. With the way your current username looks I would in particular recommend that after you have changed your username to something non-descript. Agathoclea 21:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Do what you will with it. If you wish to change the name, be my guest. Anything will do really. - Ex-Wikipedian who started the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf Loire (talkcontribs)

Request Deletion of "Arbutus Volunteer Fire Department"[edit]


. Article was redirected.

I request the speedy deletion of the page Arbutus Volunteer Fire Department for lack of evidence proving that the page is of any significance to deserve it's own individual page. Please review this page. Redsox04 20:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:AFD, or WP:PROD it. Waggers 20:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
You would go to WP:RfD, not AfD. Phony Saint 21:53, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Now you would, yes. But an hour ago this article existed as an article and not a redirect. Metros 21:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion request[edit]

Resolved: You can still edit them as usual in fact

I suspect a database hiccup. I'm developing a set of templates in my userspace sandbox, and two of them became inaccessible late last night local time, just as I was getting ready to debug them. When I attempt to navigate to them I get the error page with the message at the bottom:

Request: GET, from via (squid/2.6.STABLE12) to ( Error: ERR_ZERO_SIZE_OBJECT, errno [No Error] at Tue, 05 Jun 2007 21:38:51 GMT

I don't see any alternative but to attempt deleting them and typing them back in, which is annoying for one of them because it was slightly complex, but what can you do? The pages are User:Csernica/Sandbox/Sumo/Basho and User:Csernica/Sandbox/Sumo/Sumo basho awards. Obviously, I cannot request deletion by the usual method of tagging them so I'm asking here instead.

What I half expect will happen is that no admin will be able to delete them either, and I assume the issue will be escalated at that point. I'd contact the sysadmins myself, but we're told at Wikipedia:Contact us/other: "All errors are logged, and the web site is closely monitored. Technical staff are aware of these problems whenever they happen. Please do not email us regarding them." Not that I don't believe them, but no one appears to have noticed yet. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On it, seems the problem is with your syntax in fact, I have them on my notepad. I'll see if I can fix it. -- lucasbfr talk 21:57, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephen (protected)[edit]

Resolved: If only all life's problems were so easy.

Hi, might anyone of the admins add the link to Stefán on this page? Thanks in advance, Jón 22:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! Neil  22:49, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I have blocked Ben-spam (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) indefinitely. His edits consist of uploading a non-free image, followed by adding it onto another article. His talk page is full of Orphan Bot messages, and I see no other edits from this individual.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking a quick look at his edits, it looks like they are a good-faith attempt to improve Wikipedia by adding images. Yes, there are messages from Orphan Bot, which he seems to have reacted to by adding the images to articles. I think an indef block is unnecessary here. Od Mishehu 06:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Convert from AfD to Speedy Delete?[edit]

Hi, I'd like advice on the process for converting two related articles from "AfD" status to "Speedy delete."

  • In one case (the book), nobody objected to deletion, in spite of lively discussion.
  • In the other case (the author), one editor objected strongly, but changed his mind upon (1) learning of a copyright violation in the article, and (2) communicating with the author or his agents.

The bulk of the discussion is here, and a little spilled over onto User talk:Dave99hist.

Please either make the conversion to "speedy delete," or advise me what I can do to hasten this process, in which it appears there is pretty much universal consensus. (A couple of editors expressed mild opposition to deletion early on, but have not returned to defend those views after the copyright violation came to light.) -Pete 22:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see there are several "keep" votes for the author and several "merge" votes for the book. I don't see an obvious consensus here as you suggest. Metros 22:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
The copyvio issue was unknown through most of the discussion. I am making this suggestion with the strong belief that I'm representing the interests of the editor who initially objected most strongly (please see his talk page for the clearest bit of the discussion) and in the belief that an unaddressed copyvio issue (which would have probably justified a "speedy delete" to begin with, had it been known) is a threat to Wikipedia. That said, I defer to your judgment, with the mild request that you take a closer look at that talk page before making a final decision. -Pete 22:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If it is a blatant copyvio, use {{db-copyvio|url=url of source}} at the top of the page. You don't have to "convert the AfD;" it can be put up for speedy deletion at the same time if it's a copyvio. Phony Saint 00:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If it's clearly a copyvio, tag the article for speedy delete, then close the AfD yourself (as a Speedy Delete for copyvio); the procedure is given at WP:AFD. You don't have to be a admin to close an AfD. Herostratus 00:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys - didn't realize that was permissible. -Pete 03:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Although if I do this, I usually leave the AfD open until the article is speedy deleted, in case the tags are repeatedly removed (has happened in the past). EliminatorJR Talk 08:46, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Personally I would also recommend to leave the closing of the AFD to the one that deletes the articles. Only if he overlooks the AfD it could be closed as deleted already Agathoclea 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

C:CSD backlog[edit]

Admins might want to know that there's a backlog of about 500 or so entries at C:CSD. Of course it's been worse before but this is still quite a significant backlog that someone should probably clear. – Chacor 09:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot seems to be because User:Tecmobowl is going round tagging pro baseball players as {{db-a7}}. I have asked to to stop and take them to AFD if he doesn't like the articles. Neil  09:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
And by reverting his tagging, I am "harrassing him". Sigh. Neil  10:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


By a vote on an open motion made on the main Requests for arbitration page [5], the indefinite ban on Koavf is replaced by revert parole. He is limited to one content reversion per page per day, and may be reblocked briefly for each violation, extending to indefinite after 3 blocks, depending on the blocking administrator's discretion. Blocks and bans should be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Koavf#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie screenshot[edit]

I tried to upload a movie screenshot and left a good description for the fair rationale, but the image will not show. What can I do about it --Thus Spake Anittas 15:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks fine to me. Sasquatch t|c 15:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I get the little red cross on the image, and "Unable to forward this request at this time." if I click on the image. I had the same problem earlier today when putting speedy tags on a couple of unused images I had uploaded. I presume it's a temporary glitch. EliminatorJR Talk 15:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Its showing properly here. Maybe your proxy or adblocker (if you are using one) is blocking certain strings which happen to be a substring in the image name, thereby blocking the image as collateral damage. (IE7prop adblocker blocks certain images in wikipedia, turn it off for * --soum talk 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm getting the same error, from one of the squids.( It may depends on where you are located. This probably belongs on the technical village pump, not here. Secretlondon 16:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for your answers. I guess it's like some of you said: just temporary. I'll wait and see what happens. --Thus Spake Anittas 16:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Advice/Intervention requested[edit]

I have run across User:Socialdemocrats a couple of times recently - (s)he has a history of apparently disruptive edits, including numerous blankings of his talk page (that seem to be the product of frustration rather than malice). I genuinely don't believe that his edits are intended to be vandalism, but they are upsetting other editors (eg page reformatting without prior discussion or edit summaries). Advice seems to go unheeded, and warnings are ignored. My question is: is this editor salvageable, or should I just have left this with Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism? I'm not sure what the procedure is with editors that are clearly keen, but don't seem to understand how Wikipedia works! EyeSereneTALK 16:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments removed[edit]

Hi I asked a (what seemed) legitamate question on user:ElinorDs request for adminship, I just wanted an assurance but this question was quickly disappeared, as "trolling", perhaps because I chose to edit anonymously, I am concerned about the comeback if I ask it logged in. When I asked on the talk page of the request, this question was also immedeately removed as trolling, it was also removed from the history as well. I would like to know why this reasonable question was trolling, I will not ask the question here again in case thats also removed as being trolling. thanks. 16:42, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • The comment was removed as trolling because it read like trolling. If what you alledged was true, show it. Show where you heard it (with diffs), under what circumstances, et cetera. Otherwise ... it just looks like mud-slinging. WilyD 16:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Your allegation will not really help the community develop a consensus on promotion, and I agree with its removal. If true, the user should not be promoted no matter what the consensus the Arbitration committee should be asked to investigate privately and determine whether some legitimate reason exists; if false, the allegation is a nasty smear seemingly intended to derail the nomination. There is a difference between a good editor trying to open a new account for privacy reasons (to give one possibly legitimate reason) and someone abusively using multiple accounts. If you have some facts to back up your suspicions I suggest you e-mail one or more members of the Arbitration committee. Thatcher131 16:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion summaries for attack pages[edit]

Now that the deletion log is shown directly on deleted pages, we should probably start being more careful about our deletion summaries, especially with attack pages and with regard to the prefilled deletion summaries automatically offered by MediaWiki in certain cases. Otherwise we may end up with cases like this.

It's not quite as bad as it might seem, since deleted pages are marked with <meta> tags that keep them from being indexed by Google and other search engines. Still, it's worth keeping in mind that, at least for now, there's absolutely no way, short of direct database manipulation by a developer, of deleting a deletion summary.

Do you think it might be a good idea to add a note about this to WP:CSD#G10? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

There is already a great big bold warning to this effect at CAT:ASD. Pastordavid 18:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There should probably be big bold warnings at WP:CSD, Template:Db-attack and Wikipedia:Attack page as well. I've now added them to the former two. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
...and to the last one as well. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This would be a good time to plug WP:CSDAR. Using that program will ensure that this problem with deletion summaries isn't a problem. --Alabamaboy 18:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

A wonderful program - it fixed me dinner and washed all the dishes. It also made working on CSD a much easier. Pastordavid 18:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Could we request a feature to get rid of certain blocking and deletion summaries? I've heard of proposals for something like this in the past. Maybe something similar to oversight (or even a new add-on to the oversight tool?) Grandmasterka 21:26, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I've never been a big fan of the automatic deletion summaries. Attack pages are the most serious problem, of course, but I also always make sure to remove any content from the summary for a copyvio, because otherwise the deletion summary itself is an (uneradicable) copyvio. So the percentage of pages for which it's helpful is not that big. Chick Bowen 21:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not as big a problem with copyvios, though, since the amount of the content that fits in a deletion summary is in general likely to be de minimis. For attack pages, however, even a brief quote could be offensive and/or libelous. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Or, heaven forbid, one could type in the reason by hand. --bainer (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Agreed... it doesn't take all that much time to type up a link to the relevant CSD reason.--Isotope23 13:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Here's a solution: User:^demon has created a script (available from his userpage here) which automatically pops up a list of CSD criteria when you go to delete a page (so you don't even have to type anything). It's saved me tons of time and provides a quick and relatively informative deletion summary, plus it avoids the problem of including part of the deleted article in the deletion summary. I'd encourage everyone to give it a try - it's been very helpful and will make this problem go away. MastCell Talk 15:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Clicking the word "deletion" on most CSD templates gives a nice deletion page with pre-filled deletion summary. Kusma (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Inspired by ^demon's script, I wrote a piece of javascript that detects if the prefilled deletion summary contains "{{db-attack}}", or any variant thereof, and if so, replaces it with a more appropriate summary. You can find the script here and, once installed, can test it here. (I've wrapped the tag in "<nowiki></nowiki>" on that page so it won't actually show up on CAT:ASD.) Of course, like the solution suggested by Kusma above, this will only work if the page has actually been tagged properly. Even so, I'm wondering if this might actually be worth including in MediaWiki:Common.js. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:FURG/Betacommandbot blocked/Naconkantari's deletions[edit]

Please refer to this subpage. Thanks. El_C 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
The section placeholders does not help much increasing visibility. It will soon be lost amongst a pile of other threads. Maybe a notice at the top of the page should be considered, if a better visibility is needed. --soum talk 17:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How about we just start with bumps when needed, for now. Sounds sensible? El_C 19:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How about making the header big and red, like so? Neil  21:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
No.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • sulks* Neil  00:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Section placeholder[edit]

Purposefully blank.

Section placeholder2[edit]

Purposefully blank.

Section placeholder3[edit]

Purposefully blank.

Section placeholder4[edit]

Purposefully blank

Update main page[edit]

Resolved: Not quite urgent, but it has been resolved. EVula // talk // // 04:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin help is urgently needed to update the "in the news" section [6] -- Age Title 19:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No idea where to post this, but could someone please look at Red Hot Chili Peppers[edit]

Resolved: User block for 24 hours, unblock request denied. EVula // talk // // 04:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Xihix is persitently reverting removals of a fair use image that has no rationale and is not discussed within the article at Red Hot Chili Peppers. If you check out Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers and the history you can see that he is ignoring everyone else's opinion and refusing to acknowledge any view other than his own (I think it's fine. Don't take it out. If you do, I'm simply adding it back in.). Can someone step in and sort this out? I'm not sure how Wikipedia deals with these issues. Kamryn Matika 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

24 hour 3RR block. EVula // talk // // 00:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! Hopefully he'll cool down and think of a compromise. :) Kamryn Matika 00:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I added a note about fair use images and the importance of generating (and following) consensus to the 3RR block notification; hopefully that will get him to realize the error of his ways. EVula // talk // // 00:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Quick Note Re: Merriam-Webster Online[edit]

Apparently Merriam-Webster hosts an "open dictionary"[7] (read: user submitted, no notability or reference required) on the same URL as their normal dictionary. I only noticed it when a user tried to cite MW Dictionary in their article on a neologism they made up.

Not certain whether or not this is common knowledge or worthy of AN, but since they both originate from and only one is legitimate, I figured it might be worth a comment. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please bring this up at Wikipedia talk:External links. Thanks. 00:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for the heads-up. BullzeyeComplaint Dept./Contribs) 17:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

A simple question, please help[edit]

Let's say we have an article about an organization. Said article has no references except for the organization's own website. Does an article without any references that are independent of the subject (the subject's own website) fulfill WP:V and WP:N?

Now, let's say the same article has ONE secondary source, a PhD dissertation. Is this enough to establish WP:V and WP:N? I'm still kind of new here so sorry if I'm asking this in the wrong place, but I really need to get some straight information. Thanks! The Parsnip! 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Everything you need is here under "Primary criterion". In short, the answers are "No", and "Probably not". HTH EliminatorJR Talk 23:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  • For those just tuning in, he's talking about his utterly retarded nomination of SCA for deletion. I suggest you stop nominating for deletion articles you know absolutely nothing about. I would equally strongly suggest you learn what the words you say actually mean. First, notability is a guideline, not a policy. Notability is not 'satisfied', notability is an attribute something has regardless of whatever is written in the article. You also clearly don't understand any reference system besides the typical footnotes system. The article uses external jumps extensively, which is non-standard and frowned upon, but there very clearly are references in the article independent of the subject. Chris Croy 00:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Civility, please. —Kurykh 00:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Though SCA is clearly notable, whilst WP:N is technically a guideline as opposed to a policy, an article that fails to show notability will almost certainly be deleted if proposed, so the content of the article is important - notability does have to be 'satisfied'. EliminatorJR Talk 00:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Now people can see the kind of absurd garbage I've had to put up with over the last few days from people like my good friend Chris Croy up above. Yes, I'm talking about the SCA article, and no, I'm not necessarily talking about deleting it. What I'm talking about is satisfying guidelines and policies, which the article doesn't appear to do. I'm trying to follow the rules the best way I understand them, but instead I get rudeness, people talking to me like I'm an idiot, and even an admin on the article talk page who basically told me that the article was fine without any reliable secondary sources. I was even trying to help out by requesting that reliable secondary sources be added to the article and instead I got flak and people telling me that the SCA website satisfies all requirements. In any case, I'm glad to learn here that I'm pretty much right, just like I thought I was. Thank you for helping to clarify. The Parsnip! 02:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
        • For the record, I am the admin in question. The Parsnip!, is not representing what I said correctly. In my understanding of the relevent policies and guidelines, the SCA website meets the guidelines established at WP:V for self-published sources in articles about themselves, and so can be used to source certain types of statements, even statements that touch on notability. (For example, membership numbers). I do not and have not claimed that a self-published web site is sufficient in and of itself to establish notability. I have argued that WP:N talks of topics, not articles, and that notability is an attribute of topics and can be satisfied even if the article does not cite sources. The Parsnip! disagrees. Dsmdgold 12:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Bug announcement[edit]

I would just like to announce that due to actions taken against my account (and pretty much everyone who has been spammed by someone they blocked) I filed (by proxy of ^demon) a request to disable Special:Emailuser on selected accounts (think of it as a blockemail on the MediaWiki side).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, that's a good idea. (And, purely curious: feature requests get made at the same place as bug reports? Or what?) --Masamage 02:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
(A) This bug report is a duplicate of one I filed months and months ago. (B) Masamage - bugzilla is used for filing both bugs and feature requests. At the time of filing it, you mark it accordingly. Raul654 02:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I see! Thanks. I'm guessing there's been no progress on the one you filed before...?---Masamage 02:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn. Thanks for showing the duplicate, Raul. Last I heard (from him), AmiDaniel was trying to develop such a feature.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

In the mean time Ryulong - I would suggest setting up a filter to filter all that users emails into the trash. I know gmail and hotmail have that ability. ViridaeTalk 07:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removal of fact tags[edit]

What can be done to prevent editors from removing tags while they refuse to add references to the tagged sentences?[8] For some reason people disallow addition of tags and notices. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 06:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is down the hall, second on the left. Try discussing the matter with the other editors. Sometimes, a fact is indeed supported by references but simply has not been cited inline. At other times, people do indeed do it to attempt to own an article and prevent others from questioning it, even if what they're writing is questionable or original research. There are procedures in dispute resolution to request opinions from uninterested parties, if discussion fails, it might not be a bad idea to try them. There's no specific prohibition against removing such tags, even though doing so is generally discouraged, especially if removed without explanation. But it's generally considered polite to provide an explanation for placing such tags too. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
HHO gas is not that interesting to me to warrant such efforts. Nevertheless I am still wondering how one person can remove valid tags or even {{totallydisputed}} without addressing the problems voiced on the talk page. My understanding was that removing tags (and it is made clear why they are there) is at best uncooperative. Thank you for responding. Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 08:41, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Server glitch?[edit]

When I go to My Contributions, and I enter my IP address to see what edits I've made while I wasn't logged in, I'm automatically led to the contributions on an unknown person. That in itself is not so strange, since I'm on a semi-public computer. The strange thing is that among the contributions are this edit by Nickyt3030 (talk · contribs), this edit by Frank116 (talk · contribs), this edit by Pinto a (talk · contribs), and many others. Even stranger is that it doesn't matter what IP I enter, I always get this contribution history. Is there a server glitch somewhere? Cows fly kites (Aecis) Rule/Contributions 12:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

user:andyjsmith troubling[edit]

user:andyjsmith is reverting my every contribution in all fields [9] [10] [11] [12] . These were exact revert of contributions. He is also spamming my talk page user talk:racky pt. We also had edit conflict in article female body shape, see his arrogant and out-of-the-issue personal replies in Talk:Female_body_shape#deletion_of_.22Other_descriptions.22_section.

This is nothing but personal harassment. He should be banned or should i apply for 3RR as he reverted more than 3 edits. Racky pt 13:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Racky pt is a block-evading sockpuppet of Vinay412. Many of his edits are irrelevant or misinformed and he has become increasingly disruptive (see Vinay412's talk page) so I've decided to keep an eye on him. He has ownership issues over a couple of rather grubby articles about large women, one of which has been AfD'd and the other of which I and several other editors have been trying to tidy up in the face of determined reversions. The example he gives at Talk:Female_body_shape#deletion_of_.22Other_descriptions.22_section pretty much sums up his approach to WP editing. Sorry you've been bothered with this. andy 13:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Number 1 is questionable because it regards a policy on Wikipedia. You were bold to change it, and since it was reverted, you should go to that user's talk page (as is on be bold). Number 2's edit has bad quality. Asking people to search for sources by searching on Google is a bad idea. Some sources are available only on books, especially old ones. Number 3 is moot. You are calling another user a sadist - see WP:NPA. Number 4 is directly contradicted by the sentence after the one you added. I'm no expert on relativity so I would suggest you go to dispute resolution. Blocked users evading blocks go to WP:AN/I, too. x42bn6 Talk Mess 13:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked both the accounts, move along. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 13:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter Openshaw move mess[edit]

During the recent AfD for Peter Openshaw, his talk page was moved improperly, and associated with a different article. Can someone cleanly put it back where it belongs?

Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan 17:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

 Done - Alison 18:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BJAODN Deleted[edit]

I have deleted most of the sub-pages from Wikipedia:Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense as a violation of the GFDL. In nearly every case, the content in the subpages had been copy-and-pasted from elsewhere. In the case of existing articles, content was copied without crediting the author(s) of the revisions. In the case of deleted articles, without fail in the pages I deleted, the content was not properly moved to preserve the history. In every single case, there was no non-infringing content worth saving.

For those interested, the specific GFDL section relevant to the above is Section 4.B of the GNU Free Documentation License. The speedy deletion criteria is CSD G-12. See also Copyrights - Contributor's rights and obligations.

As can be seen, I have not deleted all of the BJAODN subpages - in the case of much of the April Fools pages, content was properly moved by conscientious editors over the years. Now I know that this will upset some folks, but that is not my intent. Nor were these deletions a liberal interpretation of the speedy deletion criteria - in every single case, the deletions were to keep Wikipedia in compliance with the GFDL, the license by which every single page in every single article in every single language in this great Project is based. If we cannot abide by our own license, how on Earth can we ensure that those who wish to use our content do the same?

These actions should not be interpreted as a fiat against the existence of BJAODN (although one must wonder if our collective creative energies could be used more effectively and whether or not such content is more appropriate for Uncyclopedia - but that is neither here nor there). As long as content is properly moved to preserve the history of "deleted" content, or proper linking to diffs and authors for specific edits on surviving pages, then it would be in compliance.

Again, this is not a rouge interpretation of policy, this is enforcement of the GFDL, period. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Not a comment on the appropriateness of the deletions, but did you honestly think that people would not view this as a rouge interpretation of policy to do whatever you want if you explained it? -Amarkov moo! 02:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, to the admins reading this, PLEASE do NOT undelete all of these without discussing. Let's not get into a wheel war. No comment on the merits of this deletion. Sean William @ 02:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
It seems like something doesn't add up here: A unilateral deletion is acceptable, but a unilateral undeletion is not? It's bad enough that bold, revert, discuss isn't an option for editors when faced with administrator actions, but I never imagined that admins were similarly hamstrung. This is strictly an observation about the power imbalance between a deleting admin and practically anyone else. It should not be construed as an argument on either side of the bad jokes vs GFDL discussion. --Ssbohio 04:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Has this been discussed at all? It doesn't seem like something that should be or needs to be done hastil