Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:49, 2 December 2009

Status: Online

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Awesome!

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For being so damn fast! A8UDI 04:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi A8UDI, Thanks very much. :-))

We've got to keep them in check ;-) -- Marek.69

:) you can call me Tom. PS- isnt it really really late there in the UK? A8UDI 04:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tom! No not really late - just a bit early ;-) -- Marek.69 04:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

hahah love it. A8UDI 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

daayyyummm 2 attacks in one night! you're setting a new standard over there Marek ;) A8UDI 03:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

On Palestine

Hello,

In the spirit of a lack of bias or indication of endorsement, I request that 'Palestine' not be referred to as a country until it has become a country. Circumstances surrounding the entity at present include an agreement which is recognized by Israel in which the entity is referred to as the 'Palestinian Authority'.

Best Regards, Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.128.162 (talk) 04:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I'm fine with that. Please feel free to change any instances you find.

Kind Regards Marek.69 04:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Deleting squinchpix.com links

Hello Marek, Please help me. Someone named Hu12 is reverting several links I have to my site at Squinchpix.com. My links are to appropriate and useful pictures. There are no ads on my site. Squinchpix has about 3000 links back to Misplaced Pages articles. I am a good wiki citizen. Hu12 does not give a reason for deleting my links. Perhaps he doesn't like the pictures. Help!

Hello Marek, O.k. all the links to Squinchpix have now been removed by editors Hu12 and someone name 'CKatz'. I've been told that I'm potentially in a conflict of interest with my links. It is true that I have a small ad on my home page for a book 'The Best of Squinchpix'. I'd forgotten about that since no one has ever purchased a copy of it. Does it require ads to create a conflict of interest? If it does then you should delete all references to paradoxplace.com and sacred-destinations.com. They have hundreds of external links on Wiki and nearly every page linked to contains ads. Their business model is avowedly the travel industry; they sell books, maps, tours, flights, the whole nine yards. Why aren't they being hounded about their links? Unlike them I really have no business model (nor am I ever likely to). But I'm being hounded about fewer than 10 links. Sacred-destinations has 994 external links when I search for it on Wiki. When you click through this external link (Article on 'Sant Pau del Camp'): http://www.sacred-destinations.com/spain/barcelona-sant-pau-del-camp it has a sidebar with links to their business which is selling Books (Amazon), Tours (http://www.partner.viator.com/en/3888/Barcelona/d562-ttd), Hotels, Hostels, and Car Rentals. Their whole business model is ads.

Paradoxplace.com has 134 hits on Wiki. Every last one of these links contains ads or links to their own ad pages. He sells thousands of books from his site. For example, if you click through Wiki's external link in the article 'Abbey of Santo Domingo de Silos': http://www.paradoxplace.com/Photo%20Pages/Spain/Camino_de_Santiago/South_of_Burgos/Santo_Domingo_de_Silos/Domingo_de_Silos.htm (That's the external link) When you click through it leads you to a page where he sells Amazon books.

And there are a lot more. For example seindal.dk which has 26 external links on Wiki and every one leads to a page on which the sidebar reads "MERCHANDISE" which consists of T-shirts, caps, mugs, kids clothing, bags, home&office supplies, mugs, cards, prints, calendars, and stickers. Let's get Seindal off of Wiki! I'll start right now!

Since Wiki is user-edited I'd be happy to tear out their links for you; just let me know.

It's true that I was warned not to spam in August. I was putting up some links in August and I did this out of ignorance truly not knowing that Wiki would regard it as spamming. Since then I've asked permission as I did you for the Venice link. If I AM a spammer and ParadoxPlace and Sacred-Destinations are NOT spammers then I wish you'd explain the difference to me.

Can we be consistent please?

My goal is to take the best and most complete pictures available on the web of various art and architecture and archaeological sites. It's in that spirit that I linked to my site from Wiki.

Best regards,

Bob Consoli—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante4848 (talk • contribs) 00:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bob, you seem to be having a spot of trouble adding external links from Misplaced Pages to your website.

I'm sorry to hear this. Please try not to get upset as this situation is incredibly common on Misplaced Pages.

Misplaced Pages's guidelines on external links can be found on Misplaced Pages:External links

I have no doubt that your site is indeed appropriate and makes a useful addition to the individual articles.

However, I'm guessing what the other editors are objecting to is a conflict of interest, i.e. that you are adding the external links to a site you own.

You can read Misplaced Pages's guidelines on this in Misplaced Pages: Advertising and conflicts of interest

In this case you may want to add your link to the article's talk page and let another editor decide.

The argument you present above, that there are links to similar, or worse sites, unfortunately is also covered by the following Misplaced Pages guidelines: Misplaced Pages: Arguments to avoid and Misplaced Pages:Other stuff exists. However, I do agree with you though that we should be consistent.

I'm sorry that you are experiencing these problems, but I think that if you familiarise yourself with the pages I have suggested, you may find a solution.

I hope this helps.

Kind Regards Marek.69 00:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Bob, as I outlined on Hu12's page, your conflict of interest lies in the fact that you are assessing your own site as being worthy of inclusion, instead of leaving it to other, uninvolved editors. Your desire to share photos is certainly appreciated, but it would be far better for you to simply upload images to Misplaced Pages rather than adding external links to your own site. That would allow much better use of the images, and better integration within articles relating to the photos. Simply adding external links is not really a viable option. --Ckatz_spy 08:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Marek,

Thank you for looking into this. I guess the frustrating thing is that the pictures to which I linked definitely enhance the articles in which they were placed. However, I undertake never to link to Squinchpix again since that's your policy.

I'm asking you, if you will, to consider undeleting these links. Follow the links if you have the time and judge for yourself whether they're relevant to the articles in which they were inserted. CKatz says that it's not a viable option to use the external links feature for this purpose. Well, it's certainly viable for some people to do it. I think it's the lack of consistency that's the puzzling thing. I confess that I don't really understand it.

Anyway, that's what I'm asking. Either way; no more links to Squinchpix on my part. That's a promise.

Dante4848 (talk) 20:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandal

Hello Marek69! I am a new editor, and I see by the talk page for 128.0.178.178 that Fastily had, in October 2009 blocked the user for three years. I caught one today, and you caught another vandalized page. Maybe the block was not placed? Maybe I should ask Fastily?--Thatguyflint 03:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thatguyflint,looking at the IPs edit history, it seems that they can only edit their own talk page. Nevertheless they are using this ability to attack other editors. I will put a report of their behaviour in to AIV. Thanks for pointing this out. Cheers Marek.69 04:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also informed User:Fastily of the situation -- Marek.69 04:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You know what, no I'm not even worried!

Hello Marek. Conte di Cavour should be banned from wikipedia in my opiinion. 110,000 bytes of info he has deleted from Italy. Now I've reverted it. I'll get the support of other users to prove that he is wrong.--Theologiae (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC) Rely, and now I'm really desperate!

Hi Theologiae, I've had a look at the Italy article, and in my opinion reverting back to the version of 17 October 2009 is a little bit drastic.

More so, the fact that, apart from yourself and user Conte di Cavour, a further 40 individual users (including myself) have made edits to the article since this date.

I have left my comments on the article's talk page.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 18:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kylie Anne Colvin

Hi. I see you vandal warned the creator of this for blanking the page. Generally, when an article creator blanks a page, and there are no other significant edits, it is tantamount to a creator request for deletion. It is generally not vandalism. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dlohcierekim, thanks for letting me know. I have now removed my warning. Cheers :-) -- Marek.69 01:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No prob. Stuff like this happens to us all, and it's all a learning experience. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Chronicles Magazine

Someone has been hijacking the Chronicles Magazine entry. See the discussion section. I reverted the entry back to its pre-hijacked form. --CM732 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi CM732, thank you for informing me of this. -- Marek.69 02:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

heartless control everything????

what was wrong with putting both the reversed lyrics and the lyrics how they sound in the song it was constructive it still had the right lyrics so wtf dude lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.144.181 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry but it looked like someone messing around at first glance. Thanks for explaining. -- Marek.69 02:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

4chan page

I would like to delete the 4chan mediation request. I'm penneth. The username is close to my actual name and I would request, as per my right to privacy, for it to be removed from the site. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Penneth (talk • contribs) 03:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Penneth, Maybe you could put this request on the Requests for mediation/4chan page itself or contact the administator, Ryan Postlethwaite, who seems to be dealing with the mediation request.

Kind Regards Marek.69 03:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

my User Page

Hi,Marek69,its me,Purz12.Thank you for the advice on my User Page.It looks awesome! If you mind,you can take a look at it,can you?You can get there by pressing on my signature.I also made a sub page about my made up robot.It has a hyperlink to it. Thank you!And make a new page for your discussion,its overfilling. P.S. Put your comments about my pages on my Talk Page. Thanks! --Adam "Purz" Purzynski (talk) 07:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Adam. Your user page makes good reading :-)

If you want any further design tips, have a look at Misplaced Pages:User page design center.

Kind Regards & Happy Wiki-ing Marek.69 16:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

My userpage

Hi, thanks for reverting that vandalism, are we going to see you at another meetup soon? I'm skipping December but will be around in Jan. ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi again WereSpielChequers, No Problem. As for the meetup, I'm not sure at the moment (December is likely to be very busy). I'll probably know closer to the time...

All the best :-) Marek.69 14:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

IP 208.122.68.39

No fair! I was going to report him! Darn, so close! :P You work fast... --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thejadefalcon, I'm sorry, I am trying to slow down for you ;-) Marek.69 15:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, no matter. Someone has to take on ClueBot before it becomes sentient and kills us all. I'll stick to fighting J.delanoy for his title. :D --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lol! I thought ClueBot was one of us :O -- Marek.69 15:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That what it wants you to think. Don't be fooled by its automaton exterior! --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

But we've been exchanging e-mails for months...? -- Marek.69 15:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Eh? --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 15:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure user:Cluebot is attending the next meetup in London. I think you must have him confused with J.delanoy -- Marek.69 15:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, right. Sorry. A very easy mistake to make. :P --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 16:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Good Luck with the title fight; J.delanoy is a truly formidable opponent. He will not be easy to defeat. -- Marek.69 16:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Should I start playing Rocky music? :P --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 16:28, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

If you think it will help :] -- Marek.69 01:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

School page vandalism

Thank you for helping us twart vandals who were trying to deface the information about our school, Walsingham Academy. I don't know how you do it, but it works great! Directorbrandx (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

No Problem. You're welcome Directorbrandx :-) Marek.69 16:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming error?

Hi, are you using a bot to generate welcome messages on anonymous IP talk pages? It would be helpful if the first edit of the IP were examined before posting a welcome message. In those cases where the intent of the editor is clearly to spam Misplaced Pages, a warning rather than a welcome is warranted. Such was the case at User talk:93.139.8.176. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amatulić, In answer to your question, no I'm not using a bot to generate welcome messages.

I carefully review each edit, by each new (or, as yet, unwelcomed) IP, manually and then leave an appropriate message using either Friendly or Twinkle.

If you look again at the IP you give as an example 93.139.8.176, you will notice that it was me who reverted the edit in question, which, as you rightly said, was clearly Spam.

Also, the template I used, {{Welcomespam}}, I think, reflects this message and also serves as a warning (If I could ask you to please take some time to read the template message again...).

In this case, as it was the anon IP's first edit I thought it friendlier to assume good faith and provide them with links to the relevant Misplaced Pages policies, rather that immediately warn them.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind Regards Marek.69 21:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, you are correct. I overlooked the spam part of the message; it looked like a standard welcome template at first glance. And thanks for the explanation of how welcoming works. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

It's no problem :-) There are a number of welcome and warning templates available and I usually try to match the appropriate template to the new users first few edits. Cheers Marek.69 22:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a thanks

Hi Marek69,

I just wanted to say thanks for your helpful and constructive edits you have made to the Hungarian articles that I (as the dogsbody) and User:Monkap (as the translator) have worked on. No particular mentions, just small, good edits. It is appreciated.

I like the thing on your user page about edit summary, BTW. I may steal it.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 22:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Simon, thank you for message. I have recently been working on improving European city articles and have been concentrating on Eastern European articles, so will probably be doing some more work on the Hungarian articles.

Thank you for your words of encouragement, it's always good to receive positive feedback.

Regarding the edit summary thing, feel free to take it, (although I'm not quite sure what you're referring to, sorry).

Best wishes to yourself and to your partner. :-) -- Marek.69 23:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is always good to get "positive feedback", or as we say in English, "thanks". As it happened I noticed your edits in a totally different area, I forget which as I am somewhat an omnivore, but remembered you had tidied up a few things on the articles we had edited together, Monkap and I, which I think stand good at least as wikified translations but there is only so far one can go as we are not experts in everything, or anything, our job as I see it is to provide a good wikified English translation and then others can take it and correct it or add to it.

As for the edit summary, one of my own pet hates is blank edit summaries and personally I should liek to see the server just refuse them (including if they have the C-style comment /* section */ before it). I am sure from your own declared editing habits it is perennially annoying to have to check an edit where it might be simply a typo correction or whatever, though of course we all know that vandals lurk under those too, but it chips away at good faith. There were 48 in a row the other day on Alan Bennett by no doubt a good faith editor, but how am I or are you to make head or tail of them when none has an edit summary? So your little animation saying "this is an edit summary box, put stuff here" or whatever it says, I found both amusing and constructive. You can check my user page for other pet hates, a few of which you may agree with, and those you don't, will make you think. WP:OWNFEET, an essay another relatively newbie editor wrote after I hammered home the need for progressive improvement instead of Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) may also interest you a little. I am really a newbie WP editor but not by any means a new editor in real life, since technical documentation is part of my job. Which is why, for example, all my templates are documented with testcases.

Keep up the good work, it really is appreciated, and I imagine you get little thanks for it and much criticism. Si Trew (talk) 23:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I share you views wholeheartedly on edit summaries. If you wish to use the userbox, here's the code:

{{User:Marek69/edit_summary_template}}

It didn't originally have the wording you mentioned, but your comments inspired me, so it does now...

Thanks again and take care ;-)) Marek.69 00:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Marek, thanks for reverting vandalism to my page! LovesMacs (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi LovesMacs, No Problem. You're very welcome :-) Marek.69 15:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Charlemagne (a friendly heads-up)

Say, fellow vandal fighter, check your edit on Charlemagne when you get a chance and then pull 24.150.179.156's warning on his talk page. He's on our side! It was an easy mistake to make, looked like content blanking and was reported as such, but it wasn't. You can catch me next time I flub one. Yours in vandal detestation, Jusdafax 02:42, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for letting me know Jusdafax. I should have looked the edit more carefully. Cheers :-) -- Marek.69 15:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Main Page

Hi Marek,

Who and how do we contact someone who can do something about it, when an item in the main page ("In the News", "On This day", or "Did you know") is apparently erred? Morogoso (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... I've never thought about that. My guess would be that you go to the article that the main page is talking about and post a message on the talk page, explaining what's wrong. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, either that or report it on the main page talk page I suppose. Which article are you referring to Morogoso? -- Marek.69 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Look at talk page

Hi Marek. Sorry for my extremeness in my message, I was just infuriated by Conte di Cavour's exaggerated edit. Anyway, look at the Italy talk page to see the new developments...

Reply when you see this message--Theologiae (talk) 17:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Theologiae, Thanks for the update. I have been following the developments on the Italy talk page.

There is currently a poll in progress, initiated by Sicilianmandolin on 24 November 2009

However there is no time limit specified for its duration.

I suggest waiting a bit longer (perhaps a couple of days) to ensure a fair vote on the proposal.

Kind Regards Marek.69 18:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok

So Marek you think that we should wait some more days for a fair poll, I agree. I am willing to take Sicilianmandolin's considerations into account, and if there are enough people saying so, can you help me in restoring some old info? Can I just know your opinion on the matter?--Theologiae (talk) 18:15, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much summed up my opinion in my comments above.

I haven't made that many edits to the Italy article, so am relative unfamiliar with it.

Unfortunately I have not had time to carefully review the article and to form a strong opinion either way, which is why I entered the discussion as neutral.

You do seem to have several editors who support your views, so at the moment it seem unlikely that the reversion to the 17.10.2009 version will be kept.

Restoring info is relatively easy: If you go into edit history, you can select the version you prefer and make a comparison with the current version and click ‘compare selected revision’.

This will show you all the additions and removals since your preferred version.

Regards Marek.69 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Another quick question

I get it Marek that doing the 'compare' thing is what to do to restore, but how can I or anyone be sure that by doing so another person's edits haven't been deleted? Anyway, thanks for the help, and still keep an eye on the talk page. Reply and ciao!--Theologiae (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

You use the ‘compare selected revision’ feature only to compare the two versions, not to restore.

The changes will have to be done manually.

Regards Marek.69 20:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you revert the truth?

The contect marked is either not NPOV or is not verifiable and in fact the contect which is not verifiable is mostly untrue, that's why it's not. For example the colonel did not develope this game a team of programmers hired my the Army did. That's just one example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.22.27 (talk) 03:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know where you got your understanding of NPOV from, but review scores are NPOV as it is not Misplaced Pages itself giving out the scores. If those aren't allowed, well, let's just shut the whole project down, because nothing would be allowed. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 03:11, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Why did you not start off by discussing your views on the article's talk page? You're second edit (from this IP) looked unconstructive to me. More so, it was virtully identical to this edit made by another editor 20 minutes previously. Do you have any connection to this other edit? -- Marek.69 03:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Chill out!

I demand that you get a slower internet connection. You are stealing my anti-vandalism credit by sniping in reverts before me. This is unfair and I will see that you are banned for this!!

Note: If you couldn't tell, I'm just kidding. Nice work. I think I spend too much time thinking about exactly how I want to classify it (not to mention I'm just getting started with WP:HG -- mind if I look at your configuration for ideas? --Mpdelbuono (talk) 03:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mpdelbuono. Thank you for the message. I don't think that there's anything different with my huggle configuration, but feel free to look. IMO speed is not the most important thing when reverting vandalism. Getting it right is, so you are absolutely right to spend time thinking, before hitting the button. It is far better to be accurate as mistakes can be more time-consuming, plus then you have to apologise for incorrect warnings.

Happy Huggle-ing :-) Marek.69 04:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Really?

Are you that naive? My second edit ever?

Seriously man get a grip, IPs change, often, just because someone has a life and edited by IP doesn't mean you can track their entire life by it, how silly is that.

Fact, the information is true, verifiable, makes no personl remarks and thus is NPOV, is is also under controversy which seems correct as well, you people want to change it because you don't like the truth unless it suits you and that's obvious.

As for the other edit, opinions are not NPOV, to say the got this award or that awrd is one thing, but to include the remarks which are not NPOV is entirely different considering your problem with the controversy, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", also there were more edits than just the table, there are also other non NPOVs that were cited as well throughout the artical and untrue statements, like a single Army colonel develpoed the game, but you because you don't like the truth and think you are the great god of wiki hastly revert the entire thing without reading or understanding it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.22.27 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

In which case, as I have already asked you, why did you not start by discussing this on the talk page?

And as you say, IPs change, are you the same person who made edits to this article under IP 75.48.252.144 ? -- Marek.69 04:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks...

...for three protective reverts in a row on my user page! I am very much obliged to you... Happy Thanksgiving. Jusdafax 07:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No Problem. Happy to help out. :-)

I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving too, Jusdafax. -- Marek.69 15:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Theologiae

Marek, I understand you were very friendly with the user Theologiae and that you helped him out. He has been banned because we used the same computer to make accounts and that we only edited similar articles. This led to myself, Theologiae, Aslordofd and Seurope being banned for "sockpuppetry". Is there any chance you could help? Please respond on my page --Atlantispy09 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

If you truly are innocent, you're not helping yourself here. Make an unblock request on your previous account and explain the situation. And for the love of god, stop editing. Even if you are innocent, you may find yourself blocked anyway for evading the first block. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 20:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I already made an unblock request but was denied because the other admin didn't believe the case. I would continue anyway and who would want to be called Theologiae? No one seems to belive that I'm innocent. --Atlantispy09 (talk) 20:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you get a sockpuppet investigation? If not, ask for one. If you edited different articles or behaved in different ways, despite the IP address, you may be believed there. If you did get an SPI, give me the link to it so I can have a read. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 21:10, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

They did investigate me and I know the user who was accused is innocent also. Unfortunatley I have know way to prove short of videoing ourselves. Theologiae did edit other articles. I hadn't had the chance before the block was initiated. Aslordofd was a new user like me not getting the chance to edit or not having enough time due to work. Go-COD-MW2 also is innocent and wasn't blocked due to the fact he edited COD MW2. Seurope was banned for no particular reason and there was no proof that he was a sock. I admit I didn't know to declare the sharing of an IP adress.

] --Atlantispy09 (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The evidence does appear to be against you. Without a link to the SPI investigation or even your old username, I can't help you more. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 21:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a sockpuppet investigation would be of any extra benefit here, Jadefalcon. All persons concerned edited to one page Talk:Italy with exactly the same motive and purpose. These users have no other edits. As J.Delanoy explained on Atlantispy's Talk Page, whether this was one individual with several accounts, or several individuals conspiring, is irrelevant. The sockpuppet rules are the same.

You may want to read the guide to appealing blocks, but given the evidence, I fear that it will be unlikely that you succeed. I'm sorry. -- Marek.69 21:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed the contributions by everyone else just before I said "The evidence does appear to be against you." Thanks for the link to the old userpage though. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 22:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case is there any way to delete accounts to free up space on the website? For I will undoubtably be banned for doing this and it might free up space for others —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atlantispy09 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

No. Misplaced Pages can't delete usernames due to their involvement in article history. If someone wants your name, they can usurp it though. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 22:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thank you

It's no trouble at all. I've become quite the talk page stalker recently. It's fun (except yesterday), it keeps me occupied, and it saves other people time. Not a bad job, really. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. As I said, it's always useful to have another pair of eyes :-) Marek.69 00:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow... I seem to be racking up barnstars lately. Very surprising and very confusing. Regardless, thanks a lot! --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

You must be doing something right... ;-) Marek.69 00:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't possibly imagine what though. :P If you take part in them and if you have the time, I'd appreciate your opinion on my editor review. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:42, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, I'll have to think about it... Marek.69 00:50, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I just want as broad a consensus as possible, so I'm bugging anyone who gets within three links of my talk page. xD --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

It's just that I haven't done an editor review yet. I'll have to do some research first :-) Marek.69 00:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

In that case, research away! :P --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 01:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Misplaced Pages:Section

An article that you have been involved in editing, Misplaced Pages:Section , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – imis 01:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Idea for Stubs on Misplaced Pages from Public Domain Books Hosted on Google Books

Marek69,

I wanted to get your opinion on an idea I had for creating new Misplaced Pages article stubs based on Public Domain Books hosted by Google Books. I got the idea when reading the Misplaced Pages Article on Misplaced Pages's Growth, link included here. http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Modelling_Wikipedia's_growth At one point in the article it mentioned that an article stub was created for every town in the United States by Rambot in October of 2002. Here is the quote from the article.

"The sudden jump in article count in October 2002 is due to roughly 30,000 stub articles on U.S. towns and cities generated from a database being added by an auto-posting robot, Rambot, during an eight-day period. Although initially controversial as to whether these were "real" encyclopedia articles or merely "stubs", most of the Rambot articles have since been substantially expanded."

That got me thinking that other large data sets of notable and important books might also be worth automatically creating stubs for which can then later be expanded upon. With this information still fresh in my mind I was checking up on the progress of Google Books and noted that they are now hosting more than 1,000,000 public domain books as part of their Google Books project.

I think it would be an incredibly valuable resource to have a bot like Rambot which created the town stubs for the 30,000 cites of the United States to create 1,000,000 stubs for the public domain books hosted on Google Books. This is a resource of already vetted and notable material, hopefully in a standard format at Google of author, title, publication date, publishing group, summary of the book and more.

Let me know what you think of the idea and if it has been tried before.

I hope to hear from you soon.

Sincerely,

OrangeCorner OrangeCorner (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi OrangeCorner, thank you for the message (and sorry for delay in responding)

In short, Yes, I think it would be a very good idea to do what you suggest. It would expand Misplaced Pages in a positive way.

How to do it is another matter. Unfortunately I do not know much about bots or their operation. Your next step would be to approach someone who operates one and discuss this further. There are many people who do this. One who springs to mind is User:Kotniski who seems to have created a lot of stubs using his bot. It might be worth discussing it with him.

I'm sorry that I couldn't help more at this moment. I think the idea is excellent so please let me know if you require any help once you get going :-)

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 17:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Marek69,

Thank you for the response and for the encouragement. I'll be sure to contact user:Kotniski as you suggested and see if he can help recommend or implement the proper methods for achieving this goal.

Sincerely,

OrangeCorner (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Sectionals

Why was my editing undone? I don't see how it was unconstructive. I wrote a summary of what I did. I got my info directly from icenetwork.com, which is owned by United States Figure Skating. US Figure Skating organizes and runs these championships. So if I can get some specifics as to what was so wrong that my info was removed, it would help. I'm not being sarcastic or angry, just confused. Please explain. Thank you.

Dana —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.246.250 (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dana, I'm sorry it was a mistake. Please accept my apologies. I have now restored your edits. :-) Marek.69 19:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate it. I really was confused. But after looking at your page, I'll go create an account, it seems to make things easier. Thanks again!

-Dana

I'm a bit confused as well. I've looked at your edits again and I still have no idea why I reverted.

The only thing I can think is that I got you confused with a similar IP.

You are absolutely right to create an account. You're less likely to get confused with someone else. An IP address can change, but you account name will stay constant.

Thanks for your understanding. :-) Kind Regards Marek.69 19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Please Help!

Text Editing Box has disappeared. I can only see the "edit summary" line. What do I do?Nickeyrc (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Moved to make things easier to read. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 02:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nickeyrc, Did you change any of your computers or browsers settings? If not, and

If it was working before, it's likely to be just a glitch. Restart your browser to see if that helps.

If not, you may have to restart your computer.

If you still have no joy, please come back here and I'll try to help further :-) Marek.69 02:36, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

I just wanted to thank you for your excellent anti-vandalism work, and particularly for reverting the vandalism to my talk page yesterday. It was much appreciated. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi A Stop at Willoughby, thanks for the message. We've got to keep these vandals at bay :-) Marek.69 18:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello Marek69!

I've been putting up the pictures, sometimes anonamously, on Kabbalah and Hasidic pages. This post is just to say that when you changed the text terminology from "Image:" to "File:" today, two pictures dissapeared on Hasidic philosophy! The top, introductory picture was missing a "]", so it disappeared. The second, Ukrainian Carpathians picture disappeared, I think, because the text straight after it continued without an "Enter"-button break! Thanks anyway for your vigilance, but please be careful about disappearing pictures! I'm just wondering also, isn't "Image:" just as good as "File:"? Tell me, and in future I'll use "File:". "File:" is more automatic, as wikimedia images are listed as that, but in the later image gallery on the page, "Image:" is more natural, as that is the automatically generated format when you click the image galley button. Please advise me! April8 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi April8, Thank you for pointing this out. I'm not quite sure why the images you refer to disappeared. I'm sorry if my edit contributed to it. Thanks for putting it right, though :-)

In answer to your question, the Image namespace was depreciated earlier on this year and was replaced by the File namespace. (for more info see WP:Images)

You may have noticed that images now start with the prefix File: instead of Image: At the moment the two formats (File: or Image:) are interchangeable, but I suppose its probably better practice to get used to using the new name. Kind Regards -- Marek.69 19:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

d

hi i am new to wikipedia and im just wondering what was so bad about my edit on red hot chili peppers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brutallyhonest55 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Brutallyhonest55, Thank you for your message.

Misplaced Pages, being an encyclopaedi,a is written in an encyclopaedic format. 'Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Misplaced Pages. All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopaedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without any bias.

Your edit, adding ‘red hot chili peppers are the best band on earth’ goes against this principle, because describing the band as ‘best band on earth’ is a (positively) biased point of view.

Kind Regards Marek.69 22:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother. I'm not even going to try to assume good faith with this edit. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 22:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion

I do not see a problem with my post "dj Freemix" please remove the speedy deletionGamester9 (talk) 00:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Gamestar9, I did not place the speed deletion tag on the DJ FREEMIX article. Another user did.

If you read Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion policy you will notce the following line:

The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so. A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead add {{hangon}} to the page and explain the rationale on the page's discussion page.

It was for this reason that I reverted your edit.

Kind Regards Marek.69 00:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

hi, i have added a reason for the post on the talk page of my post, could you please ask the user that put the speedy deletion on my post to lift the speedy deletion. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamester9 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Too late, the article was deleted. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 01:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User posting false and slanderous information

Marek, how do you deal with editors that post false and slanderous information other than by removing their wrong edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merkovah (talk • contribs) 01:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You can post a report at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Regards Marek.69 01:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for protecting my talk page. I'm not retarded, am I? RandomStringOfCharacters 04:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so :-) Marek.69 04:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Page blanked by author

Hi. Though page blanking is usually vandalism and needs to be reverted, it is worth looking first at the page history, because sometimes the author has blanked his own page, as with Carlos Bertulani just now. In those cases the best thing is to tag it {{db-author}}. It can be confusing for an author who realises his page is inappropriate and blanks it, if his page is at once restored and he is accused of vandalism for the blanking and told it was unconstructive. This author must be confused by now - he blanked it three times and was reverted three times, but the article seems to me acceptable, and I have asked him what he really wants. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi JohnCD, thanks for pointing this out. I understand the situation. I've encountered several such scenarios recently. Huggle does not seem to have a facility to handle this (Maybe some code needs be added to detect blanking by author?) Meanwhile, I will review the 'removal of speedy deletions' and 'page blankings' more carefully to check for this situation.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 22:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

Hey, I recently received a message from you asking me to refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, and you provided me with a link to a page that I had supposedly vandalised - http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk%3aMonique?diff=324027578.

I would like to make it clear that I have never even edited Misplaced Pages in the first place, let alone vandalised it, and I don't even have an account... this isn't a shared computer, and my name is not Monique, so there has obviously been a mistake made here... is it possible that my IP address is shared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.130.208 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You likely have a dynamic IP, which means that your IP address changes every so often (though I have no idea what use that is). This makes it very hard to pin down most vandals (sometimes the IP has shifted so quickly that in the time it takes to warn a vandal, we're warning an innocent user). You probably got caught with a warning from a previous user. I'd suggest creating an account to prevent any more messages not meant for you appearing. Hope this solved your question. --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, agreed, if you did not make the edits concerned then, yes it is very likely that you have a dynamic IP address, which means it could be different every time you turn your computer on.

If this is the case, I would advise you to create an account. This has many benefits, the least of which is avoiding situations, like this.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 00:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks... I've created an account. Karan (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

And a signature too already? Damn, you're fast! :P --Thejadefalcon_{The bird's seeds} 00:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

:-) -- Marek.69 00:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

PTiger1985 on Alimony

The last edit you reverted as actually OK (just fixing a ref title). The user has made some attempts to source the material, though I went through and tagged or deleted statements not supported by the refs. I think there could be some WP:UNDUE issues, so I'd suggest you review the newest material added and weigh in. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie 18:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ohnoitsjamie, Sorry looked non-constructive to me at first glance. Marek.69 19:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

I left you a message here. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  22:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi NHRHS2010, thank you very much for the barnstar! :-)

Cheers -- Marek.69 22:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. You deserved it. NHRHS2010 |  Talk to me  01:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Mystery Social

Hi, I blanked out a page for Mystery Social, because the page should be deleted and I don't know how. Instead you reverted the page back? I'm not sure why because Mystery Social does not exist - http://mysterygoogle.com goes to 'Mystery Seeker' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puredemo (talk • contribs) 01:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Puredemo, If that is indeed the case, then you should raise this on the article's talk page.

If, as it looks to me, it is the former name of Mystery Seeker, then this article should be changed into a redirect page.

Again this should be probably raised on the talk page first.

You should not simply blank the page, as this is against Misplaced Pages's policies, please see Misplaced Pages:Page blanking.

Kind Regards -- Marek.69 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't do a move. It says, The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puredemo (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Puredemo, the page does not need to be moved, it needs to be converted into a redirect page.

Have you put a note on the talk page yet?

Regards -- Marek.69 01:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Test edits?

I don't appreciate my response (accidently posted as an IP) being reverted as test edits when other IPs have blatantly violated our policies by suggesting that people vandalize another Wiki. I'm not being sucked down by this; if you have a problem with my comments, lets take this to ArbCom my friend. PCHS-NJROTC 03:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi PCHS-NJROTC, Thank you for your message. Unfortunately I have no idea which edit you are referring to.

Would it be possible for you to provide a diff of which edit I reverted?

Thanks Marek.69 03:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It's at Talk:Main Page . I'm going to WP:Assume good faith and say you probably just saw it in recent changes and it looked pretty bold coming from an IP, but I must say it's rather pathetic that we've got these immature liberals saying "hey, vandalise Conservapedia" and yet say "hey, you can't do that" when somebody just shows them an example of what they're doing. This nonsense about vandalizing Conservapedia or any other site needs to stop; we all feel the pain of when 4chan and Encyclopedia Dramatica encourage vandalism here and have no right to do the same exact thing. PCHS-NJROTC 03:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)