Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:53, 17 May 2005

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

Tasks

WP:VIP

I just happened to notice that WP:VIP has gotten huge. Can someone take a look at this, and clean out some of the dead wood? Thanks! Noel (talk) 13:58, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is down to a little over 80KB, but that's still pretty big (and it had entries that are almost a week old), so we need to keep out eyes on it. Noel (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

I've been pretty actve lately in weeding out nonsense and blank pages for speedy deletion. I'd appreciation it if a moderator could please delete these pages so as to decrease the list, which as of this post has over 20 pages. Thanks. Harro5 (talk · contribs) 05:09, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

It's pretty empty at the moment - just a bunch of related Xanth entries I had a query about. Still, a good thing to keep an eye on - I see it's not listed on Misplaced Pages:Cleaning department, I'll add it (and I urge everyone to head on over and sign up for something :-). Noel (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

General

Cut and paste move repair holding pen

There is currently a problem with deleting older articles, which sometimes makes it impossible to fix cut and paste moves.

I have created Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen as a place to hold articles waiting for this problem to be fixed (so their histories can be merged). (I debated created a category for them as well, but decided not too - there no good reason I can think of for gunking up their histories.)

I have linked to it from Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut and paste moves; if there's anyplace else it should be linked from, please do so.

If you run across more of these situations, please add them to the list there. Thanks! Noel (talk) 15:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's another list of pending history merges at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves#History mergers. You might want to merge the two lists and update the instructions at the top of WP:RM accordingly. Gdr 18:18, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks for the tip. Will do. Noel (talk) 16:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This apparently got done while I was off sick with the flu (just catching up on stuff now).

It's worth noting that to some degree, the holding pen has been replaced with use of Template:Pending merge, which adds things to Category:Pending merge: you're supposed to move the page needing to be merged to {Foo}/history, and add the template to the top of that. Noel (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there a place for non-admins to report cut and paste moves so that histories can be merged? I'm assuming that the Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen is just for moves where the block compression bug is an issue. The recent move of Stain (biology) to Staining (biology) is what brought this to my attention, but it might be a good idea to provide general instructions for non-admins on Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut and paste moves and/or Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 20:23, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, as far as I can see there isn't; we ought to have a place (and it ought to be mentioned on the two pages you list). One suggestion is a new Misplaced Pages:Requests for history merge page; another suggestion is to divide Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen into two sections: one for these requests from non-admin editors, and one for the those cases which can't be done because of the block-compress problem, and don't otherwise fit into the {{Pending merge}} system. Noel (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've drafted a new version of Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen that incorporates the second section; it's in my sandbox. Thoughts? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 16:29, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That looks good. I'd consider chaning the title of the first section to Cut and paste moves needing repair or simply remove the word "Admin" - you explain at the top that it needs admin privs, and the current title feels unnecessarily wordy to me. Thryduulf 17:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Inappropriate WikiProjects ?

Some WikiProjects are said by some users to be inappropriate (possibly because of POV-pushing, or being a personal attack magnet). Is it possible for a WikiProject to be inappropriate? If so, what are the criteria, and how do we decide? What should we do with said projects?

Please join the discussion on Misplaced Pages:Wikiproject/Inappropriate projects.

Radiant_* 11:02, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki speedy deletions

Did we ever decide what to do with these? I looked up ASAP today and found it was pending deletion. Checking the history, it looks like it was nominated early for transwikiing to Wiktionary, then improved a bit, transwikied, and marked for speedy deletion. As I understand it, transwikiing is not a criterion for speedy deletion; they are supposed to go through VfD like other articles. Am I mistaken? — Knowledge Seeker দ 03:14, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I believe you're right. Since I had been active in deleting the transwikied articles I've started going through Category:Pending deletions looking for others like ASAP that were marked Pending but haven't yet been through VfD. I'll be away for the next couple of days but the partial list I've compiled is at User:SWAdair/Pending Transwikied. It looks like these will have to be sent through VfD. SWAdair | Talk 06:57, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• The last step at meta:transwiki is to delete the left-behind version of the article. Unlike regular deletion, transwiki does not destroy history - the article can always be recovered in the same form from the alternate wikiproject. Therefore, it is considered a reversible decision. If I transwiki an article to Wiktionary and it turns out to be controversial, the next editor (whether he/she is an admin or not) can bring the article back. Since anyone can reverse the decision, I believe that neither VfD nor the speedy deletion criteria need to apply. The article has not been deleted from MediaWiki. It has merely been moved within MediaWiki. Now like any other pagemove, if you suspect that it might be controversial, it is simple courtesy to discuss it first. That might involve a VfD nomination for discussion by the community but it's not required. The decision to nominate or not is one we've traditionally left to the discretion of the admin cleaning up that last step in the transwiki process. Rossami (talk) 07:32, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That is what I thought, and indeed what I was acting upon until the discussions at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Deletion_at_the_end_of_transwiki made me pause. The continued discussion at m:Talk:transwiki still seems unsure, with some good points on both sides of the issue. Has that discussion been carried on elsewhere and settled definitively? IANAL, and I've not read the statutes, so I will defer to the judgement of those who have the time and knowledge to sift through the fine print. With the issue apparently not yet determined to a large degree one way or the other, I'm unsure of exactly what the requirements are. I understand your viewpoint (above) and was acting on that belief in the past. Now... I dunno. SWAdair | Talk 09:54, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I started the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Votes_for_deletion#Deletion_at_the_end_of_transwiki to try to gain "official" recognition of the process as I understood it. No one took the opportunity to dispute that interpretation so I believe that it now has a little bit more precedent. Other than that, the discussion just sort of petered out. I am continuing to act on that interpretation. The discussion at m:Talk:transwiki has been focusing more on whether the mechanics of the transwiki process are sufficient - do we have a legal obligation to preserve the tracability of every edit or is it sufficient to preserve the simple fact that Author A contributed something to the article. That remains an open question. Short of getting sued and having a judge render an actual decision, I don't know that we will ever definitively answer it. We all agree that it would be better if the MediaWiki capabilities were expanded a bit so we wouldn't have to worry about the question. Rossami (talk)
  • Thanks, Rossami. I'm still confused, though; I don't really understand the whole transwiki process well. I looked at meta:transwiki, and it looks to me that step 6 of the example (transwikiing from English to French) is to list the original on VfD. That aside, I am not certain I understand how one would bring the article back. One, because if the original is deleted, later editors would not know that the article had been transwikied. But two, can you show me how, if ASAP were deleted, one would recover the article/history from wiktionary:ASAP? Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 17:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • You have several good questions. The problem with the last step of the process described at meta:transwiki is that none of the other MediaWiki projects make the distinctions we do between VfD, CSD, IfD, TfD, etc. They haven't become large enough or busy enough to need them. I don't spend a huge amount of time on the other projects but my understanding is that most of them quickly delete transwiki'd articles without a lot of formal discussion - more like our CSD process than VfD. But you could certainly interpret it either way. You also asked how to bring an article back. If you want to reverse a transwiki decision, you simply transwiki the article in reverse. That means copy-paste the article (and its Talk page) back from Wiktionary to Misplaced Pages. Since the Wiktionary article's talk page holds the old Misplaced Pages article's contributor log, when you move it back to Misplaced Pages, you will have re-established the contribution history (as a pasted list on the new Misplaced Pages article's talk page). Admittedly, you won't have the tracability of every edit (see comment above) but you will know everyone who contributed to the article. Lastly, you are correct that future reader/editors may not realize that their article was transwiki'd out of Misplaced Pages. That's a known failing of the process and has led to at least one call that we should instead leave behind a cross-wiki redirect. The objection to the cross-wiki redirect boils down to the fact that it won't show up on "what links here" and therefore is hard to keep current if/when someone moves the page in the receiving project. For example, if someone moved Wiktionary:ASAP to Wiktionary:A.S.A.P., there are no triggers or ticklers to help the Wiktionary team go back to update the links that are in Misplaced Pages. There are several proposals to fix that weakness but none have been implemented yet (that I know of). Rossami (talk) 14:50, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, Rossami. I still am unclear though; I am not sure if I am misunderstanding matters. Are we looking at the same part of Meta:Transwiki? I'm looking at the example, which concerns a French article written on en:, to be transwikied to fr:. I'm not sure I understand how it could be interpreted either way—Step 6 clearly states: "Then the Lorraine article at the English Misplaced Pages can be listed on Votes for deletion", with "Votes for deletion" linking to WP:VFD. The last step, step 10, applies to the article in the "Transwiki:" space on the receiving wiki, and only applies if the receiving wiki already had an article with the title and so that article in the transwiki space has to be cut-and-pasted into the already-existing article. If not, the "transwiki" article is simply moved into the article namespace, and no deletion is necessary. Am I misunderstanding this? And I apologize for my lack of comprehension, but can you actually point me to the page where the list of contributors on Wiktionary? You mentioned it would be on the talk page, but wiktionary:Talk:ASAP does not seem to exist. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:19, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's a confusing topic, made worse because some of the relevant pages have not been kept current. In meta:transwiki, I have always relied on the plain wording in the paragraph Transfer from main to transwiki which reads "The original page may be deleted as soon as it has been moved to the transwiki area." Step 6 in the example does mention Misplaced Pages's VfD but that example has been around since before the split between VfD and CSD. Back then, we listed everything on the VfD page and could speedily unlist the CSD-equivalents.

The requirement to preserve history is in the paragraph headed Page history. An example of where it was done correctly is at m:Talk:Wikistress. ASAP is a difficult example. Looking at the history of the two articles ( and ), the Wiktionary article pre-dated the Misplaced Pages article and at the time of the "transwiki" included most (arguably all) of the relevant content. PoccilScript added the tag that he/she believed it had already been moved to Wiktionary's inbound transwiki queue. It's up to the Wiktionary team to decide if and when to integrate the article from the transwiki queue into their article space. Since the Wiktionary article already has most (arguably all) the relevant content, they may well decide to leave their article as is and to allow the Misplaced Pages version to languish at wikt:transwiki:ASAP. To complicate it further, I'm not actually sure that this particular article really was transwiki'd. That may have been an assumption based on looking at the current state of the two articles. Or someone could have followed the process incorrectly. I wish I had a better answer for this example. Rossami (talk) 13:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rossami, I appreciate you explaining this all to me. I understand now, and I think I will leave it up to others to figure out how to handle this transwiki business in general. In this specific case, I think I will remove the {{pendingdeletion}} notice and place it on VfD. Thank you. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:25, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Use of User pages

I'm not sure what is and isn't allowed on User pages; Misplaced Pages:User pages is a bit sparse. I ask because of Islamist (talk · contribs). he's been engaged in revert wars, pushing a very clear PoV, and I and other editors have had occasion to warn him about his abusive edit summaries. His retaliation takes the form of a User page in which he lists editors who, he claims, "have displayed hostility, made biased edits and have reverted edits in an abusive way". Is this all part of the rough and tumble, does it come under 'no personal attacks', or what? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I support allowing almost anything on User pages, except personal attacks. I think it crosses the line when a user starts posting against other Misplaced Pages editors. In the case of User:Islamist, I think it's inappropriate to list user under the description: "The following editors have displayed hostility, made biased edits and have reverted edits in an abusive way". This is a personal attack against the listed users and shouldn't be tolerated in any namepsace. I will request that Islamist remove that section. Carbonite | Talk 16:24, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:43, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While it isn't something to encourage, I've seen people with much worse on their user pages and it was usually allowed by the community (although not without some controversy.) Islamist's page is pretty mild. Isomorphic 04:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. I don't suppose it's a hitlist. I remember Wik's list of people he didn't like for various reasons, it seems a lot like that. Everyking 04:59, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The problem with the list is that it's disruptive and almost certainly can be classified as a personal attack. I have high tolerance for attacks against policy or anything outside of Misplaced Pages. If an editor wants to make their User page a rant against deletion policy or George W. Bush, they should be allowed. However, it's not appropriate when an editor utilizes his User page to accuse other editors of "displaying hostility" and reverting edits in an "abusive way". This makes it very difficult for other users to interact with him, especially since there is already a great deal of tension. Carbonite | Talk 12:00, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I have a list of people I've had good relations with, so I don't see the problem in someone having a list of those he's had problems with. PedanticallySpeaking 17:19, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

• Your list spreads wikilove; his diminishes it. --Theo (Talk) 19:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediawiki interface text

When I blocked a vandal earlier I was missing the informational text about AOL ranges from the Blockip page. They've since been fixed, but can anyone remind me where to find the MediaWiki namespace templates used for those texts? Mgm| 09:53, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Blockiptext. -Frazzydee|✍ 11:11, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Warnings on crowded anon talk-pages

I've posted a question on the Dealing with vandalism talk page about if it's ok to clean anon talk-pages for old messages when posting new warnings. I'd like to get some opinions on it there. Thanks. Shanes 03:15, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Change Noarticletext?

I propose that we should remove "yet" from the sentence "Misplaced Pages does not yet have an article with this exact name." (see Mediawiki:Noarticletext). To me, this implies that we don't have the article now but we should have one. I suggested this at the talk page a couple weeks ago, but there wasn't much response. I'd prefer more feedback before making any changes. If anyone has an opinion, please share it at Mediawiki talk:Noarticletext. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Public IP template

Is there some kind of template that I can put on the talk page of a public IP, so that Admins are aware that it is a public IP?--nixie 11:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

{{sharedip|Name of Organisation or ISP}}. It looks like this:

Welcome!Last edited: Last edited by:04:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC) Balcer (talk · contribs) Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Misplaced Pages? Create an account! Your IP address, Administrators' noticeboard, is registered to Misplaced Pages, the 💕 and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

It will fill in "user" or "user talk" as appropriate from the namespace, so it comes up as "This is the Misplaced Pages page for.." here.

--rbrwr 12:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages as Social Calendar

I don't think this user quite understands what Misplaced Pages is for. He seems to be using his userpage as a goto point for a class reunion. Other class buddies linked on his page have created their userpages in the Misplaced Pages namespace. Am I seeing this right? Joyous 23:21, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what is our policy on user pages uses restriction, but considering the user(s) seem to have made no contribution to Wiki (, ) it does appear they are using Wiki as their private webpage. Definetly their Misplaced Pages:blah pages are creating public usless Wiki pages which surely is a violation of some rule - or Wiki purpose, at the very least. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 23:32, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Looks to me like they're taking advantage of how the user namespace is 'untouchable' by other wikipedians. But this violates WP:NOT a free host or webspace provider...I think...

But it doesn't look like they're planning a meetup to me, it looks like they're writing articles on non-notable people in the user namespace. -Frazzydee|✍ 23:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

See Wiki:WalledGarden. This sort of thing is generally considered uncool, and we ought to encourage them to take it somewhere else—maybe they can set up their own MediaWiki installation, or perhaps Wikicities might be the place for this sort of thing. It's certainly not appropriate for Misplaced Pages, and such userspace projects have been deleted before, for the reasons that Frazzydee cites. —Charles P.  00:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They deleted Frazzy's attempt to communicate, so I put a note of my own. They seem well-meaning so I tried to be nice, but I don't see much chance that they will become real contributors. Isomorphic 04:36, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The anon also deleted my comment. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've added a bit under yours where I inform them this is not appropriate. Inter\ 12:04, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If this user made a couple good contributions, would we let it slide then? Come on now. As I see it, this kind of thing should be encouraged, because it will help us bring in more contributors. Everyking 12:08, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If they contributed to wiki, then yes, we would let it slide. But as it was pointed out, they had done nothing constructive, they are increasing traffic and database size (if slightly) with junk (unencyclopedic stuff). And they are making us waste our time with this discussion. I vote warn and delete. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:01, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Except, of course, the user has made NO contributions -- zip zero nada -- and is using Misplaced Pages space ONLY to organize a high-school reunion. Point them to Wikicities or some hosting space and let them wallow in high-school nostalgia there. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This sort of thing should not be encouraged, or WP will be the new geocities before we know it. Even an established user who doing this would be out of line. I just don't know if we can handle this with existing policy (put User pages on vfd?) or if we would need some new policy to address this (deletion/blocking due to blatant WP:NOT violation?). I really think we should be ready for this. If word gets around that you can upload last night's party's pictures to Misplaced Pages for free, it would generate an insane amount of useless traffic. dab (ᛏ) 16:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This can't be allowed. One small group doing this is harmless, but allowing it means we would quickly have hundreds, then thousands of groups doing this. That would not be harmless, as it would suck up significant bandwidth and server resources. Misplaced Pages is a public resource, but it's a public resource with a purpose, and alumni pages do not fall within the purpose. Isomorphic 17:09, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also agreed. Give them some time to receive and respond to the messages; if they don't knock it off after that, I think the best course of action would be to delete all the pages and replace them with a notice of why they were deleted—and an offer to help move the material to Wikicities or whatever site they think appropriate. —Charles P.  17:56, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a travel guide. Or is it?

All right, people, I need some policy-related help, please. I was always under impression that 1) Misplaced Pages, being an encyclopedia, does not cover purely travel-related topics, nor does it allow links to travel sites of non-encyclopedic nature; and 2) no commercial links (spam) are allowed in the External link sections of the articles.

With that in mind, I (and other users) was persistently removing a link (also see , , and ) to a certain website that offers little more than information on accomodation in Yekaterinburg. My reasoning was that the link leads to a commercial website with non-encyclopedic information. The discussion can be viewed here and here (I apologize that most of it is in Russian—that's the language the user adding the link preferred to use; I will gladly translate it if necessary).

While it looks that the user eventually agreed with my reasoning, I noticed that his link is also present in a number of other articles (e.g., Paris and Barcelona). I was going to remove it as well and issue the user his final warning before starting blocking him, but I then noticed that Barcelona article has a link to Barcelona Restaurants' site, and that link was there for quite a while. To me, that would also fall under "commercial, non-encyclopedic category", but I really want to make sure I am correct in my assumption. The policy regarding external links is kind of vague, and it calls mostly for admin's good judgment when deciding what's spam and what's useful. I would guess if the "accomodations" link is spam, then the "restaurants" link would also be. If it's not spam, then what are the grounds for keeping it?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:34, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I just removed this link and one advertising accomodation from the Barcelona page. Also noticed a categories mess there. Barcelona is in Category:Cities in Catalunya and Category:Cities in Spain. Worse again, Category:Cities in Catalunya is not a subcat of Category:Cities in Spain, so I guess there are more cities in the same boat. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I went ahead and cleaned Paris as well. I would still appreciate a clarification on the policy—what kind of links are considered commercial, travel-related, and non-encyclopedic, and what kinds are acceptable.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:45, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there's much written policy on this. In the absense of one, I would just consider the needs of the reader. If you think a reader looking for encyclopedic information on the topic would find the link relevant and interesting, it's good. If it would only appeal to people looking for a specific service (as opposed to people looking for general information about that type of service) then it's probably bad. We do have one rule that's fairly well-established: don't link to a site if it is just one of a large number of commercial sites providing similar services. Doing so would be advertising that particular website. Isomorphic 17:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks—that's pretty much how I looked at it, too. It's just that I was astonished to discover multitudes of commercial and somewhat commercial links all around Misplaced Pages after I looked at this issue a little closer; in fact, I was astonished so much that I started to question if my understanding of how the links should be handled is correct (hence this post). Thanks again for your confirmation; now I know that I was doing the right thing.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:53, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

On a related note, I've just been called to task for deleting ext lks to some chap's albums of his holiday photos ( & ) from Egypt and Luxor. Colourful and cheerful, but not really encyclopaedic. Any guidelines for that? Is it better to have something (anything) in the ext lks rather than nothing, or are there places where we just don't want to be sending our readers? –Hajor 18:03, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely. To me these are all examples of spam linking, whether they are well intentioned or not. Why? Because we really want the information added to Misplaced Pages under a free license, not encourage readers to be lead off-site. I've recently removed a pile of hotel and restaurant guide links from London, and a host of photo blogs from photography (but they will all be back within the month).

The question is not 'is the site commercial' so much as is this external link of more benefit to Misplaced Pages and its readers, or the owner of the site linked to. So we really should link http://www.amazon.com from the Amazon.com article, but not from every article that describes or references a book.

External collections of photographs are equally as difficult. A lot of the time they are just rubbish, but when the external photographs are really good, it is tempting to think that the reader of the Misplaced Pages article would like to see some better photographs of Egyptian pyramids or the like. However if we banned the link, and instead encourage the contributor to add some photographs under a free license, Misplaced Pages and its readers benefit more and the contributor can include a link back to their other photos on the image description page. This is an area of policy that could do with some firming up.

On a similar note, I wouldn't mind some input on the question of linking to 3rd party Wikis at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(policy)#External_links_to_3rd_party_Wikis. -- Solipsist 18:39, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since Misplaced Pages isn't primarilly an image collection, I'd argue that really good image galleries should definitely be allowed as external links. We should never use external links as a substitute for our own content, but we should certainly use external links to supplement what we have. Misplaced Pages isn't primarilly in the business of making image galleries, so sites that do host excellent image galleries are perfect candidates for external links. Isomorphic 20:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Userspace controversy

Please read and contribute to Misplaced Pages:Userspace policy proposal. There has been recent controversy (here, among other places) about what is and is not permissible in user space. It is important to assert which policies (if any) do apply in userspace, and to what extent, and what should be done about transgression. Radiant_* 10:10, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Marjorie Pay Hinckley

I am posting to protest the decision made by Mindspillage when closing this VfD debate. In this VfD, there were four votes for delete, two votes for keep, and one non-vote by User:RickK, the nominator, in which he proposed the possibility of a merge, but did not vote (this is both mine and Mindspillage's interpretation of RickK's comments). This resulted in a 2/3 majority concluding that the article should be deleted. Mindspillage turned it into a Merge and Redirect instead, despite no one actually voting for this position and only one person even suggesting it. When I asked her why on her talkpage, she responsed by saying that she found no consensus to delete (See her response on User talk:Indrian). I realize that not all admins agree on what exactly constitutes consensus, but this is the first time I have ever seen a 2/3 majority to delete called a lack of consensus. I would like this decision reviewed and respectfully propose that a clear consensus to delete was actually achieved. Indrian 21:14, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I second the motion. Ejrrjs | What? 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the record: I'd be very hesitant to delete with 2/3. Majority alone is not consensus—no one would promote an admin with a tally of (4/2/1), for example. As mentioned on Indrian's talk page, I would have kept for no consensus, but not liking to leave messes around for others to clean up I went ahead and merged it myself, as I've seen done in other similar cases. I won't delete this; as I am a newly-minted admin yet, if you do, please explain to me why. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Without reviewing the content at all, I will comment on the procedure. 2/3 is generally considered to be the minimum level of "concensus" necessary for deletion on VfD but we deliberately allow the deciding admin considerable discretion in the interpretation and identification of concensus. Remember that "Votes for deletion" is not really about "voting" at all. The comments are as important and often more important than the strict vote cast. A vote can be 10 to 1 against but if that last vote presents a fact-based argument supported by policy which invalidates the arguments presented by the previous delete voters, the deciding admin can override the strict vote count. Further, if the article changes during the discussion period (which we encourage), the deciding admin is granted great latitude to evaluate the comments in context of the varying versions. The deciding admin is encouraged (but not required) to show his/her work as the decision is made. This is, of course, a lot more important when exercising an override.

If any user disagrees with the decision rendered by a deciding admin, the usual approach is to use Votes for undeletion if the decision was "delete" or, if the decision was any variation of "keep", to wait a while then politely re-nominate the article for deletion. We don't generally encourage appeals on this page. It's just not set up for it. A pattern of abuse should be dealt with through the RfC process.

As a last process comment, the decision to "merge" is one which any editor can make or revert. It is not necessarily a binding decision of the VfD process. Having made the call that the decision is a "keep" in any form, the deciding admin immediately choose to act as an ordinary editor and be bold in creating the redirect. Rossami (talk) 22:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Since you admittedly did not read the materials, I feel the need to educate you on one point. She did not say the result of the debate was no consensus, she said the result of the debate was merge and redirect. She chose to ignore all the votes, keep or delete, and proclaim the suggestion by RickK to be the result of the debate. One person's comment versus six people's votes. That is a gross subversion of the VfD process whether the article were kept or not. Indrian 00:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think Hinckley's wife is notable, albeit perhaps only marginally, and I'd have voted to keep if I'd known about the debate. So I suppose that would've saved the article. I feel a little bit guilty. Someone may want to take that into consideration regarding what should be done with the article. Everyking 22:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• That is a ridiculous proposition. There was probably someone else out there who would have voted delete, thus countering your phantom vote here. This cannot be decided based on how someone who did not vote would have voted. Indrian 00:00, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, some people are of the opinion that a VfD is really just an informal sort of consensus building process, rather than a real vote. I disagree with that school of thought, but if one did agree with it, I think it would make sense to consider opinions after the fact as well. But all right, it's not such a big deal. Everyking 00:24, 29 Apr 2005
    • Yes, that is not such a big deal. What bothers me most is that the article should have been kept as is for lack of consensus or deleted because a majority wanted it gone. Instead, Mindspillage declared the official result of the vote as Merge and Redirect, which was coutner to every vote, keep and delete alike. Sure, she could have merged it afterwords as any user could, but she created an official result on the VfD page that was not supported by any voter. Indrian 00:31, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I would not delete on 66%, it's much too low. I look for something closer to 80%. No, you can't have a review, we leave the meaning of "consensus" up to the closer. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:42, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also I have closed VfDs with significantly higher support to delete than 66%, with "no consensus". In my opinion, a consensus to delete should be pretty solid. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:53, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • You know, I do not think there are all that many organization in the world that would consider needing an 80% vote to do anything. Probably because that would almost inevitably result in nothing of importance ever being done. Misplaced Pages is not an experiment in democracy, but it is should not be a dictatorship subject to the whims of individual administrators either. I think the admins need to get together and make a policy on what exactly constitutes a consensus. Whether that is 50%, or 66%, or 75%, or even 80% is not important as long as there is a consistent standard. The current system allows any admin with a personal agenda on an article up for VfD to track the debate closely and then move in and delcare no consensus when other admins who were impartial would consider that a consensus had been reached. This works the other way too, as an admin could also strongly dislike an article and make sure to move in and delete it with 66% consensus. Sure, there is the undelete procedure or the possibility of nominating the article again, but that just puts us back on the same roller coaster for another ride. Any judicial system needs to be based on consistency and finality. The VfD process as it stands accords neither. Indrian 00:13, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Adding my own two cents, I think that a vote of exactly 2:1 for deletion is not consensus to delete, and I think Mindspillage's decision to merge and redirect, as per RickK's suggestion, was a wise one. The separate article on Marjorie Pay Hinckley is gone, and some potentially useful information which used to reside there has now been added to another article. If someone feels that information is non-notable, they are free to delete it from the Hinckley article; they can also list the redirect for deletion. Frankly I think the Hinckley article is improved by the addition of the information on his wife. Antandrus 23:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can find no fault with Mindspillage's decision here. Four out of six votes is not enough for a clear consensus, so the default action is 'keep', and her decision to go ahead with the suggested merge is certainly not unreasonable. Kelly Martin 01:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Too bad. This approach will certainly discourage me to "vote" in the future, as the majority opinion does count for nothing. Anyway , I've just took from Gordon B. Hinckley the non relevant references to Ms Hinckley life. Ejrrjs | What? 23:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OTOH to say The result of the debate was merge and redirect is pretty misleading Ejrrjs | What? 23:19, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One more thing, and I'll go to sleep. Rossami seems to feel it is wrong that we are here questioning an Administrator decision. Please note that User:Mindspillage sent us here (I didn't even know that this page existed).

Also, the fifth paragraph of this page states that

(...) any user of Misplaced Pages may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message

Ejrrjs | What? 23:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think 6 votes where several different opinions are presented is really enough to make either a keep or a delete decision. Just one more vote would've swayed the numbers considerably. Merging is a compromise. There's no seperate article about the wife anymore, while info is contained elsewhere and free for editing and discussion by anyone else. Making the decision to merge is a freedom Mindspillage has as (s)he closed the debate. Why is merging so bad even if it wasn't suggested at all? Mgm| 09:26, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I think Mindspillage is to be congratulated for making a sensible decision. Six (and a half) votes is far to few for a real consensus to emerge, and the redirect and merge balances the desire to lose the page with the wish to keep the information. Filiocht | Blarneyman 10:17, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Mindspillage used her common sense. Three cheers for that! Filiocht is exactly right -- the page was deleted, effectively, but the info was kept. A great result. Oh, and I note that Rick suggested merging in the first place. All good! Grace Note 10:25, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Once again: how do you infer The result of the debate was merge and redirect. from 1 merge, 2 keeps and 4 deletes. This is a wrong decision and should be recognized as such, what's the big deal with that? We are all human beings, right? Ejrrjs | What? 12:47, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It was the wrong decision from your POV, it was a good one from mine. As you say, we are all human, so we are all different. In real life, where consensus is not forthcoming, compromise sometimes has to do. There it is, and one just has to ask onself "In the greater scheme of things, does it really matter?" I just looked out the window here and it appears that the world is still turning, which is maybe an answer of sorts. Have a nice weekend. Filiocht | Blarneyman 13:59, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
• If that is the substance of your disagreement, Ejrrjs, I will change the page to say the result was "keep (no consensus)", and add a little note to say that I have merged it. (Technically, the "result" of a VfD leaves the closer at liberty to interpret the comments—which are not strictly votes—according to discretion and good sense.) Which will change absolutely nothing of any consequence, take a minute or two, and slightly inflate my edit count. In fact, I have now done so. Does this settle the matter? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, it was exactly what I meant. Ejrrjs | What? 15:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My two cents: In my mind, there were only 7 votes -- not enough to effectively judge that there was a consensus to delete. I think Mindspillage did the right thing to do a merge. Zzyzx11 | Talk 15:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Again, a process comment. Low vote count does not automatically invalidate the discussion and does not automatically indicate a failure to reach concensus. I have closed some at a mere 2:1 including my own opinion. Misplaced Pages is not an exercise in democracy and we are all encouraged not to vote on everything. If you glance at a VfD discussion and agree with the direction of the decision, you are not expected to chime in with a "me too" vote. In fact, we actively discourage it. A lack of votes may mean that the vote went unnoticed but with all the announcements and with the number of experienced people who actively monitor the full VfD page, it is generally reasonable to assume that silence implied agreement. This has been often discussed at Misplaced Pages talk:Votes for deletion and can be found in many of the archive pages. This is, of course, a decision where the deciding admin is expected to exercise his/her discretion and judgment based on the specific facts at hand. Rossami (talk) 16:05, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have a process comment as well, though I'm dipping my foot in late in the game. There is a reason why delete is the only action that is admin-only: because deleting a page is a fairly severe and final action (though undeletion is possible by another admin). Only admins (which I'm not) have the knowledge and experience to judge whether an article should truly be deleted, while other editors are free to do any non-delete vote closing. While a VfD isn't strictly a vote, you should still vote because the vote closers read the comments of the voters. I agree with Rossami; a single vote (keep or delete) can mean more than other votes if the comments are valid or mention something that the other voters didn't consider. This can include a single vote by you, Ejrrjs. Yes, consensus is important, but that doesn't necessarily mean vote counting. I remember closing a particular VfD that had many people (including me) voting delete on an article, but the original author requesting a userfy. Since the article itself was valid (but made redundant by a more concise section in another article), I userfied the article. Did I go against consensus? Perhaps. But vote closers are supposed to use their own discretion and judgement along with the votes and comments made in the actual VfD. --Deathphoenix 15:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Netoholic arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to Netoholic. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic 2#Final decision for further details and the full decision. In particular, please could all admins note the following request from the arbitration committee: " During the mentorship, editors are asked to make the mentors aware of problems, and administrators are asked to check with the mentors before blocks that would otherwise be according to policy. " Thanks -- sannse (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You ever notice how ArbCom decisions always turn out really badly for the accused? It's just a question of more bad or less bad. This one, well, he can still edit and he doesn't have to write any essays, so I guess he got off easy. But nobody ever goes through the ArbCom and gets a decision like "We can't really see that this person did anything particularly wrong." If there is such a case, point me to it. Everyking 08:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

If they can't see that the accused did anything particularly wrong, then the case is normally rejected. See the archive of rejected cases for statements like "no case to answer" and "no evidence of wrongdoing presented". Thryduulf 09:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I am aware. However, it concerns me that anybody who has a case against them accepted seems to be automatically doomed. It suggests a lack of fairness. At least to me. Everyking 10:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

As I already noted below, and you notably responded to only half of, this statement is simply factually incorrect. In both the noted cases, the accuser turned out to be the one penalised, mainly or entirely. There are other examples, but you appear not to be interested in doing your homework before making such statements. Perhaps you could check the archives? - David Gerard 01:07, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

For obvious reasons, Snowspinner doesn't count. He's the prosecutor. Everyking 03:14, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

John Gohde vs Snowspinner (brought by John Gohde). Lir vs Snowspinner (brought by Lir).

(Either Snowspinner is the secret master of the arb com, or he might actually be more right than wrong with a tendency to attract the ire of the socially maladjusted. WHO KNOWS?!) - David Gerard 09:59, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

That's right. If you don't like Snowspinner, you're socially maladjusted. There has to be an explanation beyond the possibility that he himself is a problem. Everyking 10:18, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Why am I not surprised that Everyking would immediately come here to complain about an arbcom decision? Have you ever met an arbcom decision you liked? RickK 23:58, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of any I liked; I can think of some that seemed somewhat reasonable, although I think the ArbCom has a disastrously high error rate. Everyking 03:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You ever notice how Everyking's statements always come out critical of others? It's just a question of more or less critical. This one, well, he's not directly impugning anyone's good intentions, so I guess we got off easy. But no tough decision ever gets made where Everyking says "Yes, this was exactly the right decision, and I'm glad Misplaced Pages has dedicated volunteers like you." If such a case exists, point me to it. Isomorphic 01:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

As a community we must do more right than wrong, or I don't think we'd still exist, let alone be thriving. It seems to me that others can be critical of certain users all day long, provided those users have been marginalized to some extent or another, but if instead of joining in the beatings you speak up and say, "Hey, I think you've broken enough bones already", that's just an intolerable form of criticism. Everyking 03:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggested template for POV pushers

What do people think about using this as a {{test}} template for new/anon editors that are making repeated POV edits? I know I've typed it on to a few talk pages recently, it also points out a useful policy that new editors may not be aware of that as far as I know isn't covered on any of the test templates:

Misplaced Pages has a strong neutral point of view policy, if you wish to make controversial edits please discuss them on the articles talk page. Continued insertion of POV opinions into articles may be considered vandalism, it is likely that your changes will be reverted and you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages

--nixie 07:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Like {{3RR}} (I only thought of checking for that after I found myself repeatedly saying things of this kind), this sort of thing has to be used with care. Simple vandalism is easily identified, but why 3RR violations and POV material insertion are not allowed is harder to communicate.

This template could be useful for the very clear-cut cases ("George W. Bush is an imperialist mass murderer") that nobody should be expected to get away with, but then again, you can file this under simple vandalism as well, as it's clearly done in bad faith.

OK, all the naysaying aside for a moment, we can take a shot at this. In the spirit of being bold, I've created {{POVwarning}} where we can edit this to suitability. Since this is a "if you don't like it, you're free not to use it" template, I don't see this as reckless. JRM · Talk 11:25, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

I'm extremely nervous of this template, as it may well just become a weapon to throw in POV wars. Why is the 3RR stuff included? There is no necessary causual link between newbies/anons inserting POV materials and their getting involved in revert wars, or if there is, I have yet to see the data. And there is certainly no clear policy on banning newbies/anons for POV pushing, or at least nothing I can find in the policy. A personalised message, suited to the exact circumstances, would serve much better, IMHO. Filiocht | Blarneyman 12:43, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I've taken the liberty of copying your remark to Template talk:POVwarning. Please continue further discussion there. JRM · Talk 12:56, 2005 May 5 (UTC)

You might want to make it grammatically correct. Those are four independent clauses and need more than a period and two commas to separate them. Let's keep our templates literate. alteripse 00:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You might want to look at {{POVwarning}}. JRM · Talk 03:06, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Ok, Mr. Languageperson gives it a pass. alteripse 02:01, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

New dynamic proxy IP block

I got a message from a user on the 207.200.64.0/18 block (Netscape, which is another AOL property). He had been affected by a block I made against 207.200.116.203, but says he didn't do the edit in question. If this can be verified, the range 207.200.64.0 - 207.200.127.255 should be added to the boilerplate at Special:Blockip as a range over which only brief blocks should be made. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:42, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

If he is savvy enough to complain, he should be able to register. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 12:49, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

This is a bit beside the issue, because if this can hit one person, it can hit lots. I don't think promising to give a canned reply of "well, you should register anyway" to all who happen to be savvy enough is better than being careful with blocks on this range. JRM · Talk 13:00, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Sure. If he wants to. However it is our site policy to avoid long blocks on private shared proxy ranges. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Note that while this one user could easily register, others who are not so "savvy" may be left in the cold. This is why we're careful with range blocks in the first place. JRM · Talk 13:02, 2005 May 6 (UTC)

Is there a way to check when a user registered?

Given the recent spate of impersonation, I thought it prudent to check the user list to see if there were any names close to mine. Of course my current account, User:Knowledge Seeker, and my previous briefly used account, User:Knowledgeseeker, are there. I was also surprised to find User:Knowledge seeker, User:KnowledgeSeeker, User:Knowledgeseeker2004, and User:KnowlegeSeeker (and even User:Knowledge lover), none of whom seem to have made any contributions. It is quite possible that I registered one of these by accident and forgot about it, although I don't think that's the case. I also realize that my user name is made of two common English words and is a common phrase so I may not be the only one to think of it (indeed, I was surprised to find it untaken when I registered). I am curious, though, if these names were registered before I joined Misplaced Pages. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I happen to have looked into this subject recently for reasons completely unrelated. Technically it's not possible to tell when an account was registered, but it is possible to tell when the user last logged in/out, which may be good enough in this case. You do need database access for that, though. It's possible a malicious/benevolent user deliberately registered these accounts to facilitate/prevent impersonation of your account. JRM · Talk 06:39, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Thanks; I hadn't thought of that. I was wondering if I (or another administrator) should preemptively block these accounts, before they gain page move ability or are used for other vandalism/impersonation. But I wouldn't want to catch any well-meaning user with an autoblock, so I guess I'll just leave them for now. — Knowledge Seeker দ 18:57, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

you could register any variations that haven't been already created yourself to prevent malicious others doing so. Thryduulf 20:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't reccomend doing this. There are so many variations on a name that it is futile. BrokenSegue 21:44, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of only ones like replacing lowercase l with uppercase I in names, or introducing/removing spaces, but differences like changing numbers I agree is futile. Thryduulf 22:51, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Heya all.

Dunno if anyone is interested, but I'll be editing between 5:30PM - 6:00PM EST (that's 07:30 - 08:00 UTC) most nights now. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That's too early! Inter\ 10:54, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

• Do my eyes deceive me? Ta bu shi da yu has re-entered the building! Mgm| 17:54, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• And there was much rejoicing! Isomorphic 05:12, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Uncertified RfC

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Danny was created on April 18th, and has failed to get a second certification since then. Thus, by RfC policy, it should be deleted ("If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page, the page will be deleted"). However, in the past, some people have objected to deleting uncertified RfCs, so I'm posting it here for some discussion. Radiant_* 08:09, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism investigations

A couple of pages on my watchlist were recently vandalized. In addition to fixing the vandalism, I started to check the user's contribution list and reviewed their other edits for vandalism. So far, they have mostly been anonymous IPs with a pattern of returning to commit vandalism every few months. As a notice to future reader/editors doing the same thing, I've started adding a notice on the anon user page saying how far I took my investigation. My hypothesis is that if we can flag where the last investigation ended, the future investigator can start from there and won't have so much rework.

Right now, I'm using a variation of this notice. Is there a better template already out there? If not, can anyone help me improve this wording? Rossami (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

==Vandalism investigation== A user from this IP address has recently been committing vandalism against Misplaced Pages. The edit history shows that this IP has also been used by well-intentioned Wikipedians making quality edits. The edits up to and including the edit at <timestamp> to <articlename> have been reviewed and the inappropriate entries have been reverted. Future investigations may begin here. ~~~~

Block not working?

From the block log:

08:55, May 9, 2005 UtherSRG blocked "User:38.139.36.117" with an expiry time of 1 week (talk:Main Page vandalism)

But as you can see the user's contributions show a few bits of vandalism on the 10th and 11th. I reblocked for another week before I was aware the previous block. There were no unblocks in the meantime. What gives? - Taxman 17:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

What's going on with deletions?

When I try to delete a page, I get an error message twice before the deletion takes. When I try to look at a deleted page, it takes FOREVER before the page comes up. No other edits are taking this much time. RickK 23:42, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure. It's working for me now (two minutes after your post) but I was having a similar problem yesterday. Antandrus 23:45, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting bug slow downs on deletions and checking my watchlist--nixie 23:49, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Same problem here. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 00:11, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I get the same thing. At this point, I give it a few seconds, then cancel and try again until it goes through. Everyking 00:44, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Yup, similar deal here. One error, and then things would delete normally. Oddly it seemed to be exactly one error. No more no less. Every delete was taking two tries. Isomorphic 04:38, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It occasionally happens to me, too, but about half of my deletions go through without problems. I didn't check the MediaWiki sources or study the setup, but as I understand it, this is just an indication of server overload. If the database request times out (i.e., the servers are so slow that they can't perform the request within some reasonable time, which itself is probably defined by the MediaWiki software or its configuration), the transaction is cancelled and you get an error message. For deletions, just retry; for edits, check the page history or your own contribution list to see whether the edit took despite the error message. Lupo 06:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

A wild guess, but databases are often limited by hard disk I/O. On the first try you probably succed in getting most of the needed database structures into RAM cache on the DB server (but the transaction doesn't quite make it in time). On the second try the needed DB structures (or most of it) are already in the RAM cache and the transaction finishes quickly. Thue | talk 08:13, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Over the last few days I've been trying to empty Category: Candidates for speedy deletion once a day. I've had this problem for about one in three deletes, sometimes taking up to four attempts. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:32, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Worse today: three out of seven gave problems. Filiocht | Blarneyman 08:46, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

It's definitely a load issue, and I don't think the number of retries is anything but mostly random - I've had to retry up to 5 or so times on some of the redirs I deleted this morning. (I.e. there's not some bug so that the first one always fails, and the second always succeeds.) Noel (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

It's still a problem. Not a big problem, because I just keep trying till it happens, but it's strange that only deletes have this problem. RickK 07:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion (e.g on VfD) housekeeping

Can I remind people when they delete pages (e.g. from VfD) to please hit "What links here", and check for things that point to the page you're deleting? Redirects to it need to be deleted as well (we've had a flock of redirects to VfD'd entries on RfD recently), and it would be good to check for dangling links in articles as well. Thanks! Noel (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• I've suggested that a dangling redirect pointing to a VfD'd article should be valid candidate for speedy deletion over on Misplaced Pages talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. What think you? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 23:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • They're already speedyable. The point is that it's a lot more work if the person doing the VfD doesn't do them when they do the page; someone else has to find them, and (probably) list them on RfD to get them deleted. Noel (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Block-compress deletion bug

This seems to have been fixed. Anyone know anything about this? Noel (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

• Don't know about it being fixed, but if it is, someone should delete the stuff that's tagged with a pending deletion tag. 82.172.23.66 22:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • There was a bot running last night to delete some of the stuff, I don't know how much got deleted. 66.60.159.190 16:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Which bot?! An admin bot automatically deleting pages sounds a bit dangerous to me, no? What if I were to tag an arbitrary page with {{pending deletion}}? Would it delete that, or did it make sure that the page is protected first? -Frazzydee|✍ 13:07, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
      • As explained on User:Pending deletion script, The script uses a static copy of that list, so adding articles now will not cause them to be deleted. If a page were tagged by a non-admin before the static copy were made it would be deleted, which could have happened, but seems unlikely. Thue | talk 14:45, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Move of Current events

I've reported this on ViP as well but seeing as it is a high profile page, I'm posting it here Shade1 (talk · contribs) has moved Current events to Weird events. I'm not sure whether as a normal user I can just use the move function to move it back without screwing stuff up. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:06, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you can. The only problem is that it leaves a redirect behind, but that's harmless. Tag the redirect for speedy deletion afterwards.-gadfium 01:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Wasn't it protected against page moves? Mgm| 12:01, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

No, but it is now. User:Rdsmith4/Sig 23:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Closing of VfD on "Maps of Korea"

Could someone take a second look at Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Maps of Korea? By my count, there are eleven votes of "Delete the page, move the images to Commons", on the grounds of Misplaced Pages is not an image gallery, and five votes of "Keep". SimonP, who closed the debate, interpreted this as "Keep". --Carnildo 21:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him directly why he decided the way he apparently did? He won't bite you! Lupo 22:26, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

With only 69% supporting the delete, I don't think this can be called a consensus to delete. Pcb21| Pete 13:25, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

• Since there is no official rule on what percentage merits a 'consensus' here, this is open to interpretation from individual admins. Some will 'delete' at 70%, some won't. Radiant_* 16:08, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

Transmembrane potential difference

Could someone move the article transmembrane potential difference to membrane potential, as the last term is much more often used and denotes the same thing. I tried to do it by using "move" but seems that it should be done manually. Thanks. --Eleassar777 12:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

You need to take this to Misplaced Pages:Requested moves, and go through the discussion process - we don't have the specialist knowledge to assess whether the proposed rename is a good idea. Noel (talk) 22:12, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

POV-pushers with DHCP pools

So once again (see, e.g WP:AN/I#User:SummerFR) we are having problems with POV-pushers coming in as anons from DHCP pools, which make it a lot of work to deal with them (and there's always the issue that a range block might impact innocents). So here's a suggestion: add another flag to articles which, when set, allows them to be edited only from logged-in accounts. We would set this flag only on articles which are the target of POV-pushers, and they'd be then forced to sign up for an account, which we could block. (Yes, they can sign up for another account, but that's still a certain amount of work, and we already have sock-puppets to deal with.) Yes, yes, I know this is a change to our policy of allowing people to edit without logging in, but it's a minimal change. Also, you can think of it as being a milder form of Misplaced Pages:Protection - and like protecting, we can always clear it after a while, once the problem editor has given up. Noel (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

GFDL non-compliance

I've been corresponding with a Wikipedian (User:Amerindianarts) who is upset that his work is being ripped off by another site. Specifically, the site http://language.school-explorer.com appears to be using our content as hidden text in java code, so that it shows up in google searches but not on the page.

When the user emailed the site to complain, they responded by trying to blank the Misplaced Pages article! (See the history of Zuni language.) Between their blatently abusive use of our content, and their attempt to respond by blanking our article, this is something we should not allow. This is a bit more egregious than your typical non-compliance case, IMO

Also, we need to create a good system for GFDL enforcement. We have a well-defined system to avoid infringing on other peoples' copyright, but none for defending the copyright of our own writers, and that is embarassing. Isomorphic 03:20, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You can see the ripped text by looking at the google cache. If warnings and threats don't work what power do we really have? We don't have a legal team to protect the content. I'd say just send more emails and hope they get scared. BrokenSegue 04:25, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I didn't understand. This website is mirroring all of our pages in this way even our ipblock list. This is quite a serious violation. BrokenSegue 04:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, and made more serious by hiding the fact that they do it. They obviously know they're in violation. We can't let this go. Isomorphic 04:49, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Although I agree that the blanking was an inappropriate act, I don't see that they're in violation of copyright. It clearly says "." at the top of the page, and has a link back to our Zuni page at the bottom of the page. RickK 04:59, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

The violation is that you'll never see that notice if you go to their site. The text shows up in google, but if you click through to their site, it doesn't show up. Try it for yourself. Isomorphic 05:40, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I never get to the article when clicking through, and I can't figure out how to find it when I go the site. All I get is the Home page. RickK 09:02, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's the point. That's how we think they designed it. The articles are hidden in java code and never actually display. But google can see them, so they bring in traffic. Isomorphic 09:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think they are hidden in Java code - I looked at the HTML source I got back from clicking through to the site from a Google search, and the article text was nowhere to be seen. I suspect that they do is look at the source of the query, and if it's Google or Yahoo or whatever they give them back the Misplaced Pages page content, and if it's someone radom they give them their advertising page. Noel (talk) 04:17, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Is there any value in making Google aware of this specific sort of gaming? Pcb21| Pete 11:08, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Good thought. Yes, it would be worthwhile. Google tries to tweak the algorithm against various abuses. How would one go about making them aware, though? They have talked with us in the past.. perhaps we should ask Jimbo to send them a note? They pay attention to him, for sure. Isomorphic 16:53, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I think this is the correct page to report abuses like this. Should Jimbo send it? Or just anyone? BrokenSegue 17:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

the page for yahoo BrokenSegue 17:30, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I have submitted spam reports to both Google and Yahoo. Isomorphic 16:34, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I might add that this article is listed on my website, stating that it is freeware to be used and not abused with a link to the Wiki article and referencing GDFL and gnu.org, so copyright infringement is a stretch. However, whatever language school explorer is doing is abusive according to GFDL, and is dangerous for intellectual property rights all across the web. I have contacted Google twice in the past week in regard to this issue and they are usually very consciencious taking action towards those spamming the search engines and using hidden text. I think that perhaps a word from Jimbo would carry more weight. It may not be java code. It could be an ROR format where only the robots can find their text pages. That is purely speculation since searches for their ror.xml and articles.xml still bring up the home page (without a 404 error). Amerindianarts May 15, 2005, 18:14 CST, I think. What is UTC?

• Oops. I just noticed that this page is for administrators only. Sorry.Amerindianarts

• • Actually, it isn't. As some text buried somewhere near the top of the page says However, any user of Misplaced Pages may post here. We're not an elite club, just normal editors with some additional technical means and responsibilities. Anyone is free to use it to talk to admins as a group. Please feel free to leave a message. --Calton | Talk 00:02, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Special:Upload message is wrong

If you do not want to use the GFDL, you must upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.

This is nearly the opposite of what it should say. Suggested change:

If you do not want to use a free license, you must not upload your files to the Wikimedia Commons.

where WIkipedia:free license is either written or points to a suitable explanation page. Lupin 20:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

What he is trying to say is that all images uploaded to the english wikipedia must be under the GFDL. If you want your image to only be licensed under fx a creative commons license you can't upload it here, but can upload it to the commons and have a choice of a free license (I don't know if this is official policy, but that's what is it trying to say). I agree that the current wording can be read the wrong way.

You can edit the message at MediaWiki:Uploadtext. In generel, system messages can be found via menu->Special pages->System messages. Thue | talk 22:36, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That can't be all true because fairuse isn't GFDL compliant. Also you can upload images under GFDL compliant coyprights like creative commons (or PD) and not license under GFDL. At least that was my impression. BrokenSegue 22:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Proposal to amend date terminology per NPOV policy

I know admins are not an elite group, but they do represent a considerable amount of experience and dedication. This is just to inform people that I want Misplaced Pages to accept a general policy that BC and AD represent a Christian Point of View and should be used only when they are appropriate, that is, in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view. In other contexts, I argue that they violate our NPOV policy and we should use BCE and CE instead. See Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/BCE-CE Debate for the detailed proposal. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:52, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Your original section name gave the wrong impression about what you were trying to do, so changed it from "Proposal to amend NPOV policy" to something that I hope is more accurate. Noel (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• Wow, 51 votes 'for' and 59 'against' and a page protect against vandalism, all within two days... this is even worse than the WP:POINT semi-debate. Radiant_* 16:53, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

• • And without any actual vandalism, to boot! Pcb21| Pete 18:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Help merging pages

Hello, can I please request admin help regarding the discussion here: User talk:NevilleDNZ#Duplicate talk page?. The user accidentally duplicated his talk page and now wants to merge the two fragments and their edit histories. Thanks in advance for your help -- FP 08:36, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Incidents

Reporting of all types of incidents other than 3RR violations (e.g. informal complaints over the behaviour of an admin, blocked users evading blocks, etc) is done on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (shortcut WP:AN/I).

Three-revert rule violations

Reporting of Three-revert rule violations is done at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

Chris_73

Could someone stop him please? He provoking edit wars and using a Wikibot (reverts). --Witkacy 23:11, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

I am enforcing community consensus as per Talk:Gdansk/Vote. Witkacy insists on having Polish only names for polish places, even though there was a large majority for double naming. Also, I am not using a bot. -- Chris 73 Talk 23:16, May 16, 2005 (UTC)

Chris 73 is going far beyond the implications of Talk:Gdansk/Vote and is apparently on a quest to add German names to every single article on Misplaced Pages that uses a name of certain Polish cities. I find his activity deeply disturbing, as he is an Administrator on Misplaced Pages and here seems to be abusing his powers and the trust that the community has put in him.

Here is an example: Lacznosciowiec Szczecin, an article about a women's basketball team in Szczecin which Chris 73 feels must include the German name Stettin in its very first sentence.

Reading Talk:Gdansk/Vote it is clear to me that such an article does not fall under the results of the vote as (going item by item):

• 1. It is not even about Gdansk!!!
• 2. It has nothing to do with the history of Szczecin.
• 3. It is not a biography article.
• 4. It is not an article about a location.

Chris 73, please stop. Revert wars are one of the downsides of Misplaced Pages, and you are encouraging them. Balcer 04:46, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages administration