Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:56, 23 October 2013

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and drop me a brief note here to let me know you have done so. (You may do this by posting {{Talkback|your username}} on this page, or by writing your own note.) (I make only limited use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will notify you on your talk page. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Request

A couple days ago, an editor added "(currently unavailable due to federal government shutdown)", in text, to the {{TVQ}} template (which goes to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) page for a specific TV station. A really good idea so general editors don't waste time clicking on that link.

I was wondering if you could do the same beside the FCC links on the {{FMQ}}, {{AMQ}}, {{FM station data}}, and {{AM station data}} templates. At least until the government shutdown is over....whenever that is. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 11:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Lighting this up again. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 23:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

This won't be needed now that the guv'ment is back up and running....at least until February. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Prestigiouzman

I was thinking, since he is a puppet of another master, whether talk page rights for 'him' as Prestigiouzman ought to be curtailed? Fiddle Faddle 15:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Could do, but usual practice is not to remove talk page access except for users who have made disruptive use of their talk page access while blocked. I don't see any compelling need to make an exception in this case, but of course that opinion can be reconsidered if disruptive talk page editing takes place. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Smoking Gun

Re: "While there is no unambiguous smoking gun", the checkuser at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tumbleman says Technically indistinguishable from KateGompert and KemRP. I would count that as a smoking gun, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't, especially as the checkuser who made that assessment stated that it was not to be regarded as  Confirmed, since the IP all three are on is extremely dynamic. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

And all three edit the same article with the same style. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

All what three? At first, in the context of the above messages, I assumed you meant Tumbleman, KateGompert, and KemRP, but KemRP has never made any edit to Misplaced Pages. Do you mean Tumbleman, KateGompert, and Oh boy chicken again? KateGompert has never edited any article. The account has once posted a very brief comment on a talk page that Tumbleman has frequently edited, but in the few words of that comment I don't see anything which looks particularly like Tumbleman in style. On the contrary, if anything I would say its brief, terse, simple statement of the essential point the editor wishes to make is quite different from Tumbleman's long-winded incoherent posts, frequently full of off-the-point stuff. Oh boy chicken again, on the other hand, has edited (again, not in an article) in ways that look strikingly like Tumbleman; enough so, in my opinion, to create a strong suspicion of sockpuppetry. However, editing on the same talk page in a vaguely similar way and expressing similar opinions is not a "smoking gun". A "smoking gun" is a single piece of evidence that on its own gives the game away with virtual certainty. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I think this indefinite block was unwarranted. I'm trying to AGF but it appears like he was driven off of Misplaced Pages because of his disagreement with others, not his conduct. It's chilling to see how the system can be used. Liz 21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Total crap. He is blocked because his behaviour was disruptive, in numerous ways. If you really think that "he was driven off of Misplaced Pages because of his disagreement with others", then you may like to ask yourself why you are not blocked, since you have the same disagreements. However, in my experience there is little likelihood that you will do that, because conspiracy theorists always see everything they don't like as confirmation of the existence of an evil conspiracy against them, and either will not or cannot see or hear the logic of anything at all that casts doubt on their paranoid view of the world. Probably you can think up some ingenious reason why it suits the malicious purposes of the evil conspirators to leave you unblocked for the time being. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be blocked because I have absolutely no opinion about the Sheldrake article. I've never edited it, I only read over comments on the Talk Page (which took a heck of a lot of time). What I did do was defend Tumbleman when I thought he was being bullied. I don't want to believe a reasonable Admin would block an Editor for saying another user's block was unwarranted.

There are Editors, skeptics, who do monitor all articles they label pseudoscience. That's not a conspiracy, they say as much on their User Pages that this is their interest on Misplaced Pages. I don't think they are evil, they are just quick to label any person who believes in alternate views of science as "fringe" or a "quack" and they don't want people with those views editing Misplaced Pages. I've visited their Talk Pages and seen them mock these Editors. But, they have Discretionary Sanctions on their side so they tend to win the I big arguments. For example, I don't see any skeptic Editor getting sanctioned for edit warring against those they label "pseudoscience". It's just the way things are on Misplaced Pages, they hold the cards. Not evil, not secret, just influential and skilled in presenting a case on AN/I.

The irony is that all of my degrees are in the social sciences (Economics and Sociology). That's my training. So, "morphic resonance" or whatever? I don't believe in it. But the strength I see in Misplaced Pages, why it was used in as an example in Wisdom of the crowds is because when you have a large group of people working on a project, it allows for a diversity of opinion. This diversity is why Misplaced Pages excels because all Editors bring some different knowledge and talent to the project. I didn't see Tumbleman as disruptive but I only read messages on the Sheldrake TP and his own TP. I didn't read all of his edits but in those I did, I saw him conversing with other Editors, some who fiercely disagreed with him. I saw him as bringing in a different perspective. That's why I defended him. I see you have a completely different opinion of him and, in the end, an Admins' opinion carries more weight than an Editor's. Like I said, it's just the way things are. Liz 00:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hyperdunk

An Article I Created Was Recently Deleted Today. The Article Was Nike Hyperdunk. It Was A Good Article But It Had A Few Flaws. It Was Unfairly Deleted And It Took Me A While To Create. I would Like For You To Put It Back Up So I Can Improve It. Thank You (Mathgenious989 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

I don't know what about it you regarded as making it a "good article", or why you think the deletion was unfair. It gave no indication whatever of notability of its subject, which is necessary for any Misplaced Pages article. You should look at the notability guidelines. I can't restore it as an article, because it was deleted as a result of consensus at a deletion discussion, and no individual editor has the right to decide to ignore such a consensus and go against it. However, I have userfied it, which means that I have restored it and moved it to User:Mathgenious989/Nike Hyperdunk. However, it is important to realise an important fact about userfication. Userfication is a short-term process to give you time to work on the article. It is not a way of getting round deletion and indefinitely keeping a page which would be unsuitable as an article. If it does not become suitable as an article reasonably soon, then it is likely to be deleted again.

A couple of small points about editing. First, don't start a line with a space, as it causes the Wikimedia software to format your text as all one long line, and unless that line is fairly short, it is likely to run off the edge of the page. If you want a space to appear at the start of a line, then you need to put a colon (:) at the start of the line, and the software will replace that with a space. Secondly, don't start every word with a capital letter. It looks odd, and can be very distracting. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:01, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok will do i think im going to give up on it because everyone is saying its not notable so i guess its not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cousin Terio

I recently made an article called cousin terio and i would like you to review. I also need help with the refrences as i put them but it said wrongfont. Please help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mathgenious989 (talk • contribs) 01:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

A link removal

Hello, On the Joel Zifkin Misplaced Pages page, I see that you have removed the ext. link to official Facebook page and left the official Myspace link. I understand your edit but was wondering if only one of the two links is deemed acceptable, could it be the other way around; as the Facebook link is kept more current and is updated more diligently than the Myspace page. Thanks for any further help , All the best. 184.162.110.55 (talk) 03:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel very strongly about which one should be kept, and if you are right in saying that the Facebook date is kept more up to date, then that would probably be the better one to keep. Go ahead and change it, if you think it best to do so. JamesBWatson (talk)

Thanks for the advice and help184.162.110.55 (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Manchester meetup

Newsflash! The location of this weekend's Manchester meetup has been moved back to Wetherspoons on Princess Street - the Ducie Arms isn't open on Sundays! Can you believe that?! Bazonka (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Do you know, I think it must be at least 40 years since I last encountered a pub in England that didn't open on Sundays. Even in Wales, pubs being closed on Sundays largely died out god knows how many years ago. Anyway, thanks for letting me know. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Thanks for the advice and I will take a break from creating articles. I will however continue to edit articles that i can contribute to positivly. I will look in to the area of shoes and continue to help there. Thank you,(Mathgenious989 (talk) 21:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC))

Help needed

Hi JamesBWatson, as you are already aware of the personal attacks at my talk-page by a certain user, I like to suppress those revisions, and get those edit summaries removed. As an administrator will you please do it? The revisions are as follows:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5

Thanks. -AsceticRosé 15:45, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done JamesBWatson (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with those problematic revisions! -AsceticRosé 04:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Business cards - spam link in reflist

Hi James.

There's a spam link in Business Cards reflist. I can't seem to edit it to get it out. It looks like that section has been locked down, by yourself?

^ "Standard Business Card Size - Business Card Information and Resources". - It's spam.

Can you help.

Thanks James.

Jim (zimmerjim) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zimmerjim (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I assume you mean Business card, since Business cards is just a redirect, and has been for nearly 10 years. The article Business card is semi-protected, which prevents new users from editing, but you are by no means a new user, so you should be able to edit it. I found a reference which looked like a spam link, which I guess is the one you mean. I removed it using my alternative account, which does not have administrator status, to check that there is no problem editing with a non-admin account, as you can see in this edit. You should have been able to do the same. The only possible explanation I can think of is that you may have been trying to edit the section of the article headed "References". Although the references are shown there, because that's where the {{reflist}} tag is, the actual links for the references occur in the text of the article, where the little numbers like are shown in he article, and that is where you have to edit. If you already know that, and that wasn't the cause of the problem, then I have no idea what it was. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reply on apparent off-topic posts

Hi, JamesBWatson! I have noticed your message on one of my talk page! Although it may seem otherwise, my posts are concerned only with the content of the article. However in the activity of suggestion additions to that article it appears that some editors keep opposing the improvement of the article by misconceived appeal to some wikipolicies (OR and RS) in order to ignore some sources which they do not like or they are in opposition to their preferred POV. To be able to make valid assertions concerning the reliability/usability of some sources in some cases it is necessary that the respective editors should have proven (from their past edits) the understanding of some concepts which influences the making of proper assessement of sources . So, although is not my intention to criticise other users edits, it appears tangentially that some editors do not have the understanding necessary to make proper assertions regarding the reliability of sources and thus they affect the quality of the article by opposing and reverting certain edits to the article. Persistence in this edit pattern means tendentious editing.

Regarding the remote possibility of (range) block, this is absolutely not justified and even to consider such possibility could mean a subtle threat to not point out the non-constructive edit pattern of some users who interferes with the improvement of the article in the way mentioned above.--5.15.210.255 (talk) 15:57, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman's talk page

This page just will not die. Tumbleman had some friends, and some people thought he was badly treated, but he's gone. I propose to move everything remaining on the page, except (maybe) the block notice, to the Archive. I could maybe leave a note that everything is up there, along with a link people could follow to see it. Then we would have a world of Tumbleman stuff, all archived away, and nothing to talk about on the talk page. Does that seem reasonable/OK to you? Lou Sander (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you could do that if you like. However, it's been a fairly large number of hours since the last time one of the "friends" you refer to edited the page, and it's just possible that what you suggest might actually provoke more editing. There may be a case for leaving it, to see if any more edits come, keeping your suggestion in reserve, to be used if the problem continues. However, that's just a suggestion, and I won't complain if you decide to go ahead. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Good thinking. Maybe the time to tidy up the room is after everybody has gone home. I'll wait a while. Lou Sander (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander, I think archiving is fine but recently an indef'd Editor had both their User Page and Talk Page blanked and a big template placed on both pages saying the user was BLOCKED. It looked like a "This property is condemned" sign on a house. Luckily, that action was reverted. I hope Tumbleman can at least get his Talk Page access back. And an indefinite block isn't an infinite block. Liz 21:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz: I didn't like "this property is condemned", either. I, too, am hopeful that Tumbleman will get his talk page access back. In the meantime, there was a huge amount of really verobose stuff on that page, most of it archived by somebody who didn't leave a link to the archive. I put in the link and an 'archivebox', which I hope was helpful. I'm thinking that it would also be helpful to put the rest of the Tumbletalk into the archive. That would put it all in one place, where thoughtful people could sort it out if they wanted to. Whatever is best for all responsible editors, including Tumbleman (whether he's a responsible editor or not), that's what I want to do. Lou Sander (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like the best course of action, Lou Sander. I'm just against blanking Talk Pages or having Page Protection for blocked users. As long as messages are archived, I think it's a matter of clean-up. Thanks for seeing to this. Liz 00:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Void

Seen. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

More and more elevators

See User:John of Reading/CSD log#October 2013 - at least three "contributions" from the same IP address, so this may be worth a block. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for 3 months. How much good it will do, who knows. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to try an edit filter? I see you started to compile a list of the netblocks that the guy is using. If that is fairly accurate, it can be used to help setup an accurate edit filter. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think an edit filter would be set up for someone making only two or three edits a month. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That seems to be true. Since every edit filter is run on every edit to Misplaced Pages, each edit filter creates a significant extra server load, and general practice is therefore to create an edit filter only for purposes where there is pretty frequent vandalism. I don't know enough about edit filters to be able to judge how frequent that means, but back in May, I worked out that the average rate of edits from the elevator vandal was a little over one a week, as you can see at User talk:John of Reading/Archive 12#Elevator filter. I requested an edit filter at Misplaced Pages:Edit filter/Requested#The elevator vandal, but in 5 months there has been no response to the request. I am inclined to think that John is right, and this vandal doesn't edit often enough to get an edit filter. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought it was more frequent than two or three edits a month. You are probably correct about him not editing frequently enough to warrant a filter. It is great if the two of you can keep up with the guy without a filter, but if you decide that his activity picks up and it warrants another look at a filter, feel free to drop me a note and I'll write it. With the data you collected and the guy's pattern, the filter should be fairly easy to write.

A narrowly written edit filter does not put much load on the system as false conditions on the filter will stop the filter fairly quickly. With this particular vandal, the filter can be very narrow. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Januarythe18th is editing my post on his talk page

I'm really sorry to bother you, but the user Januarythe18th, recently indef blocked, is editing my post on his talk page, despite I asked him not to do it, and even editwarring over it . He recently turned a part of my post into bold, and after I reverted , he turned the same part into bold again and highlighted with yellow . He also changed my signature, adding "BK" before my username. I think this is troubling, because it misrepresents who I am and changes what I have said. If you could help somehow, I'd appreciate very much. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to apologise for bothering me. I have removed talk page access. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. My posts were being relocated by this editor to the bottom of the page/section (though I probably should have backed off earlier...). Regards Danh108 (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheena Bajaj

You have protected Sheena Bajaj which is redirecting to Best of Luck Nikki. I think there should be the article currently named Sheena Bajaj (actress). Maybe you want to remove the redirection and rename the article? -- 6BL-A504 (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of protecting Sheena Bajaj was to prevent a disruptive editor from persistently re-creating an article in defiance of consensus at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Sheena Bajaj. The editor then created a sockpuppet account and evaded the article protection by re-creating it under a different title. That block-evading and protection-evading re-creation has now been deleted too. The decision taken at the deletion discussion was that this should be a redirect to Best of Luck Nikki. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Galatta Cinema

I want u to know that u deleted Galatta Cinema, even though it was properly sourced. In fact, User:Dravidianhero had created it long before he was blocked, and therefore the article should be restored. ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing is irrelevant, since that was not the reason for the deletion. The article was created on 4 May 2013. The editor who created it has been blocked numerous times in a total of 20 accounts and I know not how many IP addresses, including an indefinite block on the account Kalarimaster and a ban from English Misplaced Pages dating from 11 January 2010, more than 3 years before this article was created. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

In that case, if anyone else recreates the article (albeit in a re-written form), is that allowed? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

If someone else writes a completely new article on the same subject, there will be no problem at all. If someone else reposts the same, or very nearly the same article, then that is likely to look dubious, and may lead to suspicion of sockpuppetry, so it is probably safer to avoid that. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No Source

Do you think the situation regarding the deletion of File:BatmanMobile.jpg is a joke ?

The user who uploaded that image has not provided the source from which it has been obtained from. The source line says "The image can or could be obtained from Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment."

Now, who knows that it is a copyright material or not ? If there will be specific source, then we can consider it.

@Sonicdrewdriver: Isn't it ?

Himanis Das  talk 10:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but all that is irrelevant, because the page was nominated for speedy deletion not for copyright reasons, but as "an article about a living person that is entirely negative in tone", which is clearly complete nonsense. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Himanis called me here for support (apparently), and have to agree with you, James. Himanis: As I said at my talk page, and the talk page of the image's OP, there is no way you can apply a BLP guideline to an image that does not include a person in it. As with citation, sources do not have to contain a link that everyone can access, but point out where the content came from. As it happens, that source line gives all the information required for that image. Essentially then, you have two problems. Firstly, you can't speedy delete something as a defamatory BLP when it's neither a BLP nor defamatory. Secondly, there is no issue with the source line and, even if there were, it's not a speedy-deletable issue.  drewmunn  talk  10:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Atlee Kumar

I agree with your analysis but with a couple provisos: A block it is not exactly the same as as a WP:BAN and sources are available. But we do not reward the actions of blocked sockmasters, and the notability of Atlee Kumar does not quite meet the requisites of WP:FILMMAKER. Schmidt, 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

On the matter of banned/blocked, I was basing what I said on the fact that two of the blocks on the sockmaster are logged with reasons that include the word "banned", as can be seen in the block log here. I have not checked why the two administrators who said that the user was banned thought so, and whether they were right or not. If they weren't, then reinstating the PROD would have been against policy, but it doesn't really make any difference, since, as I said in the AfD, I don't intend to do so anyway. JamesBWatson (talk) 18:57, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Gerardw

"An editor called Gerardw" — right, I remember that editor. Now called User: NE Ent. :-) (Good decline.) Bishonen | talk 21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC).

Yes, I know that the editor has changed his username more than once, but I couldn't be bothered checking what the latest name was, since it was irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)