Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:59, 17 February 2008

Archives

Current Late 2004 and onwards March 2006 and onwards November 2006 and onwards July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June–July 2009 August–December 2009 January–June 2010 July 2010 and onwards

Image Undeletion Request Image:Marshall2.jpg

In order to review and address any concerns about the image Image:Marshall2.jpg, please un-delete it as soon as possible. Thank you. Cato2000 (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks East! Very much appreciate all of your help here. I'll do some digging on authorship. The date of the photo may make it tough if it really is 1954 (according to the website). It appears to be published in his autobiography as well.Cato2000 (talk) 15:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Image:Marshall2.jpg

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Image:Marshall2.jpg. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cato2000 (talk) 01:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

Cheers. --Nate1481(/_c) 17:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Probation question

Hi. Sorry to bother you, but I was wondering about the status of probation/mentorship for Whig (talk · contribs). Is this user still under any sort of probation or mentorship agreement with you? I wasn't entirely clear. MastCell  21:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Zoporific

Would you mind unblocking Zoporific. It seems to be another roommate situation. I think we should let them both be unblocked, start a conversation at WP:ANI and try to sort this out. Jehochman 00:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, these accounts were pretty clearly used in tandem to edit-war, and have checkuser confirmation that they're at the same computer. Such accounts are generally treated as socks, whether they claim to be roommates or not (e.g. Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Starwood#Who.27s_who). I'm not against discussing on WP:AN/I, but I suspect we're going to see an upsurge in "my roommate did it" after the recent JOG situation. MastCell  00:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we will need to come up with an addendum to policy. For instance, if your roommate also edits Misplaced Pages, you will be treated as the same user so don't tag team edit war. This may need to be made more clear. Jehochman 00:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

How about "If your roommate also edits Misplaced Pages, don't take turns sitting at the computer, logging in and out, and making the same controversial revert in tandem?" :) MastCell  00:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. I couldn't find an autoblock, did one of you already take care of it? east.718 at 02:48, February 15, 2008

I get an error when running the autoblock search tool,and have no idea how to find them otherwise. Jehochman 03:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the autoblock tool's been down for months. I just go to Special:Ipblocklist and search for blocks made by me until I find the original block I'm looking for. east.718 at 03:16, February 15, 2008

Zoporific II

Hi East,

The discussion seems to have fragmented to 10 different talk pages, so not sure where to say this, but since you unblocked the account, I'll choose your talk page as the place that's as good as any other. Also, you appear to be the only person involved who's edited recently, so you might actually still be online.

If I thought there was a possibility that this was two different people, I would have handled this much differently. I think people are focusing too much on the Checkuser evidence, and not on the extreme similarity in editing pattern, style, interest, and timing.

I've seen the discussion above about doing something about the "my roommate did it" excuse. I understand that we need to settle the issue of how to handle roommates, partners, and spouses editing from the same computer, or else we might as well skip checkuser all together. But in this particular case, this isn't an issue. I really can't imagine that these are two separate people.

I don't have some vendetta against this person, and in my mind the most important thing was that they not become an admin. If people want their Zoporific account and their Snocrates account both being able to edit, I guess I'll drop it. At the very least, both accounts will be closely watched now. But if anyone questions my judgement in handling this the way I did, I'll ask Jehochman to re-open the SPP report (I was a ltitle surprised it closed so quickly), and I'll spend my time documenting in extreme detail why I think they are the same actual person. If you'd like to settle it in your own mind, spend a little time looking at the content of what each account is editing, the editing style and the pattern of editing times listed in the subpage of the SSP report, not just the Checkuser evidence.

Let me know if there's a more appropriate place to discuss this further; I'll look in the morning to see it the ANI discussion mentioned above has started or not. Or, if no one is questioning how I handled this, like I said I can live with both accounts being active, and I won't need to discuss this further anywhere else. --barneca (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, barneca. In my opinion the sock should remain blocked, but I'm really quite antipathic about all this. Jehochman appeared to have the ball to me, so I unblocked upon his kind request. :-) He's probably watching my talkpage now and will get back to you, but if he doesn't I'm sure a quick poke will do it. I'm not really aware of where else this discussion is going on aside from AN/I, but you should probably post there since it's likely the highest traffic place it could be. east.718 at 03:38, February 15, 2008

Yeah, actually to be honest, this has very little to do with the fact you unblocked the account, and alot to do with the fact that everyone else seems to be offline, and I saw you'd edited 5 minutes ago, and I wanted a little human feedback on this before I went to bed myself. I hope/assume I was clear that I'm not upset you unblocked; I saw Jehochman's request, that's fine. I'll look for a more appropriate place to follow up in the morning (my time). Later. --barneca (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

People who spend a lot of time together may talk and sound alike. For the moment, it really doesn't matter. The two accounts were tag team edit warring on an article where one of them had been blocked twice previously for edit warring. That is enough to warrant action, whether it's one editor or two working together. At this point, I think this situation should be presented at ANI, now that both accounts are unblocked and are able to respond. Let's discuss what happened and decide what follow up steps are needed. (An SSP report isn't a good place for community discussion, which is why I closed it rapidly.) Jehochman 03:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than one being indefed, I imagine that both receiving a modest block for edit warring might be fairer. Perhaps we can let them off for time served and aggravation endured. Jehochman 03:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh hi Jehochman, for some reason I wasn't edit conflicted when I posted right above. Somewhere else is fine, and later is fine, I just wanted to check in before I went to bed. East, I'll get off your talk page now. --barneca (talk) 03:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your block.js

Could you please edit your javascript so that it wont include itself in Category:Tor_proxies_blocked_on_Wikipedia.

Something like:

var lang = new Array(
	']-only account',
	'] violation',
	']',
	'Abusing ]',
	'{{' + 'blocked proxy}}',
	'{{' + 'tor}}',
	'{{' + 'UsernameBlocked}}',
	'{{' + 'UsernameHardBlocked}}'
);

should do the trick. Q 02:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image category trackers

Hi, sorry to bug you while you are busy. If you have the time to spare, could you update your disputed images divided by category lists with images in the categories Category:Disputed non-free images as of 12 February 2008, Category:Disputed non-free images as of 13 February 2008, Category:Disputed non-free images as of 14 February 2008 because more than 10,000 images have been tagged. Your category trackers are a great help in working through the image backlog. Bláthnaid 11:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Bláthnaid 14:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User talk:UliEkMuDkiPz?

He's asking about his username block. I have to say, this one confuses me, too. - Revolving Bugbear 20:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"So I herd u liek mudkipz" is a pornographic troll meme from 4chan. east.718 at 20:18, February 15, 2008

I'm almost sorry I asked. *grin* Thanks for clearing that up. - Revolving Bugbear 20:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Communication

Perhaps you should be telling this to Whig, not MastCell. I don't think Whig agrees with you wrt the first three restrictions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image cats

Random question, is AWeenieMan using some implementation of your scripts? The naming structure is very similar and it appears he stopped updating his today...right when you started updating yours. The reason I ask is that his method of breaking it down into (Usage 1) images used only on 1 mainspace article and (Usage 2 and 3) used in 2 or more articles, was a really easy way to blitz through a list. If he has handed it back off to you, could you adopt that method? MBisanz 01:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not worth it then. Obviously he has some special system of scanning (given the auto-updating and what not), so I'll just bug him. Doesn't slow me down that much in any event. MBisanz 01:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I talked to AWM and he's traveling which is why there are less frequent updates. So I'll get the best of both worlds, your list of Symbols and his of logos. thanks. MBisanz 02:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 58 supporting, 0 opposing, and 2 neutral. I hope to demonstrate that your trust in me is rightly placed and am always open to critiques and suggestions. Cheers. MBisanz 03:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me!

You deleted a photo seconds after I uploaded it. I didn't even get a chance to edit the inaccurate license information which was your basis for deleting it. Robert K S (talk) 06:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:1966GriffinAward.jpg. Robert K S (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If images for that license type are auto-deleted instantly anyway, why is that license type even a valid option? Robert K S (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is that once you choose that an image isn't your own work, it doesn't give the option to select a public domain license. In my case, I was uploading an image for an older gentleman who isn't Misplaced Pages-savvy. The image is perfectly public domain, but I wasn't given an option to select that, and before I could even modify the license or do anything to prove that the image was free, it was zapped. I hope you can see my consternation and the reason why I think something's wrong with the system. Even "10 minutes" isn't enough time to "write a letter containing proof yada yada yada to the Wikimedia Foundation" or whatever other rigmarole is necessitated. Robert K S (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The image I uploaded is "donated" but it's not from a web site somewhere. The gentleman took it of his trophy at my request so that it might be uploaded to Misplaced Pages, and gave his express consent when I said it would be put in the public domain. Robert K S (talk) 20:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale

Um, is there a reason you deleted Fair use rationale? It was used by FURME in several thousand edit summaries to explain what was going on. I see it was a cross-namespace issue, but haven't exceptions been made in the past? MBisanz 08:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Old discussion not finished?

Hi East. Glad to see you back. I know it might be a touchy subject for you, but now you are back would you have time to respond to the unfinished discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Response? Feel free to copy it out of the archive to here, if you want. I appreciate that you might not have seen my reply there, so even if you don't want to reply (and obviously I'd prefer it if you did), I wanted to get something on the record. See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Old discussion not finished?. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've got any questions, just ask me here - the discussion there got derailed a week ago. :-) east.718 at 12:12, February 16, 2008

OK. Here's a quote of what I said over there:

Hi East. Thanks for the apology and for explaining what happened. Hopefully you will be around for long enough to reply to this, but if not, then I guess it will have to wait until you get back.

• "It was very bad form of me to just unilaterally do this" - can we have assurances that you won't act unilaterally like this again?

• "I've always been of a mind to just get things done" - in future, will you discuss things like this before doing them? There is boldness and then there is recklessness. No harm done this time, but what about next time?

• "but it won't be useful as I'm disappearing for a long while" - the question is whether you will repeat the misjudgments made this time round, so this thread will be useful in determining that - sure, it can wait until you get back, but the attitude that going away for a long time means that the possibility of sanctions (even if it is only a thread like this with lots of criticism of your judgment) should be discounted, is, well, rather strange.

Then there are the three points I raised above:

• (1) discussion of the actions - did you in fact discuss this with anyone? I thought you had discussed it with Betacommand, but it seems now that you didn't.

• (2) the actions themselves - I think it is clear now what you did - can we have assurances that you won't add dummy edits like this in future, or do page merges like this in future, without discussing it first? Especially given that Tim Starling has said he will block anyone who does this?

• (3) the response afterwards - if you do do something unilaterally in future (boldness is sometimes good), can we have reassurances that you will make every attempt to be around in the aftermath? The notice you put up two hours later saying that something had come up is fair enough - but can you tell us what happened in those two hours? Did you see the talk page messages people had left you? Did you get lots of people asking you what had happened, and did you respond to them? Off-wiki response are all very well, but the on-wiki records just shows silence, a notice after two hours, and then this response. If you are not going to be around to deal with the follow-up to something, discuss (on-wiki) with others and maybe let someone deal with it - there was no urgency here.

I'll let others respond to the other points, and I'll respond to the Betacommand bit in the section Ral315 started. I appreciate the image work you do, East, so I hope things do work out. If I'm happy with the above points, I won't be taking things any further, and I would hope no-one else would either. Have a nice wikibreak! Carcharoth (talk) 08:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hope that's clear enough. As I said to Betacommand, no need for long replies, and I'd be very happy to move on once the specific answers are forthcoming. See the result of that discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

My page

I didn't ask for anyone to remove me page. If you did it by mistake then please be careful. Grounded into a double play (talk) 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Co.nr

I was about to revert to a preceeding version of this page, it was a disambig page with a worthy content. I think that it should be undeleted then restored to its previous state. Cenarium (talk) 03:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Image undeletion request: File:Hong Kong Market Crash.jpg

Hi there, I notice that you deleted this image on February 15, less than 48 hours after a notice was left on the page of User: Bishonen. In the interim, I believe User:El C had added a NFU rationale to the page. Could you please undelete the image and return it to its article? If you feel that it should still remain deleted, I would appreciate a more detailed explanation of how this image failed CSD-I7. Thanks. Risker (talk) 03:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)