Misplaced Pages

Firstly, please see here on why it is a problem. The page says that guidelines on the page should be met with "an occasional exception," and I don't think 11 times in the past two weeks alone counts as an "occasional exception." Secondly, he has been blocked four or five times in the past for this behavior, so he has no excuse to be continuing it. Third of all, in one of the cases I pointed out above, he completely deleted someone's comment. In another, he edited someone's link so that it was broken. So yes, for the above reasons, it is a problem. If this was the first time he'd ever done it, you're right, it wouldn't merit attention here. But after four or five times being blocked for the behavior? I think it does, not to mention that WP:TALK isn't the only guideline he chooses to ignore. I'm not particularly here to complain about the rest of it, except for above when the anti-MoS edits were becoming disruptive (but that has been resolved now). Cheers, CP 15:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Durin

Yet another image patroller harassed off the project. I've mostly given up on this myself as well, as the vitriolic attacks (and the blind eye that is frequently turned to them) are just not worth it. Videmus Omnia 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

More than just an image patroler, a very valuable member of the project, this really depresses me. Pete.Hurd 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alas, my admin nominator. Here's hoping he changes his mind, and here's hoping the Foundation will put some teeth into its fair use policies soon. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 21:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could I ask what exactly is this "e-pol" organization which apparently claims some sort of jusrisdiction? I visited their website, but there is nothing there to indicate what, if any, legal status it has. DuncanHill 21:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I sure second that question. Is this organisation for real? I mean, the website e-pol.org is (link now on WP spamlinks list) most certainly is not the website of an international organisation with any sort of jurisdiction and it looks like nothing else than an elaborate hoax. Well actually, not even that elaborate. Pascal.Tesson 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am taking the question to the Humanities refdesk, we have some wonderful people there who may be able to pin this down. DuncanHill 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's sort of all under control, if I could get a straight answer out of anybody I'm in contact with. It does appear, at present, that e-pol is part of some organisation called UNOP Liaison EU, there's no information on the internet about them, however, so establishing the validity of them and e-pol is difficult. Nick 21:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Which apparently is tied to this obscure organization www.un-net.org (link now on WP spam links) which as far as I'm concerned looks like the webpage of a bullshit hoax of an organization. Pascal.Tesson 21:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_International_development#UNOmbud. I think someone is just fucking with Durin... Pascal.Tesson 21:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

UNOP = United Nations Office for Partnerships. It promotes furtherance of the Millennium Development Goals. Hardly likely to be an investigations arm. Orderinchaos 17:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, he was a great contributor. I hope he comes back... -- Anonymous Dissident 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fucking ridiculous that Durin left in such circumstances. Maxim_(talk) 23:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

So why doesn't someone file some e-pols against the nutters that file them? like the poor misunderstood copyright violator who was hassling Durin? --Rocksanddirt 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe I'm just being hopelessly naive, but this could all be a misunderstanding. User:DannaShinsho is rather new and doesn't seem to speak English that fluently, so the language barrier could be contributing to the confusion. From what I gather, she uploaded some images, that she claims she created, using an incorrect license. This was tagged by Durin asking for a source, and things seem to have spiraled downwards from there. As for the "legal action", it seems to be directed not at wikipedia or Durin, but at those other websites that Durin has claimed hold the copyright to the images.75.116.41.73 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to dissapoint but I'm afraid you're hopelessly naive. Admins should really take the time to go and check the 5 deleted images that were at the root of this nonsense to clear up any doubt they may have had about DannaShinsho's claims that she was robbed of her precious copyrights. We're talking here about an image of clothes hanging on a clothes line with a funny caption, an image of a dummy witch crashed against a tree with, you guessed it, a funny caption, an image of a funny sign over a road with yet another snarky caption and an image of funny cats (no caption, so not so funny). I just wish Durin had taken the time to tell someone before this got out of hand. Pascal.Tesson 01:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, but I would just like to express my gratitude for all the fair use patrollers out there. While I may disagree with you sometimes, you play an incredibly valuable role, and you get way too much flak. --Haemo 01:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't what Durin did that generated this animosity, it was his/her attitude. I also find it hard to believe e-pol has the power and jurisdiction it claims.Rlevse 01:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle that question once and for all. Not only does e-pol have no power and jurisdiction, it also happens to be a phantom organization most likely created as part of some sort of scam. Either DannaShinsho was too naive to realize that or he/she is actually behind that phantom organization. Not that I want to play detective here, but the website of e-pol.org is pretty clear about this: you should only contact them through your local police (or to be precise your local Data Crime Unit) or through some big international organization. In any case, DannaShinsho is not welcome here and now the only question left to settle is: how do we get Durin back? Pascal.Tesson 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Has the Office been made aware of this situation? I know that they don't usually get involved in garden-variety on-wiki disputes, even when legal threats are involved, but setting up an organization to make such threats and targeting them against people enforcing Foundation policy really is not acceptable and I think counsel should know this is going on. Newyorkbrad 01:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that what actually happened here? Are we sure that e-pol is tied to DannaShinsho?

If this was a credible threat we would need to involve Mike; as it apparently isn't, we don't, but perhaps Jimmy would want to know.

I've emailed Durin, who is frustrated over several things. We'll see. Georgewilliamherbert 03:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is creepy, and harrasment in the extreme. I hoep that Durin returns soon. It is a growing trend, and problem, here on WP, that often our best admins and editors are targeted for harrasment by those who have axes to grind, and agendas to war over. frankly, I'm surprised that the rabid extremist groups of the world aren't all putting up attack site pages outing wikipedians left and right for editing in a manner contrary to the extremists on any given subject. ThuranX 04:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I'll miss him too. Though it's sure nice to see at least some moral support for nonfree image patrolling here, sometimes it seems like you're the only one and everyone hates you for it. I wish the Foundation would give some type of clarification on "minimal" here at some point. (Personally, I think German is ahead of the curve, get rid of the damned things altogether, but that's probably not something we could get done here right now.) Seraphimblade 05:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is at least partially Durin's fault. First, he asked DannaShinsho to add proper tags to images. When she did that, he accused her of lying, and claimed he had proof that she is not the author. She asked him who claims the copyright, and he replied with this rude statement. Of course I don't know DannaShinsho's intentions nor if she created the images or not, but Durin is not innocent. He needlessly escalated the conflict. And the legal threat was clearly not against him, DannaShinsho even asked him for evidence:--SuperElephant 06:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What is e-pol ? and what authority and jurisdiction does it have over Misplaced Pages ?

I don't know. But it's irrelevant in this case.--SuperElephant 18:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you go to their website, you will see that it is incredibly uninformative. Legitimate organisations are always prepared to be informative and communicative about their aims and intentions, going to the e-pol website, however, leaves you as uninformed as ever. It is strange that an organisation that claims global jurisdiction should have their website written in bad English.

There must be serious doubts that it is a legitimate organisation. A Google search reveals nothing.

I propose that Misplaced Pages should set up a committee to look into e-pol and basicly tell them where to get off.

Tovojolo 11:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

An e-mail from the internet service provider basically confirms that they are not a Governmental organisation and should not be treated as one. The contact at the ISP goes onto say that if impersonating a government official or police officer is a criminal offence in your country, contacting the police would be a sensible suggestion. Nick 14:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's servers are based in America, so it is subject to American Law, above all. Impersonating a governmental or police official is definitely an offence in America so Misplaced Pages should make a complaint in America against e-pol.

We cannot allow any Wikipedians to feel intimidated by such groups as e-pol.

Tovojolo 15:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there really were such a thing as "e-pol", does anyone not born yesterday really think a police organization would post their planned arrest activities, or whatever, on a public website? Good grief, Charlie Brown.Baseball Bugs

3 things to say: (1) Durin shouldn't have left during those circumstances. (2) The WMF needs to become more stringent with its FU policies, and (3) Epol.com should probably be put on the spam blacklist... –Animum 16:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I can only help with one of the above, and that's just confirming e-pol.org plus all of the UNOP Liaison EU websites we are aware off have been blacklisted locally. Nick 17:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Off topic, but that e-pol.org website has some horrible web design. I can't even read the font, it's that small. —Crazytales (t.) 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

E-Pol is definitely not a bona fide organisation.

Look at the company's internet profile E-Pol Internet Profile.

If you look, you'll see that only one organisation links to e-pol – and that's www.bn23hosting.com – which is a Linux web hosting company !!!!!. So this great "regulatory" organisation that's supposed to police the Internet, has, in reality, no internet presence and is hosted on Linux !!!!!! I'm guessing some college kids in Hong Kong set it up – which is where Danna Shinso who threatened all the legal action comes from.

It would all be so laughable if it hadn't caused so much trouble.

I think someone should tell Durin so that he can come back.

Tovojolo 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame he left when he did, as he was in the middle of a debate on the inclusion of fair use images in the List of Pokémon series of articles (see discussion here). Now no one knows what to do - the Pokemon Wikiproject wants to re-add the images as soon as possible, but as Durin is unable to defend his point, they're understandibly unwilling to do so unilaterally. It's just led to image-warring and inclusion of pointless cruft, which no one on either side wants. Morgan695 06:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This "e-pol.org" website resolves to the same address as "specialdataservices.net" and traceroutes through Amsterdam, Netherlands. When I go to that page I get a web page design effort a high schooler could have bettered, complete with really annoying Flash noises, and isn't even complete and doesn't give a phone number. The website itself, while better designed, tells you nothing, makes vague claims, and uses terrible English. If I were not mistaken I'd say this is a very small company that does some sort of investigations for a fee. It also does not provide a contact telephone number. A random selection of 10 private investigation companies' websites stop short of putting their contact details in lights. Another site (which I just discovered when trying to save is in Misplaced Pages's spam filter list) is the backup site and also does not provide a phone number, and is also hosted in the Netherlands. On hitting Google, only 3 unique hits, one of which is DannaShinsho's talk page and another of which is a web designer from New Jersey who claims he worked on it. Factiva, a search engine which indexes newspaper articles from all over the world, does not have even one hit for this organisation. Orderinchaos 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused. Why was this user blocked? It doesn't look to me as if he was threatening Durin, or Misplaced Pages, or WMF. The post he left on Durin's talk page is not threatening him. It seems as if he is using e-pol.org to take action against the people elsewhere on the net who are using the images he claims are his, not Durin. He presumably notified Durin of this because Durin was the one who said they were being used elsewhere without Danna's consent. i  19:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

New message from the same user

Please have a look at this doozy on my talk page, which I can see was canvassed to other peoples' pages as well. It seems... Semi-legitimate, at first glance (through sleepy goggles,) though I do get the feeling this user is trying to game things at least to a small degree. I'm very tired right now and can't really give this my full attention tomorrow either, so, there you have it. Good night (in Central Time Zone (North America),) all. Grandmasterka 09:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the diff I think you were referring to, the content has since been removed from your dynamic link above. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes thanks Chairboy, I was about to post that diff. Seemingly, this is a misunderstanding, but I am still interested in this e-pol. This person said they found out about e pol from "Dean", and since I haven't dug to closely into this, I don't know who that is. The e pol website does look very shady, if they are a genuine organization, which I doubt, they do a terrible job of conveying that. daveh4h 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

After doing a little digging, it seems clear to me that e-pol is not a legitimate operation, and is at best a silly hoax, and at worst part of a fraudulent charitable organization. According to PIR whois, epol.org is registered to "UNNET," and lists a contact email at "ns213un.net". That website in question is a mess of poorly obfuscated JavaScript and pseudo-classified-information gobbledygook. un-net.org, which seems to be intended as the main website of this "organization," is the same. I'm not sure what the point of this "organization" is, but it's clear that this user is only citing e-pol.org as a childish scare tactic. --krimpet⟲ 20:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This website needs to be reported, nonetheless. Anyone know how we can do that? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That site (and it's clearly bogus) is trying to suggest a link with the UN, I suspect there legal people would be unimpressed to say the least - not sure what department to contact there... --Fredrick day 23:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, harassment is bad, and this unquestionably was harassment. But when someone asks you for evidence behind your assertions, you can't just ignore it and assume you're right. That is what Durin did, and that is what many of the "image patrollers" do. -Amarkov moo! 23:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that normally, one cannot casually ignore such requests. In this case, however, the editor in violation was uploading standard internet meme images, and now is claiming they are 'his' because he uploaded them here. I recognized, jsut from Durin's description a number of them, includingthe witch into a tree with silly text image, which shows up all over livejournal, myspace, and so on every october. It's at least 4 year old. That this guy seeks to lay such specious claim to such inattributable items isn't really worth the response time. ThuranX 02:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

So what was wrong with Durin responding with what you just said? What you said was more informative than what Durin said. The thing about image enforcers is that they often try to do too much, and get burnt out. If more people helped out, then there would be more people to help explain things to those image uploaders who get upset. If Durin's retirement is permanent (and I hope it is not), then it sets a bad precedent that could encourage some people to think that issuing legal threats is enough to drive people off Misplaced Pages. Does Misplaced Pages give advice to people on what to do if they receive off-wiki legal threats regarding their on-wiki activities? Carcharoth 03:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Carlstar3 vandalism

User:Carlstar3 (Talk|Contribs) is a single-purpose account, only editing Sanjay Gupta, persistently reverting sourced material in an attempt to whitewash the page. I previously warned him to stop deleting sourced content but the behavior continues. Request warning and/or temporary block of User:Carlstar3. Ripe 03:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, the user should be blocked for a short period, because he is inserting libelous information on a biography of a living person. Yet, alas, I can only suggest. I am not an administrator. Miranda 07:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Carlstar3 again deleted (diff) sourced content, with no edit summary. Ripe 22:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a low-level edit war between reporting user and reported user, and Carlstar3 (talk · contribs) may be a single-purpose account. I've given him the benefit of the doubt, asking him to contribute to the talk page and defend proposed edits there, but if he fails to, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be blocked for disruption. Orderinchaos 18:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User has made another edit but not a full revert (has removed one sentence and two references) - can someone check this out? Orderinchaos 19:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User blanked two sourced sections with no edit summary. Ripe 20:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The above diff was an older edit than actions described above - nevertheless another admin has protected the page so it's not necessary to block the user at this time. Unless Carlstar tries to establish consensus on the talk page, however, I could see his time on Misplaced Pages lasting not much longer than the protection on the article. Orderinchaos 03:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Playboy Magazine Covers

Can I get a ruling on Playboy Magazine Covers ?

The fundamental rule is that only free photos can be used on the biography of a living person.

It seems to me that the use of Playboy Magazine Covers violates WP:FU and WP:NFCC such as the one on Bethany Lorraine.

In fact all the magazine covers in Category:Playboy magazine covers seem to be violations.

Look at Marliece Andrada or Lisa Matthews, the commentary in the article is that they were the playmates for that particular month – is that enough to justify the use of the magazine cover ?

Excusing copyright violations only harms Misplaced Pages.

It seems to me that all the Playboy Magazine Covers on Misplaced Pages should be deleted.

Am I correct ?

Please advise.

Tovojolo Tovojolo 09:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I would argue that these models only claim to fame is their playboy apperances. So the playboy cover photo is a legitimate fair use and not a copyvio. OTOH these models do not IMO merit an encylopedia article at all. I'd be happy to see their articles deleted altogether. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If that is their only claim to fame, what are they doing here? This is not a directory of Playboy models. Fair use criteria for magazine covers states that they should only be used for critical commentary; didn't we nuke all the Time covers for that reason? Guy (Help!) 14:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do you categorize public figures such as Paris Hilton, then, who has done nothing of note other than to occupy media attention for inexplicable reasons? Baseball Bugs 14:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well she has had a lot more media attention than the models above. She merits an article because she is genuinely famous. You don't need to be talented to be famous, but you do need to be famous to have an article here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Only an Admin can delete. In that case, please delete all articles found in Category:Playboy magazine covers

Tovojolo 13:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleting articles unilaterally, in general, is not an admin's job. Feel free to nominate those articles and/or photos for deletion yourself, and let the community decide. Baseball Bugs 13:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You can nominate them as a group if you want. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

this is obviously a case of fair use, as described in {{Non-free magazine cover}}:

free use to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question — It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover

i.e., if these are used on biography articles, remove on sight. If they are used in articles about the Playboy magazine, fair use applies. If they are unused, delete away per {{Di-orphaned fair use}}. --dab (𒁳) 15:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

wow. I just realize that practically all images in Category:Playboy magazine covers are used in violation of {{Non-free magazine cover}}. This is a massive and systematic violation of Misplaced Pages policy and should be set right asap. an exceptino is e.g. Image:Bethanylorraine.jpg which is "used fairly", in the Playboy Special Edition article, i.e. an article which is in fact about the product, not the person depicted. This isn't an admin task in particular. Any user can remove these images from the articles on the models, and tag those that aren't used on Playboy-specific articles with {{Di-orphaned fair use}}. These should be deleted after seven days. dab (𒁳) 15:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

to the people who might be interested in keeping these images around: you might consider adding them to list articles as thumbnails, to articles such as List of people in Playboy 2000-present: these are articles ostensibly about the product, and a thumbnail of the cover image in each list row would probably not violate fair use. --dab (𒁳) 15:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

It's basically yet another case of the deletionists gone mad. Baseball Bugs 15:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

what part of It is not acceptable to use images with this tag in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover do you find difficult? "Deletionists" are people who want to get rid of free but "irrelevant" content. This isn't free content. Misplaced Pages wants to be "the 💕". There is really not much room for debate here. --dab (𒁳) 17:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

How do I nominate them for deletion as a group ?

Tovojolo 17:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Damn it (apologize for my use of profanity). Okay, I may not be a smart man, but I am not even sure how images are nominated as a group. Greg Jones II 18:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

These are probably best taken care of on a case by case basis. I think it's unwise to block-nominate them for deletion or even to systematically remove them without taking a proper look at the context. A vast majority of these images don't satisfy the NFCC but there are cases in which a fair use argument can be made (for instance in the article Jessica Alba which mentions a lawsuit about the cover itself), some cases where indeed the whole article should be deleted because many playmates have no other claim to fame, etc. But, a blind removal of all the images really gives ammo to the "you're all deletionists gone mad" camp. Pascal.Tesson 19:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Decide on a case by case bases whether to include them in a group. I suggest nominating all articles where a model's only claim to fame is that they have appeared in playboy to AFD as one large group. Obviously models who have other claims to fame should be treated seperately. To nomonate as a group, nominate the first one in the usual way. Then edit that nomination to include the others. Copy and paste the AFD notice from the first nomination to the others so that a link points to the debate. Hopefully that makes sense. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

the notability of a model is a question completely unrelated to the placement of unfree images on her article. This isn't about notability concerns at all, but about improper use of copyrighted content. dab (𒁳) 13:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree they are separate issues. But I don't see why onw conversation cannot cover both. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 06:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:UNCIVIL User

Hi. I'd like to report a user who, despite frequent and strong warnings from multiple parties continue to make inappropriate comments and personal attacks against other users.

Grandia01 has been warned multiple times, see here and here for the more recent warnings relating to this AfD. (At present there are ~7 personal attack / rude comments from the user there). After his last warning at 18:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC), he continued to make rude comments at the AfD. See this made at 18:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC).

As best I can tell from his contribs, this is not a single purpose account, so hopefully someone will see fit to respond in a way that persuades him to contribute in a more productive manner. Thanks --Bfigura 18:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comes off as being quite young, probably in need of some expert guidance to get him going (he's been in trouble for creating articles which are basically copyvios, one from the Columbia Encyclopaedia, one from I think a UN website). Orderinchaos 18:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grandia01

User:Grandia01 has been warned twice in the past and three times in the past day over personal attacks. He has gone past his final warning. He doesn't seem to or doesn't care to understand that calling a person stupid or calling a person's contribution "bullshit" constitutes a personal attack. Smashville 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Support block. This kind of behavior needs to stop, and letting it continue would hurt. The Evil Spartan 20:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

See also this above — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well...he decided to lob one at me now... -Smashville 21:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So is someone going to block this user or not? This behavior is unacceptable. The Evil Spartan 03:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the block. Is this going to happen? Can someone please block for an appropriate length of time please? -- Anonymous Dissident 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He also deleted the warnings here claiming some sort of bias...which I don't understand...I don't know him from Adam, I don't know how I could possibly have a "bias". Smashville 04:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He's allowed to delete the warnings per Misplaced Pages:User_page#Removal_of_warnings--danielfolsom 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And yet more attacks on his usertalk page. Smashville 19:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody has done anything about this User yet. Corvus cornix 23:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And it's been over 24 hours...and he's well past his final warning... Smashville 23:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

However, all of his warnings came over basically the same incident, from the same people. This can be seen as provocation, especially with an editor who's so far shown an inability to handle criticism. The whole incident seems to have blown out of someone posting a rather unintelligible comment at an AfD of an article the user had written, and another person writing one which included the word "bullshit". (It wasn't strictly bullshit, it was copyvio.) I'd suggest laying off him unless he does something drastic, most of this is over a single AfD. I've left comments at the user's talk page as well. Orderinchaos 03:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matter now appears to be resolved, with the user saying: "i'll try my best to calm down first hopefully to see the big picture before i judge anything". If something flares up again, that can be dealt with as a new issue. Orderinchaos 09:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Block of QuackGuru

I have blocked this user for 24 hours for edit warring. This is the third time in the last few days that he has reverted three times - on Jimbo Wales, Larry Sanger and Essjay controversy respectively. He was warned on all 3 occasions: , , . WP:3RR is not a license to make 3 reverts per article per day and QuackGuru seems to me to be gaming the system. Review requested. WjBscribe 19:49, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Endorse block, edit-warring like that across multiple (related) articles is disruptive and block-worthy. Moreschi 20:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a fair call. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. Good call, and if there's no improvement in his behavior after the block expires I'd have a low threshold, in this particular case, to escalate block lengths. MastCell 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I also endorse the block.--Jersey Devil 17:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ryno102

User:Ryno102 is a new user, and has been making very poor edits so far. I suspect he's a juvenile. I've been reverting them on my own; however, I'm starting to doubt if this is the right approach, or if someone else might not be able to do it better. Any help would be appreciated. The Evil Spartan 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone there? The Evil Spartan 01:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a little puzzled how we can possibly formally intervene. No person information is disclosed, and none of the edits would justify a block. Some of the edits show ignorance of WP rules, and I would suggest trying to explain how to do things here in careful detail. School starts again on Tuesday, so maybe he will be otherwise occupied. DGG (talk) 05:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

inveterate spammer needs a block

User 68.0.232.203 incorrigibly spams articles with promotional links like midnightmarketingonline.com and salestimes3.com. User had received four warnings before he made two additional spamming additions: one to Rhode Island, and ] to New England. Recommend permanent block of IP and blacklisting of websites.--Loodog 20:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Loodog. This is a pretty obvious case of spamming, so in the future you can report to WP:AIV, as I have just done. As a practice, we don't permanently ban IP's without exceptional vandalism or unless they're open proxies. You can also put in a request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. However, I would wait until you see someone spam these links again. The Evil Spartan 20:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you report it to AIV, please check to see if they have spammed since the final warning, as was not the case here. -- zzuuzz 20:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. It's easy to get confused with timestamps and time zones. I'm still never sure if I'm 4 or 5 hours behind... The Evil Spartan 21:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are on EST and on summertime you are 4 hours behind (I think) Secretlondon 10:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I protest image deletion

I am really irritated with the deletionists here. I posted a 1951 diagram of the Polo Grounds for the express purpose of factual verification in that article and also in The Catch (baseball). Now it has been deleted, of course, despite my attempts to explain its necessity to those articles. I would like for someone to explain how I am supposed to prove the facts in the article without providing the diagram in question, owing to the fact that your average wikipedia reader does not have access to the Official Baseball Encyclopedia of 1951. As I told the potential deleter repeatedly some days ago, and which I also posted on the illustration's page, there is no free alternative. The structure was torn down over 40 years ago. And drawing it myself, besides being a dubious notion in itself, is also blatant original research, as I could draw any bloody thing I want to from some obscure book, and who would know if it's true or not? I explained this stuff to him over and over, and he does not care. Apparently his pleasure in life is in deleting things, and in irritating those whose efforts he deletes. I say in my editing philosophy that I don't like "running to Mommy", and here I am doing just that. But I am getting fed up with these guys. Baseball Bugs 20:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest that just as a person's having died does not make it impossible for one to find a free image of him/her (I recognize that we have sometimes taken a more liberal view here, permitting, for instance, the use of non-free images of individuals immediately upon their deaths, and I think that to be a good thing), a structure's having been destroyed does not make it impossible for one to find a free image of it (diagrams are, I know, a bit of a special class), although surely—especially where a structure has long been gone, such that there are likely to be fewer readily available photos (and likely even fewer on sites such as flickr)—the task is more difficult; one cannot, of course, simply take his/her camera out and capture the needed images. I absolutely agree with you on the underlying question, of course, and I think that we ought definitely to treat instances images that are practically unreplacable a bit differently, but I would submit that the present incarnation of NFCC criterion one doesn't really make any grand distinction. Joe 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As a side point, drawing and uploading something yourself isn't really original research, an element of artistic license is inherently implied in the context of artwork, simply be clear in the image caption what it is your showing. Original research really deals more with text contributions largely to do with science and pseudo-science topics. For example; say you were to come up with a theory that cats evolved from trees, and you'd done a few basic unpublished experiments to 'prove' it. Then you came here and edited the cat article to say they evolved from trees... thats original research, its unpublished and frankly 99.999% likely to be very wrong. WikipedianProlific 21:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

If the facts come from the Official Baseball Encyclopedia of 1951, just cite it; the fact that it may not be available online or in most readers' bookshelves is not a problem. Incidentally, uploading a scan from a book doesn't really prove that's what's in the book any more than you simply saying so, since retouching a scan is pretty easy. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That seems like a pretty obvious case of fair use being legit. I suggest going to WP:DRV - I would certainly back you up. Unless we are going to get rid of fair use altogether, this is clearly a legit picture. The Evil Spartan 22:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't quite understand why we don't simply create an equivalent diagram. The dimensions of the stadium are known and creating the diagram is a 3 minute exercise in whatever software you want to use. In that sense the image is definitely replaceable by a free equivalent. Pascal.Tesson 22:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that the full dimensions of the stadium are not altogether known to the general public. The key point of fact is that the scale drawing includes a measurement the authors took, showing that the center field bleacher corner was only 425 feet from home plate, not "about 460" as Brickhouse said on the broadcast and which many people thus believe, especially since it's quoted in the article. Aerial photos suggest the truth of the matter also, reaffirming the diagram. And the diagram (drawn by professionals rather than by some idiot like me trying to draw one) jumps out at you, whereas words just lay there. There really seems to be some kind of anti-illustration sub-culture on this site, and I just don't get it. Illustrations say a lot more than words do. Meanwhile, the argument that a free equivalent could be found is made by someone who clearly knows nothing about the subject. I know a lot about this subject. There is no free equivalent. You have this one, and you have similar diagrams in The Sporting News Baseball Guide. Those are the only sources for this information. Everything else I've seen on the subject is taken from those sources. And none of them are free. Baseball Bugs 01:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The really sad part about all this is that if I had uploaded it and claimed it as my own, the odds are good no one would have made a peep. Instead, I'm honest, and it gets deleted; and you expect me to do some hand-drawn thing. Neither the punishment for honesty nor the encouragement of amateurish illustrations does anything to enhance the credibility of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 03:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages prefers free content to professional-looking content. If it was the other way around, we'd just rebrand ourselves as a licensed vendor of the Encylopaedia Britannica. Also, the same principles that apply to text apply to illustrations in the same way. We always post a new article and cite its info to the source; we don't just copy/paste the source. Same deal with this stadium diagram. nadav (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In short, you want wikipedia to look like it was done by rank amateurs (which it too often does already). So how does that enhance its credibility? Baseball Bugs 04:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It occurred to me that there's a possible compromise. The hardest part about drawing the Polo Grounds is getting that half-circle and those quarter circles down. But I theenk of great Lobachevsky and I get idea - aha! I could take the 1951 diagram and revise it sufficiently so that it isn't "theirs" anymore, by adding additional info from the Sporting News Guides and from a photo source that's mentioned in the Polo Grounds article. Baseball Bugs 03:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As long as the diagram is your own work, you can certainly use that, just make sure you don't use the copyrighted diagram and just add or change things. That would be a derivative work, so it would still be covered under their copyright. And in answer to your early question, yes, we prefer amateurish free content to professional nonfree stuff. This isn't "the any old encyclopedia", it's "the free encyclopedia". And it is written by amateurs, for the most part. Seraphimblade 04:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And in the peculiar world of the internet, looking like it was written by 15-year-olds is somehow considered a good thing. Baseball Bugs 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And amateurism and deceit get by, and honesty gets punished. And yet you wonder why wikipedia as a target of scorn and ridicule. Baseball Bugs 05:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"Hey! We're wikipedia! We look stupid and ugly, and we want to keep it that way!" Baseball Bugs 15:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The diagram was vectorized. Comments please. User:Zscout370 05:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me.Problem solved. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeh, it's a gem. Baseball Bugs 14:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. User:Zscout370 19:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I know you meant well, but that illustration is just not bad enough to meet wikipedia's low standards. Maybe you could try throwing the diamond more noticeably out of square, or have a different font size for each numeric digit. With a little more effort, you could draw something so amateurish that even the most ardent wikipedia deletionist will like it. Baseball Bugs 00:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If your only response to people working out a solution which satisfies all our guidelines is snide and childish whining, you need to re-evaluate what you're trying to accomplish here. --Haemo

The problem is I didn't fully understand the "guidelines" before. Until yesterday, I had thought that the bad illustrations that kept turning up were some kind of anomoly. I foolishly thought that wikipedia would want to look professional and attractive, despite much evidence to the contrary. Then that one user set me straight, informing me that looking "amateurish" (i.e. looking stupid and ugly) is actually an objective of wikipedia. And your own comment just confirms that epiphany. You may now close this entire section if you want to. I started with an honest complaint, and the appalling responses I got have really lowered my expectations of what this website is supposed to be. I appreciate that one editor's offer to support my argument, but it is clear that the situation is hopeless. Despite that, I will continue to try to work in wikipedia... only I will also try to steer totally clear of any contact with the deletionists, whose viewpoint I find extremely offensive. Baseball Bugs 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Try Misplaced Pages:Graphic Lab/Images to improve, AN/I is not a forum for bitching about graphics design. If you encourage cooperative editors to adapt the diagram, you'll eventually arrive at a satisfactory render. ˉˉ╦╩ 02:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The original complaint was not about graphic design, it simply evolved into that, pushed by the deletionists who won't accept the fact that there is no free alternative. If you draw it graphically correctly, with all the information, you have effectively produced the exact diagram that already exists in the book. That's a copyright violation as surely as posting the original diagram is. I say again, and again, and again, there is no free alternative. Baseball Bugs 02:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Look, what else can I do? You complained someone deleted an image, so I used my admin tools to see what it was. It turned out to be an outline, which I drew in Inkscape. (That is the whole point of the replacability factor people mentioned earlier). I drew it and now you are treating it like trash. What the hell are we supposed to do? User:Zscout370 02:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to use the actual diagram, the unimpeachible source, with a reasonable fair use argument, rather than making a drawing which has no factual standing and amounts to original research and thus is a violation of wikipedia policy, no matter the argument to the contrary that someone made earlier; and which is also geometrically incorrect. Oh, and thank you for the civil remarks in the edit summary, which I have no doubt will be ignored by the admin who complained about my heated but G-rated complaints. Baseball Bugs 02:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And just to clarify the issue, it's not with your diagram, it's with the idiotic policy that wants to make wikipedia look as amateurish as possible, as if that were somehow a plus. I'm still waiting for someone to explain how the purposely-ugly look of wikipedia helps its credibility. Baseball Bugs 02:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I used the source diagram, it is still in the history as the first upload. It includes the numebrs and stuff, so I am not sure what is OR about it. User:Zscout370 02:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, if you drew it yourself, based on nothing, then it's original research. If you drew it incorrectly, then it's distortion of the facts. If you drew an exact copy, then it's a copyright violation. Any way, it's a policy violation. Baseball Bugs 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It also occurs to me I've been too generous with my phraseology. Of course the home grown diagram is an "alternative" in a loose sense of the word. It is not an equivalent. If it were, it would be an exact duplicate, and hence a copyright violation. FYI, when you switched it from svg to png a minute ago, I can't read it on my PC anymore. Baseball Bugs 03:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The SVG version is gone, since it didn't include the arrows. Now with the PNG version, it has them. It works fine for me. User:Zscout370 03:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record I think you've done an excellent job in the circumstances Zscout370. :) I was in the same position when writing an FA, as all maps were copyvio. However, drawing one in SVG was actually permissible, on the grounds that the area existed in that exact form and it itself was not copyright, so making a new representation of the area was fine so long as I did not use the intellectual property of the mapping firm. This is obviously more of a problem with a *defunct* venue, but a diagram of this type seems to meet the need well as long as it acknowledges the source of its information. Orderinchaos 04:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It "seems to meet the need" to someone who has no idea what the issue is. It's just as well I can't see the new version. I've had enough of this already. Baseball Bugs 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

By US copyright law, creativity is required for copyright. The aspects of the original diagram that were not creative are not copyrightable. Facts are not copyrightable. The shape and dimensions of a baseball ground are not likely to be copyrightable; furthermore, if there IS any copyright possible in them, they would be owned by the designer of the ground, not the person diagramming the facts in existence.

If there is no copyright issue with the diagram from that book, then it is, in fact, free, and there is no need to find an "equivalent" somewhere. Baseball Bugs 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

And on the strength of your explanation, I intend to upload the original diagram again, as there is no longer any reasonable argument against it. Baseball Bugs 15:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The diagram is not a violation of copyright, IMO. As to original research: of course it isn't. It's taking documented facts and illustrating them. It would be original research if one obtained the measurements oneself or out of unpublished data. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In general, you could be right. You just don't get the issue in this specific case. Baseball Bugs 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs, above you say you can't see the png version of the image. This is almost certainly because you have an overzealous advertising blocking filter, as the image is in the /a/ad/ directory. If thats the case then you also can't see roughly 1/256 of the other images on Misplaced Pages. You should exempt Misplaced Pages from your advertising filter,as we do not have ads here, and if we ever get ads you should get a filter which isn't rubbish. --Gmaxwell 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that. Thank you for your help. Baseball Bugs 12:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I adjusted one of the parameters in ZoneAlarm, and now I can see the illustration, which is nearly the same as the original and thus nearly a violation of its copyright, if any. I wasn't aware that ZoneAlarm was considered "rubbish", but if so, perhaps you could suggest a superior (even if not free) alternative. Baseball Bugs 12:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Donny417

Donny's been trolling for the past couple of days on Arabian horse, where he's tried as an IP and as a registered user to insert a discussion of Kenneth Pinyan's unfortunate death while having sex with a horse. After a sustained argument on the talk page and around five reverts between his account and the IP edits, he's moved on the the main Horse article, with diversions at Zoophilia. He's wandered over the line on WP:CIVIL, WP:POINT, and now wants to argue over whether it was really him as an IP editor. He's made it clear that his focus is the insertion of the Pinyan incident where he can, regardless of consensus. He's asked for checkuser to prove his innocence on 3RR, which is fine as far as I'm concerned, but he's mainly become a disruption under his user account. Some other eyes and opinions would be appreciated. Acroterion _(talk) 21:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a comment but usually checkuser requests for the purpose of proving one's own innocence are not accepted. Checkuser is not definitive and there are simple methods around it. Analysis of the users contributions is often a far better way of identifiying a sockpuppet or a supporting meat puppet. WikipedianProlific 21:38, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I haven't pursued it myself - Donny can try it if he wants to. A look at the contribution pattern pretty much puts the issue beyond question. Acroterion _(talk) 21:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser's irrelevant to the editor's clear intent to disrupt Misplaced Pages with the constant addition of what I can only assume is either his personal fetish, or his personal animus (no pun intended) towards the human involed in the story. A substantial block would be appropriate. His movement from article to article to expand and spread his nonsense indicates he's aware that his material is unwelcome, and thus, a block is timely now. he's done this for days, so the 'he's not doing it right now' argument doesn't hold ground; he'll undoubtedly resume his activities next time he's on. ThuranX 02:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, the things one finds on Misplaced Pages. Orderinchaos 19:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, CheckUser shows that he has edited articles as an IP, seemingly to avoid 3RR. My opinion: a substantial ban. He knows the rules and is deliberately playing games. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not an admin, so I can't do much, but FisherQueen's keeping an eye on Donny. He's been laying low ever since this , so the net effect is the same. He won't be hard to spot if he comes back. Acroterion _(talk) 15:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Matte painting

Two authors have removed most of the content of Matte painting. 74.102.212.164 seems to be randomly removing links to books, magazines, and other references from a number of articles. User:Soundfrucht removed most of the text claiming he wrote it yet his user page is an advertisement for his services as a matte painter. Robert Elliott 23:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not certain that I wholly disagree with what's happened. The copyedit situation may be a case of material that was a copied from something else like a book or magazine article, not necessarily his website, so it's best to use caution. Plus, it read much like a how-to, which probably meant its loss was for the best. As for the loss of the links, it's arguable both ways. I can see why he believes them to violate WP:EL, but I also agree that at least a few had merit. My advice is to restore what you consider to be irreplaceable (and mention your reasoning on the talk page), and consider rewriting the other parts so as to avoid accusations of copyvio. I'm not convinced that this is vandalism. Girolamo Savonarola 02:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

To understand this better, look at the history. The User:Soundfrucht changed much of the content (over a long series of edits) to suit his taste then claimed he now owns the exclusive rights to the content and removed most of the content. It is now shorter than a stub (two lines).

User:Soundfrucht says, "I removed my written text, because it is copyprotcted by me"

This requires more than a simple restore. Robert Elliott 23:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored to the last version (Aug 22nd) before these two started editing it, and left a message on Soundfrucht's talk page asking him not to do that. If the previous text was a copyright violation of some of his earlier work, then he needs to explain that and show us where it came from. But it makes no sense that he would remove those words a week after starting to edit the article, words he didn't put there in the first place, and claim that they were "copyprotected" (and not copyrighted). The series of edits are improper; if there was a legit root cause they need to explain this, but for now they're all backed out. Georgewilliamherbert 00:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

An ongoing CAPSy edit war

Please someone have a look at the edit war going on at Eckankar. i am going offline now. -- FayssalF - 01:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I left the new editor a long message and welcome template about things, and asked him to read our policies, then review his edits. I'd appreciate an admin review of my note, but i'm glad to follow up on his edits tomorrow. ThuranX 02:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, that article sounds like it was written by someone trying to promote the religion and convert others. Cowman109 02:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I made that a point of my note to him, please review and you'll see that. As it's a new editor, I'm hoping that clarification of policy and the chance to self-revert may be enough. If not, we can surely pursue stronger recourse. ThuranX 02:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not even that user. The whole article was awful before he came along. Just looking at it, I feel like it would do more good to wipe the article and start from scratch in a neutral manner instead of trying to fix the mess it's in.. Cowman109 02:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It was a bit stable a while ago. Even though i do not know much about the subject, i still think it merits {advert}. Tagged. -- FayssalF - 03:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

ALright, all that I'd agree with, it IS ridiculously overpromoting. Perhaps a review of that article might help the editor learn how to edit here a bit more. I'll watchlist it for a bit, to follow up. ThuranX 04:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a few of our articles on new religious movements have promotional qualities. I remember look at the articles on the Raelians and thinking people should join.. Secretlondon 10:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

eckankar.org is the main source! -- FayssalF - 13:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The second paragraph of "Plagiarism" was particularly amusing Orderinchaos 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reporting User:Tim62389

He continues to delete citations and citation requests, after being given an original warning on August 25, and a second warning on August 27

In addition to this he continues to add a link to a fansite after being told to stop, and he will delete all of these warnings from his talk page, to make it look like he is innocent of any wrong doing.

Hoponpop69 23:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I did NOT add the fansite except only once because I didn't know the policy was against it. And I did not delete ANY citations, just a citation request ONCE and I stopped after reading the one policy. Hoponpop69 is a liar and if anyone should be blocked it's him. Tim Y (talk) 23:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Tim - look at her diffs - those are your edits - one shows you deleting a citation.--danielfolsom 03:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

the point is the edits only show him deleting 1 sitation and adding 1 link and clearing his talk page. Not quite what you should ban someone over (unless shown the user keeps doing this which is what Hoponpop is saying)--Dacium 10:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton...again

As asked by admin El C, I have had zero contact with User:Calton, have not posted to his talk page, have left him be.

A discussion of radio station articles with VigilancePrime somehow drew the attention of Calton and this response. Calton was not apart of the conversation nor is he apart of the group in question, WP:WPRS.

I responded on VigilancePrime's talk page, as the "advice" Calton had given in his unrequested post was incorrect and I don't want VigilancePrime having bad information.

About 25mins ago, I am greeted with this beautiful post on my talk page. An incivil, ranting, demanding post, again stating the same bad information quoting on VigilancePrime's talk page.

It has become obvious that Calton is not going to curb the behaviour that many admins have asked of him, for us to leave each other alone, which I have. Posting on VigilancePrime's talk page about radio stations needed no response what-so-ever from Calton. I am tired, oh so tired, of asking for help with Calton and would like it very much if he would curb this behaviour and leave me alone as I have him.

So, I kindly ask an admin to please have a word with him, it probably won't do any good as he doesn't respond well to messages from anyone especially criticism from admins and even people work Wikimedia.

Many thanks for any help that can be provided. Take Care....NeutralHomer 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Calton is absolutely right here, your assertion was false, having an entry in a directory s not and probably never will be a qualifier for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Your best way forward here is to stick with the policies which do govern content, notably verifiability, neutrality and attribution. When giving advice to others I advise the use of qualifying terms. So: in general having an entry in the directory is taken as an indication that the subject is likely to qualify. That would be unproblematic. Was that the kind of help you were looking for? Guy (Help!) 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's my experience -- and I'm being perfectly serious here -- NeutralHomer doesn't track nuance or qualifiers. He wants everything black-and-white. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• All right, NeutralHomer is at least partially right: I mixed up -- God knows how -- his reply as being in response to a message I left for VigilancePrime on August 29th, not to an earlier message (which I'd forgotten about) I'd left for VigilancePrime on August 23rd. I blame sloppy reading, and I apologize for that.

On the other hand (and I note he left this out, despite my putting it in my message linked above), it seems obvious he HAS been stalking my Talk page. The chain:

• User:WarthogDemon leaves a note on my User Talk page about a suspicious user page at 03:26, August 26, 2007
• Twenty-five minutes later at 03:51, before I even have read the original message, NeutralHomer responds to this message left on MY page to WarthogDemon's User Talk page .
• Later, after seeing the notification on my User Talk page, I go to WarthogDemon's page and discover that NeutralHomer has been, in effect, "reading my mail" (despite an admin's friendly advice to stop the stalking) and has gotten there ahead of me. I am irritated, but too busy to respond.
• Today, while scanning the Talk Page history VigilancePrime, I see NeutralHomer's name, and respond -- sloppily -- as above.

And you might want to take some of his "evidence" with a grain of salt: eight of them concern the same editor, who was blocked for edit-warring over adding tags to an article -- followed about an hour later by vandalism to my user pages by an IP from said editor's city ; and two are simply my adding a {{trivia}} tag to said article. His padding the evidence ought to give the reader pause.

While I was wrong on the most recent incident, as far as I'm concerned I'm right on the specifics: he's been trying this stunt for months, of watching my edits, putting his oar in where he can, running off to tattle to WP:AN/I in hopes of getting me banned, and pouting when it isn't done. Rinse, lather, repeat. And I'm getting tired of it. --Calton | Talk 11:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Calton, your confrontational manner of talk page posting seems to be escalating relatively minor editing issues into personal grudges. Might I suggest that you'd be much more effective with a little politeness? Videmus Omnia 13:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

On the other hand, Calton was right about policy, and the supposed complaint is extremely thin stuff that would be laughed out of court in any kind of dispute resolution. Now would be a good time to chill, people. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: I am only commenting on the policy (as I am not allowed to comment on anything else). As far as I have been told as apart of WP:WPRS, radio stations are allowed an article. LP stations, given their small broadcast area are as well, but will more-than-likely be deleted because they reach like 12 people. The same "if it has an FCC link, it has a page here" ideal is what gives us pages for almost 98% of all TV stations in the US on Misplaced Pages. Which is what is trying to be done with the radio stations.

Again, I will only be commenting on the policy and nothing else, as again, I am not allowed. Take Care...NeutralHomer 21:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, either you remain consistent to that, or you don't. But you cannot play both ends. El_C 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

NeutralHomer, what you are saying is that you are attempting to make a directory of radio stations. But Misplaced Pages is not a directory. No amount of consensus among people interested in a single topic area will trump Misplaced Pages policies. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On the WarthogDemon related incident... I note that Neutralhomer apologizes for taking so long to get to it. Which doesn't make alot of sense in relation to something posted only 25 minutes prior... on someone else's talk page. WarthogDemon responded with a simple 'no problem' message. Are we sure that there wasn't some prior notification of this issue that Neutralhomer was following up on?

Given that the page in question was deleted as spam at 3:44, 18 minutes after WarthogDemon's message to me but 7 minutes before NeutralHomer's message to WarthogDemon, it's pretty clear to me why NeutralHomer apologizes to WarthogDemon for the "delay" -- but that should have been easy enough to check, even for a non-admin, and an admin could certainly have checked the page history for added tags or whatever during the time it took to compose the sentence above. --Calton | Talk 15:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As to Wikiprojects having, "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil" authority... technically true, practically inaccurate. In 'The Great Road Names Debate' state road wikiprojects which had established and updated the relevant pages to a particular naming standard were given deference even when that standard contradicted a later general standard for road names. Many of the notability and manual of style guidelines for particular topics have been drawn up by the related Wikiprojects. Et cetera. It is certainly accurate to say that Wikiprojects have no inherent authority. However, Misplaced Pages works by consensus and the consensus of a group of people actively working on a particular topic (aka 'a Wikiproject') is seldom going to be over-ruled in relation to that topic... basically only when the community at large disagrees. So, no, Wikiprojects 'have no authority'... but groups of people working on a topic and establishing a consensus about it do. And that's what a Wikiproject is. In the absence of a community holding to the contrary, the consensus of the people actively working on the topic is alot more than "zip, zero, none, zilch, nada, nil". --CBD 08:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

and that's why the special interest groups (Wikiproject is the wrong word, it implies a level of professionalism that is absence from most) we have are so dangerous - especially on the cruftopedia side of wikipedia - those SIGs are self-selecting groups of fans who work in their best interest of their fan-based interest not wikipedia. Yes I agree, that they might have some authority when left unchallenged but we should be ever vigilant against those SIGs and constantly challenge their ownship of articles. --Fredrick day 08:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Noone owns articles, that's the whole point. And I agree that some WikiProjects are unprofessional or in some cases even unnecessary (then there's the cases of the one-person wikiprojects)... however, many projects are professional, organised and well-maintained, and are able to handle internal differences of opinion and are often better at reaching consensus than official or semi-official Misplaced Pages processes. Orderinchaos 09:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

CBD is somewhat missing the point, since NeutralHomer kept making reference to the "rules" of his particular Wikiproject -- not special interest, not special knowledge, rules -- and declaring implicit ownership over such pages. --Calton | Talk 15:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• NeutralHomer is clearly not getting the message. Worse, he appears to be personalising the dispute to a quite unacceptable degree, see this diff. I have blocked hiom for 24 hours while we decide what to do for the best. Will an RfC be necessary? Or do we simply need to spell out the fact that Wikiprojects don't override policy? How best to progress in correcting a pattern of problematic behaviour form this editor? Guy (Help!) 09:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't disagree with this block - that comment was pretty below-the-belt - and In light of Firsfron's diff below, I have struck this part of my comment. I'm a bit amazed now. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC) An RfC might be a very good idea, considering this NeutralHomer v/s Calton farce has been going on for long enough. I do have to say at this point, however, that Calton does not go out of his way to interact politely with his fellow users. In most of the interactions I've noted I've seen what I can only describe, and forgive my bluntness, as an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people. I realise this is not a violation of policy, and I value straight talk as much as the next person. Calton, however, seems to take this to another level entirely. This is not merely with Homer, but in most cases, so I don't know whether he's been pushed into such actions by these disputes, or it's just his style. IMHO the actions of both contributors need to be examined. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I have to agree with Riana. Carlton is usually right about policy, but some of his responses are so unpleasant that minor issues grow into these unproductive feuds.--Kubigula (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I agree with Riana and Kubigula. I really can't understand why we keep turning a blind eye towards Calton's rude and contemptuous behaviour. I haven't had to deal with him since his proposal to community ban User:GordonWatts where he was generally patronising and nasty, down to referring to User:Musical Linguist as "my dear", in an obvious attempt to antagonise. Sadly, I see nothing has changed in intervening months. I really don't care if he is right about policy or not, there's no excuse for his abuse. I also agree with Riana that there seems to be "an overriding desire to impinge his apparent intellectual superiority onto people." I honestly don't know why we keep turning a blind eye to his abuse and the fact that we have done so for so long just plays into the apparent sense of superiority over everybody on the project. I would support looking at the behaviour of both parties, this provocation and abuse really needs to stop. Sarah 16:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I"m inclined to agree with Riana here. This has been going on some time and Calton has been rude in the extreme. Looks like NH just had the wrong buttons pressed in their exchange. No excuse for that, mind, but the circumstances show a certain provocation here - Alison ☺ 17:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the block, issue a general reminder to everyone to be just a little more civil, and try DR/mediation/RFC for any other lingering issues. Moreschi 12:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I will not endorse this block. It is clear Calton has acted equally incivilly as NH in previous disputes between these two, and talk page edits in June indicate JzG is not exactly a neutral party. NH's comment that JzG can go ahead and laugh at him is met with "Thank you, I will do just that." and this comment ("I will be standing in line when it comes to time to ban you ") worries me, too. Baiting users into giving them blocks should be discouraged, and the blocking admin shouldn't escalate the situation by insulting the user. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Anon on the rampage

Can some one deal with this continuing vandal. Thanks Giano 07:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RockMFR beat me to it Raul654 07:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Deleted article

i just started write article,but always deleted and block by Misplaced Pages! i does not know how to create an article! i hope Misplaced Pages will improve it with teach people step by step to create an article!Thank... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deqingjames (talk • contribs) 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read: Why was my article deleted?. x42bn6 Talk Mess 09:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be writing about yourself and you don't meet the music or biography notability guidelines. Secretlondon 09:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Block evasion

Float954 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on indefinite block for uploading images with false claim of copyright ownership. A newly created account Skarth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now uploading and restoring to articles the same images. Gordonofcartoon 11:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Skarth indefblocked as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Polygamist times 4 - block evasion

The IP User:203.87.127.18 was banned for six months after edit warring on the Family First Party page last month, as well as general incivility; he was also active on the Biblical inerrancy page. A user from User:203.192.92.73 posted the comment "Does blocking an IP work? Dont people ring their ISP and have a new one 5 minutes latter? LOL" to 203.87.127.18's talk page a few days ago (diff), before picking up where the banned user left off.

User:Polygamist times 4 is now making the same troll edits to Family First Party and Biblical inerrancy, in exactly the same tone and writing style as the banned User:203.87.127.18. --McGeddon 16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't see this thread. I just left another warning on his talk page. I'll take another look, Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've just hardblocked the IP for 6 months. I.e. I blocked registered users on that IP also. If Polygamist times 4 isn't that user he wont be affected. If he is, he will have to call his ISP again. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, his edits stopped when that IP was blocked. ELIMINATORJR 17:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind you, if he is Australian (as his edit history on a range of Australian political parties might suggest), it was after midnight in all timezones at the time, so I guess a day will tell us if we're right. Orderinchaos 19:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

... however it now being mid*day* with no further posts, quite possible. Orderinchaos 04:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bad image needs tagging

This image of an erect penis was recently used to vandalise Runrig diff. I suggest that it needs tagging as a Bad image. I'm guessing that this needs to be done by an admin, as I can't edit the "exceptions" myself (the picture is currently used on penis) Iain99 16:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Problematic vandal

I mentioned a series of problems with a vandal that keeps leaving the following on the Miley Cyrus talk page:

"I think every inch of Miley Cyrus tastes like candy"

Well, we have a new IP spitting out the same spam, and in addition has hit the talk page for the show she stars on and has even vandalized my talk page.

Requesting block for this IP for aforementioned vandalism as well as possibility (judging from edit history) this is a sockpuppet. WAVY 10 17:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. ELIMINATORJR 17:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User Spylab - irrational abusive behavior and the Sajmište concentration camp article and talk page vandalism

I am trying to tell this person that the reference (s)he is irrationally claiming on is given, quoted, and moreover - online readable and accessible. See I explained it on the talk page here which (s)he removed twice. Overall, we have pointless edit war unnecessary damaging this atricle by Spylab.--4.249.72.18 18:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This IP comes from a range that has been editing the article since the block of Guivon (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppet of Velebit (talk · contribs) with similar edits. Spylab has accused the IP range of being a sockpuppet in edit summaries, I've let them know about the debate here. Orderinchaos 19:00, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, pay attention to the problem as reported. Do not sidetrack the issue! The accusation, even if might be justified, does not justify this vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.249.0.233 (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Guivon (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Purger (talk · contribs) a.k.a. few dozens of other sockpuppet accounts is banned. Dispite of that, he stil disrputs wikipedia, as he did for last 16 months. Since he is banned, each and every od his edits should be reverted. I think we should deal with this vandal from 4.249.x.x IP range once for all. Anything else is of less importance. --Ante Perkovic 09:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is totally obvious that the anonymous IP is a sock puppet of permanently-banned User:Velebit aka User:Guivon aka User:NovaNova aka User:Modelsides, etc. See my IP check request here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/IP check#Obvious IP socks of banned individual. He has made a few posts at the administrators noticeboard trying to get me blocked, and every single one of them failed because he is the one who violates Misplaced Pages rules, not me. This individual has been harassing me for months, making personal attacks, vandalizing my user page; and doing the same to other editors as well.Spylab 12:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz and User talk:Mdebow

After responding to a mailing list request for an unblock, I unblocked User:Mdebow who had been spamming links. He promised to me he would no longer spam, so I unblocked him. I cleared his talk page, which was full of template warnings, and block message, and replaced it with a welcome template, to start again. I am then reverted , so I revert back . It should have been left at that, and the user could start to contribute. User:Ronz then comes and warns the user, for some reason , even though the user had been warned previously (and blocked) - note he'd made no more edits since being unblocked. I then remove the warning , as the user in question had already been told numerous times, and in any case the warning was dated. I'm undid by Ronz, who states it "assumes good faith" - hardly. I then revert Ronz.

I'm later informed by User:Tango on my talk page that I had been reported for 3RR .I explain my reasons to Tango, who agrees with me, and told me next time to get an outside opinion. I then have a conversation with Ronz , but he's since readded the link to the page, so I'd like others' opinions. Yes, he might have been spamming, but Ronz has effectively driven off a possibly good contributor by the insistence on readding the warnings - Mdebow told me by email about stuff he'd write about, and I think it's a shame he's been supposedly driven off by this. Majorly (talk) 19:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As an example of WP:POT, here's an entirely separate incident from this one whereRonz telling me that I am "piling it on" after he warned an editor about edit warring with me. I don't believe what I said would be considered "piling it on" but rather just a friendly reminder about WP:NPA. I just think it is a tad hypocritical considering Ronz's argument here, and he has - in my opinion - shown a history of baiting and bullying seasoned editors such as me, as well as biting many newbies. That's my two-cents. -- Levine2112 19:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I have little to say concerning my interactions with Majorly. The warning I gave by definition assumes good faith - that's what it's for, to give a good-faith warning. Accusations of editors actions driving off others are completely baseless as far as I can tell. As for the edit-warring and other interactions, I wasn't a part of any of it, other than my putting the link and only the link onto the page . --Ronz 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as Levine2112's comments are concerned, they're irrelevant and harassment. --Ronz 20:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think re-adding warnings after the fact, and after the user has been unblocked, is unhelpful? We're allowed to remove warnings from talk pages, and Majorly was trying to give this editor a clean slate to work with. "Good faith" only stretches so far when you keep re-adding warnings like that. Grandmasterka 20:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The most that can be said is there has been some mild "doubtful faith" issues between various of the above (reasonably or otherwise). It's clear that all parties have tried to support the project... Majorly has dealt with the unblock in a way that seems fair... and Ronz has left a warning/note that I agree is basically an AGF note on the editor's page (perhaps because of his history). Maybe what would be best is if Ronz and Majorly can agree that the editor has spammed in the past, and has agreed to be unblocked and to not continue, to AGF of the editor based on his email conversations, and wait and see how it works out when he/she resumes editing. An informal agreement to talk by email and close the matter without illwill by the above named, and an email to the editor to apologize for the minor misunderstanding which was in good faith, may be a reasonable first approach to resolving it. In other words - make peace, let it go this time. Simple and easy miscommunication, no drama, no bad faith obvious :)

If there's more to it than that, or it's a repeated problem in the past, then I would withdraw from the discussion -- this is a "first take" on it, without having looked deeply. FT2 20:29, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

(Responding to Grandmasterka and FT2) To clarify, I placed the warning as context for the link. I placed the link as a reference for other editors that might later be investigating similar vandalism (the link is easy to search for). My original edit was just to identify the link for future reference. I prefer not to include such links without context of some sort. --Ronz 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never known of anyone putting text on a user talk page in order to facilitate searching like that - is that common practice and I've just missed it? I don't really see a need to know who else has spammed a link in the past when dealing with a new case of spamming, it might be nice to know, but it's certainly not necessary. The harm done by issuing warnings for acts that have already been dealt with appropriately far outweighs the negligible gain. --Tango 21:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. We all can (and do) examine the contribution history and Talk page history of editors when funny things are afoot. Talk pages are not intended to be nor are they typically used as permanent records of alleged or actual misdeeds or mistakes. --ElKevbo 22:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

"is that common practice and I've just missed it?" I don't believe so. Given all the spam investigations I've done, this may be the only one where all warnings were removed, leaving no context for adding a link. I'd prefer not to write up a WT:WPSPAM report for fairly minor cases of spamming such as this (sadly this is a fairly minor case of spamming even though two editors spammed some 30 articles in less than a day), but that is an option that I could take instead if others feel it's inappropriate to leave any indication that an editor spammed a link in cases like this. I'd rather leave some sort of indication, even though it is not a permanent record. --Ronz 02:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

How often do people actually search talk pages for spammed links? What do you get out of it? --Tango 13:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be getting off topic here. No matter. When ever I find a spammed link, I always run a search to see if it has been spammed elsewhere. I don't know how often others do so, but link searches are a basic tool for spam and coi investigations. --Ronz 15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ownership issues on Yoshiki (musician) > new section_new_section-2007-09-02T19:58:00.000Z">

I, by chance, landed myself right into a good faith, yet very burocratic and ownership-oriented crusade on the article Yoshiki (musician) on the IRC help channel (#wp-en-help). The users Yskent (talk · contribs) and ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) (the record label Yoshiki works for), along with perhaps others (not confirmed), are promoting the artist's POV by adding information that he himself approved (Yskent has confirmed over IRC that he is a member of Yoshiki's staff) and planning to fully protect the article once it is added, and even canvassing to become administrators in order to edit it when it is protected (confirmed over IRC and by and ). Of course, the RfAs and/or RFPPs of these users will never succeed, but action needs to be taken. ExtasyRecordings (talk · contribs) has already been indefinitely blocked per WP:UAA, but further action, IMO, needs to be taken. These accounts are single-purpose accounts, yet they have no knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy, and are not really trying to engage in bad behavior. If they can understand the rules here, I feel they can become constructive contributors, and I would gladly mentor them if they wish to contribute. Happy editing, Arky 19:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)_new_section"> _new_section">

Try WP:COI/N. --Tango 21:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Horlo

This user has been crusading to move Kiev to Kyiv. He refuses to accept the fact that a poll has already voted against the move and is using sockpuppets to push his POV. After the poll closed, an influx of anonymous IPs that had little to no other contributions to any other article (seven of which were in Toronto) came into the discussion advocating for the move. There was also a large influx of newly established users that also made little to no other contributions to any other article. He needs a nice long block. Reginmund 20:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It may be of interest that Toronto has a large and well-known Ukrainian community. Orderinchaos 21:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you open a case on Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets and list out all the IPs and users you believe are associated with this? I don't disagree that there's evidence of a problem, but admin review will go much faster if someone who was following the conversation can summarize which ones you think may be socks. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't figured out how to work that contraption. I can however list the suspected sockpuppets of Horlo. Reginmund 21:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that blocking Holro is unneeded not because he is useful (he is not), but because he is harmless. He used to Kyivize articles around. He does not do it anymore. He used to flood talk:Kiev with his campaign making the talk page unreadable and useless for discussing the articles. This has ended too as the subpage was created specifically for him to type his kilobytes. Unless an addition of harmless (but useless) rant in an amount of several kilobytes per day is really the load that matters for the WP traffic and hard-drive space, he may continue this activity just as well. --Irpen 08:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a rather ingenious solution to this kind of problem that I might well use one day. :) 385k... that's some dedication. Orderinchaos 15:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

snowolfd4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User snowolfd4 is being extremely hostile, rude and has been repeatedly blanking my edits. I have repeatedly pleaded with him to avoid personal attacks to no avail ,. This appears to be chronic problem for this user. He had attacked others including admins such as Jayjg, which was reported here .

His latest tirade at me over the past few weeks:

"None of your claims are supported by this, so stop disrupting Misplaced Pages to spread your propaganda, and let genuine editors work constructively to improve articles."

"If you had actually taken time to read the article, you'll have realised what I added was inside the ref tags, not in the actual intro itself. By selectively adding content to the intro, you completely defaced it."

"You want to take this to WP:AN/I or whatever replaced WP:PAIN, go ahead. But mark my words, people like you will not be allowed to destroy Misplaced Pages."

"You should go back to school and learn what Artillery is without disrupting Misplaced Pages with your asinine edits."

"Okay, I'm sorry. I'm correcting myself. You need to go back to kindergarten to learn how to Read."

I am not exactly sure what to do next. Please advise. Sinhala freedom 22:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning left on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 23:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Understood George, and I'll tone down the comments. You however have to understand the reasons why I decided to address the user as such. Looking at his contributions will help, and I won't bother elaborating further because I frankly can think of hundreds of better things to do that go over his contributions and point out his sins.

Regarding the above comments, I see nothing wrong with the first three in the context of those discussions. To explain the last two comments, Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs) continued his disruptive editing of the last few weeks on Sri Lanka related articles, this time on the Sri Lanka Army article, removing a number of valid citations , , , , and added {{fact}} tags to every sentence of a paragraph, even though the citation is given at the end of the paragraph,

When he again requested a citation for already cited text with the edit summery

"artillery didn't exists 430 ad, what bs is this ?"

I replied on the talk page with the 4th comment mentioned above. He then replied

"Your wiki reference to artillery precisely proves my points. Either you don't read these things or are ignorant of them. Thanks once again for undoing your arguments."

Per the first sentence of the Artillery article,

Historically, artillery (from French artillerie) refers to any engine used for the discharge of large projectiles in war... Older engines like the catapult, onager, trebuchet and ballista are artillery

which is why, understandably I believe, I suggested he learn how to read. --snowolfD4 00:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The expectation is that you're polite to people even if they're wrong and annoying. Snapping at people as you did just exacerbates situations from polite corrections into hostile conflicts.

NPA warnings don't mean that you're not factually correct on a point. You both have to make the truth known (sources included, etc) and say so in a manner that doesn't cause or exacerbate fights.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 00:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Need an Opinion

Can an admin tell an editor that he is not allowed to report another users behaviour on this board? Many thanks....NeutralHomer 00:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me. El_C 01:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

When said admin is doing everything in his/her power to give you advice to help you avoid a seemingly more and more likely date with WP:ARBCOM, I think you should take that advice and run with it instead of breaking it and asking about it here. Metros 01:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to my world. --Calton | Talk 01:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Um... can you tell me again why he is not allowed? Titoxd 01:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd have to go back through NeutralHomer's edits for the last day or two and see. He's been insulting other editors in slightly sly ways on subsidiary parts of his talk page. He doesn't seem to want to listen to El C anymore... *shrug* maybe not blockable yet, but headed there. He can either listen to advice to knock it off, or keep it up and get blocked, his choice. Georgewilliamherbert 01:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe the correct term to use for this situation would be '...'. Correct? HalfShadow 01:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow... look in reporting user's talk page history at the edit summaries, one in particular. :| Orderinchaos 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Negroid

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This is not in the purview of this board—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I am requesting for comments on the article Negroid. One editor has insisted on using a controversial photo from a 1914 book in the article. The article is currently protected because of this dispute. It is my opinion that the photo is stereotypical and innappropriate for use. I suggest finding alternative images that may not be seen as offensive or stereotypical if indeed any image is to be used at all. I also suggest that an image should have the consensus of established editors of the article. Muntuwandi 03:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had no involvement with the article, but to me the usage of the 1914 photo seems quite valuable, since it shows what the term's connotations and meanings were when it was in common usage. It also does more than about anything else to discount the term's legitimacy, since it shows the range of people that were thrown together under the label. (Besides, WP:NOT#CENSORED.) --tjstrf talk 03:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so Africans today look pretty much the same as they did in 1914, why not use photos of modern Africans instead of dusty photos of bare breasted women. Muntuwandi 03:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article notes that the term is obsolete, so in that context it's useful to have a photo from the time when the term was current. Use of the photo does not seem racist -- if anything the opposite, since as tjstrf points out the photo gives evidence against the term's legitimacy. Raymond Arritt 03:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless - that's not an administrator issue - please go to Misplaced Pages's request for comment page.--danielfolsom 03:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

As the article appears to be limited to the use of the term in craniofacial skull identification in forensics, why not use photographs or, even better, drawings of actual skulls (not living people) to illustrate the points? A labelled diagram would be much more effective, and much less personal. This is a clinical article; the illustration would be best to be also clinical. If there is to be a photograph used, it would seem odd to choose one to which there is opposition when there are thousands of others that can illustrate shape. The proposed new photo is better in that the heads are larger and more easily seen. If there is an objection to it in that it does not illustrate the point, then let's find another one. Surely our time would be better spent looking through picture archives than arguing, wouldn't it? (If I understood any of the Images guidelines I'd go hunting myself.) Bielle 03:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If the proposed new photo you're talking about is Image:Afro diversity.jpg, then no, that's unacceptable, since it's not from the period when the term was used. --tjstrf talk 03:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The term negroid is still used in craniofacial anthropometry and it may not be considered offensive in this context. for examplenegroid skull, or . I agree with Bielle that it is better to use images that are not personal. the photo Image:Afro diversity.jpg, may be useful since one of the definitions of Negroid indicates that it was a simplification of the diversity in physical appearance found in Africa. Muntuwandi 04:04, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, this isn't exactly the place to discuss this - however I should note that the pictures you have presented have if anything been more personal She said personal as in a drawing- image Afro diversity isn't a drawing--danielfolsom 04:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That was just done to illustrate a point that images should not be free for all. Just because an image is available, does not mean that it should be used. Muntuwandi 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

In that case you violated WP:POINT--danielfolsom 04:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

We are digressing now as I am hoping to get a variety of views from other editors regarding the current version. This dispute has been going on for a while and I am hoping that we can get some sort of resolution because it is only one photo that is holding up progress. Muntuwandi 04:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article itself is written in the present tense once you get beyond the summary opening. In that case, a "present" photograph is appropriate for the specific context. If neither of the "sides" likes the other's photo, then we can surely just keep looking. I would only find the argument about the illustration having to come from the early part of the last century acceptable if the term was limited to that period; that is, however, not the case, as all parties agree. Bielle 04:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why not simply expand the article? Illustrate the historical usage of the term with the historical image, and the modern anthropological usage of the term with a modern anthropological image. --tjstrf talk 04:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the old photo is that no context is provided. The article does not mention why the subjects in the photos are considered negroid. It seems like a random collection of photos of various Africans. Add to the fact the text mentions Africans as mentally backward, i don't think it is hence a reliable source. Muntuwandi 04:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok now enough is enough - there's a talk page for this article - in the talk page a discussion is going on - this is not the place for content disputes, it's a place for admin intervention.--danielfolsom 04:22, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sock Puppetry by user:Kumarrao

This user user:Kumarrao has indulged in sock puppetry. Checkusr has confirmed that user:Tejam is his sockpuppet (confirmed by User:Deskana). He has done two reverts with two accounts to give the impression of two people agreeing when there is only one user. These reverts were made on articles Chalukya dynasty and Bhattiprolu‎. I request action be taken against user:Kumarrao, in addition to blocking user:Tejam permanently.Dineshkannambadi 03:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the sockpuppet indefinitely per Deskana's confirmation (on Blnguyen's talk page). I've given Kumarrao a warning, but don't see any pressing need to block him. Picaroon (t) 03:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted Kumarrao complained about another user only a few sections above this one, that complaint should probably be reviewed in light of this finding. Orderinchaos 04:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He was complaining about me for reverting his edits. Kumarrao has been trying to delete vast amounts of cited information from a Featured article even after he has been adviced (by user:Hornplease)to discuss it first. Kumarrao's source did not satisfy WP:RS. Even if it did, it was a minority opinion that failed WP:UNDUE.Dineshkannambadi 04:33, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Further, User:Hornplease did look into that complaint and confirmed that my source was a valid source and a well known historian (please see talk page of Chalukya dynasty, a India history related article which I authored) while Kumarrao's source is an Engineering student's web site that was considered "not reliable". This is also the opinion of admin Blnguyen. user:Kumarrao refused to accept their opinion.Dineshkannambadi 04:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Gwern (talk · contribs)

Is there any reason this user makes bot edits without a flag? Just a little curious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.9.89 (talk • contribs)

Because Gwern isn't making bot edits - being bot assisted isn't exactly the same as being a bot. And if you go through her contribs - you'll notice that there are actually normal, non-bot assisted edits.--danielfolsom 03:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivility User:Jay32183, possibly bullying in afd

User:Jay32183 is responding to a disagreement of a loosely worded item in WP:NOT#DIR by basically calling me an idiot who can't understand English and should shut up, here and here . He also in my opinion is attempting to bully editors who are voting keep by replying to them with a message restating his position - like so - something that I am not sure is a violation of policy but which seems a little off to me.

Could someone maybe have a word with him? Artw 04:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Done.Rlevse 11:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikistalking and harass by DHeyward

Chaplain Kent Svendsen (USMIL) User:ChaplainSvendsen is a 'public figure'. He talks on Wiki about the articles he wrote. That's the name he signed when he canvassed me with email. User:DHeyward (who just changed his name) is following me and making unjust edits to mine, and trying to provoke me. (IMO) Please ask him to leave me alone and leave my edits alone. If he or any of his group have a problem with my edits, I ask that they complain to Thatcher131, who they complained a lot to in the last days, but who is pretty fair. •smedleyΔbutler• 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

See WP:BATTLE, WP:SOAP. Raymond Arritt 04:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Here was his last account where he was warned for doing the same thing (the Chaplain) ChaplainKent. Dheyward is wrong. •smedleyΔbutler• 05:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(Irony meter pegs scale and bursts into flame; shards damage all within a 10 m radius.) Raymond Arritt 05:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would remove such trolling but maybe thats expected. •smedleyΔbutler• 05:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, you've come off a 1 week block and within a couple of hours, you put your name/account back on this board again? Voluntarily? It's like you want to be indefinitely blocked. (Disclaimer: I take no responsibility if any admins reading this take that last statement as a suggestion). R. Baley 11:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Singapore Airlines

Can another admin look at the edits in Singapore Airlines and consider protecting this article? The extent and nature of the changes amount to an edit war. The constant major changes are a negative on the article. Vegaswikian 05:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an edit war, but just major expansion of the article. —Kurykh 05:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed through the history and the talk page, and everyone seems to be getting along. Someguy1221 05:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Here, SSP, or CU?

Asking for an admin to step in, as I don't want to seem like i'm on a vendetta.

I noticed this edit today, and what concerns me is that it's a first edit that handles an external link with ... do we call taht cover text, or labelling, or what?... whatever it is, perfectly. It supports the website of this user, User:AdamFendelman, who runs that very site(evidence of which was on an article about him). I don't want to pursue this, because I already nominated the article about that user, as a Speedy A7 after trying to clean it up left me with nothing BUT extenal links and peacock terms. To go after him any further would seem like I'm 'after him'; I'm not, but this is sort of foolish stuff. AF has been adding his site in as a reliable site and so on, and been reverted a few times and , so this is more than coincidental, I think. Thanks. ThuranX 06:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AdamFendelman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a COI/spam-only account. Virtually every edit he's ever made has been reference spamming for hollywoodchicago.com, and citing himself. This account should be indef blocked.

Itsallthat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has only made one edit , spamming that same, obscure, PageRank zero website. This is an obvious sock, so it too should be blocked. - Jehochman 06:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor has contacted me, and left a note at the article talk, protesting complete confusion about the reverts of his edits, but his talk page has a lengthy litany of warnings and communiques about this sort of thing. I find it hard to believe that when you declare it to be your original content blog, you don't understand, as a journalist, the sort of unverifiable nature of the writings, and the conflicts it sets us up for. ThuranX 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Despite asking me on my talk page, and at the article page, for how to cite things correctly, the editor immediately jumped to another article nad did EXACTLY what got him into conflict before. See his contribs here. . While my reply to him came at the exact minute as his First edit to Julie Delpy, he made another right after, which suggests to me that he really is a spam account. ThuranX 06:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an obvious case of a disruption-only account. The user has made virtually zero good faith contributions. Everything is spam and COI. - Jehochman 06:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

BTW, he readded the link to Julie Delpy, because I just removed it along with another one he added as an inline ref. He knows what he's doing. - KrakatoaKatie 11:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User continues to act in the same manner, despite my attempts to communicate with him, after posting here and talking to Jehochman. ThuranX 06:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I've cleaned up about 50% of the spam, but I have to go to bed. Here's the rest that needs mopping up. - Jehochman 07:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be patient with the editor and talk to him rather than snap-blocking for this. If that's really his name and his userpage is accurate, he's a legit journalist and this is just a communications gap over what Misplaced Pages is all about. Try to explain nicely. Georgewilliamherbert 07:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

His actions are not limited to The Dark Knight. He attempted to add content to Spider-Man 3 back in May 2007, and he was warned by another user and myself, as seen on his talk page. I agree that his contributions do not seem to reflect good faith -- to constantly cite your very own site and pretty much nothing else does not reflect positively on the editor. If the editor's contributions reflect a more varied background of contributions, there may be some argument here, but there is not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GWH - As mentioned above, I have, in fact, tried a couple times to explain to him that linking to his own blog, especially in the self-promotional manner he does it in, and quoting his own reviews about movies, represents a violation of the COI policy. He keeps asking how he's supposed to link to his blog correctly, and how he's supposed to link to his blog if we don't let him link to his blog. As such, his primary, if not only, concern in all this is getting his blog out there. After being notified of this AN/I thread, and having it explained to him a couple times, he continued to edit to include his blog and his commentaries on the film and actor/-ress pages that his blog had covered. Perhaps hearing from an admin would help? ThuranX 12:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grawp the Giant

In under half an hour, this editor has redirected dozens of articles to non-existent pages, used offensive language and deletes warnings from his/her talk page. I request that this person be blocked. faithless () 07:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Was blocked indefinitely about 40 minutes ago. I think that all of his moves have been successfully fixed. I have posted a WP:RFCU on the account to catch any sleepers they may have created. Georgewilliamherbert 07:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, send this to WP:AIV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My mistake, this was my first time requesting a block. Thanks! faithless () 07:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. You did a good thing. AIV is a more precisely right thing, but this would have been helpful if the incident hadn't already been under control. Definitely, if you see something like this in the future, check if the vandal is still active, and if so take it to WP:AIV as soon as possible. You may help save us much pain and suffering. The more people help, the better our reactions are. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert 07:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Might wanna get this checked to see if isn't a Hel Hufflepuff (talk · contribs) sock. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparent IP-sock of indef-blocked User:Klaksonn

I have blocked (for one week) the anon IP 83.229.104.4 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing and as an apparent sockpuppet of the indef-blocked Klaksonn (talk · contribs) (see discussion of my indef-bloc of Klaksoon at ANI284#Blocked_user:Klaksonn).

I was notified of this by a message on my talk page by another editor, and the reply by the anon IP is definitely Klaksonn's style: a personal attack rather than a discussion of the issues. The contribs also fit Klakson's style: same areas of interest, and the same PoV-pushing abusive style.

In any other case, I would have asked for a checkuser and if the sock was confirmed, blocked indefinitely; but I was unsure what to do with the case of a blocked user clumsy enough to edit from an IP, because WP:CHECKUSER says that privacy policy "does not allow us to make a check that has the effect of revealing IP addresses".

Since I have not previously encountered a situation like this, I'm not whether I have taken the right steps. Can anyone advise? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the repugnant edit summaries you can see just from looking at Special:Contributions/83.229.104.4, I would have softblocked it for a year, given there's been not one good edit. Neil ム 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough! Block now extended to one year. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently now 77.42.178.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log); I've blocked for 24h. Antandrus (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Advise Me

If I am using an image from wikipedia which in public domain on the Front Page of my magazine, is it compulssary to give the credit to wikipedia as or shall I mention the source without bolding it.Kaystar 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If, and only if, an image is marked as public domain, you can use it without any conditions at all; read the linked page for more information. You can click on an image to view its copyright conditions. --ais523 12:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Although, you may want to check it really is public domain - some images are tagged incorrectly. Misplaced Pages doesn't own the copyrights to the images (or text, for that matter), so you need to find out who actually owns the image and make sure you have permission from them. --Tango 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 14:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

User:The Road to 10 million accounts

User:The road to 10 million accounts appears to be dedicated to fulfilling the promise of the name, with the creation of multiple accounts, some using inappropriate names. Among them are User:Myspace is amore reliable source than wikipédia and User:Wikipédia is myspace for fat aspergers losers. All six current accounts were created at the same moment. The user has made no other edits yet. Kablammo 12:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

They are playing to see what we pick up. The bots don't seem to pick up wikipedia with the accent. I've blocked a few with account creation blocked but presumably this is having no effect. Secretlondon 12:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There are more of similar ilk:,,. Someone has a lot of time on their hands. Can the IP from which the user it editing be blocked? Or should this be ignored until the user gets bored, or actually starts editing? Kablammo 12:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, and (took a few minutes to figure out how to find this). ThuranX 12:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

He's a prolific one, eh? , , , , , , , ,

... and on and on... the IP needs a hardblock. ThuranX 13:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The accounts are actually an almost daily occurrence, and usually four or five new accounts are created from each original one. They are sometimes accompanied by articles about raping babies, but most of the time they don't edit at all and can be ignored. My guess is it's a dynamic Optimum IP range. -- zzuuzz 13:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of Maburaho's critical reception section

Yesterday, an IP editor had blanked a section on Maburaho about its critical reception three times without any explanation. The IP editor was given a warning each time for blanking the section. Now this morning, a newly registered account blanked the section again. I have strong suspicion that this was nothing more then an attempt to get around WP:3RR. --Farix (Talk) 12:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I highly suspect the newly created account and the IP address as sockpuppetry. The blanking of the critical reception is a disgrace. The reasons explained by TheFarix is why blanking it is really bad. Greg Jones II 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Njyoder (talk · contribs) continues personal attacks

This editor continues to make personal attacks in the course of this discussion. he's been twice reminded about NPA and CIVIL, and has a long history of being blocked for this very thing. His latest . You can see the paypal talk page in the sections previous for several more examples.--Crossmr 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the template in the heading. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Liancourt Rocks

Note: If you are involved in this dispute, or have strong opinions about it, please do not comment. The intent of this section is to find a way to make the discussion on the talk page more productive, not to discuss a content dispute.

This ancient content dispute (already listed at WP:LAME) flamed up again, and after a request at third opinion, a page I frequent, I wrote the following third opinion there:

Third Opinion - This whole section violates WP:TALK and WP:OR. Unless all of you happen to be doctors of international law, stop the discussion and find sources. Remember that talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, and are not a forum to discuss the subject. Misplaced Pages is not a forum. User:Krator (t c) 13:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Another user came from WP:3O and reaffirmed the above. From their responses, however, it seems the involved users are not inclined to heed my advice, and will instead continue their forum like chatter on the Misplaced Pages talk page.

After reading all recent and ancient discussion on this dispute, I do not think the current discussion will become productive after the involvement of third opinions, requests for comment, or even the mediation committee. I think, and fear, that some administrator involvement, and use of fancy buttons, is needed to get any productivity. Either a block per persistent violations of WP:FORUM and WP:CIVIL, or a more friendly method - asking editors involved to collect their thoughts on a wikibreak with the wikibreak enforcer.

Your thoughts and suggestions are appreciated. User:Krator (t c) 15:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good faith editor, bad edits

Can someone advise or help out with AnnieTigerChucky (talk · contribs)? Based on his/her edit history, I suspect she or he might be very young, or there could be some sort of communication impairment. S/he makes good faith edits, is not a vandal, but all of the edits need to be reverted for a number of different reasons (take your pick—removing references, violating MOS, inserting duplicate text, etc.) and efforts from numerous editors to correspond with him/her via talk pages have been unsuccessful. It's not clear that she or he even reads talk pages or knows how to use them. I'm not sure what can be done here, but now s/he is cruising close to a 3RR block and may not even know it. Maybe a block would get his or her attention and help him or her find talk pages, but I really don't know what we usually do in a case like this, where it's not so much vandalism as inability to communicate with this editor at all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor is far past the 3RR and continues to revert even after I gave them a 3RR warning. Their reason for including duplicate text of List of The Naked Brothers Band episodes in The Naked Brothers Band (TV series) was that it's for people want's to print it out all at once as stated here. I, like SandyGeorgia, don't know what to do in this situation. Many editors have tried to communicate with them but they continue to revert and ignore the other editors. Any ideas as to what to do would be fantastic at this point. AngelOfSadness talk 17:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My sense is that Annie doesn't read edit summaries or talk pages; the issue is how to communicate with him/her. Annie is spreading from the Wolff brothers now into autism articles as well; s/he does make some good edits, but how to get him/her to communicate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to block her to get her attention. There's nothing else that can be done to get the message across that hasn't been done already. Sarah 17:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Another editor just tried something on his/her talk page that might work (a "click on the edit button if you're reading this" message). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a really good idea Sandy, I noticed her earlier and was mulling over what might catch her attention without alienating her. I was going to have a word myself, but what could I say except more of the same and I didn't think that would help? --Zeraeph 18:03, 3 September 2007 (UTC)