Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:56, 26 September 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Created Articles

Is it possible to write a function for an export of the list in Wiki-Syntax #] / Diskussion: ? I would find it great.

How is it possible this?

Hello TParis,

It is possible that you do not remember this message on your talk page "Calling my involvement -eager to block you is just ridiculous" said User:Iadrian yu when I had an affair with User:Omen1229.

I do not want to bring up old grievances here, however, it is not in order that when I delibatery try to avoid articles Iadrian yu edits , and yet I do not succeed. One user who permanently involves himself in block-shopping concerning me, should not edit in response to any of my edits ,nonethless; Iadrian yu keeps following me to articles he never edited before. And in addition, when he began accusing me on your talk page that resulted in a successfull block-shopping, he also told that "whenever you appear there is a new edit war" . Since it looks to me that this type of behaviour does not strike his socialization skills, would you be so kind as to tell him to give me a wide berth?--Nmate (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't unilaterally impose a interaction ban. All I can do is take a look at his edits to see if he's wiki-stalking and tell him not to. If you want an interaction ban, you'd have to as WP:ANI for that.--v/r - TP 22:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Nmate has added original research to several articles (he doesn't cite any sources in his large additions), so I don't think it is inappropriate for another editor to be concerned and keep an eye. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Interesting , IRWolfie- (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The recent contribs of Nmate are very dubious on sensitive issues. I analyzed his text in the Svodín article. He cited:

1. Kingdom of Hungary in 9th century? = Kingdom was established in 11th century

2. The history section without Neolithic, Slavic peoples, Great Moravia..., only hungarian POV..

3. Village was first mentioned in 1416. = without citation.

4. The town had Hungarian majority as early as the 17th century, according to the Turkish tax census. = Firstly it was not town, its village. Secondly, in cited source is nothing about Svodin.

5. Czechoslovak troops occupied the area. = Again strong pro-hungarian POV - its not neutral sentence, from the side of Czech and Slovaks it was a liberation. Czechoslovakia was established in 1918 on this territory and it was a Czechoslovak army.

6. Between 1938 and 1945 Svodín once more became part of Miklós Horthy's Hungary through the First Vienna Award. = again POV without important informations, more details

7. Population (sensitive issue) - without citation obviously...

This problematic user lack a basic historical knowledge. He made such addings to 40-50 articles, he was 10x blocked, now he has only Conditional unblock. What he done durring the period after his Conditional unblock? Shortly after Conditional unblock started with his battleground mentality and edit warring , personal attacks with false accusation, started with propagandistic spam, writing reports to users whose oversee him... and "Assume Good Faith", Nmate also deleted my last contribs without reason. Write here: --Omen1229 (talk) 11:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Reply

What do you understand of Omen1229's message, TParis? Does not it seem to be a little bit confused? It is not because of Omen1229's poor command of English. It is because of the fact that Omen1229 seems to be a rather confused user. So that I can't answer the issues that he raised on your talk page on the grounds that they do not make sense to me. That is why it is hardly possible to advise me to get consensus on talk pages with Omen1229 as it requires common sense on both parties' part.

My firt question is that: what is Omen1229 doing on your talk page? Is this a block shopping while accusing me of battleground mentality?

• 2. The history section without Neolithic, Slavic peoples, Great Moravia..., only hungarian POV..

My answer is: everyone can add new information to Misplaced Pages so it is absolutely senseless.

• 3. Village was first mentioned in 1416. = without citation.

My answer is:it not an infringement. Everyone is free to add tags to articles so it is also absolutely senseless.

• 4. The town had Hungarian majority as early as the 17th century, according to the Turkish tax census. = Firstly it was not town, its village. Secondly, in cited source is nothing about Svodin.

My answer is: it was not even me who added this info to the article. But this may also be a part of a content dispute, so bringing this up on your talk page is absolutely senseless. Addministrators do not have authority to resolve a content dispute.

• 5. Czechoslovak troops occupied the area. = Again strong pro-hungarian POV - its not neutral sentence, from the side of Czech and Slovaks it was a liberation. Czechoslovakia was established in 1918 on this territory and it was a Czechoslovak army.

My answer is: same as above; content dispute, senseless to bring this up on your talk page

• 6. Between 1938 and 1945 Svodín once more became part of Miklós Horthy's Hungary through the First Vienna Award. = again POV without important informations, more details

My answer is: same as above; content dispute, senseless to bring this up on your talk page

• 7. Population (sensitive issue) - without citation obviously...

My answer is: it not an infringement. Everyone is free to add tags to articles so it is also absolutely senseless.

• "Now he has only Conditional unblock". It is not true. You can check this. Once I had blocked for a duration of 72 hours when I edit warred with an obvious sockpuppet. Then I get a conditional unblock in order to explicit my standpoint on the sockpuppet investigation board. But when I wanted to explain myself there, there was no need to do so because the sockpuppet was blocked by then.
• "Shortly after Conditional unblock started with his battleground mentality and edit warring"

It is absolutely senseless. What I did there was not even an edit war. I reverted a text Omen1229 added to the article in full violation of the copyright policy.ie. Omen1229 included a verbatim copy paste text in the Ellie Wiesel article. Interesting enough that I had had to revert Omen1229's addition to the article 5 times between 13 July, 2012‎ and 15 July, 2012 by the time he (might have)understood that it is not allowed to include verbatim copy paste texts in Misplaced Pages. Although he also made an edit in full violation of the copyright policy‎ here shortly afterwards that I also had to revert

• "Personal attacks with false accusation started with propagandistic spam ,writing reports to users whose oversee him"

There was nothing that may constitute any personal attack in my writing there, and is en.wikichecker.com a propagandistic spam? "writing reports to users whose oversee him" does not make much sense to me.

• and "Assume Good Faith"

It is also absolutely senseless, I do not understand it. However, Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith in the way that it is currently written does not require users to assume good faith to each other if they are familiar with each other. The reason why the policy was changed was that WP:Assume good faith policy was abused so many times. This reason is often brought up when somebody is involved in block shopping for those who are just demanded AGF off. Terefore, Its current version only says that you most definitely should assume good faith in regard to new editors or those you have not interacted with much before. But it does not apply for Omen1229 in relation with me.

• "Nmate also deleted my last contribs without reason. Write here"

senseless as usual. Everyone is free to delete anything from their own user pages including even talk page without any reason.

In conclude, Omen1229 appers to be a rather confused user, and I honestly do not see the reason for what it is worth pursuing any dispute resolution with him. It is not possible to advise me to get consensus with him on talk pages when I do not see how it is possible to get consensus with a user whose behaviour does not really make sense to me.--Nmate (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Assistance?

Sorry to go this route, I am user:Djathinkimacowboy, indefblocked, by you, for threats. I feel I could make an appeal to ask that this block be lifted. I realise my chances are slim. The trouble is, it is still fully in effect and I cannot even edit my own talk page. What do you reply to me? Please, if you would, reply at the user talk page. My fluxing IP would render a reply to the IP page useless. I thank you.75.21.149.52 (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Talk page access has been restored by TP. Electric Catfish 19:16, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Issues with toolserver?...

The 'Edit Count' search that is hosted on toolserver doesn't seem to be working, all I am getting is a page with "en.wikipedia.org is not a valid wiki". Since the URL ndicates that this is a feature you wrote, thought you would want to know. Shearonink (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The toolserver has been going up and down lately faster than a pair of kids at a see-saw contest, so I doubt this is so much Tparis's issue as the Toolserver's. For the moment, I think we're all stuck with "yeah, stuff isn't working a lot of the time; try refreshing or try again later". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's strange. I'll look into it this evening.--v/r - TP 16:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

DaB. has announced that several key systems in Toolserver hung up and crashed. It resulted in my bot failing for some reason, which I temporarily shut it off, now on again though. I may consider shutting it off because something in toolserver is causing it to run incorrectly. I'm getting a crap load of error messages right now.

I'm also getting mixed response from the toolserver expecially on the edit counter. In some cases, connections to the edit server fail completely. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

UTRS reminders

Hey TParis. You've got a few appeals reserved in your name in the backlog that are waiting for the appellant's input. Some of these I'm closing as stale, but there are a few I'm leaving open as I wasn't sure if you wanted to follow up with the user. Could you take a look at these when you get a chance? Thanks. Hersfold non-admin 20:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Big pink warning box in edit window

Yeah, the pink warning box that people see when they edit Mitt Romney. There's a request for one of those to be added by an administrator to the Mitt Romney dog incident article. Discussion at Talk:Mitt Romney dog incident#Warning against edit warring. Can you chime in with your thoughts? Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done. Don't forget (I've seen you do it) that you can warn other editors.--v/r - TP 03:58, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Please take a look

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kendrick7_-_Faliure_to_abide_by_AfD_v2   little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  03:59, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 04:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring sanctions on US political articles

This undiscussed knee-jerk reversion by Belchfire follows his receipt of your "final warning" about his disruptive editing at Political positions of Mitt Romney, and also follows your previous milder warning about disruption at Paul Ryan. Finally, it follows the September 9 warning given by Swatjester in which Belchfire was shown dozens of diffs proving his battlefield mentality. The most recent reversion is a continuation of that mentality, in my opinion. The wiki is harmed by Belchfire's actions. Binksternet (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I've not examined the details of this (I know very little of U.S. politics, and only occasionally have a desire to learn more), and don't wish to second guess what TParis may feel appropriate. However, is there a possibility that some, all, or a few of Belchfire's indiscretions have been overlooked, or treated less harshly, due to the possibility that they were over-reactions to unreasonable or outrageous behaviour by "the other side"? (I'll declare a bias here, since, along with a few dozen other editors, I've been publicly accused of being homophobic and a Nazi and goodness knows what else, by editors on that other side.)

Also, why is TParis the only administrator who should have to deal with this? If TParis chooses not to act, or is busy or whatever, what is wrong with seeking the opinion of another administrator? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I notified the editor who you might say "opposed" Belchfire, or vice versa, on his last reversion, so that shows my neutrality here. The other editor, User:Sally Season, is new, probably a sockpuppet, zeroing in on the "silly season" of political issues.

I am perfectly willing to take Belchfire's actions to 3RRN or ANI. I thought TParis was leading the charge on the 2012 US presidential campaign general sanctions, so I wanted to give him the first option. Binksternet (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you not think that is a little extreme considering 1) The page was not explicitly listed as being under the guideline, 2) Belchfire reverted a what would be a clear violation of the guideline if it were explicitly listed, 3) the new editor is likely a vandal editor or sock as you stated, 4) this does not appear to be a situation of edit waring in violation of the guideline. Arzel (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While I don't have a high opinion of Belchfire's political-topic editing, which often seems combatively hyper-partisan, I tend to agree with Arzel's third point. I would hate to see any editor sanctioned for responding to what I think we all agree is almost certainly an illegitimate alternate account. MastCell  19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

There has been no SPI determination yet, so vandalism is not an excuse here. It is clearly a content dispute. To Arzel's first point, I wish to point out that I listed the article some 17 hours before Belchfire's reversion. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Is there any evidence he saw that? I rarely check the top of the talk pages I am already familiar with. The bigger issue is that when I go to edit that page I get no notification. I think if we are to use the sanction as a hammer against editors we best not put a piece of plate glass in front of those same editors when it is quite easy to break the rule and not even be aware that it applied to this specific instance. Arzel (talk) 20:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor under discussion is already well aware of how his contributions demonstrate a battlefield mentality. He piles on to articles by reverting and not discussing. He's the exact sort of editor that Lionelt wished to draft into his WikiProject Conservatism to aid in vote stacking. Now we see more of the same behavior from Belchfire, a reversion of textual content that is not wrong nor is it vandalism. Binksternet (talk) 20:30, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I find it very intersting you are accusing anyone of wrong doing and have not notified them yet. I don't know or care if what he is doing is right or wrong he should have been notified, when you first brought him up. VViking_TalkEdits 21:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking into this, but I want to point out in the meantime that an article having a probation template is a non-issue. As I've told Arzel before, 'broadly construed' is a very common (very common) scope in Misplaced Pages sanctions and means 'have caution everywhere there is a chance this applies.'--v/r - TP 21:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to wait on a checkuser here. If this is a WP:SOCK then it completely changes things and we all hear a loud quack.--v/r - TP 21:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Viewmont Viking, I did not notify Belchfire because it was not required. This is TParis's talk page, not a formal noticeboard. Furthermore, Belchfire has already been given a final warning. Binksternet (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

While notification is not required, it's a good idea. I was about to provide it myself, but VV beat me to it. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 02:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Ugh, what a nightmare. Alright gents, listen up. I'm on vacation until Friday (wife and I are playing the new WoW expansion) so ya'all can find another sysop to sort through this and patrol all campaign articles until then. On a side note, checkuser came back negative despite the obvious quacking. I still think Sillyseason is a sock and Belchfire probably does too which is a good reason to ignore WP:EW but that's for another sysop to solve. Cya all on Friday, good luck with whatever ya'alls positions are. Keep my advice in your mind, practice WP:BRD.--v/r - TP 02:21, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I was gonna bug you to look at the Mitt Romney Dog aritcle (sheesh), but it seems like you have far more important things to do. And my complimemnts to your Mrs. That's a good wife. Have fun  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  02:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Issue with Pages created

Hi, in "Pages created" on your toolserver page(http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php), I entered my username(Ykhwong) and set language to ko, namespace to main, and redirects to "exclude redirects" to show a list of pages that I have created since I joined Misplaced Pages. However, it does not work properly. After a long query time, I only get a message like "ERROR: No result returned.". I dunno if this is correct. --Ykhwong (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Changes at Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources

User:Waveclaira began making major changes to Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources that I reverted and attempted to discuss on the talkpage with this new editor. They began to get a little demanding and way off on policy and guidelines...so much that I was VERY concerned about this persons content changes that removed BLP caution warnings among many other things and claimed these changes were minor. I warned the editor several times.

I admit to having reverted over the 3RR and claim the exemption #7. - Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). This is a weak defense and possibly even incorrect I admit and submit myself to your judgement, but take a look at the changes before you do. I leave this in your hands. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:51, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to say it first: Facepalm . —Kerfuffler  taunt
haunt  08:04, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The editor has now disrupted DR/N. .--Amadscientist (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Note that TParis said above that he's offline until Friday. You should bring this up to someone else who's more likely to be around (e.g. MastCell or Dennis Brown). But, they'll probably see it now that it's on DRN… —Kerfuffler  taunt
haunt  08:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Article blame Toolserver

Hello. I enjoy the tool blamer on your toolserver page. Unfortunately for some monthes it doesn't work properly for at least the articles in Misplaced Pages German. I. E. it doesn't find the right version of the article, show another one which is wrong. Can you help? Thanks and regards --KurtR (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)