Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:35, 9 March 2009

• 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)

CSD Backlog

Currently Category:Candidates for speedy deletion has a slight backlog. If an admin or two could take care of it, it would be much appreciated. Thanks. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 4, 2009 @ 22:28

User:Addbot and the orphan tag

This came to my attention when, User:Addbot (operated by User:Addshore) began edit-warring on some pages on my watchlist, and I admit I'm not too clued up on the bot process. I gotta say though, this ain't the first time I've come across a bot using automated tools to place big fat ugly tags on top of articles (another one a few months ago was tagging articles disapproving of Latin abbreviations). The approval given for this purpose is at Misplaced Pages:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Addbot_16, where the concerns of KP_Botany are -- seemingly -- contemptfully dismissed.

Myself, User:DGG, and others have asked the owner to stop doing it, but, typical of the feedback, in a recent thread User:Anomie instructed us to "take it to WP:VPR or WP:RFC and see if consensus exists to change the orphan tagging guidelines". User:Anomie I noticed was one of the users so contemptful of KPBotany's concerns on the approval page.

The whole operation of the bot owner's noticeboard doesn't come across as very clued. I'm posting here because I'm not sure if this even needs to go to an RfC. Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Orphanage -- of which User:Addshore is a card carrying member -- is not proof of community approval. Normal users like myself should not have to go begging to RfCs to get bot-owners to stop doing something the community never approved of in the first place. Is there a reason why, if it starts doing this again, I can't just warn the bot to stop or block it? Or is there actually more community support for its activities than meets the eye? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Since you ask, I've been worried that this bot may have the opposite of its intended effect. The template might be driving away readers who would otherwise become interested and add more material on related subjects. Was any concept testing done before this was expanded to a large scale? Durova 16:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I don't really see value in a bot doing this task. If a human adds the tag, fine, but I don't think adding the banner en masse at the top of every orphan is going to prompt many random reader to create links from other articles. Dedicated editors who wish to do so can run a query easily enough without the tag being added. –xeno (talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, new users proud of their first new articles don't want their nice new articles slapped with a big aggressive tag that serves little purpose. Regarding your question, I'll leave Addshore to answer that one. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem mentioned above can be address by only tagging articles which are not not patrolled. Meaning anything that is patrolled or for an article that has existed for over 30 days. As I have said also I am happy to take the bot and its task to RFC but I am currently lacking time to do so. In the mean time I will keep the bot disabled as it would be due to changes and bugs in the lists and tool server. ·Add§hore· 17:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're not gonna use the bot for this tag until an an RfC approves, then? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes that would make sense. But if people wait for me to start ad RFC that could be months :P ·Add§hore· 07:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering does anyone know of a templated way I can start and RFC for this? The templates I have seen are for the people that are agaisnt the bot to create and not for the person that want to keep it. ·Add§hore· 11:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Admins needed at WP:AIV

Backlogs getting created. Enigma 20:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the backlog has been reduced to zero now. Marking as resolved. Lankiveil 11:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Comments to be erased and account deleted

I've laid comments in various talk pages such as the Australoid talk page. I wanted to know how I can delete my comments because I don't want my comments on any of the talk pages on any site anymore. I also wanted to point out that before I had an account name "bcr" and I wanted to get permission to remove the comments I made on talk pages for the Australoid article, the hutu article, the paul kagame article, the tutsi article, the robert chestagu article, and the rush limbaugh article. I also wanted to know how I can have my account deleted. I don't want to have an account on wikipedia anymore. bcr was just a name that I had and I just want to remove those comments. But the current account I have under the name "cobenobo" is what I want deleted.Cobenobo (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I'm afraid you can't really do that. When you post to Misplaced Pages, there's text right under the editbox saying: Please note that all contributions to Misplaced Pages are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License (see Misplaced Pages:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource. DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!

What that means is you have released everything you wrote under the GFDL licence. Further, accounts are not deleted, also for reasons pertaining to the licence. The easiest way to leave Misplaced Pages is to just stop logging in. Cheers. //roux   00:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Roux is dead on....accounts are not deleted and information isn't either. If you want to leave, just stopping logging in, simple as what Roux said. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 7, 2009 @ 01:20 01:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So that's how it works. I remember this one guy who was so bitter at everybody else who voted on his AFD a few weeks ago, that he wanted everything about that article deleted from wikipedia. I think it was even reported here. --Eaglestorm (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You have the right to vanish, with limitations. Rklawton (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• An admin might want to check a few of his contributions, as he is removing article talk page comments of his own and of an IP address that was used and signed with "Bcr". --64.85.217.174 (talk) 13:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Main Page Update

The "In the News" section on the Main Page hasn't been updated in more than a day (WP Time) and there is current;y a message on the Main page talk page. Since there's been at least one fairly high profile event yesterday (The Tsvangari Crash incident) is it possible that someone could update? BigHairRef | Talk 04:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealt with. — neuro 23:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Admin needed to wave cluestick

Indiawale (talk · contribs) (also IP 24.24.204.143 (talk)) is a SPA on Vishwakarma (caste) article which is filled with unsourced, dubious (or, rather false) POV fancruft. I last edited the article in April 2008 (see sourced neutral version), and when I recently saw the article in poor state I tagged it with appropriate maintenance templates. Since then:

• Indiawale has repeatedly removed the tags (calling them "vandalization") without addressing any of the issues. , .
• Indulged in personal attacks , threatening to edit "your rightwing extremist pages and would start commenting on your ilks misdeeds." (The comment was refactored after a NPA warning).
• Requested explanation for tagging, which was given in detail. (This action was very promising!)
• However, Indiawale apparently started looking though articles listed in "Articles I started" on my user page, and:
  • adding POV and irrelevant details to Prevention of Terrorist Activities Act, while misrepresenting non-RS sources. , . (these edits were reverted by User:Barkeep, who explained and warned Indiawale)
  • adding unsourced and POV sysnthesis to BLP Shubha Raul . After this was removed and the reason explained to Indiawale he tagged the article with irrelevant tags copied from Vishwakarma (caste) ‎
  • complained about List of Hindu scriptures article on Hinduism noticeboard and insisted on adding a POV tag. (with the logic "I think this article should be marked as POV. You had done the same thing in the past on a different article!")
• Continued with milder NPA/incivility/assuming-bad-faith in edit-summaries and talkpage comments , ; and "reflecting back" warnings he has been given. ,

I have tried to explain wikipedia's content and conduct policies to him on his talk page and here, but he obviously regards any advice from me to be in bad faith. While Indiawale's actions have been disruptive, I don't think they are serious enough to deserves a blocked since he is an inexperienced editor; and even a user RFC may be overkill at this stage. But it would help if an admin could wave the clue-stick at him, to prevent unnecessary escalation of such behavior. Abecedare (talk) 06:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I had intended this for ANI, but posted it here. Feel free to move. Abecedare (talk) 07:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Abecedare, stop arguing on false premise! As you can see, I am discussing first and seeking persmission here before tagging the article List of Hindu scripture as POV. Based on my pointing out, you did edit the article and removed the false claim regarding Adi Shankarycharya being the FIRST Hindu philosopher who consolidated the principles of the Advaita Vedanta philosophy. I never marked this article as POV. Also, regarding Shubha Raul, when I marked the article as POV, you removed the unrefenced comment that she is a champion of the Marathi language. After that I did not dispute the removal of POV status. So it is apparent that you see logic in my arguments and are forced to act upon it and edit your articles. On the other hand, you have cited Absence of Concensus as a valid reason for marking an article as POV and have gone ahead and done it! So I had provided you references, links, book name including page numbers and paragraphs, edited the article, yet you are refusing to discuss the article in a rational and logical manner and threathing to take action against me simply because I don't agree with your point of views! Indiawale (talk) 15:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion help

Can someone help with the remaning deletions needed at Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/The_German_Student_(radio)? I've got partway through the list, but I need to head out. They are now all redirects to User space. Do not delete the userfied articles - it is the cross namespace redirects that need deleting per WP:CSD#R2. Thanks Fritzpoll (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

All done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Massive copyright violations and plagiarism

After tagging Eric Voice for speedy deletion as a copyright violation, I reviewed the contributions of the author. It appears that Plindenbaum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has added large amounts of copyrighted text to Misplaced Pages verbatim, without attribution as direct quotations. Despite the numerous warnings on his talk page, Plindenbaum created a new copyvio article, Ian Reay Mackay, within the past month, and just yesterday started Pierre Solomon Ségalas of Etchépare, which uses a sentence lifted directly from without indicating that it is a quotation. Administrative help is needed in stopping further copyright violations and plagiarism by this user. Erik9 (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This is going to be a huge task, this user has about 3,500 edits. I suggest:

• Contact user, explain the problem (block if he/she continues)
• Create a "decon" project page
• Split edits by date range
• Allow editors to verify/authenticate each block of edits
• Close when all blocks of edits have been verified

Thoughts? Rklawton (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I just reviewed Erik9's examples and don't see any problems with copyvios. Erik9's edit history is very unusual (8000 edits) and the account is less than two months old. Rklawton (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The text of Eric Voice is copied directly from http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/obituaries/article493480.ece , while Ian Reay Mackay is copied from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18502096 , both without attributions as quotations. If you really believe that these aren't copyright violations, then I dare you to remove the speedy deletion requests - but you should consider the matter quite carefully first. Pierre Solomon Ségalas of Etchépare plagiarizes the sentence "he created the idea of an exclusive speciality to practise" from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19230322 by using it without attribution as a quotation. Unless there's a rule against making too many edits within a short period of time, you should withdraw your groundless accusation. Erik9 (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also interesting that Malcolmxl5, an administrator, has decided to remove what you claim is the non-existent copyright violation from Eric Voice and rewrite the article . That's quite a lot of effort to fix a problem which didn't really exist :) Erik9 (talk) 17:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict: took me a while to compose this one.) Erik9 seems to be right that there is a history of at least copyright misunderstanding here. The new article, Eric Voice, does infringe on (probably not in any legally actionable way, but the article says, "was a Pro-nuclear British in Britain's fast breeder reactor programme who demonstrated his dedication by inhaling plutonium", while the source says, "Pro-nuclear scientist in Britain's fast breeder reactor programme who demonstrated his dedication by inhaling plutonium." There's no reason this could not be written in original language.) Several times, Coren's bot has picked up what seem to be similarities sufficient to pose concern. Popping in randomly at several recent contributions, I see some cause for concern. These articles tend to be brief, so such problems are generally minor, as in the recently created Edward Shearman Ross, where the sentence, "Before his PhD was conferred, he worked as curator of insects at the California Academy of Sciences" follows quite closely on the source, which says, "Before his PhD was conferred, he was employed as curator of insects at the California Academy of Sciences." (However, some of these, like Velvet (algorithm), seem to draw on public domain sources; obviously, while there may be plagiarism issues with such if uncredited, these are not copyright concerns.) I think a discussion about how to rewrite from scratch may be appropriate, but I wouldn't consider him a hardened infringer on what I've seen by any means. His contribution here if he receives the notice before it archives might be helpful. --Moonriddengirl 17:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear editors, during the last year have tried to start a series of articles based on the abstract of some academic articles from NCBI. Until recently, I honestly thought that those abstracts belong to the public domain. This was contradicted last month after an interesting conversation about this fact with User:Somno and on FriendFeed (see http://friendfeed.com/e/4950d465-2b8c-4570-b2aa-85c5317c8952/Does-an-article-in-pubmed-belong-to-the-legal/ and http://www.cotch.net/blog/20090126_1005). I was then convinced to re-structure those abstracts, changing the sentences before creating an article . I'm deeply sorry if I didn't change those sentences enough or if only one sentence copied on the web can be a problem. --Plindenbaum (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. There are certain circumstances under which copyrighted text can be duplicated verbatim on Misplaced Pages. These are set out at Misplaced Pages:NFC#Text. In all cases, they should be plainly identified by quotation marks and with attribution, and they should be used in relatively limited circumstances. Where it is possible to contribute in completely original language, this is preferred. The reason for this is that Misplaced Pages hopes to be free for replication in as many places and as many ways as possible, including commercial reuse. Even where the use of copyrighted material would likely fall within fair use on Misplaced Pages, Misplaced Pages prefers free content that can be licensed under GFDL. --Moonriddengirl 20:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is an error here, perhaps unintended: you can't fix a copyvio simply by changing the wording. If a passage is directly derived from a copyrighted source, the only way to handle it is to quote it directly and attribute the quote. To avoid copyvio requires using only a limited amount of the material, and combining it, in your own words, with material from other sources. Looie496 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You can fix a copyvio by changing the wording, also known as "rewriting from scratch." You have to rewrite it sufficiently that it does not infringe on creative content from the original, in keeping with WP:C: "Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Misplaced Pages, so long as you do not paraphrase the source too closely." This language is also mirrored at {{copyviocore}}, which advises contributors to "write the article from scratch". If you think that "rewrite from scratch" may unintentionally mislead people, we might want to address that standard template. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, though, if you're not reacting to the words "rewrite from scratch". :) --Moonriddengirl 20:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The key is in the terms "creative expression" and "reformulate". Copyright case law shows that it is a violation to copy the logical organization of a source, even if all the words are changed. The bottom line is that one should never try to solve a copyvio by tweaking the wording. One should put the source away and then write a new, original account of the material. Either that, or quote directly. A tweaked quote is the worst possible solution. Looie496 (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the substantial similarity test. I'm also fairly familiar with Misplaced Pages:Close paraphrasing. :) I wouldn't think "rewrite from scratch" would be misleading in this regard. (Considering that I'm on rewrite round three here, maybe I'm wrong.) --Moonriddengirl 21:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history abuse of User:Khalsaburg

I must recommend that User:Sikh-history be given a short block or a stern warning from another editor. The latest wp:personal attacks are here and here.sinneed (talk) 16:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

A stern warning, yes, but a block seems over the top if this user doesn't have a prior history. — neuro 23:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting a block

Hey guys. 66.61.87.219 is an IP address of serial sockpuppeteer Sleepydre. They have stated that they are back and are on the a similar editing spree of adding material that has been discussed by many editors to be removed. They appear to have some obsession with the article Akron, Ohio. They have made extreme threats against my life (claiming they would draw a gun at me) and I would like this to stop for good. Thanks for any help, §hep 17:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. §hep 18:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist addition

Where would one suggest an addition to the watchlist? I'd like to see a feature where editors can have checked items on their watchlist highlighted when they appear on the watchlist. (I'm sure this is not where to ask, it'll get the most attention here, though). iMatthew // talk // 18:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:Village pump (proposals), I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If I read your suggestion right, you're looking for a way to create a sort of 'high-priority' category of watchlist items, where changes to those specific pages will result in highlighted entries on your regular watchlist, yes?

If that is what you're looking for, there's a couple of ways to achieve that without waiting for a software change. The direct way is to create a second account; add only the 'high-priority' items to the second account's watchlist. That can be a bit of a nuisance, though.

The more subtle method is to create a page in your userspace that consists of just links to your 'high-priority' pages. If you click on the 'Related changes' link (in the 'toolbox' to the left of the page), it will show the recent changes to all the pages linked from that high-priority page. You can create a shortcut link from somewhere in your userspace using the standard external link link format: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:IMatthew/ImportantPages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion seems to be moved to:

• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Watchlist addition
• Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)#Categorised watchlist

Probably a better place for this. — CharlotteWebb 18:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

KGB (Company)

Can some help with KGB (Company) some keeps tagging it with a speedy template and its not even an hour old.HereFord 20:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've declined the speedy, as it doesn't apply. That's some very strange db tagging, I must note. --Moonriddengirl 20:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedied - no evidence of notability, unsourced, 2 Google hits. Rklawton (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I got 21,400, but I'm sure many of those are false positives. :) (It drops to 4,000 when I narrow it down to New York. I don't know if they're notable. (They could be very good at self-promotion.) --Moonriddengirl 20:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. My bad. I'll undo. Rklawton (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm inclining to think good at self-promotion, though they've certainly got a highly visible ad. (I've seen it, anyway, and I don't watch much t.v. :)) I'll tag it for various, if you haven't already. Think there's a word about civility, though, that needs to happen in light of this. --Moonriddengirl 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record (and since the article is deleted, I can't see it or its history), the fact that the article was not an hour old is no reason not to speedy it - that's what speedy deletion is for. The vast majority of speedy-tags are added within minutes of an article's creation. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 20:55, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

This one in particular was inappropriate. After tagging it as "vandalism", the tagger then tagged it as "no context." And, I see, has just tagged it so again. --Moonriddengirl 21:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've advised the tagger of this conversation. --Moonriddengirl 21:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment- this user has been erroneously tagging many articles as A1. I talked to him about it but he responded with calling me a smartass. LetsdrinkTea 21:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Have a diff of that? I can't find it. Anyhow, I've warned the user again to stop tagging articles until they understand the CSD. If they continue, they could be blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've got it, here. --Moonriddengirl 01:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure If your areNot respectfull at this page.........I WILL FIND YOU on their Talk page is very collegial. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's a funny thing goin' on...

One user, we may call him AntiCross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) nominates an article that another user, we call him Middlesbrough99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has contributed to. A look at the edit history of both users is quite interesting I may assume. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 01:55, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, even more fun: Entrance Argentoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you please explain what you think is going on here and why it requires administrator intervention? I'm afraid that I don't understand what it is that you're alluding to in your post. Nick-D (talk) 02:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it comes to understanding, well... First I wondered how an absolute new user can make his first edits in perfectly nominating an article for deletion. Then I saw the second user, also very new, throwing with warning templates and going to WP:AIV. And then I saw the similiar names of two of the users, and their similiar position on the nominated article. Enough? It's quite easy, it's only less than 10 edits for each user. There might be more of them out there somewhere... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless there's something which urgently needs to be fixed, it might be best to take this to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. Nick-D (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Argentoss. ;-) But I'm not too sure that this is the only problem here... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

May I take this opportunity to gently point out that having process-oriented edits as one's first is not prima facie evidence of sockpuppeting? (without commenting specifically on this case; it is merely relevant to the subject in general, and I've seen a lot of people here lately assuming that since a user's first edits were to XfD/RfA/DRV/etc. they must be a sockpuppet) It is entirely possible for someone to spend a lot of time reading up on policy and procedures before actually joining Misplaced Pages. Hermione1980 02:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, and it is also perfectly legitimate for a user to abandon an account and start over with a different one, and is not considered sockpuppetry. Chick Bowen 02:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this is addressed at me: I have opened a lot of sockpuppet cases and this is the first one where I'm not sure of the outcomings. That's why I'm here. Also, I need advice. This Francesco Bellissimo is nominated for deletion on several wikipedias right now or has been deleted recently (as stated in the AfD). Sorry, but something's really fishy, isn't it?--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 02:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with visiting other wikis and taking action to remove spamed articles. I don't see much evidence that Francesco Bellissimo meets WP:BIO and the article is written in a spammy style, so the nomination appears reasonable, especially if the article has been deleted on other Wikis - editors there could be following the article's many interwiki links. Nick-D (talk) 03:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord, I apologize if it seems my comment was aimed specifically at you. It was not intended as such. Hermione1980 03:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, Hermione. I still wonder why I'm the only one to see something strange going on here. Maybe I'll do a bit of research on this guy and see if this helps. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what's going on looks a bit unusual, but there doesn't seem anything which is outright bad occurring. The sock puppet investigation seems to be all that's needed here, and it might be appropriate to mark this as resolved as no intervention seems necessary. I note that the editor who successfully nominated the article for deletion on the Italian Misplaced Pages seems to have posted a notification of this on our article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 03:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I read Misplaced Pages for about five years before I ever edited anything, you can know a lot about the inner workings of Misplaced Pages without having ever edited. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How does one make a change to a user name

Hi - I just registered, and darned it, misspelled my user name. I meant to type "RunsWithScissors" and typed "RuinsWithScissors" instead. I can live with it but is there a way to change it? I've not posted anything as yet - brand new. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RiunsWithScissors (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

See changing user name. —Nn123645 (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the latter is fine, my daughter should probably use that nick :) §FreeRangeFrog 04:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You really should take care, since you typed "Riuns" instead of "Ruins" - what a mess... Welcome! ;-) --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 04:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste time going through CHU, just abandon this mispelled name and create a new one, with the proper spelling. –xeno (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ruins with Scissors"...it's kinda evil...I like :) Aunt Entropy (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User re-creating creation-protected article under different names

User:Liampaulmurphy created the article Mintsoft Librarian. It was speedily deleted (G11/A7). After about four times article got speedied, I applied for creation-protection. After that, user created article under the name of Mintsoftware librarian. I warned (4im) the user. User then continued creating the article. User has not responded to any comment on his user page. I would like to see the user blocked. Guy0307 (talk) 08:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This user has also been adding the phrase "This is blatant advertising" to articles on similar subjects , , apparently in support of his claim that WP is unfairly discriminating against his article. MuffledThud (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I love his use of newspeak. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 08:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I salted the new article, suggest that no further action is needed at the moment, let's just keep an eye on him. I suspect that he will run out of steam. Theresa Knott | token threats 17:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Need history merge

Could someone please help the user who just did a cut and paste move at Eliyahu Koren? You'll also want to close Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Eliyahu Koren where the user explained why she was blanking the article bit-by-bit.  Doulos Christos ♥ talk  15:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting topic ban of User:Hipocrite

During the FAC for Water fluoridation it has been agreed (by all those that commented) that Opposition to water fluoridation is out of sync with the higher quality main article, and that it needs to be rewritten/synchronized with it. Unfortunately, the intervention of User:Hipocrite in Opposition to water fluoridation is making this process unnecessarily difficult. Hipocrite offers no substantive criticism of the changes implemented, but reverts them based because he "can't follow".

As demonstrated by the process that took place in the main article, in which Hipocrite did not participate, changes can converge towards a good quality article, with only a few contentious points hammered out in long, but substantive and fruitful discussions on the talk page. We have no need for disruptive tactics from users that refuse to substantiate what their objections are about. So, I'm asking for User:Hipocrite to be banned from editing Opposition to water fluoridation, because all he effectively contributes are unexplained reversals; he should still be allowed to comment on the talk page, assuming he finds something substantive to object to. Xasodfuih (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a joke, right? I just wanted the massive change that was almost impossible to follow to be discussed on the talk page before it was made. Hipocrite (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversions for the sole sake of process aren't appropriate. If you disagree with the changes to the article, say so and discuss them on the talk page. Reverting simply because changes were significant is disruptive. Rklawton (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is the place for this. A topic ban is not how we solve simple disagreements. Talk it out on the talk page. Asking that edits be explained and discussed is not inappropriate and not "process" but human interaction and how we build consensus. Chillum 17:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) My understanding that WP:DR can be used if there are some substantive reasons for disagreement. If a user just reverts your changes, and repeatedly argues that he "can't follow" without getting into any specifics, you'd have a really hard time engaging in a meaningful dispute resolution because the dispute isn't even stated. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) This edit is the one that Hipocrite singled out on the article talk page. As he notes, it does indeed appear to make a substantial number of changes without a great deal of explanation. (The edit summary "revising this page a fair bit" is certainly accurate, but a bit brief for such a major change.)

Rather than discuss the change in more detail, Xasodfuih makes the rather insulting suggestion that Hipocrite should move to simple.wikipedia.org (), and then comes here to request a page ban. Not classy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't follow. Why should I be discussing somebody else's changes when I wasn't the one reverting? The onus for giving a rationale for removing/disputing sourced material should be on the person removing or disputing it. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I came here only after Hipocrite made further posts refusing to explain why he is disputing the material. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You have also misquoted me, TenOfAllTrades. I wrote "If you have no concrete criticism to offer, I suggest you move another page, or even better to simple.wikipedia.org." Note the conditional. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It is you who should be opening the discussion, not Hipocrite. You make a large change to the page, he reverts to the status quo. There is no gross policy violation, and so it is up to you to justify why the change should be made, not up to Hipocrite to justify why the page should stay as it is. Bold, revert, discuss. Not Bold, revert, revert and patronise, discuss. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x X) Please familiarize yourself with the article history before commenting. The substantive changes, as evidenced by the diffs , , were made by User:ImperfectlyInformed, not by myself. Nor did I make any reverts, those were made by Hipocrite , . My only contribution to the article space of this article (as opposed to the main one on water fluoridation) was , the addition of {bad summary} templates before any of the above changes by II or Hipocrite. Then II made some changes, Hipocrite reverted, claiming "multiple concerns", the only one of which he singled out on talk was unfounded. After that II put some changes back, but Hipocrite reverted again without giving any substantive reasons. For the sake of completeness, the 1st edit of II given here was also report to WP:AE by User:ScienceApologist, but the complaint was quickly closed as frivolous disruption. Xasodfuih (talk) 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to ask an editor to explain his or her major edits. 'Revising this page' is an insufficient level of detail if someone makes a good-faith inquiry. The diff is a complicated hodgepodge, but it appears changes were made to the wording and references in the lede section, to the format and contents of references throughout, to the entire section on 'potential health risks', to the 'history' section, and to the reference format in the 'conspiracy theories' section. It's not readily apparent to casual examination which sections have received only housekeeping attention (reformatting of references without other changes, wikilinking terms), which sections have been slightly tweaked (minor rephrasing, moving of footnotes), and which sections have undergone major changes (references added or removed in their entirety, tone of text changed to resolve or create bias issues, sentences or full paragraphs added and removed).

You seem to be supporting the edit to the extent that you're insulting another editor and calling for a page ban to defend it — you ought to be prepared to offer a description and rationale for each of those changes. Further review of your contributions suggests that you've gone to the editor who made the changes and asked him to make them on a step-by-step basis (good!) and also accused Hipocrite of "play thick" (bad!): .

This is an article on a very contentious topic. It is important to edit with caution, care, and open communication in order to prevent the inadvertent (or deliberate) introduction of bias, error, or omission. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"You seem to be supporting the edit..."—no I'm not supporting it, but I expect editors to object to edits with a substantive rationale. The first rationale Hipocrite gave was unfounded; it simply demonstrated that Hipocrite is not familiar with the topic. Then Hipocrite made a 2nd revert that was accompanied only by a "process rationale". This is WP:GAME to me. Xasodfuih (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this needs administrator attention at this point. Talk it out on the talk page. If there is edit warring or gross incivility then it will become and administrative matter. Chillum 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Adding redirect from juvenile pornography to child pornography

Tried adding a redirect but it was blacklisted. Juvenile pornography is a term at least used legally and was referenced in an article I read, albeit without any proper redirect. Might just want to add that.

Thanks ! Dread Specter (talk) 18:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable as the terms are synonymous—"Juvenile" == "child" (or is at least a sub-set) in most legal contexts. — CharlotteWebb 18:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Admiral Norton 22:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Amolz

Amolz (talk · contribs) keeps reverting the same page over and over again, almost compulsively, even when consensus is clearly against him. He began to move it for no good reason without asking anyone's opinion on the matter. Multiple attempts by different users to contact him have shown he's unwilling to engage in any discussion.--Le Petit Modificateur Laborieux (talk) 19:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Kim Schmitz

Tturner2009 (talk · contribs) and Alexanderamsterdam (talk · contribs) have one mission: to clean the article Kim Schmitz from "hatefull" content - i.e. to establish a POV version of the article that could be written by Kim Schmitz himself. After registering they immediately and exclusively started an edit war to enforce an allegedly more balanced version of the article. I suspect socket puppetry, perhaps COI. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"His arrogant style of dealing with the computer scene...", "...he made an obscure statement on his web site that could have been interpreted as announcing his own suicide." I've got to be honest, I believe Alexanderamsterdam has improved the article by removing these (uncited) sentences. I'm not convinced I'd regard this user as exhibiting a non-neutral point of view. I notice you've both attempted to discuss the issue; could you try again? It doesn't look (to me at least) that this is yet anything other than a content dispute.

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 23:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If he had simply removed uncited sentences I would see no problem. But he added more twice as much uncited facts, opinions and rumors, put up an edit war, ignored the discussion and used a sock puppet and simply denied any compromise. I tried to clean up the article myself and added some sources but he simply reverts to the PR version of the artcile. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll grant that much was added to the article; however, I don't see it as being any more (or less) uncited that the previous version, though, and it certainly seems more neutral. If you think that there's sock puppetry involved then file a report at WP:SPI. I've not looked at Tturner2009's contributions so I can't really comment about sock puppetry (and I'm even less of a checkuser than I am an administrator). You could also try asking on WP:3O for a third-opinion; my main point is that this doesn't really seem to be something that warrants administrator attention (at this point). Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 23:47, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I thought a stubborn two day edit war could and an IMHO extreme amount of POV could need some attention. I tried to file an report on WP:SPI but it seems you have to register first and so on. So I will forget the article and move on. Thanks for your time. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 23:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article, restored two removed subheadings, and left a note on the talk page. seicer | talk | contribs 00:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thx, I add some sources now. --78.34.4.52 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jeff-griffin-0192

Jeff-griffin-0192 (talk · contribs) made offensive threats against me before he was blocked. They are still listed at Special:Contributions/Jeff-griffin-0192. Is there any way that this history can be deleted? I am concerned at the ongoing presence of this material. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 23:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that for me,--WWGB-2 (talk) 06:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that my WP identity has been cloned - see User:WWGB-2. Ho, hum. The real WWGB (talk) 07:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

NICE. To whoever helped this guy out: way to sell out Misplaced Pages. Just because this person's feelings were hurt it's suddenly okay to delete stuff like it never happened? Way to go. Mechakucha (talk) 07:09, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama article picked up by Drudge Report

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

Just an FYI, WND did an article about the Obama entry and Drudge picked it up. Might be a spike in activity there. --64.85.217.74 (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• *facepalm* These guys need a new hobby. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Reading the WND article by Aaron Klein, and then checking the revision history of Aaron Klein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's hard to escape the conclusion that Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs) is at the center of this. Perhaps reporters with slow news days are going to start creating disputes to write about.   Will Beback  talk  02:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• • • In more ways than one you could say that Jerusalem21 (talk · contribs) is at the center of this article. If you catch my drift, although that crucial piece of information was not disclosed in the article. TharsHammar (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See report on ANI Guettarda (talk) 02:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I would think all that stuff mentioned in the WND article would be in the 2008 campaign article as they all related specifically to that event. Rklawton (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Plus the whole Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article that they seem to have forgotten to mention. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you think they forgot to mention that because there's no mention of it or link to it on the Barack Obama page? (Yes, I see this is closed, but I'm adding a comment anyway). And I must be a fringe nut wacko, because the Barack Obama article looks strangely scrubbed of every notable controversy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone is putting false information in Misplaced Pages and I am being called a vandal!

PROBLEM FIXED

Look at the Bank of Montreal article and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Both articles claim that the bank is the 4th largest by deposits. One of them is false. I am trying to correct it and User:BoomerAB and User:Rennaisancee are calling me a vandal.

They are accusing me falsely. Let's find out the true 4th largest and correct it. Otherwise, Misplaced Pages is "Misplaced Pages, the fake information encyclopedia." Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you really Wells Fargo Bank? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falastine fee Qalby (talk • contribs) 01:44, 9 March 2009

No, see talk page of Barek. User:Bankofamerica is permitted to have his user name. I have also discussed with Barek about another name. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already fixed it. It is no longer a problem. What I was not liking, and why I reverted your edits is because you always mentioned Misplaced Pages in them, and Misplaced Pages can not source itself on an article, for more information look here. I will delete my warning, but please be more careful with touchy topics as economics. Thank you! Renaissancee (talk) 01:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanation accepted! I don't hate you. I just found an error within 5 minutes of looking at Misplaced Pages and started the ball rolling to fix it. The end result is now an error in Misplaced Pages has been fixed. Thank you, thank me. Wells Fargo Bank (talk) 01:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Urgent glitch

WP:ANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) can't be blocked. This is ugly. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:37, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you need to take a hit off that bong and chill --NE2 05:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The block log shows that they've been blocked, so I'm marking this as resolved. Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

They still seem to be actively vandalizing though? --John (talk) 05:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I spoke too soon. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The block form leads to ANI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an innocent party. Can't find a workaround. --Bongwarrior (talk) 05:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A bureaucrat could move this editor to a different username and then block that. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, I was slightly wrong. The block form leads to the correct user (User:WP:ANI), but User:ANI receives the block. Good idea about the rename, any crats around? --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just posted a notification at WP:BN. Nick-D (talk) 06:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Must have already happened, because while deleting the leftover redirects, this user disappeared. I can no longer pull up his contribution history. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:BN User:Angela did the honours. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that there seem to be some side effects from this string of page move vandalisms and the attempts to revert them. For example, the U.S. state of Arizona seems to have disappeared entirely. WTucker (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it was fixed already. Appears to have been a side effect of having a half-dozen admins working on this all at once. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

In case there are other articles that were deleted on accident, our vanal was renamed to WPANI (talk · contribs · block log). --06:29, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Has somebody filed a Bugzilla report to fix the blocking page to allow blocking of these account names? Needs to be done ASAP as I'm sure the copycats will be appearing shortly. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's still not blocked, and it may come back again. But that is strange. I sent a report to WP:AIV, and... Versus22 _talk 06:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

A short-term solution would be modifying MediaWiki:Titleblacklist—there is a parameter newaccountonly, which should help here. – Sadalmelik ☎ 06:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Already done at Meta, and the account's been globally locked. Kylu (talk) 06:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

bugzilla:17877 and bugzilla:17879. Dragons flight (talk) 08:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Manipulation of data and citation

Rjecina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
This user intentionally and consciously manipulated citation and data on Misplaced Pages on several occasions.

Case 1

Article: Coloman_of_Hungary; The article describes the reign of King Coloman of Hungary from 1095-1116.

Edit:

Sentence manipulated: Coloman I the Book-lover, also spelled Koloman (c. 1070 – 3 February 1116), King of Hungary (1095-1116)<ref1><ref2><ref3> and king of Croatia.<ref4><ref5> (1102-1116)

Citations used to support statement: <ref4> = Kingdom of Croatia (910-1091), <ref5> = Karacsonyi, Janos: The historical right of the Hungarian nation

Quotes from the sources:

<ref4> "Coloman also extended his authority over Dalmatia and the islands of the Quarnero, but the best modern authorities reject the tradition that in 1102 he was crowned king of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia"

<ref5> "It is untrue furthermore that Coloman has been crowned Croatian king in Tenger-Belgrad in 1102."

Case 2

Article: Croats; The article describes the Croatian people in the world.

Edit:

Data and citations manipulated:

Note: Two users attempted to correct part of the false information but both of them got reverted by user Rjecina. --Bizso (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

After Bizso informed me, I demanded an explanation here but following the last chaos, I wonder if we've reached enough. Falsification of sources, especially in this area, should not be a joking matter. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Rjecina's edits, at least in the population statistics case, seem to have been reverts to an earlier version. They probably fall into the pattern of his tendency for reflex blanket reverts of new users he suspects of being sockpuppets (often rightly, independently of the actual quality of the edits). Judging the issue of falsification would require investigating who actually introduced the faulty state in the first place. Do we have information on this?

The other question is why Bizso is bringing this up now, at the "incidents" noticeboard, when most of the edits in question were weeks or even months ago. Didn't we tell both of these guys they are not to bring further complaints against each other to the noticeboards? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree, Perf. I asked Rjecina about it and suggest we want until explanation. Close this as inappropriate at this point, and we'll see. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

This edit is clearly not a revert. I asked Ricky81682 about this. Please check all the sources and edits.--Bizso (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I myself manually checked everything, I didn't include the current numbers for the sources column, but the numbers cited by the sources used by Rjecina at the time.--Bizso (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a revert, it's from these edits which were correcting some numbers, but breaking the total population number that Rijcena calculated himself on the talk page here (checked as correct by myself). Rijcena was blindly reverting to the wrong version thinking that it was correct. The numbers were originally falsified by an annoying IP that has been changing Balcan numbers for months, seeUser_talk:78.157.9.88#1_month_block. Rijcena has in the past tried to correct the numbers. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How could this be a revert? He introduced brand new numbers.

Enric Naval, please explicitly show me which edit was reverted by user:Rjecina.--Bizso (talk) 11:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Further verification has indicated that it was this edit by User:Toroko at Coloman of Hungary that introduced the false information. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

How was that edit? He removed the king of Croatia title, not added it with false references? He didn't even use the sources used by Rjecina?!--Bizso (talk) 11:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

And edits by Mrubcic2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) introducted the false information in the Croats article. O Fenian (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) The Coloman edit (back in December, by the way) was reinstating a passage of text ("... and king of Croatia") that was previously removed by somebody else . The addition of unsuitable footnotes is of course a sign of very sloppy editing; I wouldn't necessarily impute it to malice. The population statistics edit was an exact blanket revert to an earlier version . The falsified figures were inserted previously by a different user, in an act of vandalism that apparently slipped through unnoticed by all the regular editors on that page . Other parts of the incrimiated figures were inserted by yet somebody else, for instance the Chile figures here . Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What about the references the Rjecina added to King of Croatia? Was that also a revert to some other vandal's edit?--Bizso (talk) 11:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

If you bothered to read, I commented on that in my previous post. Now, will you stop stirring the shit? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AIV

WP:AIV needs some cleaning.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord 11:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Done (although not by me). Stifle (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards