| Revision as of 01:45, 18 January 2017 editMarlo Jonesa (talk | contribs)1,587 edits →Re-Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:56, 17 February 2023 edit undoThe Wordsmith (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators15,541 edits Reverted 1 edit by 107.119.57.79 (talk)Tags: Twinkle Undo | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{nobots}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| ] | |||
| | algo = old(4d) | |||
| | archive = User talk:BU Rob13/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| | counter = 6 | |||
| | maxarchivesize = 200K | |||
| | archiveheader = {{Aan}} | |||
| | minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| | minthreadsleft = 0 | |||
| }}<!-- | |||
| -->{{bots|deny=Legobot}}<!-- | |||
| -->'''<big>Please feel free to leave a message for me here. You can click the link in the box below to do so. Please be sure to link to relevant articles/diffs and sign your name by typing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> at the end of your message. Adding content within an irrelevant subsection on my page will likely result in no response.</big>''' | |||
| {{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=watched}} | |||
| {{archives}} | |||
| == New message on ] == | |||
| {{Talkback|User talk:109.155.83.184}} | |||
| I've replied to your message on my talk page with additional information. ] (]) 05:24, 17 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Premature closure of a deletion discussion == | |||
| Hello Rob. I see you deleted ] as per the ]. I think it will be extremely difficult to verify the identity of a deceased individual or their deceased relative. It may seem implausible to you the subjects son would be allowed in an important meeting, but this is common in the Arab culture. I think that a discussion of all the uploaders photos must be taken. I have opened a discussion at ]. ] (]) 13:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Emir of Misplaced Pages}} Based on our current policies requiring OTRS verification in cases like these, the arguments of one side were quite strong relative to the other side, which led to my finding of consensus. My aside was just that - an aside - and didn't factor into my close. As for the close being premature, the discussion had gone on three months, so it was quite overdue. As for the FfD, FfDs aren't opened on individual pages like that. You'll need to create a discussion as described at ] if you'd like to discuss the remaining images. The already deleted image usually isn't re-discussed at that venue, but see ]. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 14:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::What cases are exempt from OTRS verification? I think this is a special case not only as the uploader is deceased, but also because of the confusion as to whether the image in question is in the public domain. I understand that FfD's aren't usually opened on a page like that, but I think this is a special circumstance as it could be possible that the majority if not all of the uploaders photos across their multiple accounts should be deleted. I understand that the deleted image isn't usually a part of the FfD, but if it turns out that the delete image was deleted incorrectly then it may be possible that the other images uploaded by the uploader are allowed to stay. ] (]) 16:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::Any image where the claim of authorship involves being a specific noteworthy individual requires OTRS verification, as do cases where the uploader is not the copyright holder. We have no method of listing an unusual FfD sub page for discussion, and if we tried, it would likely break the bot that clerks FfD. Technically, it's impossible to handle the nom like this instead of as a usual multi-nom, as far as I know. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 17:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The images author is not a noteworthy individual nor from what I gather did they claim to be, however they were related to such an individual who was deceased. OTRS verification is impossible or at least very difficult as the uploader is deceased. In the specific case of the image that you deleted I believe that either the uploader was the copyright holder, or that the image is in the public domain as the uploader stated that the UAE copyright laws were not retrospective. He was likely to know this not only as his career was a producer in the UAE, but his father wrote the constitution. I am thankful for you teaching me how the FfD pages work, and pending the outcome of our discussion I will probably put that specific one under a CSD request. About your aside that it is highly unlikely the uploader would have been at the event, I think you may be looking at it through your own cultural lens (I'm guessing Canadian or American from your userpage) but in the Emirati/Arab cultures espacially of the time it was common for grown men to be with their fathers throughout the work day. I would be grateful if you could tell me what evidence is likely to persuade you to restore the image, or perhaps use the that was mentioned by {{u|Explicit}} but not clarified to as the source of this fuller version. Furthermore I think the other issues about the uploader are due to an inadequate grasp of English, and not due to poor understanding of UAE copyright laws. ] (]) 16:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::'''Update''' Have you had time to consider this or should I discuss it with other editors? ] (]) 15:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{re|Emir of Misplaced Pages}} A claim of being related to a famous person is usually something that is verified through OTRS. As for the UAE copyright, even if that wasn't retrospective, this would likely still be copyrighted in the United States based on its date of publication unless you can find evidence it was published before 1977 without a copyright notice. Sorry, but given all this, usual practices, and the fact that 4 editors supported deletion at the deletion discussion, I'm not seeing any basis to reverse my close. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::What is your view on the other historical uploaders by this user across their various accounts then? Are you going to delete them with the same rationale as this image, or will someone have to individually do a FfD for each of the images? ] (]) 16:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::FfDs are typically handled individually to avoid discussions where suddenly a few stray PD claims are being thrown around. I don't personally plan to nominate them for deletion, but I acknowledge there's probably grounds to do so. Limited time, etc. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == The LeBaron vandal now impersonating editors == | |||
| , the one from ] and ] discussion, is now quacking as ], most likely an attempt to pose as ]. Red Director is a highly prolific fixer of minor typos in sports bios, while the imposter is displaying all the disruptive editing habits of the IPs that he has used ( ), even making some near identical erroneous edits (compare and ). Sorry if that's a lot to digest, but sullying the name of an editor who's done nothing but fine work was the last straw for me. ] (]) 01:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you for pointing this occurrence out to this user, Lizard. I can assure anyone looking at this post that I do not any connection to this potential sockpuppet. ] (]) 02:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes, very clear. Blocked. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 03:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::He's back using . Maybe we should start an SPI? It doesn't look like he intends on letting up, and I'd hate to keep spamming your talk page. ] (]) 19:04, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :::What's interesting to me is that sometimes in edit summaries and occasionally on user talk pages, he will swear up and down (usually with hostility) that his edits are correct. When they're some of the most easily verifiable things like Pro Bowls, Super Bowls, and teams played for, I find it really hard to assume good faith. ] (]) 19:34, 14 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Blocked for a month. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == UTRS appeals == | |||
| Greetings, this is just a courtesy note to mention that three UTRS appeals, that you have reserved, have been in your queue for action or release for a about a week. ] (]) 14:31, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Just Chilling}} Apologies, those were returned to my queue while I was on vacation. I've now responded. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Many thanks for your prompt action. :-) ] (]) 17:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Deletion of the page "User:TyEvSkyo/Particle Sphere Theory" == | |||
| Hello, you have deleted an article in my user space that you believed to be a hoax article. It was not, however it did contain original research. This original research was going to be sourced in the future. It was a Work in Progress Article, and according to ], "Besides communication, other legitimate uses of user space include (but are not limited to):... Work in progress or material that you may come back to in future". Thus, this WIP article was not against the rules of Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Also, the page does not qualify for any of the ], you stated it applied to the G3 criteria (Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes), however, as stated above, the article was a WIP article, not a hoax. Finally, the U5 criteria may apply. However, it does not, since the criteria states "with the exception of plausible drafts and pages adhering to ]" | |||
| ] (]) 19:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|TyEvSkyo}} The things you wrote are not supported by any mainstream scientific source. As such, it constitutes a hoax to present them as fact. If you can provide any evidence for your claim (not based on ] or ], but actual mainstream scientific sources making the same claims made in the article), then I will gladly consider undeletion. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: {{re|BU Rob13}} The some of the sources can be seen ] ] (]) 16:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Hello == | |||
| Hi, Rob! Ad Orientem was kind enough to provide the stronger 30-500 protection ] per a report at ] from Callmemirela, but I'm thinking it should still be indefinite for obvious reasons. Thank you. <abbr title="Smiling face" style="border-bottom: none;">]</abbr> ] (<small>] | ]</small>) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| It's been a little over a week. Have you had a chance to review this case? Failing that, would you object to my reopening it? ] (]) 03:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Sir Sputnik}} Whoops, this fell off my radar when it got archived. I'll look tonight. Thanks for the reminder. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == A cup of tea for you! == | |||
| {| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thanks for letting me know about the page mover feature. This will make my life a lot easier. I wasn't aware of it - it seems to have been introduced last year when I was overseas. Thank you! ] (]) 03:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| :{{re|Hawkeye7}} No problem! Sorry I didn't return to actually grant the user right; I was out of town for a couple days and missed the watchlist entry that you had responded. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 16:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::No worries. A ] did the trick. {{smiley}} ] (]) 20:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Tell me, how can a user who's been blocked four times for personal attacks / harassment, twice for edit warring and once for abusing multiple accounts, all since 2014, not get an indefinite ban? <sup>(talk page stalker)</sup> ''']]]''' 11:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ==You've got mail!== | |||
| {{you've got mail|subject=|ts=16:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
| Soon, at least, I haven't sent it yet. ''']''' (<small>aka</small> ] '''·'''  ] '''·'''  ]) 16:45, 17 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == Re-Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction == | |||
| Really, what!!?. i'm fixing Wiki Link - Palestinian people to Palestinians.--] (]) 01:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :{{re|Marlo Jonesa}} Editors have repeatedly attempted to explain to you that you are not permitted to make any edits to pages connected to the Israeli–Palestinian topic area until you are extendedconfirmed as per ] and the consensus at your AE thread. The topic ban doesn't change this; it just makes clear that this restriction – which applies to ''all'' new editors, not just you – will be enforced through blocks if such edits continue. Please edit outside the topic area as requested by the community at AE and then let me know when you've accumulated enough significant edits. I'll happily lift the topic ban at that time. ~ ]<sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">]</sup> 01:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yes but I didn't do anything bad, then these articles are not protected. You have to explain what I did exactly otherwise, they will think that I tried to replace Israel to Palestine.--] (]) 01:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC) | |||