Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:55, 14 June 2008

• WP:AN
• WP:ANB

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

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

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

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

If you cannot edit this page, it may be protected. Please leave a message here instead.

New noticeboard

For nationalism: Misplaced Pages:Ethnic and cultural conflicts noticeboard. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 17:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, not more noticeboards. That reminds me after I bitched at you on the mailing list last year for the last one you created I completely forgot to watchlist it. How are things going there, anyway? — CharlotteWebb 18:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

• Good, very good. Since you ask :) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

So now who's going to watch this and be willing to hand out warnings and then blocks? For the sake of everything good, we really really need people to hand out more blocks (after warnings) on here, even if it means the blockee will wikilawyer to Heaven. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Principally me, for starters. Hopefully some of the stuff that at the moment is winding up in truckloads on the talk pages of myself, Future Perfect, Elonka, and a few other admins, will wind up here for more general attention. It's not good to have such a small subset of people monitoring such a large problematic area. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I would be glad to help out, had I not been too stupid to apply for adminship a long time ago when I still could have passed ;). The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have it on my watchlist - and I am prepared to swing the banhammer on any person who isn't Cornish (they get the Lightning Bolt instead...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Moreschi. Unfortunately, this does beg the question: how can the well-meaning Wikipedian be expected to keep track of all the noticeboards, old and new, that now exist? And how does one go about deciding which noticeboard might be most appropriate for any given notice? You all know the solution, you just don't want to admit it yet: Misplaced Pages:Noticeboard noticeboard SHEFFIELDSTEEL 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I sometimes get the feeling that every noticeboard should have a header saying "This is almost certainly the wrong place to report whatever it is you want to report". That seems to be the gist of this board's header! DuncanHill (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that each new noticeboard takes control over a new specific area not common to other noticeboards, then as the number of noticeboards tends to infinity, your statement becomes almost surely true. We can just add the header now: "We are almost sure you are in the wrong place". Splash - tk 12:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The correct solution would be to either a) switch to a *real* bulletin board system instead of a disorganised, hacky solution we have now, also integrating the BB to Misplaced Pages login procedures and interlinking, or b) Do the Wikia thing and set up a forum system within MediaWiki using Massive Template Rabuse (of Essjayuserpagific Proportions, may it rest in peace). Or, better yet, c) rethink the whole "discussion" thing and come up with a completely new software solution that serves better our needs. (I'm thinking of a system that would mimick WP discussion look and feel as much as possible, but provide all of the tools available in "normal" discussion forums.) Um, just a thought. Anyway, good luck with the new noticeboard, Moreschi - if there's one thing that won't end in WP, it's city naming debates =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Username Blacklist

For ease of email, I wanted to create the user account Radio Misplaced Pages. However it says it is blacklisted. I haven't requested an account because, it is blacklisted. Could you remove it and tell me, or make it for me? StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Usernames containing the word "Misplaced Pages" or other trademarks of the Wikimedia Foundation are not appropriate. GRBerry 21:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hang on, why do you want to create an account for this purpose? Surely just the one account's enough? PeterSymonds (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Stewie, it comes across like this whole "Radio Misplaced Pages" thing is being used as a method of webhosting. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not your webspace. Thanks. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

No comment on the username, but I don't see how there's a WP:NOT problem here. How is it different than Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost, Misplaced Pages:WikipediaWeekly, or Misplaced Pages:NotTheWikipediaWeekly? - auburnpilot talk 23:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think WP:NOT applies as such to the project, so long as it's not disrupting anything. I am concerned that Stewie, whose block log shows problems with the user of multiple accounts in the past, wants to now... use multiple accounts. What would having this account do that using your own username would not? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Per Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#.27Role.27_accounts role accounts are prohibited, an account posing as the host of a radio show, would place itself in the appearance of a role account. Further this user has had a problem with socking in the past, and was unbanned by Jimbo/Arbcom, so I would urge against permitting them to have alternate accounts, when no pressing need appears to exist. MBisanz 08:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured picture cited as original research?

User:CyclePat is being disruptive and pointy towards featured pictures. First, he added {{refimprove}} and {{original research}} to Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg, which is a featured picture. The editor proceeded to list this image for deletion review, which is speedily kept and cited by the closer as abusive DR. A few days later, the editor went to the Features and Admins page on Signpost and hid the announcement that the image is promoted to featured status, citing the image as original research. I would like to ask someone to step in and intervene this problematic user. OhanaUnited 00:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is probably also relevant; it's another (unrelated) image he's claiming is original research. --Rory096 00:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Images are traditionally given some leeway with regard to original research guidelines (see WP:NOR#Original images), but that doesn't mean users concerned over such issues are necessarily being "disruptive" -- it could just as easily be argued that such concerns are important to ensuring the integrity and accuracy of our content. While I do think the Signpost edit in particular was uncalled for, it's worth noting that it's over a week old -- is this an ongoing issue, anywhere? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely don't see how respiratory system diagram is original research. It is actually one of the things on earth that people don't debate about. Just go and flip open any human anatomy textbook and you cannot find any disagreement between textbooks. OhanaUnited 03:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In which case the diagram author - or you - would not find it difficult to provide a citation for the image, in the image description page. OR is not about a work being accurate & factual, so much as it is about it being verifiable. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

This is uncontroversial information, and probably not based on a single source. FWIW, CyclePat also requested a source at Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It demonstrably is not an uncontroversial image, since there is a controversy about it. I'm sure it is not a plagiarized image taken directly from a single source. But it is clearly, for the reasons cited above, capable of being referenced to any number of other occurrences of diagrams of respiratory systems. Lack of a single source does not diminish its capacity to be referenced. Referencing it is the simplest and most effective way to solve the controversy. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

If the image had no problems on the commons, where it was originally uploaded, then there's no issue with sourcing. This is why the templates for sourcing here specifically mention "this article." Just because this diagram isn't taken from Gray's Anatomy doesn't mean it needs to be referenced to it. CyclePat has had issues with his behavior prior. Let's hope this isn't his new outlet from now on.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I slapped a pile of references on the talk page for the image. That should put this absurd attention grabbing to rest. ···日本穣 05:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

To state that there is a controversy surrounding this image is laughable. A weak attempt at manufacturing one does not controversy make. Resolute 04:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity, does Commons even have a policy analogous to WP:V or WP:NOR? As far as I know there isn't one. While I suspect that the Commons' community would choose to delete misleading imagery, as far as I know they don't have any policy requiring the sourcing of the information presented in an image (as distinct from sourcing who created the image). Dragons flight (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

For context, it should be noted that CyclePat has a history of disruptive activity around references. Some months ago, he was engaged in a great deal of nonsense on the MS disambiguation page, insisting that every entry on the dab page ought to have a reference proving that the term could be abbreviated that way. The silliness spilled over to a number of other pages, where he started demanding footnotes on millisecond and mass spectrometry to prove that these terms could be validly abbreviated as ms and MS, respectively.

Based on that sort of conduct – and his tilting at windmills over WP:AMA – I am very concerned at CyclePat's tendency to WP:POINT. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given CyclePat a note informing him of this discussion. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Until some meaningful and sourced disagreement about this image shows up I'd say there isn't much to talk about other than CyclePat's WP:POINTiness. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Btw, I found that his username is actually the name of a company he owns. See User:CyclePat#About Me and User:CyclePat/CyclePat's. Isn't that a violation of WP:USERNAME? OhanaUnited 15:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as he's not promoting his company, I don't see a problem with it. --Conti|✉ 15:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

He is promoting his company, in his userspace and on his main userpage. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment at , which may apply to several of the comments displayed here... Also, I find it to be of bad form to bring up past incidents "which may or may not" even be related to this subject. In this case, I find it being quite rude. To put it nicely I will make reference to this article which talks about previous criminal records. It is absolutely un-called for and will humbly accept an apology for the grotesque lack of WP:AGF. p.s.: I mean this in the most sincere of ways... and there is no hidden humor or sarcasm... as some of my past conversations. ありがとうございました •••日本穣 for the constructive reference and spending some time to try and find something that could help us keep this image. b.t.w.: see the talk page where you may see that someone else then I claims it has a mistake! No matter the case this is not the proper venue to discuss content issue which, may be found (this exact subject) at Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard#Image without references. --CyclePat (talk) 08:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN is an entirely suitable venue to discuss user conduct issues, which certainly and conspicuously exist here. Discussing your past conduct is perfectly reasonable where a pattern of behaviour exists and corrective measures are being – or ought to be – considered. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If your point holds true, CyclePat, then the entire Misplaced Pages will be removed and there is no Misplaced Pages. Why? Because every idea was proposed by a human. For example, if we follow your original research standard, we have to remove the article gravity (because it is originally proposed by Issac Newton, which is an original research when Newton was alive). I find that CyclePat is following the letters, not the spirit of the OR policy. OhanaUnited 16:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Well lets get started then... DELETE DELETE DELETE --Samuel Pepys (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Come on guys! You're being supercilious. I honestly want to know if there is a mistake or not in this picture. I need some references. That's it! Misplaced Pages should have authoritative sources to substantiate this. Newton's law's are substantiated by "recognized", 3rd party, references. This graphic is an interpretation by an unknown user (who can't even step up and claim his/her sources... did they read this in a book, do an autopsy, pull the names out a the medical school class, etc.) which as far as we know has not been peer reviewed, so the least we should do is provide some references. There is no arguing that this is a respiratory system, because everyone knows this, but since not everyone is familiar with the minute details, it's important to note reliable, peer-reviewed (preferably) and authoritative source. Plus this is different than "any other image" because it has incorporated some "text" (which I believe places it closer to the category of "article"). I trust this explanation and the ones found on the related pages is sufficient to prove to you that I am honestly attempting to do what is right and to find a reliable source. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not necessary to reference every single thing. I don't need references on a map of the world, the image is based on common and accrued knowledge that is easily verifiable on the articles where it is posted. Stop being an asshat. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

p.s.: I conclude that you are stretching Misplaced Pages's policies beyond common sense, i.e., I politely think that this maybe an interesting read for you. --CyclePat (talk) 19:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem, CyclePat, is not necessarily in a simple request for a reference, or in a desire for discussion about the appropriateness of references for scientific diagrams. The problem – which you have yet to acknowledge or, apparently, to understand – is how you approach those requests or discussions.

As near as I can gather from digging through your contributions, this is the timeline:

• CyclePat sees the featured image Image:Respiratory system complete en.svg in the article Respiratory system. He removes it, with the edit summary Removed unsourced image. Reason: No reliable source provided for imbeded text which identified parts of the organ".
• He does the same thing (diff) to Image:Merrimack Valley Map.PNG from Merrimack Valley.
• Both edits are reverted independently, by different editors.
• Twelve hours later and with no discussion, he removes the respiratory system image from all the articles in which it appears:. That includes repeating his edit (which had been undone) on respiratory system. No attempt was made to contact the editor who had reverted him, nor to expand on his reasoning on the article's talk page.
• CyclePat adds templates and various messages to the image description page here and on Commons (diff). In all cases, the templates are inappropriate ({refimprove} and {original research} specifically state that they are meant for articles, not images, while {bsr} is used to identify images which are missing authorship info). Even at the time, he acknowledged that it was unlikely that the image represented original research (diff) so it is unclear why he felt it needed to be removed immediately from all our articles.
• He also messages the image's creator on Commons, leaving a message () that is based on an incomplete copyright info template. The message is confusing, and refers to the need for further licensing and copyright information.
• A few days later, CyclePat nominates the image for deletion from Commons (, ) despite having identified no error in the image, despite the featured status of the picture, and despite having allowed very little time for sourcing to take place. (Various mangled deletion templates and pages appear on enwiki as well, at RfD, MfD, and IfD.)
• His various deletion nominations are closed immediately by sensible admins at enwiki and Commons. The Commons admin notes that the deletion request is "abusive": diff.
• He proceeds to strip the image from a Signpost article: diff.
• CyclePat then goes to Misplaced Pages:No original research/noticeboard#Image without references.
• He also attempts to file an RfC on the image talk page (diff). For some reason, he states that "Since the closing deletion discussion the fact that image was not listed in any article has come to light! Hence, in this case the image is not used in any article (and should not be used in any article) because it has no references." I don't know how it is that he forgot that he was the one who removed the image from articles in the first place.
• He removes references to the image from assorted Picture of the Day (POTD) archive templates (diff) as well as adding {fact} and {syn} tags to the image's POTD box: diff.
• Discussion continues in several places. Nihonjoe has provided several similar images and references from reliable sources on Image talk:Respiratory system complete en.svg. CyclePat is going through the references, but is badly hampered by either his lack of specific subject knowledge, or a failure to do any legwork himself. (For example, he compares our image to one provided by the American Medical Association, and offers the criticism "The "vocal fold" appears to be at the same location as the AMA's Larynx". Simply entering vocal fold into our search box would take him to our article, which says "The vocal folds...are composed of...membrane stretched horizontally across the larynx." Not surprising that they'd be in the same place in a diagram, is it?)

This is the second time I've closely examined CyclePat's conduct in a situation like this one. In both cases, he has chosen to zero in on a particular image or fact for which he believes a reliable source must be provided. So far, so good. (While others may disagree with the need for a source, opening a discussion is – within reason – a fair course of action.)

The problem comes with his approach. He is not content to add a {fact} tag and let things rest. Nor does he simply make a polite request of an article or image creator. Instead, he sprays inappropriate tags and templates everywhere, opens RfCs, posts to noticeboards, opens deletion discussions, edit wars, strips content from articles, and just generally makes a noisy, obnoxious nuisance of himself until someone either gives him the attention he wants (which seems to be what has happened here) or he is blocked after multiple warnings (which happened the last time around).

He seems either unaware of or indifferent – and I'm not sure which would be worse – to the disruption that his approach causes. He hasn't demonstrated that he has learned anything from the last go-round, at EgyptAir, MS, millisecond, and mass spectrometry. (This choice example shows Pat creating a footnote to demonstrated that ms really is an abbreviation for millisecond. The footnote is longer than the article's prose, and includes a comment that adding SI prefixes to SI units may be a violation of WP:NOR.)

The fact that he refers other editors to Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering in his last comment above speaks volumes. How can he still not realize or acknowledge the tremendous amount of other editors' time and effort he has wasted over minutiae and abuse of Misplaced Pages processes? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, TenOfAllTrades, for making this extensive list to summarize CyclePat's disruptive behavior. Since CyclePat started this kind of behavior for over 6 months and did not show any sign of stopping, I would like to ask the community for a ban on CyclePat because 1) continuous disruptive editing 2) abuse of deletion process 3) following the letter but not the spirit of original research policy 4) being pointy 5) wasting editor's time and effort just to annoy them 6) destroying the editing atmosphere in Misplaced Pages. I haven't thought of the duration of the ban, but 1 month or longer sounds reasonable OhanaUnited 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you must, block over this, to prevent disruption. Do it when relevant, not now when it's punitive. A community ban now would be frankly ridiculous, so I'm not surprised Ohana's proposed one (note he started this AN section). CyclePat does useful work unrelated to this dispute area (example), hence I oppose a ban. giggy _(:O) 05:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also oppose. While I can't stand the north korean style 'accuse others of doing exaclty what I do' approach. A ban seems totally overkill here. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 05:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I DEMAND A CHECKUSER

Im demanding a checkuser is done on my account RIGHT now. I have been accused of sock puppetry Here by an Admin. After making nearly 17,000 edits to this website I WILL NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Have my name muddied my this little sweety pie. Get it sorted please. Regards. --— Realist (Come Speak To Me) 22:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

All is well, nobody accused you of anything. If anything, I recommend you count to ten (really, please do try that before the unavoidable rebuttal). -Gutza 22:50, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I want it done NOW. Im a good editor and I won't be accused of that. She/he/it openly admits to considering blocking me in the past. Do it, I want my name cleaned. — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 22:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Please accept my independent assessment: you haven't been accused of anything, there is no need for a checkuser to clear your name. --Gutza 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Then request it on the RFCU page, instead of the Admin noticeboard, since admins can't generally checkuser. --Golbez (talk) 22:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't there a different board for that request. Also, whyu all the drama? --70.188.131.89 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a different board. However, requesting use of the checkuser tool on your own account is not acceptable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't checkuser users on request to prove they are not guilty. If someone really suspects you are a sock of another user, they can file an RFCU with evidence showing who you are a sock of, but I very much doubt it will come to that. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You better take some cool-down time, you are acting agressively everywhere you go, calling someone "some bitter hormonal Admin" seems awfully sexist. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

And you have no right to "demand" anything of anyone on this site. Mr.Z-man 23:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but on the English Misplaced Pages, we don't really do that - Alison 23:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Great to know you can be accused of any old rubbish by an admin who has a lot of sway but cant get it discredited. Hmm I wonder what would happen if I did that? — Realist (Come Speak To Me) 23:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Fact is that any of us can be accused of any old rubbish by anybody (admin or not) at any time on WP and might have a hard time discrediting it. That's why Wikipedians need thick skins... -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I wish I'd kept the diff, but I've been accused of some very strange (and even conflicting) things at times. Orderinchaos 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything else aside, if a user makes a bad faith attempt to tarnish another user's reputation in the talk pages, there should be a good faith method to establish one's innocence (i.e. as opposed to getting back with a vengeance, or alternately just accepting to get thrashed around). However, in this case I have seen no such attempt to accuse anyone of anything, which is the point I was trying to make above. (I won't even try to touch sexist or aggressiveness here, I'm just pointing out a different POV.) --Gutza 23:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I read the talk page too and I do not see anyone accusing Realist2 of sockpuppetry. Orderinchaos 15:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been accused of being pro-Korean and pro-Japanese at various times. I think it's funny, mostly. (^_^) ···日本穣 06:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this image regarded as child pornography in the U.S.?

I happened across an image http://en.wikipedia.org/Image:Imene.jpg used to illustrate Hymen, and after expanding it I could see that this must certainly be an infant's! The image was transferred from an Italian server that may have a different legal situation. Could someone figure out whether this image will get a U.S. server (or even a reader) in legal trouble, and if so delete with prejudice so as to protect users. I am creeped out enough about this to delete cache and defrag the disk, let's put it that way. I hope there is protection for academic justification, but where this is concerned this might as well be Islam. Wnt (talk) 23:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IANAL, but just because someone is nude doesn't automatically make a photograph pornography. Shell 23:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

IANAL coming from me too, definitely... but this is a difficult discussion. I'd hazard a guess (I'd hope) that this is fine because it's not intended for any sexual purposes (there may be some other more lawyer-speak wording). Would someone point to the relevant definition of child pornography if they know where on the interwebs it lives. Cheers, Alex Muller 23:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Potter Stewart said "I know it when I see it" in regards to what is pornography, which leads me to say that this definitely isn't. Out of curiosity, how do you know it was on an Italian server? John Reaves 02:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Does the fact it's from an Italian user necessarily mean it was ever on a server in Italy? John Reaves 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite aside from whether or not the image is pornographic, there is something decidedly not right about it, in the purely anatomical sense of right, I mean. Do we have an anatomy student or a gynaecology resident, or something similar, who could take a look? I think that may be the "creepy" element because it strikes me as creepy, too. ៛ Bielle (talk) 02:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's from an infant? I agree that this picture can be replaced by computer graphics. But for the time being, it looks fine to me. OhanaUnited 03:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Where else are you going to find an intact hymen, seriously :P 75.91.211.200 (talk) 03:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's possibly from a minor, definitely looks like a poor quality screen cap from a porno, and we already have a far better drawn image. I've removed it from the article, and hopefully Commons will delete it (although they won't, as that would be CSNEORSIHP). Neıl 龱 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer these questions: what first makes it apparent is the fingers present in the image, but also the clothing at the margin of the image is what would be typical for a very small child. The image said it was transferred from the Italian Misplaced Pages. It does not by any means seem implausible that such an image could find a place in a medical journal, and it was clearly being used in a medical context, and I am by no means an advocate of censorship - but I was worried that Misplaced Pages could fall under attack by such a means. If those with experience can say it would not, then very good. Meanwhile, I don't think removing the image from the article but leaving it on the server makes much sense. After all, if someone were going to use it as part of an attack they would arrange for some account to set up a user page, or third-party web page linking to it, in a context that would make it more clearly objectionable. Wnt (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm (possibly incorrectly) going to mark this as resolved as there's technically nothing that an en.wikipedia administrator can do here - it's not used in any articles on the English Misplaced Pages and would require an administrator at Wikimedia Commons to delete it. While the thought of "what if" is appreciated, discussion would be needed there to delete it. Cheers, Alex Muller 11:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the image is hosted on Commons, which is typical for most of the sexual images of dubious provenance and hilarious pictures of troll's penises. We can't delete it here. Neıl 龱 12:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

False Alarm. Just more of the usual from Anon's that are trying to cleanse us of BADIMAGES. Shoo! Take your whining elsewhere. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

About the most we can do here on en Misplaced Pages is list it on the naughty image list. Kelly 02:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

May be best to make no assumptions about Commons unless you work there, I will say no more :) --Herby 07:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to have been deleted - good. Dragon695, characterising concerns about images being illegal as "whining" is unhelpful - being uncensored doesn't mean we have free rein to host child pornography. Neıl 龱 09:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If the shoe fits, wear it. I stand by my comment, given the level of external fear-mongering in certain quarters leaving our project subject to massive attempts at censorship. We do not exist in a vacuum. --Dragon695 (talk) 00:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is www.postchronicle.com blacklisted?

I was just trying to replace an almost certainly untrue and clearly unsourced sentence in Gina Gershon regarding the Clinton allegations in Vanity Fair, and found that I could not add www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_212151922.shtml as a http:// link. Their online masthead at www.postchronicle.com/about.shtml indicates that they have an editorial board and several reporters. I have no idea if they have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" but it seems very likely from a quick perusal.

(1) Why is that site spam-backlisted?

(2) Why does the blacklist error message not say:

(a) which URL is on the blacklist keeping the edit from being saved, and

(b) why the URL is blacklisted?

The Mediawiki software is like a work of art, but the blacklisting mechanism is certainly an ugly corner in need of serious repair. 75.61.102.8 (talk) 06:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=212705590#postchronicle.com . There is a log, albeit not conveniently, available here. There is no automatic logging function currently written when blacklisting a URL, though admins certainly pine for one. As to point 2a, it does tell you which URL is causing the issue. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This line "You may also submit your own articles or commentary..." from their about page gives me the feeling that they are not a reliable source. Kevin (talk) 11:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I agree this seems as a pretty inconsistent and sketchy source. Look elsewhere if you need a citation. Sasquatch t|c 17:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

See this for more information on why it is blacklisted. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua and User talk:Fasach Nua

I've reverted from this and this because I totally think that's a violation of What Misplaced Pages is not and the general principles of what the user space is for. However, the user has complained about it. Community thoughts? Sasquatch t|c 06:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly support. These pages are to establish proper communication with other contributors, not to annoy them. MaxSem 06:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Which he's been doing without the page slowing... Sceptre 09:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

If he does it again, a short block under WP:POINT would be appropriate - spamming 144kb of image tags onto a page is not acceptable. Ignore his lawyering to try and identify exactly what he did wrong - he knows it was trolling, even if it was on his own talk page. I don't think he will do it again, though. Neıl 龱 09:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

With this and his whining at ANI, he's on a pretty short leash. seicer | talk | contribs 12:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Whining? Pretty short leash? Seicer, your comment, and in particular your choice of language, could be construed as an ad hominen attack. Voicing personal opinions on this page, and in this way, is not helpful. --Bardcom (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"Short leash" is a widely-accepted and widely-understood figure of speech used to indicate that a particular individual's behaviour is being closely watched; it is not a personal attack. "Whining", while not tactful and bordering on the incivil, does fairly accurately describe Fasach's recent conduct here. "Disruptively attempting to game the 3RR to harrass another editor while falsely alleging misconduct and abuse in a petty dispute" might be a more technically-correct but much clumsier phrasing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the word "whining" that is objectionable. Admins should set high(er) standards. --Bardcom (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Boo hoo. Get a thicker skin. A short leash is a common term used to define a user's actions, that they are on a short leash and could be blocked or otherwise sanctioned for inappropriate activities. There is no way that can be interpreted as an "ad homiem" attack and you are only grasping at straws, especially since I was highly critical of Sarah777 (talk · contribs) in the past. Find someone else to complain about. seicer | talk | contribs 09:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

TfD is backlogged

TfD is backlogged and a couple days need closing. That said quite a few of listed items could do with a few more comments as well. Tfd25 (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At the top of this page there are instructions that say you should not report backlogs to this board. Instead, you should use the appropriate template to flag it as such. --Dragon695 (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Undeletion

Will an admin undelete Portal:The Sims. It was deleted for housekeeping?!? Also, I think Portal:Sims (created afterward) should be deleted. It has no content, however Portal:The Sims did. StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 15:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I copied the code to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Sims/Portal, since it was all red links. It doesn't render properly unless it's in portal space, so work on the redlinks before moving it into portal space. xenocidic (talk) 15:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

History merge

Could an admin please history merge User:Serviam/Triarii into Triarii? I'm finished the work in my userspace, thankyou :-)--Serviam (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Ill do it. Chrislk02 17:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

 DoneChrislk02 17:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion request

This page is a duplicate of Judith Barsi but with the names and dates changed (possibly to those of a real person), creator has removed the speedy tag once. Guest9999 (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been deleted since (not by me). :) PeterSymonds (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and the quick response to that response. Guest9999 (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

page move vandalism statistics

Bugzilla:14191 has some recent comments about changing autoconfirm to 7 days/20 edits. I think it might be a good idea to collect some stats about the number of page move vandalism from before the autoconfirm change (exists for 4 days), the current change (4 days/10 edits) and if it gets changed again (7 days/20 edits). If 7/20 turns out to have little to no change, we can jump back down to 4/10. Something to the extent of how much page move vandalism occurred in those three time periods would be simple enough. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Any help on this would be appreciated.. Even if it's just an idea thrown out there on how to best collect them. -- Ned Scott 03:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Beiswenger and snake oil

http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Beiswenger might be a problem. Looks like someone is promoting Presymtec, which is proprietary software that is claimed to be able to make health predictions ("to detect infections in monitored individuals before they experience symptoms" using data supplied by a device that combines a peak flow meter and a basal thermometer) and is owned by the newly created Predictive Inc. John L. Beiswenger is listed as a member of the board of directors of Predictive Inc. at http://www.predictiveinc.com/predictivehealth/about.asp . I can find no evidence that supports the health claims made. What evidence I found indicates that it can not work. Prediction Model for Peak Expiratory Flow in North Indian Population says: "lung function varies with socio-economic, geographical, climatic, environmental and nutritional conditions." WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Rouge deleted the main article: clear spammy-nonsensey-sales pitchy rubbish for snake oil. All links appear to have been removed. Will happily take suggestions on what to say to/do with Beiswenger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 12:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

His user page disappeared somehow too :) I'm bordering on block - I see the account as intentional with a view to publicising the product... --Herby 12:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

11:26, 13 June 2008 Herbythyme deleted "User:Beiswenger" (G11: Blatant advertising) WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:41, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I deny it, it wasn't me, the log lied, the cat did it..... I have quite strong views about people using Wikimedia for promotion. I have even stronger views about them using their user page in the hope that they will get away with it there. --Herby 13:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

How could you be so unfair when Hoffmann–La Roche has an article! :) Gwen Gale (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Snake oil! Presymtec is a new technology which was tested successfully at Tianjin Haihe Hospital in Tianjin, China (known there as the SARS hospital), the very part of the world most concerned about respiratory infections. Presymtec's algorithms correlate BMT, PEF and other data to predict the likelihood of respiratory infections up to two days before clinical symptoms are experienced - in time to make Hoffmann–La Roche's TAMIFLU effective. There are two MD physicians on our Board, one a Board Certified Infectious Disease Specialist. Take out anything you think is promotional language, but leave in the definition of Presymtec. Removing it could cost lives! Beiswenger —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beiswenger (talk • contribs) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Reliable, independent sources? Gwen Gale (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much anything that doesn't look like this would do. A successful, fully tested treatment being promoted on multiple pages of an internet encyclopedia by the CEO of the company that makes it... why do I have problems with that idea on so many, many levels? ➨ ЯEDVEЯS used to be a sweet boy 19:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Strangeness at Speedy deletion

I was going through the category for speedy deletions and found Talk:Field hockey but that article has no template on the page and hasn't been edited for 5 days. Men’s field hockey Qualifying Tournaments for the 2008 Summer Olympics is in the category as well and doesn't have the template. What's going on? Rmhermen (talk) 12:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates Hockeygreencard / Hockeyyellowcard / Hockeyredcard were created and then nominated for deletion. That had the effect of putting these pages, which mentioned them, into the CSD category too. It should sort itself out soon enough now that the templates have been deleted. Bencherlite 12:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for withdrawal of community sanction

Hi; in November, I was placed under a sanction under which I can operate only one account. Given the fact that I have successfully completed mentoring and am now a good boy, could this restriction be relaxed so I can create another account for the purpose of "segregation and security" - since I've created a global account, and frequenly use the remember me checkbox, I feel that this would increase the account integrity (I'd obviously not globalise my second account). I won't say precisely what the new account would be - just in case some nasty IP registers it! - but it would be along the lines of TreasuryTag and 2! Thanks for your consideration! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 13:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To be clear, you would like to have a second account to edit from public computers? I, personally, would be okay with this provided each account references the other on their userpages. Neıl 龱 14:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes! For the userpages, I'd simply redirect to my "central account" pages. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

So long as the "central account" mentions the existence of a secondary account, quite clearly, then that wouldn't be a problem. I can't see why you would need more than one "other account", though, so keep it at that. Wait and see what a few others think before going ahead, and run it by whoever set down the restriction back in November. Neıl 龱 14:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to have more than one additional account; that is, I planned to create one further account than my current one, this one, and that's it. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine. I've asked Rlevse, who imposed the restriction, and Dweller, who adopted you, for input here. Neıl 龱 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As long as this is out in the open, clearly stated on both the public and regular user pages, and only one public account is created, I do not see this as a breaking of the restriction. Note, this should NOT be construed as a withdrawal of the restriciton, simply as a clarification thereof. It is standard practice to permit an alternate public account if it's stated so on the two user pages. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:53, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I am OK with this under what is being described. On a side note TT, will you please not create a similar sig for your alternate account? I'm not sure why you are still using the current one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - TT, changing your signature, which takes up three lines on my browser, would be appreciated. Neıl 龱 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, his current signature, at 228 characters, is far shorter than his previous signature, which was 437 characters. 228 characters is too long, but it's not absurdly so, as was the older one. Horologium (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Advice please (User:KingsleyMiller and dispute)

I have been trying to mediate a dispute, which you can see here. Unfortunately, the party who asked for mediation, KingsleyMiller (talk · contribs), subsequently decided he didn't want mediation - and without both sides of a party agreeing, mediation is pretty much useless. He pulled out of mediation because one of the participants used a mild swear word in an edit summary (not directed at anyone, actually themselves). The dispute is around a number of pages, chiefly Attachment theory, Maternal deprivation, Attachment in children, John Bowlby, and Michael Rutter. All these articles are a mess, and if you look at their histories and talk pages, you can see most of this is due to KingsleyMiller, who has a very definite point of view on these articles, and neither our NPOV policy or the MOS can get in his way. With mediation having failed, I'm not sure of the next step to take. The dispute was sent to WP:3O twice with no luck (one of the 3O regulars, HelloAnnyong, had as little luck with Kingsley as anyone else). A message to the Psychology wikiproject had no responses; all the psychology people who want to be involved already are, and have had no luck. Traditionally, RFCs on obscure psychology topics get no response. I am running out of options - as best I can see it, there are three. 1) Leave it to sort out itself (this is unlikely), 2) Take to Arbcom (huge administrative effort and a possibility they won't actually accept it, as it's quite complicated and is a combination of content and conduct issues) or 3) Block Kingsley indefinitely, for extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others, on the condition that if he swears to stop edit-warring he can be unblocked. I am inclined towards three, but I've never really blocked for this sort of thing in over two years as an admin, so I could really do with someone else (ideally, a couple of others) taking half an hour to look at things and see what they think. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-04-25_Attachment_theory#Closed and sections above it for the background. If nobody is willing to take a look, then I am probably going to go with my own judgment and block Kingsley. Neıl 龱 18:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kingsley, in his "withdrawal" contribution to the mediation page, links to a website providing the text and some dialogue of a number of County Court and Court of Appeal judgments. These judgments pertain to the attempts by a Mr Miller to secure various rights as a parent (from what I can see). I've asked Kingsley if he is the same Mr Miller on his talk page. Past versions of this user's page may provide another insight for anybody interested. Now, for my part, I feel that I agree most closely with Neil's third point. From what I can see, Kingsley is a user with an agenda to get his viewpoint into the relevant articles at any cost. He ignores sourcing guidelines and verifiability, and suggests that sources which he disagrees with should be ignored. This is in fact a common basis of disputes onwiki, but Kingsley's refusal to give up or make any concessions in his fight makes his relationship with this project, in my view, for the moment untenable. I think that he is determined to take "his case" to the "highest court" in wiki-land - the ArbCom, and he used my moment of madness using the word "fuck" in an edit summary (as Neil notes, though I should say I'm not a participant in the psych dispute) to drag the case up to ArbCom from which is was promptly thrown out. Attempts have been made at 3O. This only works if the parties are happy to accept the opinion of the third party, but Kingsley seems to refuse to accept this fact. Any attempt at dispute resolution around this user is a total failure. The only other possible option open that I can see is a block-enforceable topic ban from all Psychology related articles. Kingsley has become too much of a burden for the Project, and especially so for some of the members of the Psych wikiproject who have had to put up with him for so long. Thanks, Martinp23 19:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your summary of "extensive tendentious editing and refusal to work with others" is accurate, then I think a block (or series of escalating blocks leading up to an indefinite block if he doesn't get the message) wouldn't be inappropriate. I'll take a look at the referenced pages and weigh in again after. As a note, I've notified KingsleyMiller of this discussion (as should have been done before) and refactored the header to describe the thread. Avruch * 19:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say you hit the nail on the head with that description just based on the mediation pages. One person with a personal stake who refuses to adhere to policies can't be allowed to turn a number of articles into wreckage and then refuse mediation. Its obvious he sees Misplaced Pages as a battleground where he can push his point of view, and is not willing to even consider that the content of articles should be based only on reliable sources. If he refuses to cooperate and continues to make tendentious edits and reverts to various articles in the scope of child psych/parenting (essentially, anything related to his court case) then there may be no way around an indefinite block. Avruch * 19:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Indef block, and quickly! I haven't taken the time to review the links, but am responding to the last sentence by Avruch above - this person has an ongoing court case and is altering a public knowledge resource base on subjects relating to the case. It would not be good publicity for WP if this person was to refer to articles in court they have themselves have edited, and it wouldn't be very good for law generally if this were allowed. I shall enact the block immediately. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it called when an admin tries to block someone who is already blocked? Not an edit conflict - maybe a block conflict? Either way, I just had that happen to me. Good block. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the notice I placed on User:KingsleyMiller's talkpage. It spells out my concerns, but I would welcome any other editors amendment of same in case I have been a little OTT. Regarding that, does anyone think that running this matter past Mike Godwin is of any benefit? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If indeed Kingsley is the same Mr Miller as in the cases (likely, yes, but it's an assumption I attempted to avoid above - the existence of a brother is a distinct possibility), then this block for "ongoing court case" has no basis at all, in that the last time the Mr Miller referenced on that website appeared in court was in 2004. I'd suggest that he's simply trying to get his favoured theory a wider audience.. I don't honestly think there's anything malicious behind it. That's not to say that a topic ban or block/ban is inappropriate though - see my comments above. Martinp23 20:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

He did refer on the mediation page (in his withdrawal notice, I think) to his personal involvement in the court proceedings, so based on that I assume its him. No reason at the moment to believe the case(s) might be ongoing, his description of final orders and links to the documents suggest otherwise. Avruch * 20:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Mmmhm I'm being perhaps overly cautious given my past run-in with the user :) His user page does confirm that he is the person in the cases. Martinp23 20:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Under the circumstances I think the block should remain until the editor promises to contribute per WP:NPOV, WP:MoS, and consensually with other parties. I think they might need pointing toward WP:COI, as well. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindenting) Sounds ok. The difficulty here is that he wants to insert "The Truth" into articles. By all means if he'll agree to the conditions we can give it a go, but I hold out little hope. Would a topic ban work, or is it something for a later date? Martinp23 21:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

A quick review of the editors contributions does not indicate an interest outside of these related subjects, so a topic ban may only be a block with a serious temptation to game/avoid. I think a straight block is "cleanest" and fairest (and one which can be challenged). I have amended the original block reasons per the discussion above but I think this is as far as dispute resolution can go. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I seem to be little late coming into this discussion but as one of the mediators listed i wanted to give my view. Personally my first thoughts are that a topic ban would be the best approach in conjunction with enforcing blocks if the ban isn't complied with. It may not be the "cleanest" method, topic bans rarely are, but it would allow him to improve issues and in my opinion the slim possibilty of getting a good converted editor rather than possible future sock puppeteering is worth it. I would would even offer myself to keep an eye on the situation. I don't contest the indef block but i do feel that perhaps a topic ban could be a better way out. Seddσn 23:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at this case last night (took a lot longer than half an hour, Neil!) and I endorse this block. Leaving aside the legal concerns, this is a tendentious editor who appears to be trying to use Misplaced Pages to push a very specific POV. I think he should remain blocked until he indicates he has read, understands and agrees to comply with our policies and guidelines and then once unblocked kept an eye on to ensure he doesn't backslide. The various talk pages, the mediation and ArbCom requests and so forth show someone who is pushing a barrow with a singular focus. The fact he withdrew his participation in a mediation case he requested because someone swore in an edit summary, the long screeds and bureaucratic nonsense (like complaints over the use of the word "editor" and this kind of nonsense that is surely intended to tie other editors up in knots until they give up in frustration) gave me the impression of someone using obstructionist tactics to outlast (outwit, outplay?) their opponents, rather than someone genuinely coming to the table to reach a consensus. So I endorse the block and I think he should remain blocked until he agrees to edit within our policies and guidelines. Sarah 05:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone have issue with deleting the userpage as a soapbox? That's what it is, and I'm going to do so. Prostylitizing and self-victimizing, with delusions of grandeur thrown in for fun. Keegan 05:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Un-delete

Could an admin undelete the first three redlinks at Portal:The Sims StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign 18:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done xenocidic (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert page move

Hi, could an admin help revert this page move? The article is under deletion review and there also doesn't seem to be consensus for this new name. I was unable to revert it myself. Banjeboi 21:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with the new name? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think one needs consensus for spell-checking... :-) --Gutza 22:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

For one we had a discussion started that is presently split on whether to have the article about protests on the date of March 19 only or the 5th anniversary protests. The bigger issue is that the article is in limbo between AFD and deletion review. Banjeboi 22:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, do you mean you want it to be moved back to March 19, 2008 anti-war protest? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(after EC) I think Benji was asking for a revert to the original title, which was March 19, 2008 anti-war protest. The page was moved twice; the second one was to correct a spelling error from the first move. I can understand why he has asked for a reversion; the new title is a bit unwieldy. Horologium (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. The diff he presented was only the spelling correction, which is why I didn't understand why he wanted that reverted. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 00:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also this article is a split off Protests against the Iraq War where March 19, 2008 anti-war protests seems to be the preferred format when using the date in this way. Banjeboi 22:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough; done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Banjeboi 22:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Alistair Cooke's page vandalized -- appears to be generated not in page code but by wiki itself.

The page http://en.wikipedia.org/Alistair_Cooke has a picture of auto-fellatio that does not appear in the edit text for the page. The page source, however, shows it -- meaning this may be generated by the Wiki servers???

Haven't seen this before but though I'd call it to your attention. I tried to fix this but had no luck at the user-end.

Ciao.

Scantron2

75.167.160.15 (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

issue is in the infobox. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

fixed. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like some vandal got into the journal infobox, as a way to vandalize the Tim Russet article. Other journalist articles may need to be touched to refresh the correct box. --Samuel Pepys (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Samuel Pepys!

Scantron2 75.167.160.15 (talk) 05:39, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Good News

I thought I'd mention a slight antidote to the general complaining, doom and gloom that normally appears here. On Monday last, some minor IP vandalism to a few pages came to my attention, and I emailed the diffs to the abuse@ for the IP range as shown by WhoIs, without much hope of any response. However, after an exchange of emails and an explanation of the problem, I have had return emails not only from the IP owner (a Canadian government body), but also from the IT manager specifically responsible for the school involved, which turned out to be a Grade 6 - 8 establishment. I have been told that those responsible, although not necessarily directly traceable, will be given certain advice. The result is that those kids will now be aware that while anonymity is possible, some detection is equally possible. To those who feel that reporting anon IP vandalism is pointless, I'd just say that it's worth an email. Result! --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"Certain advice" mmmkay.... I know I wouldn't have bothered asking what they meant by that, but did you? — CharlotteWebb 01:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

No; I guess that's up to how serously they take it. I am just a humble whistle-blower. --Rodhullandemu 05:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

User:WBOSITG

For an admin, this user sure has uploaded a lot of copyright violations. I was stunned when I saw how many deleted files he has that were deleted as copyvios. -Nard 01:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Administrators are not infallible, contrary to popular opinion. Was this post necessary? xenocidic (talk) 01:40, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

. Sceptre 02:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My apologies - fixed. ;> xenocidic (talk) 02:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

My earnest advice to you is to study RFAs more closely. — CharlotteWebb 01:48, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, for the simple reason that admin action is not needed here. Good night all...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Notifying histmerge requests

• I have become accustomed to look for histmerge requests in Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. But Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen has had no new request entries since 3 June 2008 (although I have since recorded there 3 histmerges that I found were needed whole obeying ordinary move requests). But calls for histmerges have been arising since: e.g. earlier today I found 3 histmerge requests in Category:History merge for speedy deletion (as linked to from Category:Candidates for speedy deletion#Subcategories) listed by {{db-histmerge}}. Has there been a change in official policy to use {{db-histmerge}} instead of an entry in Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen? Or should someone put in Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen and Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging text saying which template to use and how to put an entry in Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests? Misplaced Pages:How to fix cut-and-paste moves#Instructions for tagging a page for history merging tells us to put an entry in Misplaced Pages:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests in some types of case, but does not say how to do so. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

A spam-only user? (User:GRatHVTC)

• User:GRatHVTC has been active since 11 June 2008. Most of his edits have been:
  • Setting up in User:GRatHVTC a page advertizing a bookshop.
  • Copying it to page Greetings & Readings.
  • Setting up links and redirects to page Greetings & Readings.

See Special:Contributions/GRatHVTC and Special:DeletedContributions/GRatHVTC. His username looks like an acronym of "Greetings & Readings at Hunt Valley Town Center". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the logo & tidied up some bit. An indef block on the basis that this is an advertising only account (there is deleted evidence to that effect) would not bother me or we wait for a bit & see? --Herby 09:28, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert war and ignoracne from an administrator

We really need help at some place. On the Russians page. A long time ago after a long discussion it was decided that a one-piece collage will be created. You can see it here. It had no problems, and it was agreed. Then User:Melesse for a not understood and not explaned reason for her did this. She was explaned on her talk page that she hurts a concensus and that we prefer it as a one piece collage, and you can see it here. Yet she ignored it and without explanation insisted on this. I dont want an edit was to continue so please explane her that even thought she's an administrator Misplaced Pages is not her private property, and that she can't go against a concensus and she must have a discussion before doing something.

Note that i'm not the first complaning on her one-sided ignorant towards the editors actions. . Please get into this. MaIl89 (talk) 09:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

1. it
2. is
3. not
4. necessar
5. to
6. reference
7. every
8. single
9. thing

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards