Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 28 May 2007

Purge the cache to refresh this page

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

• For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
• To request review of an administrator's action or other use of advanced permissions, use Misplaced Pages:Administrative action review
• If you are new, try the Teahouse instead.
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead, follow the instructions on Misplaced Pages:Requests for oversight.
• For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent.
• Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here.
• Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• If you want to challenge the closure of a request for comment, use {{RfC closure review}}

When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough.

You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search)

CSD AutoReason

It's been updated again, and I thought I'd pop over and let everyone know. I've also added a users page, so I know who to update in the future, if anyone wishes to add their name. Cheers, ^demon 18:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. KillerChihuahua 18:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had known about this earlier. Excellent tool, ^demon. Sean William 19:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It makes deletion fun and easy again, it cured my herpes, and it gave me rock-hard abs in only three weeks. Not only that, but it can cut through steel and tomatoes with ease. I love it! EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest you give it a little more time before you pronounce your herpes "cured", but otherwise I agree with you. MastCell 19:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I love it! Many thanks, --Alabamaboy 19:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• This tool rocks my socks. Trebor 19:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you demon! Bishonen | talk 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

Apology

I've decided to apologize for my conduct over the past few days. My behaviour was unacceptable and all blocks were fully justified. I have been, in short, a complete asshole. Sorry.

I apologize specifically for my disruption of Gracenotes' adminship request. I advised Gracenotes against accepting the nomination on the grounds that adminship is a most unpleasant experience – and it appears my concerns were not unfounded – but I no longer care. I realize now that I made the mistake of getting to know another contributor; I shall avoid repeating this mistake in future.

I seem to be incapable of engaging in discussion in this environment. So I won't. I will, of course, act exactly as desired by those who enforce the rules, and their personal interpretations thereof, without question. If anyone catches me trying to express an opinion rather than blindly following orders, they are invited to block me as appropriate. If I am at some point rendered obsolete by a bot, I will go quietly. Thank you for your time.

– Gurch 21:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

• Gurch, I will see if I can replace you with a shell script, but it might take some coding. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There are some who say that someday, someone will create a bot that will be programmed to react the same way to certain stimuli all the time. There are some who say that humanity can never build anything to replace humanity. There are some who think this has already happened. (couldn't resist the badly paraphrased HHGttG joke there) SirFozzie 23:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Gurch now officially replaced by Gurchzilla, took plenty coding. Bishzilla would block if entrusted with admin tools, HINT HINT Bishzilla4admin. Bishzilla | ROARR!! 01:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

See also: Turing Test (needs editing). Jehochman 09:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mull_of_Kintyre_test

Is this article true? It sounds like nonsense, but it's referenced.

I just looked up "Mull of Kintyre" test, and it appears to be true! SirFozzie 22:48, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a well known test, though the BBFC have previously called their involvement in it an urban myth. -- zzuuzz 22:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

(EC) We need better references. I tagged the article {{db-nonsense}} and deleted the so called reference, which was actually a porn spamlink. --Edokter (Talk) 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag, as even without references, it is patently not patent nonsense. -- zzuuzz 22:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Compare the U.S. equivalent utilized by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennan, discussed in The Brethren and here. Newyorkbrad 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, not porn perse (I only glanced), but still commercial spam. --Edokter (Talk) 23:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, that was not a reliable reference, but I've found that other one to put in :) SirFozzie 23:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You deleted two references not one. The other was a newspaper which I've restored. -- JLaTondre 22:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Funny idea. Should probably be a redirect to an article on British broadcasting standards, though. The concept is only informally known as this, and that mainly by insiders. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As the person who mentioned this, if you like I'll sort out the redirect/merge <==correct term? tomrrrow 23:38, 24 May 2007 (UTC)~

I must say it is quite well known, not just by industry insiders. How much of the origins or the like are true I don't know, but the concept and the idea that this is what they use as a guideline (true or not) has been around for a long time and is well known. Ben W Bell talk 07:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And this is what is wrong with the rush to judgment on deletion that we sometimes see in the project. Just because one small group of people never heard of something is not a reason to delete it - we should err on the side of "keep". Deletion is not a way to create a good encyclopedia. Tvoz |talk 22:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Silly comment. Lots if us have heard of it, if it had been AfDed then it would likely have been either kept or merged and redirected, unlikely we'd lose good info. Guy (Help!) 19:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand trying to remove all album covers?

It seems that User:Betacommand is trying to nominate every single album cover for deletion. I thought he was only attacking some La Toya Jackson covers (i.e. Image:2003so.jpg and Image:A_no-relations.jpeg) but from looking at his talk page, it appears that he has nominated other random album covers for deletion as well. He leaves 2 messages to the user who uploaded the album cover explaining why it isn't fair use rationale, which I don't quite understand since it's common knowledge that album covers are indeed fair use. (See my talk page). He's trying to say that it needs a source, which also doesn't make much sense. I've just added to both of my uploaded covers that the image is a scan of the original. Anyhow, it's getting annoying to me and other users and I think User:Betacommand needs to be informed by another administrator of the correct policies regarding album and single covers before he nominates every single one for deletion. Rhythmnation2004 14:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You haven't provided fair use rationales. This is necessary. If you don't do that, the images get speedied. Moreschi 14:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the fair use rationale? Aren't all album covers fair use rationale? It already says that on the image's page: It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Misplaced Pages, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Isn't that enough? Rhythmnation2004 14:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, not in the slightest, per Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline. You need both the tag and a proper rationale. Moreschi 14:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I diagree. The fair use rationale is already stated in the tag - why type the same thing twice? A waste of time and energy. Can another administrator please step in? Rhythmnation2004 14:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The tag merely identifies the need for the rationale: you actually have to say, for each image, why it is justified to use it in each place you want to use it. —Phil | Talk 14:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• You're conflating fair use and fair use rationale. An album cover can indeed be fair use, but a rationale for it being fair use must be provided in order for it to be legally allowable. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline for assistance. All images used under fair use here on Misplaced Pages must have a rationale for each use they are intended for to be present on the image's description page. See Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria item #10, part c. Sorry for all the legalese and policy quoting, but this is how things are and must be done. Any image without these rationales is subject to deletion, and betacommand is in the right. --Durin 14:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is an example of what's required, and there probably are better examples. No way around the fair use policy. Moreschi 14:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Moreschi is correct. Also note that edits like this to provide the rationale are insufficient. You're just restating the tag. --Durin 14:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This seems to require an unreasonable amount of jumping-through-hoops to get an album cover or movie poster included, with no really good reason (unless the real motive is to try to edge towards not having fair-use images of this sort at all), since the reasons will be basically the same for every one of the album covers / movie posters (so why aren't they built into the template in the first place?). *Dan T.* 16:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It is, but such is the life of Misplaced Pages and copyright paranoia. Of course, Betacommand could just as easily set his bot function to put a legitimate fair use rationale on these, but he chooses not to. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Ive said the same thing jeff. I think his bot could put legitimate fair use rationale instead of just tagging them for deletion. If i could possibly tag as fast as he was tagging them for deletion, I would valunteer to manually enter proper fair use rationale. I may actually start on that now. Well see though, I dont have alot of time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I'd do it, but I don't know how to code and I'm not that good w/AWB yet. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • And just how exactly is one supposed to code a bot to examine an image and an article and then add an appropriate fair use rationale? Asking a bot or even a random editor not involved with the article(s) to make a snap judgment about fair use ("by far the most enigmatic doctrine in U.S. copyright law") is a bit daft, IMHO. I'm sorry that it's complicated and seems unfair but we didn't write the copyright laws or establish the case law. --ElKevbo 17:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Very easily. A fair use rationale for an album or book cover is very simple to create, and if you make the bot add it to any image that is used in one article (which, in 99% of the cases, are the album articles), the issues are mostly solved. Those extra 1% would need further examination. So instead of tagging 100% of the images in an unhelpful, useless way, we're tagging all the images in a way that's benefiting the project. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • It is complicated for sure....seems like a bad place to use a bot I would think. RxS 17:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Use of a bot to place a fair use claim is not acceptable. Each image must have its own fair use rationale. As I said before, why bother with a bot doing it, you could just include the rationale in the template, but we can't do that because it requires a specific rationale for each image. Corvus cornix 18:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
            • This is a fallacy. In many fair use claims, such as album covers, book covers, and movie posters, a bot or biolerplate is absolutely acceptable, because the claim will be exactly the same for each image. The problems only exist when they're used outside of the articles about themselves - the cover of Automatic for the People in R.E.M. or the poster of Star Wars in George Lucas. A bot that puts the proper fair use rationale in any non-free album cover/book cover/movie poster-tagged image used in one article solves almost all of our issues with the majority of our fair use images. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • you know, that's sort of what I was thinking. I mean, tagging each image/use for deletion, why not tag each use with the proper fair use rationale? Only when there's a legitimate rationale of course. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, why not fix those occurances where there is proper image usage rather then delete them? Seems to make more sense to me anyway...RxS 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I am going to start manually including fair use rationale. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
          • As am I, just as soon as I have the time... I'll see how many I can get tonight. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that we've had a hit-and-run attitude to uploading in the past. It's a doddle to upload an album cover picture ripped from some website to Misplaced Pages, and that's what hundreds of uploaders have done in the past. Betacommand's actions here are a drop in a bucket, but we do need to start clearing out those smelly stables and replacing the mess with properly sourced, properly justified non-free images where they are needed.

Some uploaders have repeatedly asked that we get the bots, or those who point to the absence of proper sourcing or rationale, to do their work for them. If this were possible, it would still be very risky. Determining authorship and sourcing for an album, book or DVD cover is tricky work and has to be done by hand. I know that the cover of the Beach Boys album Surf's Up is inspired by a famous sculpture known as End of the Trail, but it would be another matter to determine who owns the copyright of the oil-on-canvass rendition that appears n the cover. --Tony Sidaway 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If every article that somebody uploaded was not proplery cited was instantly deleted, we would lose alot. That is why there are tags to alert people certain areas is in need of attention. Lets help out the people who dont understand. I would much rather help clean up somebody elses mistake than delete it because it is "easier" and "not our job to do that" I think it is my job on here to make this a better project. Lets face it, for the longest time people believed the templates were good enough for fair use contention. Ok, so they are not, I will agree with that. But, after that is realized, dont go instantly tag for deletion, take the time, personally review each one. Add the rationale for somebody. Dont take the easy route and just tag it. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of alerting people, couldn't the image links in the articles have some sort of placeholder inserted rather than just commenting out the image? The placeholder could alert editors that there's a problem with the image's copyright and that they should go to the image page and rectify it. Otherwise, unless one is keeping a close eye on the edit history, one might never notice that an image was commented out.—Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Chris, on the subject of "losing a lot", really that's not true at all. All of the items we'd lose are non-free, the vast majority have been ripped from some website somewhere. None of our properly licensed free content material would be lost at all. just the mislabelled, unsourced, poorly justified stuff that doesn't belong to us. While I don't advocate it, it's conceivable that we'd be much healthier in the long run if we just summarily deleted all unsourced or unjustified non-free media. The stuff would come back soon enough and under the current relatively strict regime we can ensure that this time only properly sourced, justified material is permitted.

Elipongo, I think you're referring to tags like {{speedy-image-c|]}} to be inserted into image captions. I believe there may be technical reasons why adding such tags using a bot is problematic. I think it would be useful if the bot could do that. I often do it manually when I tag an image for speedy. --Tony Sidaway 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not the expert here so i guess this is a question. It is not that difficult to contend fair use for album covers and movie posters correct? I have seen plenty of then and even above an example is given pointing to a movie poster with "Proper" fair use rationale. If that is the case, then would it not be difficult to use something like awb and review all the pictures in the movie poster category and appropriatly tag there fair use rationale? It would require manual review to check and make sure it was an appropraite size and that it was only used in the article it was for but that would seem like a much better solkution then tagging for deletion? I am all for feedback on this idea. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but this is what I found for the similar discussion happening over at WP:FURG's talk page:

It is not clear to me that these examples are fair use in articles about the album/movie/book. Based on Misplaced Pages:Non-free content#Images,

• Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification and critical commentary (not for identification without critical commentary)
• Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary.

it appears that movie posters are specifically not fair use in the movie article, and album/book covers are only fair use if the article on the album/book provides 'critical commentary' about the cover.

It is clear to me that this is not how fair use is currently being enforced for these items. ~ BigrTex 18:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As someone who tries to enforce fair-use for images, let me tell you that it is already hard enough even when applying a more liberal interpretation of "critical commentary" than is really required by our policy. I have been called a fair-use nazi and received threats of physical harm. But you are correct, we cannot use book covers and posters simply for illustrative purposes, only for critical commentary. --Yamla 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've been verbally assaulted for this as well. There's a great divide between those who want limited fair use, and those who prefer more liberal fair use. Both camps can not both be satisfied. Every time this comes up, it's contentious. Just today the user who started this thread reverted the removal of album cover images from a discography page. Later, he got quite upset and indicated being on the verge of leaving the project because he was reverted. Another user was upset that fair use images were removed from his userpage ("they are used elsewhere on the project"). And on and on it goes. The murkiness in the middle is finally ending. Result; one side is happy, the other side is mad. Before; both sides were mad and confused. --Durin 18:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this supposed to be about Betacommand's actions? It seems that regardless of fair-use guidelines, using an automated or semi-automated process to effect controversial deletions of material is disruptive. There's nothing wrong with us having the material, and it seems that it's agreed that the majority is in fact fair use. The way, the truth, and the light 20:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• What is being contested isn't whether something is fair use. I think we're all in agreement the material is fair use. The problem is the material is being used improperly under terms of fair use, being marked as such and per policy (see Misplaced Pages:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Images.2Fmedia #6) being tagged for deletion for not having fair use rationale. Some do not like this policy, and are taking Betacommand to task for exercising that policy. There is in fact a problem with us having the material if we don't have justifications for having it. That's why the policy is in place. Betacommand is not being disruptive by supporting the policy. Rather, he's being *anti*-disruptive by enforcing it. --Durin 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, I don't like the policy. However, the way to enforce it is to add fair use rationales; to tag images faster than anyone can do that is not helpful. The way, the truth, and the light 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Once again: Neither Betacommand nor any other editor not already familiar with (a) the image in question and (b) the article in which it is being used can know if it qualifies for an attempt at a fair use defense. Again, I'm very sorry that this sucks and that it's creating a large volume of work for many editors. But them's the breaks when you want to follow the law, stay out of trouble, and make a 💕. if you're American, lobby your congresspersons to change the laws if they're that onerous. --ElKevbo 22:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Betacommand trying to remove all album covers? (section break)

All I have to say is Betacommand is doing an amazing job. It's about time we nuke all of the unfree images we have lying around without proper sourcing, licensing, etc. ^demon 21:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would anyone advocate the "nuking" of images lacking proper fair use rationales instead of desiring them to be given fair use rationales instead? Lexicon (talk) 23:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

At least Betacommand is bringing such rationale-deficient images into the light of day and to the attention of other, potentially more knowledgeable editors. —Kurykh 00:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure Betacommand desires images which are proper fair use to be given fair use rationales. Not all unfree images are proper fair use. -Amarkov moo! 00:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am neither a deletionist or a inclusionist, as I see fair use we have to enforce the policy, all it takes is one greedy lawyer to shut down wikimedia, (wikipedia,wikiquote,wikispecies,ect.) because if we get sued we are screwed. we have to follow the policy/law. On may 4, 2004 we started a policy requiring FUR and sourcing for all images. Why are you complaining that I am being disruptive? I tag the image I notify the uploader(s) and Im leaving a note on all the pages where the Images are being used. per policy all I have to do is tag the image and notify the original uploader. If an image doesnt meet policy we have 2 choices delete or bring into compliance with policy. I dont care which occurs.(I hope that someone would bring the images up to the standards) but as i have said the responsibility to ensure that the image meets policy, is that of the uploader and not any one else's. for someone not familiar with the image/where its used it takes a good 20 minutes per image to write a valid FUR. while someone familiar can write it in 2 minutes. hay is it my fault that the uploader ignored policy? no. get over it and help me improve wikipedia. Cheers Betacommand 01:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not take 20 minutes. It takes a fraction of that, perhaps less for album covers and book covers. We're merely telling you, time and time again, that you could go about this a better way. You choose not to, for reasons that have yet to make any logical sense. Set your bot to put a valid fair use for any {{tl|non-free album cover))/{{non-free book cover}} in any image that is only used in one article, and you've solved 99% of the problems without pissing people off. Then tag the remaining 1% or so with what you're doing - you've improved the project twice instead of just bothering people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If Beta doesn't want to do that he doesn't have to. On the other hand, uploaders have to provide this information. A better way would be people properly uploading images in the first place. -- Ned Scott 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think most of the images being tagged are not newly uploaded but have been there for some time. Issues with newly uploaded images are supposed to be resolved within 48 hours; doing it later than that may be within the letter of policy but is nonetheless disruptive. The way, the truth, and the light 02:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, what's disruptive is the massive amount of improperly uploaded images. Keep in mind that I've done my fair share of the damage, and am trying to go through my past uploads and correct them. If someone wants to ignore the tons of warnings and messages when they go to the upload page, then they have no right to bitch at anyone. -- Ned Scott 02:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, myself included in that with my past uploads. But Betacommand could be helpful, yet he seems to simply be upset that people are complaining when he could do something to make everyone happy. Hell, if he can tweak the AWB script, I'll friggin' do it, it doesn't have to be him. But if he's going to continue with this line of action, he's gotta take the heat for it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand has a history of ignoring all criticism. The way, the truth, and the light 02:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I can see why. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you said it. It occurs to me that instead of moaning that Betacommand isn't doing the work correctly you could be doing the work yourself. --Tony Sidaway 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've put the offer out there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what response you're waiting for. If you can do this with AWB, do it. If you need bot approval, go to Misplaced Pages:Bots#Policy and follow the instructions. --Tony Sidaway 13:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know AWB well enough to set it on my own. I'm willing to do the legwork on it if someone can explain the details on how to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If any of the people who complained actually took the time to read the policy, they would see that they have zero grounds to complain. if I was taking complaints that actually were not BS whining about enforcing policy, i would take the queries responsibility. as it stands I file complaints from people how dont know what they are talking about to /dev/null Cheers Betacommand 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is why people say you don't listen - few are complaining about what you're doing, but instead how you're doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I dont listen to people who have no clue what they are talking about. having a bot write FUR? completely impossible and against policy. (you would know that if you read the policy). and noone has come up with a good way of handling this except for either ignore it, (out of the question), or write the FUR myself. For writing it myself it takes 15-30 minutes per image per use to write a valid well written FUR (since I dont know the subject of the article). instead of complaining why not do something? I have yet to see you do anything except complain and think of ways to violate and abuse the policy. Betacommand 03:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I disagree with everything you've said here. You're even exaggerating the amount of time, which is a really pathetic way to go about doing things. I guess people will keep complaining, and you'll keep ignoring, and hopefully it won't bite you in the ass later. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I dont listen to people who have no clue what they are talking about. - If you had stopped at "people", that would have been a true statement. Otherwise, not so much. --Calton | Talk 03:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Rough day, Calton? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reality check, Jeff. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry that neither of you have any clue what the your talking about. BDJ you obviously havent read the fair use policy and calton I need to remind you about NPA?. this is the Fourth/fifth time ive had to hash this out on ANI/AN and every time I have been proven correct and no one has yet to come up with a valid alternative. i do listen to people when they dont basically scream "I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT FAIR USE IS, I LIKE THE IMAGE AND WANT TO KEEP IT". Betacommand 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Beta, I've read WP:NONFREE. There's nothing there that would preclude you from doing what people are suggesting. It's your choice whether you want to, but, as I said, you can't keep complaining that people are upset when there are other options. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

calton I need to remind you about NPA? Since you seem to have demonstrated that you don't have a clue what it means, nope. And I shouldn't have said that your statement should have stopped at "people" to be accurate, it should have stopped at "listen" to be accurate. --Calton | Talk 13:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

But we don't want fair use images. We want as few as possible, we want them only when we absolutely need them, and the fair use rationales need to thoroughly explain why we need them. You can't do that by bot. You can, however, cleanup endemic fair use abuse by bot. Bravo Betacommand. Moreschi 11:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No, in many cases, you can do that by bot. Not all, maybe not even most, but in many, you can. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Every album cover's FUR is going to be the same. I used the same FUR for all the La Toya Jackson album and single covers, only changing the names of the articles on which they appear. Here's what I've used:

1. This image illustrates the text next to which it appears, which describes the album or single in question.
2. It does not limit the copyright owner's rights to market or sell the album or single in any way.
3. The image is of lower resolution than the original cover (copies made from it will be of inferior quality).
4. The image is being used in an informative way and does not detract from the album or single.
5. No free or public domain images have been located for this album or single.

Now what is to stop a bot from adding that text into every album or single cover? Rhythmnation2004 15:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Nothing, but the point is that the bot won't be eable to tell that the above is actualy true for each albumcover. It may often be the case, but I've seen plenty of albumcovers that are only used in discography lists or used to ilustrate the artist rater than the album and so on. --Sherool (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot could add those to every album cover and book cover used in one article, and be correct 99% of the time per policy and 100% correct legally. That's a better hit rate than we're getting the way betacommand is doing it right now, and it would quickly sift out the problem images and the ones that need further review (the ones used in discography galleries, in articles about the band, etc). And, best part? It'll be much more harmonious, because everyone wins - every non-problematic image gets tagged, and no one gets pissed about it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Question: Does the bot notify users using {{Missing rationale}}? If not, how hard would it be to code? A little notice would be nice. Will 20:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it does. And until we have wikibots capable of recognizing album covers or movie posters (and where those are appropriate to include here) that's all we should be asking it to do. —ptk✰fgs 21:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, let me refresh yours and everyone else's memory since you guys seem to forget what WP:NONFREE says that every single non-free image requires a detailed fair-use rational. that cant be done by a bot, template, or AWB. so these crap rationales that you guys are cop/pasting to every image are not valid. I will sort through that mess and tag images that dont meet policy (ones that use templated rationales) and tag those too, after I finish this first part. so your pain about not following policy has just started. I suggest you save everyone some time and write valid FUR. Instead of supporting a template/bot method that is against policy. Betacommand 04:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, no, it says nothing about bots, templates, or anything about automated anything. You are wrong. A bot doing so for these would not be against policy that I've so far found. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

And by detailed, it means "meets the following criteria" which it then lists. So if your template does meet those listed criteria, then it qualifies as detailed. --tjstrf talk 05:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

But a bot can't tell whether the image/sound file meets the criteria or not. It can add a rationale, but has no way whatsoever of telling whether the rationale is valid. I spent most of yesterday deleting fair use audio galleries on pop music articles. No justifiable rationale for that at all, but how would a bot know? A bot can't compare the article content to the relevant image and how it's being used. The job of adding fair use rationales has to be done by hand. Moreschi 09:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I was speaking of rationale templates, not bot editing. I agree that the bot rationale proposal is completely unworkable.

Though perhaps it's not any more absurd than the idea of bot tagging everything and the kitchen sink at a faster than human pace for a time-based deletion process that must be undone by humans. That's where most of the complaints here are stemming from: Beta is creating a cleanup task that absolutely cannot be completed within the given time limits, and then acting like this isn't a problem. It's very frustrating to those who want to keep policy, but simply aren't capable of spending 24 hours a day 7 days a week writing fair use rationales. I enjoy a challenge, but only a challenge that's actually within human limits to complete.

Imagine if our other equally important content policies like NPOV and V were dealt with the same way, with {{pov}} and {{fact}} becoming speedy deletion templates not removable until the article was balanced and cited. You'd have a much-deserved riot on your hands. --tjstrf talk 09:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I wouldn't worry about time limits. This is going to cause massive image backlogs, at least for a while. The deleting has to be done by hand as well, so I reckon people will have plenty of time to provide valid fair use rationales. Given my experiences yesterday, in many cases there's no valid case for fair use to be made out in the first place for many of these. I'm not sure that the bot will actually cause that many problems: it's probably going to cause more problems for admins than uploaders. Re {{NPOV}} and {{fact}} - well, yes, but those templates are often matters of opinion, no? Whereas here, an image either has a rationale, or it doesn't.

Quite apart from anything else, I'm sick of fair use, and you can check my logs to see why. Fair use abuse is endemic across Misplaced Pages, particularly, so it seems, in pop music articles. You get fair use sound galleries of maybe 15 clips in one article, fair use image galleries of albums in articles on the group, no rationales for any of this, and fair use images flung across maybe 4 or 5 articles, for no good reason other than for decorative purposes. This is supposed to be a 💕, for heaven's sake. We need to shape up. Anything that helps with that can't be a bad thing. Moreschi 09:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could move this debate to the relevant user talk pages, for it's clearly not an issue on which any administrator might or feels moved to act, even if the original appellant thought it might be. --Tony Sidaway 05:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No one's saying that the bot should add a relevant rationale to every non-free file. We are saying that there are certain fair use files that a bot could add a rationale for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So, apparently some people here think that, every time you upload a fair-use image, you should have to write an original essay about why it's fair use. Is that correct? *Dan T.* 13:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Something like that. Of course, your rationale has to be accurate. Has to bear some relation to the reality and the way in which the image is actually being used. Plenty of fair use rationales are just lies. Moreschi 14:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot adding "trivia" template to articles

Special:Contributions/Android_Mouse_Bot_3 is adding the trivia template which places articles in "Category: Articles with large trivia sections". In the case of Maine a list of fiction novels under sub-section "In Popular Culture" was considered "trivia" by the bot. Could someone kindly point me to the guideline which says that information from "In Popular Culture" has to be "integrated into the article"? Thanks. --Chrisbak 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Not in the strictest sense, but popular culture sections tend to group a bunch of very loosely-related facts together, like trivia. hbdragon88 19:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

90% of "in popular culture" items don't actually rise to the level of trivial :-) Guy (Help!) 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a scary category. Any chance of sneaking =+ *Trivia *=+ into the spam filter? —Cryptic 19:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not against the bot... it may encourage people to convert trivia lists into verifiable paragraphs. And Chrisbak, checked Misplaced Pages:Avoid trivia sections in articles and Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Laundromat? -- ReyBrujo 19:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue may be that WP:TRIVIA is an essay. Systematically enforcing one's opinion on a large number of articles via a bot can easily be seen as disruptive or at least unwelcome. --ElKevbo 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... it has been a style guide for months... -- ReyBrujo 19:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA used to redirect to Misplaced Pages:Handling trivia, and ElKevo might not have been aware that it was recently changed. I had to consciously remember to always link to WP:TRIV, which is the style guideline. hbdragon88 19:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I missed that change. Apparently it only happened a few weeks ago. Thanks for the correction! --ElKevbo 19:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the tolerance of the bot may need adjusting. For example, Dinosaur#In_popular_culture was tagged, when it is a section composed of a link to Dinosaurs in popular culture, a paragraph noting that dinosaurs appear in popular culture, and a paragraph with five specific examples. This doesn't seem to be a "large trivia section" to me. J. Spencer 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It previously tagged popular culture sections but I've now restricted it to only tag "Facts", "Trivia", "Miscellanea" and "Other information" sections over 512 bytes in length. --Android Mouse 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That;s an improvement - the popular culture sections are not necessarily trivia at all. Tvoz |talk 22:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree: it is troubling that any pop culture section can be labled as "trivia" even if the section mentions specific non-trivial pop culture appearances. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When an article has a "Trivia" or "In popular culture" section, that's usually a sign that the article needs the attention of good maintenance editors. If you disagree with an edit made by a bot, revert it unless the edit was removal of clear vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What the bot does is pure vandalism in my opinion. See my comments on talk:Avoid_trivia_sections_in_articles . Mlewan 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not. WP:VANDAL says that "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Misplaced Pages... ...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." If it was vandalism, it would not be approved for trial. Will 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not an admin here so here I'll make it brief: I think this bot doesn't help, and will tend to drive Trivia sections underground (cf. this article, with no Trivia section), and discourages new editors. See my comments in Misplaced Pages talk:Avoid trivia sections in articles. / edgarde 21:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Will, you are right that it is not vandalism in the common Misplaced Pages sense of ill intentioned changes. Considering the forum, I should probably have used another word. Mlewan 04:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging the various edits collected under trivia, trivial or not, requires a bit of thought and research; deleting the section requires a couple of clicks. Not surprisingly, the latter seems to be the option used most frequently. I think that this has become a defacto stage in a protocol of deletion. Step 1. move an item into a section called trivia. 2. Wait for the tag to arrive. 3. Delete the section within 48 hours. 4. Refer all contributors with excluded edits to policy. 5. Argue ad infinitum that the item was trivia. Note: This works best with new users who can be easily intimidated and other editors who might only check their watchlist every now and then. This effectively conveys a message that newbies and those devoting less than 14 hours a day to[REDACTED] are not welcome, even if their trivial edit might be an opportunity to expand or improve the article. Just an observation, my own contributions have not been affected. A newer editors 2¢ worth. ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, if the bot is going to tag fiction sections as separate from trivia sections it should toss the Template:Fictionlist template on them if it's a nonfiction topic and the Template:Fictioncruft one oif the article is about fiction but still has too many. Or maybe one of the other tags. The trivia one seems inappropriate in many cases... although if the idea is to tag sections indiscriminately to remove them without any sort of editorial oversight then tagging them trivia and pointing to WP:TRIVIA might be the tactic they want, I don't know.

There's been too many bots going around tagging things indiscriminately lately. That's not a good sign. DreamGuy 05:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking

I request that an edit comment containing identifying information be redacted and the offending editor warned. Editors have a right to be anonymous on Misplaced Pages. Thanks. Abe Froman 19:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well then "Abe", perhaps you shouldn’t send me any more annoying emails. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter for Requests for oversight. Admins can't perform the action you're requesting. Leebo /C 19:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. However, TDC you're out of line for pulling private information exchanged in an e-mail onto Misplaced Pages. That is something of concern for administrators. --Durin 19:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, not whine, but it has happened to me, and no one said a damn thing. Abe want to send me an email mocking my inability to revert him because of my, now expired, Rv ban, then he loses all expectation of privacy. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• This doesn't make it right. You are way out of line for posting personal, private information regarding this user that was received outside of Misplaced Pages onto Misplaced Pages. Seriously, seriously bad judgement. --Durin 20:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Had the same thing happened to you, you have the right to request oversight. No one loses the right to privacy, whether you personally disagree or not. Leebo /C 19:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never emailed TDC. I do not know why he is outright lying about this,and I find it troubling. I do not want to be stalked. Abe Froman 19:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If any admin want proof, I would gladly fwd the email ... better you I would give temporary access to my email account to make my case. Dont try and bluff me Froman, I'll call it. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

TDC is now stalking my edits on other pages . Will someone please help? Abe Froman 19:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And you are fishing for troops for your edit war. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to be sure: e-mail can be easily forged. Would anyone be feeling particularly malicious enough to deliberately try to get you two to fight? --Kim Bruning 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just between you me and the gatepost, I dont feel the email is a fake, and judging on Mr Fromans activities elsewhere, I could se why several people would though. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's recall that this isn't the first dispute in which these users have been involved. Would it be possible to make it the last? All we're doing here is writing an encyclopedia. There's no substantive basis for this newest dispute. Let's just move on. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Wassermann's increasingly aggressive and uncivil behavior

User:Wassermann appears to have extremely strong feelings about deletion in general, and categories in particular, and seems obsessed with categorizing Jews. He tends to refer to people who removes categories, or anything else he feels should be in an article, as "vandals" and "censors". He has been blocked in the past for this kind of uncivil behavior, when he was known as WassermannNYC; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive221#Persistent_violations_of_WP:CIVIL_by_User:WassermannNYC and ] Here are just a few examples of recent edit summaries:

• Reverting Jayjg's vandalism -- the removal of valid material is VANDALISM; please do not quote policies to try and justify your censorship
• Revery Jayjg's idiotic edit...
• Fixed vandalism: reinserted categories that are persistently removed by a vandal --
• Reinserting valid categories that are persistently removed by vandals --
• PLEASE desist from removing valid, relevant, and sourced information from articles...it is considered vandalism
• NOTE: REMOVAL OF VALID CATEGORIES/INFORMATION FROM ARTICLES CAN BE CONSIDERED VANDALISM
• DUH....-- NOTE: the removal of VALID SOURCED MATERIAL can be considered vandalism
• Jayjg, the removal of valid, relevant, and sourced biographical information from articles is vandalism -- please stop
• NOTE:removal of valid material is VANDALISM
• PLEASE NOTE: the removal of valid material from Misplaced Pages is considered vandalism
• trying to remove any and all traces of Toaff
• Revert censorship
• Revert censorship
• When will this censorious madness end?
• reverting Jayjg's censorship

He has even threatened new editors with false invocations of vandalism.

His relatively few talk page comments are also often warnings to people not to "vandalize" or "censor" articles , rants about "underhanded sysops" and "censorious screeds", etc.

His obsession with "censorship" has led him to continually try to advertise the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Wikipedians_against_censorship project on article pages: , along with the requisite accusing others of "censorship".

In addition, he has persisted in other disruptive behaviors; for example, when a Jewish category he liked was nominated for deletion, he proceeded to nominate over two-dozen other Jewish categories for deletion in a period of 10 minutes. etc. - see

His User: page contains a lengthy screed about "certain administrators and others are abusing their high positions on Misplaced Pages to censor and/or delete valid information", and he warns these "rogue adminisTRAITORS" that he plans to ignore all rules when it comes to them.

Today he took that quite literally; although fully aware of a recent CfD discussion ] he recreated the category under a slightly different name and proceeded to populate it with the same people who were in the deleted category, and encourage others to do so. When I told him to stop re-creating categories, he used the very same "all or nothing" argument that had been rejected at the CfD, and threatened and insulted me, saying If you continue this type of editing behavior (POV, reverting fully valid/factual edits, incivility, vandalism, irrationality, alienating editors rather than working with them) I will have no choice but to take some sort-of formal action against your increasingly unhinged and disruptive behavior. Please moderate your editing behavior or else face the necessary consequences. When I responded that the category had been deleted, as he well knew, he responded with more insults. At this point I'm not sure what should be done; a 48 hour block only stopped his abusive behavior for a couple of weeks. Perhaps a 96 hour block? Jayjg 00:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him for a week this time. Suggest 2-4 weeks if he persists. Crum375 00:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the block. He seems to be very aggressive, and obsessed by who is or isn't a Jew. SlimVirgin 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I was aware in a general way of the antisemitic trolling of this user, and of the way he zooms in on Jayjg, but I'd no idea of the extent of it until Jayjg collected all that. I completely and utterly support the block, and will support rapidly progressively longer blocks if he persists, indeed. Thanks for putting that whole case together, Jayjg. ("Unhinged" was rather good, though, I haven't been called that yet. :-) ) Bishonen | talk 00:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC).

Agree with the block. FeloniousMonk 02:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the block; very agressive user. Sr13 03:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed this user's aggressive defense of Jew categories before, but it looks like he has only become more fanatical about it as of late. I support this block, and hope that we can soon move to limit the excessive use of these categories. nadav (talk) 13:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As an FYI, related issues about what circumstances make it appropriate to mention or stress that an individual is or was Jewish are presented in a pending ArbCom case, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/NYScholar. Wasserman is named as a party to the case, although I haven't seen him mentioned in the statements or evidence, and I don't know if his problematic editing is related to NYScholar's. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Jerry Jones (talk · contribs)

JJstroker (talk · contribs)

I keep thinking this user resembles the long-banned Jerry Jones. Have we ruled that out? ·:·Will Beback ·:· 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Per Bishonen, I fully endorse the block. I had seen some of this user's behaviour, but hadn't realized how disruptive he was being. Musical Linguist 16:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another one to keep an eye on

User:TheDeciderDecides is "new", but he sure seems to know alot about certain editors, and the goings on in recent and past disputes. No specific violations that I'm aware of, except maybe an unwarranted warning issued. This comment also suggests the user is on the path to WP:POINT abuse, and general disruption. I smell the sock of a banned user, which one I'm not sure. But it could be one of several editors from the Conspiracy Theory disputes, or possibly FAAFA. - Crockspot 01:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see much precedent of this user being a sock at this time; unless we can concretely allege so, we should try to assume good faith. Like in the AfD comment, he could simply be a (somewhat) experienced IP. Sr13 03:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Influential blogger Andrew Sullivan's recent post bringing new light to Michelle Malkin's own 2002 article Just Wondering parroting 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists talking points alleging that Flight 93 was shot down and questioning the Bush administration in general is a major source of embarrasment for her supporters and some conservative Wikipedians who appear to be on a jihad to exclude this documented info and harrass users like me. The editor in question's inflammatory edit summary ' RV POV garbage " was a clear WP NPA violation as well, and I warned him as WP demands. I predict an orchestrated campaign from these well organized editors to exclude this documented, factual info and drive off editors who seek to stop the suppression of interesting, relevent and pertinent aspect of Malkin's 'journalistic' career that they see as a definate black mark. Please keep an eye on them. TheDeciderDecides 07:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Knock it off with the threats of "consequences" and the unwarranted warnings and reversions on my and Jinx's talk pages. We don't have to tolerate your crap in our user spaces. For the record, you are not welcome on my talk page, and anything you post there will be reverted. Got it? If you think you have a case against me to make me face "consequences", take your shot. - Crockspot 00:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

"rv POV garbage" is in reference to material, not you, thus it is not a personal attack. Jinxmchue 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Decider, I suggest you read Misplaced Pages:Rouge admin. Misplaced Pages does not exist to expose The Truth™. Aecis 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to those editing the Malkin article who have used the article not to describe her career and positions, but in a blatant attempt to 'prove' her positions with dozens of links to her original material and other right wing blogs that support her. TheDeciderDecides 01:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

TheDeciderDecides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a self-admitted sock account. In my considered opinion, s/he is trolling Talk:Michelle Malkin. I say this because s/he keeps ignoring explanations of Misplaced Pages policy in an apparent quest to use Misplaced Pages as a vehicle to discredit Malkin. Cheers, CWC 07:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaand blocked. ⇒ SWATJester 12:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Help with TfD

I'm closing some out of date TfDs, but I'm not on my normal computer and I don't have access to AWB. Could someone please remove a template per Misplaced Pages:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_13#Template:Infoboxneeded? The result of the debate was to delete, but with over 400 transclusions, there's no way I can do it by hand. Anyone want to de-transclude, and then delete? RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll get on the untransclusions. -Amarkov moo! 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... there are 1700 transclusions. I'm going to go get ^demon to set his bot on it. -Amarkov moo! 04:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ye Gods. Mackensen (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Meh, AWB is stupid and allows duplicates on the list. It's only about 800, but I'm still getting the bot. -Amarkov moo! 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I did say "over 400", I didn't specify how many over 400... RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Come on, that's 800 free edits just waiting to be snapped up! Mackensen (talk) 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me, what is my edit count now? -Amarkov moo! 04:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Mine's nearing 9,000, and I do TfD regularly. With any luck, I might hit 15,000 by the end of the summer. 800 would be nice, but I don't need 'em. :) RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My count is greater than yours, and I still can only close keep decisions. :P -Amarkov moo! 04:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, to have run for RfA in the bygone time of July, 2006. (Also, everyone was distracted by this). RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To be fair to my opposers, I was quite an idiot for a while back in January. Anyway, at the risk of dragging this further off-topic, I OPPOSE U BCUZ U DUNT HAV ENUF ARTICLES. ADMNS MUST RITE 25 GUD ARTICLES TO SHUW DAT DEY BLOCK PPLZ RITE. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha! That's funny (and scarily accurate). One of the things they don;t list on WP:ADMIN is that one never must be concerned with remianing on topic. Then again, I still have TfD open in another browser window even as I type this. RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

On a more serious (and on-topic) note, would anyone like a go at this one as well? Not sure how many trophy edits there are to be had, but definitely more than 400 again... RyanGerbil10(Don't ask 'bout Camden) 04:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

878. I say we call bot again. -Amarkov moo! 04:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay! People working on TfD stuff. I love it. :) One of our "admin backwaters". Anyway. Appreciate the help everyone. --Woohookitty 09:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a chance to try my newfangled linux perl AWB replacement... CMummert · talk 00:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Bot's running, hold your horses... ^demon 00:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok done. ^demon 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to handle this one too if you have time. My testing can wait. CMummert · talk 01:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now in the TFD holding cell to await its final fate. Serpent's Choice 05:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam Morris

An article previously on the page for Adam Morris was removed, due to problems with the content, a while back. I have consulted the administrator who removed the article, kingboyk, and he said once to standard, to submit it here, so that it can be put onto the page for Adam Morris, which is currently protected. The article can be found at User:Adamiow/Temp. Please can you put check this article and then put it up on the page. Thank you. Adamiow 17:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please see Misplaced Pages:Notability, in particular Misplaced Pages:Notability (people). Having a brief look at your stub article I don't see that it asserts notability or meets the criteria in that notability guideline. There's also a worrying amount of external links to the subject's personal pages. Thanks/wangi 18:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The article is in relation to a radio DJ on a nationwide radio station. Whilst the PDF is on a personal site, it is actually from an industry magazine, which did an article on him. Please can you have another look. Thank you. Adamiow 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the deletion of an article, or want to nominate a new article to be moved to the place of a previously deleted article, you can file a request at Deletion review. Aecis 01:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Attacks and harassment by Crockspot and others

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Several editors especially user:Crockspot and including Jinxmchue and CWC are very upset over the new light being shined in the Blogosphere on Michelle Malkin's 2002 9/11 Conspiracy Theory article Just Wondering and are trying to suppress any mention of this article, and are harassing me at every turn, including all my good faith efforts to work with them to bring the articles that their actions would cause many to believe that they think they 'own' into NPOV compliance. I will make no accusations of cabals, but I request that some NPOV admins look at the Michelle Malkin article talk page in particular and note how certain editors have worked togther to drive off and thwart the efforts of numerous other editors to bring this article into a NPOV state instead of being a fawning fan page. Note the many observations that this 'fan page' article is lacking balance, and how certain editors seem to 'own' it, as they have driven off any editor seeking balance. Note one editor who says the multiple sourcing from right wing blogs is OK, but no left wings blogs can be used to balance out this hagiography. I have attempted to communicate in a civil manner with Crockspot and other editors over POV and WP violations on the Malkin and Jeff Gannon articles only to be met with outright incivility, rudeness and harassment. They are deleting my warnings too. Please look at Crockspots highly incivil diatribe above, and try and get them to follow WP NPA, AGF and CIVIL. Thank you. TheDeciderDecides 01:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: this discussion is related to #Another one to keep an eye on. Aecis 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting that you say "especially" me. I don't think that I have EVER edited Michelle Malkin or Talk:Michelle Malkin, and if I did, it was to format citations. It's ironic that while you were typing this screed, I was typing this. Don't assume that because I am a conservative, that I automatically give a rat's ass about the things you think I should give a rat's ass about. I could care less about Michelle Malkin. What I do care about is disruptive editors who come to Misplaced Pages with an axe to grind. If you're going to accuse me of something, you should provide some diffs. If that was your shot, you didn't even hit the paper. - Crockspot 01:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
  • And stop putting these stupid warnings on my talk page. I already told you I will revert anything you put there after reading it. You are the one who is harrasing me. - Crockspot 01:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

More blatant incivility. Can't some Admin get this editor to follow WP CIVIL? TheDeciderDecides 01:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, that there is just funny. So do you have a substantive reply to me at Talk:Sicko, or are you too busy causing disruption to focus on content? - Crockspot 01:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Crockspots complaint above 'another one to keep an eye on' is directly related to Malkin, her 9/11 article, my mention of this article, and that it might be notable. Why his claim here otherwise? TheDeciderDecides 01:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it was directly related to what I perceived to be disruptive behavior on my talk page and on Jinx's. I thought it was interesting that you brought up CT on my talk page. I have never edited a CT article, and am not involved in the CT disputes. All I have done related to CT is express my opinion in AfD's and RfC's. You're really barking up the wrong tree, and your decision to target the particular editors that you are targeting tells me that you are here to "give it to" the conservative editors. Again, I'm trying to work with you civilly on Sicko. Apparently, you're not interested in that. Did you post the message on Talk:Sicko just to stir the pot? Or did you wikistalk me to that article? Inquiring minds want to know. And BTW, before you give me any more NPA or Civility warning for what I post on this page, know that admins read this page, and if anything I posted warranted a warning, an admin would have warned me already. - Crockspot 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Could the two of you please take your disagreement to dispute resolution? You're not getting anywhere this way. Aecis 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't have a content dispute with this person. He's just harrasing me and a few others. I'd like him to leave me alone now. - Crockspot 01:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

So this "We don't have to tolerate your crap in our user spaces. For the record, you are not welcome on my talk page, and anything you post there will be reverted. Got it?" is OK, then him deleting my warnings and harassing me and attacking me over my good faith efforts to communicate with him regarding WP and NPOV issues is too? TheDeciderDecides 01:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I am perfectly willing to discuss content issues civilly with you on article talk pages. The only problem is, you only seem to be interested in Michelle Malkin, and I don't edit that article. But when we cross paths in articles, I will have reasonable discussion with you. But you are not welcome on my talk page. Period. Is that so difficult to understand? - Crockspot 01:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It might appear to some that you have WP OWN issues. You do not OWN your talk page anymore than you OWN the Jeff Gannon article. If an Admin directs me to not post on your talk page, I'll comply, but in the meantime I strongly suggest that you read WP regarding user pages before you embarrass yourself further. TheDeciderDecides 02:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, I don't own Jeff Gannon. Even if I wanted to own Gannon, User:Gamaliel would never allow it, and would have made complaints against me long ago. There are a number of disputing editors, some admins, on that article, and we have been hashing out our differences civilly. And I don't own my talk page. But I do control it. And I don't have to leave warnings on it that were issued frivolously. Several of the warnings I removed were for comments on this page, and apparently no admin thinks that I have done anything here to warrant a warning. - Crockspot 02:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he DOES own his talk page, in the sense that it's supposed to be for civil conversation on improving Misplaced Pages, and if he insists you are not allowed to post there anymore because you have been abusive, he has the perfect right to tell you to not edit it anymore and to revert any and all edits you make without reading them. Ignoring that makes you a harasser. I suggest you find some other way to resolve this dispute, because the way you are trying won't work, it just proves bad faith on your part. DreamGuy 05:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never been uncivil on his talk page, and I will continue to post WP violation templates on his or any other editors talk page who attacks me or violates WP in accordance with WP. TheDeciderDecides 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• I, too, find that I am the one being harassed by TDD, not TDD by me. I've never personally attacked him and have only commented on the content of the material he's posted. In response to my edits, I have been accused by him of making personal attacks against and harassing him with no legitimate proof whatsoever to back up those accusations. (Hrm... It's déjà vu all over again.) Jinxmchue 03:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit summary deleting the well sourced fact that Michelle Malkin did indeed share the same conspiratorial concerns as the '9/11 Truthers' about Flight 93 being shot down, and doubting the Bush administration's official explanation in her 2002 article Just Wondering with the edit summary 'RV POV Garbage' is what started all this. Now you claim that this edit summary wasn't a highly inflammatory WP violation? You're kidding right? TheDeciderDecides 06:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You're either a previously banned editor or simply a disruptive sock account. Having started this account just a few weeks ago, I see you're very first edit was to nominate an article for deletion.(which was kept). Please stop wasting our time, thanks.--MONGO 06:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Qasaqsuyu (talk · contribs)

Weird edits to country infoboxes by a rather new user, including copy-and-pasting articles over redirects and moving infoboxes to article-specific templates like {{Infobox Afghanistan}}, which I've been trying to revert. Can some helpful WikiGnome go over this user's edits, check for any weird edits I've missed, and delete the unnecessary templates? Zetawoof_(ζ) 06:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

All of Category:Template:Infobox Country and Template:Infobox Corsica would be a place to start. MER-C 13:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'm on it. Shouldn't take too long. J Milburn 20:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with. Infoboxes and categories are gone, and I left them a message on their talk page. The rest are editorial issues. Took longer than I expected... J Milburn 20:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

basic question

I guess I should know this, but I don't and can't find the answer right off in the literature: am I allowed to change a close that I made? WP:DRV strongly implies this ("courteously invite the admin to take a second look") but doesn't outright say it; and after all a closed AfD does say "Please do not modify", and per WP:OWN I'd think a closed AfD belongs to the community, not to the closing admin anymore. So which is it? Herostratus 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Have you had a second look and come to a different conclusion to your original one? Yes, changing one's decision is allowed. I strongly recommend that you append a further rationale explaining your reasoning in detail. Show your working, so that other editors can understand. Discussing things with the administrator who made the closure decision is a review option that is not precluded by the request not to modify the discussion. Uncle G 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• You still own your decision, so as Uncle G says you can change it. The reason for the exhortation to go chat with the admin is that it might save several editor-days of discussion on DRV if a conclusion can be reached locally. This is particularly the case if there has been some simple error made. Splash - tk 15:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2

I am publicly soliciting, the unbiased and honest opinion of the esteemed members of the community in this case. Some of the ArbCom members seem bent on closing the case prematurely. Please take time to view the on-wiki evidence that was produced by me – , and the rest of the pages as well.

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Workshop
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Evidence
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Hkelkar 2/Proposed decision

Please take time to comment on the pages, your opinion would help avoid a grave and serious miscarriage of justice. Sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick 17:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems the best thing to do in this case is discuss your issues on the arbitration talk pages, if the arbs wish to comment, they will do. Sorry, but bringing it here seems like your canvassing to get admins desysopped. I strongly disagree of your ascertaion that there's a grave and serious miscarriage of justice about to happen. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 17:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kindly review WP:CANVASS. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I just get the impression over the past 2 days that you are determined to see Ramas arrow desysopped, and the only way to do that is on the arbitration pages - on AN, you were leading people to your evidence and therefore your personal view on the matter - that's why I see it as canvassing, and it's certainy not unbiased with your active role in the case. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Our actions should determine our future and nothing else. As for your canvassing allegations, I must remind you to review WP:CANVASS again, this is a neutral venue and the community can comment in an unbiased manner. — Nearly Headless Nick 17:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I respectfully disagree that this isn't canvassing (if this was an RfA or AfD then I'm sure you would see it as canvassing), I'll let others comment instead. Ryan Postlethwaite 17:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that Rama's Arrow (who's on the other side of the case) also seems to be claiming the case is being closed prematurely (correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks clear from the discussion here), I don't see Nick's post as out-of-line. - Merzbow 18:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure none of you will like me for saying this, but I can understand the Arbitrators' rationale. As far as I can see, it was either a case of banning the lot of you or letting you all off the hook. I also rather think this is meant to be regarded as final warning.

And this silly nationalist bickering is a waste of time. Find some adorable ladies and fight over them instead, much more worthwhile. And do it off-wiki. Moreschi 19:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC) And don't propose motions congratulating yourself in ArbCom workshops, either, it doesn't come across well.

Doppelgangers

Please indefinitely block my two doppelgangers User:Salskan and User:Salascan, which I just created. Salaskan 17:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Grandmasterka 17:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory Blockage Template

User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is one of the finest anti-vandalism Admins active today, but I must comment that the account blockage template used on User talk:82.7.200.10 is perhaps amusing, but is inappropriate in tone. Admins should not be mocking vandals -- they should try to educate them, and encourage them to return to the Misplaced Pages fold post-block as positive contributors. BTW, I am not permitted to leave messages on User talk:Can't sleep, clown will eat me, so I decided to comment here. WikiBully 20:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes a little humor is a good time. The template doesn't bother me.--Alabamaboy 20:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Of much greater interest to me is why you're not permitted to user CSCWEM's talk page, to be perfectly honest... the template is fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiBully can't edit that page yet because the account was just registered two days ago, and CSCWEM's talk is semiprotected. Newyorkbrad 21:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, alrighty. I thought there may have been some sort of history between the two editors, which would suggest that this might be a bad faith post. If we dismiss my paranoid ramblings as just example that I shouldn't go off my meds (*twitch*), my opinion that the template was fine still stands. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There is zero history. That's why I made sure to say that User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me is a great editor, though I think the blockage template is unwisely provocative. WikiBully 00:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It harks back to a few years ago when block messages were frequently of that nature. Viridae 14:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rbj blocked

I have indef blocked User:Rbj per this. He has not edited logged in since then but has been using IPs to continue to harass Orangemarlin. KillerChihuahua 21:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

How unfortunate. I had some hope this editor might be redeemable but using anon IPs to insult and vandalize other users seems to be pretty over the line. This user has exhausted community patience. JoshuaZ 00:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Rbj took the news that he was near banning, and instead of using it as an opportunity, he decided to abandon the account and get even. It would appear he's chosen to be irrecoverable. The block makes sense. Prepare for a few more weeks of IP whacking, though. ··coelacan 03:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I am reviewing Rbj's unblock request, in which he claims it was not he that committed the alleged IP harrassing. To evaluate these claims, could someone please post some diffs of Rbj's prior harrassments and the new IP harrassments for comparison? Thanks, Sandstein 05:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I need them also. I'll run checkuser if I get them. Fred Bauder 05:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a couple: this bit of incivility, calling other editors' work "dog-shit", saying "you guys think your own shit don't stink", threatening meatpuppetry, and characterizing another editors' arguments as "bullshit". These are all completely over-the-top and just a sample of what the community had to put up with; his comments to Odd Nature/151. are clear harrassment. There was broad support a full indef ban after several discussions here: and here: If he's unblocked I and a number of his other targets will restart that discussion to secure an indef ban. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've had no previous experience with this editor, but it appears clear that he has been highly incivil and disruptive in the past, as per the diffs provided. Now, though, I am reviewing a block based on recent harrassment as an IP. Can someone provide diffs for that, please? Sandstein 06:21, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought that these comments were characteristically similar. Take these IPs for checkuser: 70.108.92.189 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) 68.100.207.219 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also, I suggest establishing contact with Killerchihuahua before making any move. ··coelacan 07:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've left them a note on their talk page. In case the checkuser is inconclusive, it would help to hear why the blocking admin assumes this IP trolling originates with Rbj, apart from the fact that its target is a user Rbj has apparently previously attacked. Sandstein 09:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Hang on, I haven't had coffee yet - I will do what I can. Pls be patient. Also mentioning there was no opposition to an indef in this thread unless you count my hesitation in indef blocking without giving him one last chance. EVula took that as sufficient doubt about indef blocking, and reversed her indef of the editor. I state now for the record I personally think he should have been indef'd some time ago, and regret even mentioning a Last Chance, as this editor has been nothing but hateful and disruptive. If your look at the diffs provided in the earlier thread, and the posts on his talk page ], you will see the statement that "i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense. <snip> this "offense" he takes here is a pretext." Basically, Rbj edited OM's post on an article talk page in a manner calculated to be a swipe at OM's religious beliefs. He then said he didn't believe OM was actually offended, and made it a case for further attacks on OM, more or less weirdly saying OM was only pretending to be Jewish, so he could pretend to be offended, as some kind of setup for Rbj - completely ignoring that multiple editors were expressing horror at the edit Rbj had made, and an anti-semitic edit is offensive on its own, whether or not the target is a practicing Jew of whatever level of othodoxy. "i have little respect for the authenticity of Orange's religious sense of offense". He characterized the outrage at his actions "phony" several times and showed no appreciation for how unacceptable his actions were. I can dig out more diffs, but most of it is linked in the this thread previous ANI thread, which links an earlier thread, as well as his talk page at the place linked above. Any brief perusal of his contribs will show multiple nasty personal attacks within a few clicks. He's shown no remorse, no intent to even consider being more civil, and I have no idea why anyone would consider unblocking this highly disruptive, anti-semitic, hostile and accusatory troll. But hey, if you decide to unblock I'm not worried. I disagree, strongly, but I'm not worried about much further damage to the project or its volunteers. I'll just keep blocking the IPs when they make their hateful posts, which make the same kinds of attacks Rbj has made against OM, and eventually even the DC area will run out of IPs Rbj can use to continue his hateful harassment of this editor. According to cu, he's always edited from a range of IPs, so cu cannot confirm - but tellingly, cannot clear. A formal cu was not run, feel free to do but you'll get a "likely" or an "unable to deterimine" and not a postive yea or nay. Who else would be making identical attacks to the ones Rbj made, from multiple IPs? this isn't rocket science. Calling OM a fake jew, a POV pusher, and a liar is Rbj right down the line. I will go for coffee now and return once my brain is working: if I've been unclear or more diffs are desired, or there are any questions, I will be happy to address them. Apologies for the pre-coffee disorganized nature of this response. KillerChihuahua 12:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the block - it's long overdue. Guettarda 14:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

As suggested checkuser, does not produce useful results. I might support hearing an appeal of his indefinite ban in order to consider an alternative remedy (I favor frequent short blocks rather than indefinite bans for his sort of behavior) but will not unblock him at this time. Fred Bauder 14:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been enjoying my holiday weekend, so I'm embarrassed that I didn't offer more information. I was attacked by several anonymous editor whom I believe are sockpuppets of RBJ. Here and here, I was attacked by User:70.108.92.189. This was an attack by User:68.100.207.219. And finally, another attack by User:80.213.213.126. Much of what was written fits into Rbj's anti-Semitic rants, rude and profane language, and other activities. Block him forever. Orangemarlin 14:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

request for image discussion close

At Image talk:LaToyaJackson.jpg. All details are already on that page. Uninvolved admin needed. ··coelacan 22:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Clear case of replaceable fair use. WjBscribe 22:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem editor

We have a categorization dispute at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester. Dynamic IP currently editing as 88.104.33.124 (talk · contribs), but also 88.104.53.2 (talk · contribs), 88.104.81.176 (talk · contribs) 88.104.44.134 (talk · contribs), and maybe Albireo223  (talk · contribs) is removing cats and now recategorizing shedloads of articles. Attempts at reaching consensus were made at the project talk page, but now the user has taken the matter into his own hands, and ignores requests to stop and reach consensus. Advice please. Mr Stephen 23:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to add, he was editing from 88.104.34.14 last night where I made numerous requests for him to stop. Pit-yacker 00:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Update: Editor is also removing Category:People from Greater Manchester saying that the traditional county of Lancashire should be used in some cases. For the record (if you dont know) "traditional counties" are very controversial a large number of editors consider attempts to push "traditional counties" as an attempt at pushing a political agenda (For an example see the talk archives of Template:Infobox UK place which ditched traditional counties that had previously been added to the templates predecessor. Pit-yacker 00:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I know about the traditional counties row, can't you have categories for both if appropriate, so you can add both to an article? -N 08:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Its a slightly different issue to that. The issue largely surrounds the naming of categories surrounding Oldham. In the early hours of 27 May the user in question decategorised serveral tens of articles relating to the "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" saying that they shouldnt be in the category Oldham - the fact that categories such as Oldham have also held articles relating to the Metropolitan borough is a conevention that has held for some time. The said user ignored repeated requests by myself to stop and discuss what was a fairly controversial change. Later on 27 May/early hours of 28 May the user created a spate of categories for "Metropolitan Borough of Oldham" for places in the borough but not in the town of Oldham, and proceeded to move the articles into these categoires despite a large number of editors having serious issues about the new categories. Again the user was requested by other editors to stop these requests were again ignored.

Fianlly as part of these changes categorisation of "People from Greater Manchester" was removed as a parent category of the "People from <town>" categories in Oldham on the basis that "category includes people from lancashire so cannot be subcat of greater manchester" Pit-yacker 13:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion concern

Would it be possible to implement the ability for regular users to view the history and past revisions of articles even after they are deleted? I've been frustrated lately at editors for nominating articles like this one for deletion due to a lack of sources, because by deleting them, all that is being done is preventing editors from being able to add reliable sources and improve the article, while destroying editors hard work. If it were possible to view old revisions of the articles, I wouldn't be so against the deletion, because this way, editors would still be able to look over the article's content, make improvements, and eventually recreate it, without just having to start from scratch, when the quality of the content wasn't in question to begin with.--Azer Red Si? 01:54, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• If all users could see deleted articles, then what would be the point of deleting them? The point of deletion is to hide things, because deletion is literally just flagging revisions to hide them, and undeletion is unflagging them, making them visible again. Plus, those lucky two dozen or so people with oversight would have a lot more work to do: if copyvios were still visible, they might as well have never been deleted, and this would neutralize the deletions of all the tens of thousands of unfree images and articles admins have deleted over the years. All attack pages, too, would need to be oversighted, to assuage libel concerns. To put it simply, letting everybody see deleted articles soundly defeats the purpose of deletion. If you must see things, the Google cache is quite available, and there are admins who will email you copies. Picaroon (Talk) 02:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
  • There was also a lengthy discussion here as well. Sr13 03:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Replied on the deletion discussion. What you describe is more like userfying, the article gets restored in user space to be worked on (and it has to be worked on, not just indefinite free web hosting), that way the issues of the AFD can be addressed and potentially moved back to mainspace. Clearly the outcome of the AFD will determine how easy it is going to be to address the issues the AFD raises. --pgk 07:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I note that at the aforelinked AFD discussion Azer Red states that the "majority of articles are made up mostly of OR" and uses that to argue that our Misplaced Pages:No original research policy should not apply. I also note that sources were requested for this article over 3 months ago, contrary to the assertions that editors have "not had the chance to try" to find sources. It appears that Azer Red's lack of agreement with our fundamental content policies and name-calling of other editors is the actual problem here, not deletion.

  Always work from, and cite, sources. Encyclopaedia content must be verifiable and free from original research. This is not an issue for the administrators' noticeboard. Uncle G 13:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

autoreplaceable fair use tag is acting up

I just noticed that many of the images in Category:Replaceable fair use images as of 18 May 2007 were uploaded on 23 May. I don't have the beginning of a clue how to fix this. In case they are deleted before they can be checked, an example is Image:Rios-Montt.jpg ··coelacan 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See the code for the template . At the bottom, it puts the images in the category for today's date MINUS 5 DAYS. I'm not really sure what the person who wrote that was thinking. In any case, I cannot fix it as it is protected. -N 08:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This template as well . Bizarre. Apparently the template authors thought this was a good idea. I think someone should fix this and then have a word with those template writers. Also, why do we even have multiple templates for this? -N 08:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Pipsy the mouse

User:Pipsy the mouse (talk (check history)|contribs) has engaged in a pattern of bizarre behaviour over the last week or so. It started with the removal (first by a bot) of fair-use images that were wrongly used, from the userpage. The user has repeatedly reverted the images back, despite warnings and explanations. The user has also engaged in unhelpful edits to various articles (and reverting useful edits as "vandalism"), and seems to think they can block people. The user has also uploaded at least one fair-use image exclusively for their userpage and has uploaded two Ogg files of copyrighted game music (actually renamed Mp3s) with length well in excess of fair-use, which are not used anywhere. Today, the user has created fake userpages, redirecting their userpages to one, "blocking" the other for some reason. What can be done about this?--Drat (Talk) 08:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved fake userpages back. Looking into it. Sandstein 09:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Now that the page move thing is sorted, perhaps a stern admin warning before any blocks are issued. -- John Reaves (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)t

Merkey

Folks, I have blocked Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to prevent further disruption to the project. It is clear from Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 that (a) pretty much everyone but Merkey thinks he's a problem and (b) Merkey thinks that's because everyone but him is wrong about that. Points suuch as his claim on the RfC that being a financial contributor to the Foundation gives him special rights, and his ludicrous (now deleted) Misplaced Pages:Right to Edit make it perfectly plain that anything which conflicts with his belief in his inalienable right to do what he wants, is necessarily wrong. And he will pursue that agenda everywhere he can find an audience - I have rarely seen more blatant forum shopping. So: I have blocked him for the purpose of containing his disruption to a single locus, his talk page, where we can talk to him or ignore him as we each see fit, until such time as he chooses to stop the nonsense. Please don't protect his Talk unless he makes a real nbuisance of himself with {{unblock}}. Guy (Help!) 10:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, I have to support this, even with the massive shitstorm this could potentially unleash, because it's the right thing to do. He. just. Does. Not. Get. It. He's drifted more and more off the plot with each and every edit he's made. SirFozzie 12:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I state no position on other matters. But I endorse the speedy deletion of Misplaced Pages:Right to Edit. Had it come to MFD, there would have almost certainly been a unanimous chorus of opinions to delete from all experienced Misplaced Pages editors, with much discussion of why it was wrong. We can do without the additional drain on everyone's time that that would involve. The issues that the editor clearly wanted to raise therein have are already been raised by xem at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey2 and can be (and are being) discussed by the community there. Uncle G 12:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Right to Edit was one of funniest things I've read for a long time - please, someone, send it over to Uncyclopedia - but Misplaced Pages is not solely designed for humour, lamentably. Merkey's edits have become so far divorced from the reality of what you can and cannot do that I don't think we've been left with any option other than ridding ourselves of the disruption he causes. Moreschi 13:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree the block is necessary to prevent his continued disruption. A corollary is that anyone who has come to Misplaced Pages to fight with him should be shown the door. Tom Harrison 14:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
• As one of the original proponents that he be unblocked, I agree that he should probably be blocked indefinitely again. He deserved the chance he was given, but he was disruptive. I understand that there are other users who have been bothering him; that doesn't excuse his actions and attitude in conflicts. Ral315 » 14:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards