Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:15, 3 February 2010

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Linear Programming repeated adding of unpublished papers

Hello Ed!

Here's an update on Linear Programming.

The fellow put back his thesis. I used the WP utilities for checking IP address, and they indicate that the editor"s" all come from Malaysia, even though one of the displayed IP-numbers begins with a different prefix.

The name of the registered editor is similar to the user name of the sourced account at "Optimization On-Line", a repository of reprints. The thesis thanks people in Malaysia for their assistance. It seems to be a potential case of conflict of interest, as you noted on the registered editor's page, before.

Today, I observed that the claimed representation admits the trivial solution of omega=0, so the claimed result is obviously wrong.

I did invite the registered editor to try to contribute to a stand alone article on "generalized inverses in linear programming", but there's been no response there either. (This seemed to be most constructive use of his energies and material, imho.)

Again, thanks for your help before. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

This material was restored by another IP-editor (without comment):

Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article, on the assumption that COI-affected IPs are trying to force the mention of certain publications that would not otherwise be included. Will you consider opening a complaint at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, if this has not already been done? Whether PhD theses are considered 'unpublished' is a gray area, so I would prefer to use citations to judge the matter. If the PhD work is not very well known, as judged by Google Scholar or other appropriate rankings, then the IP promotion of this work may need to be resisted. EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Following your suggestion, I wrote a . Thanks again for your help. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I updated my notice there with three other articles where the manuscript of Dr. Abdullah has been posted, and sometimes removed. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: Another anonymous IP editor (also from Malaysia, apparently) to the article on convex optimization today. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Convex optimization to keep Jalaluddin Abdullah from using his IP socks to add mention of his work to that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the semi-protection. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 18:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jalaluddin Abdullah's manuscript has been again added at Nonlinear programming and Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for semi-protecting those pages. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The Last Airbender edits:

Hello:

I thought to contact you as an Admin, as I seem to have ended up in an Edit war with Dylan0513 (talk)

The page has a casting section, which had been expanded with some quotes regarding the film producer, Frank Marshall and film pundit Roger Ebert. Dylan0513 did not like the idea of having those quotes in page and deleted them. I disagreed. I eventually created a Controversy section, which he also disagrees with and deletes, although some of the previous editors preferred the idea.

Upon the leaked names of the main cast members, Avatar fans campaigned for a change in casting to reflect the ethnicity or the appearance of the characters. As of January 2010, even though the film has not been released, there is still an ongoing controversy in the Avatar fan community over the casting choices and boycott websites, for the film, have been set up. On April 20th, Frank Marshall stated in his Twitter account that the casting was complete and that they did not discriminate against anyone. Finally, that he was done talking about it.

- Recently, Movie critic Roger Ebert called the whitewashing of the cast as wrong and asked, why Paramount and Shyamalan would go out of their way to offend the fans? He clarified by stating that there were many young Asian actors capable of playing the parts.

I perused the controversy sections in Dragonball Evolution and 21 (2008 film). They both contained more information regarding their casting controversies. It would be a disservice if statements from these two persons were left from the section.

It has already been pointed out that we are breaking the rules, but further discussions seem to be of no use, we are at an impasse. An Admin to make a judgement would be better.

Thank you, Nemogbr (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I have protected the article for five days due to the edit war. Consider opening an WP:RFC to bring in more people to the discussion. Perhaps you can find more press sources that show that the controversy has been widely noted. If you are deadlocked, follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

For a film that has not been released, it is receiving plenty of coverage in the internet and there are 141,000 entries, regarding the controversy if you check via google. Various blogs like racialicious, 8 Asians, Geneyang, Angry Black woman and others have mentioned the so-called racebending and any article pertaining to the film, like in Variety magazine, ends up with dissenting voices from pro-casters and anti-casters.

Both 21, Tropic Thunder and Dragonball Evolution mentions the controversy in those films, but Last Airbender does not. Not mentioning the controversy is a disservice to the fans and those looking for information. You end up with only half the information, making the article more an advertisement for the movie, rather than a neutral source.

--Nemogbr (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You mentioned blogs, which normally don't count as reliable sources. This is not a good way of showing the importance of the issue. Moreover, the controversy about the race of the actors is *already* mentioned in the article, you just seem to want to emphasize it more. To avoid undue weight, any mentions in reliable sources would be valuable. EdJohnston (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Understood, the blogs show POV. The brief mention looks as if it was a sideline issue, when various minority rights groups ended up contacting Paramount studios and the film makers had to answer questions. That's the reason for only having two entries in the quote, I posted on your talkpage. Frank Marshall, the film producer and Roger Ebert, a film pundit whose reviews are syndicated in over 200 newspapers worldwide. I thought their view points had more impact, compared to Rathbone's comment. --Nemogbr (talk) 01:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unclear why you say the article doesn't mention this. The controversy about the actors' race already gets about 100 words and five references in the article. If you think it deserves more space, try opening an WP:RFC. For judging the impact, a publication like Variety would be more significant than a reprint of Roger Ebert's opinion, since he is essentially giving his editorial comment, not acting as a reporter. Frank Marshall's Twitter postings are a primary source. EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct regarding Robert Ebert's opinion, although that post had been on the article for awhile. Frank Marshall's twitter posting has also been deleted.

The reason was supposed to be the quotation marks. I removed them and made them part of the casting section. It was then deleted. Then the reason was that it should be on a separate section, which I created. It was deleted again.

Rathbone's interview could be regarded as primary source, but Frank Marshall would be a more important source as the film producer. The addition of Robert Ebert is to present fan views. If I included more from Asian American rights groups, it would make the article all about the controversy, which would skew the article even further.

Nemogbr (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC) --Nemogbr (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Expired protection and vandal returns

Sorry to bother you again (as usual). As you can see here, there is no hope for Corticopia. He is just waiting for every single expiration of every protected article to come again and disrupt, vandalize and edit-war. Today January 23 2010 the protection of the article Middle America (Americas) expired and he returned only to edit war again.

I think the same is going to happen to every single article that you protected. Thank you for your help in advance. I think it is very serious that only because of the fault of one person Misplaced Pages is ruined. AlexCovarrubias 02:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Renewed the semi. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help improving Misplaced Pages. AlexCovarrubias 21:27, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

SNG Wizard

TonyTheTiger has continued making changes to the article despite your caution that he should not do so. I think he should be blocked from making any changes to the article given his COI. There is no way anybody else can improve the article right now - he just reverts everything back. What option is there other than to edit war in a situation like this? It is a fairly arcane subject and few editors are going to take the time to actually try and clean up the article - so it is me vs him and I do not want to edit war. So what do I do? `DegenFarang (talk)

TonyTheTiger has undone his most recent edit. If the AfD draws a lot of participants, we may get more opinions on how to clean up the article. You can make more changes if you first get consensus for them on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 15:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Why is he not required to get consensus? He is making changes at will. If I follow what you are saying and undo his changes he just reverts them back... DegenFarang (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

At 23:05 UTC on 23 Jan, he undid his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor correction

I've corrected the spelling of Bosnipedian in your blocking notice on RegionLegion. I've never done this before, and I hope it is OK procedure. BTW I've seen quite a bit of ranting in AfDs, but nothing like this one - he's coming in on different IPs now and getting even louder... Peridon (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The correction is fine, but what IPs do you think he is using? And which files? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just look at the Bosnian Royal Family AfD. I think all the IP edits are him. You'll spot them by the style. 38.99.65.107 , 99.198.121.199 , 64.120.229.34 , 173.212.236.30 , 93.104.215.164 , 78.46.117.146 , 209.51.155.18 . I think that's all. If they're not the same person, they all went to the same school and same class. (I used to switch IPs on another site - I once posted as two different people with different IPs with the same posting time. It was within the rules at the time... Can't do it now with a fixed broadband IP. They've banned multiple names there anyway.) Peridon (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Buried Treasure

I've been planning to add a link to my archives - as soon as I found out where they were! I've been laid up for a week and can manage normal patrolling/editing level of brain action, but anything technical beyond explaining to someone how to copy links (not here!) is currently beyond me. Starting to recover. I did manage to download my camera last night.... Things seem quieter in Bosnia now, by the way. Peridon (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

GeneReviews comment

FYI I've copied your comment from my talkpage to here, to keep the discussion in one place. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New comment from User:Carlos5053

Hi Ed, this is Carlos5053 and I don't know what you are talking about having a second account for Christina Mendez, this is the only account that I am aware that I have. It is frustrating that someone keeps going in and changing my article. Putting things on there that aren't true and deleting out other information and references. It's nothing like I wrote. This is soooo FRUSTRATING! Accusing me of having 2 accounts, not true, not true, not true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlos5053 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Carlos. Back in October, 2008 you asked to have the Carlos5053 account renamed to User:Christina Mendez. That rename was successfully done. I see that the new Christina Mendez account was never used. If you no longer wish to use the Christina Mendez account, I will block it and we can expect you to use Carlos5053 in the future. The talk page redirect has been undone so from now on you will get messages at User talk:Carlos5053. EdJohnston (talk) 20:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: What to do about the edit war about Italian surnames

Discussion at User talk:Materialscientist#What to do about the edit war about Italian surnames.

Comments:

• I've routinely blocked IP:76.91.189.163 for rapid reverts (and undid the reverts); it is not impossible that IP:76.91.189.163 and user:Sherlock4000 are one editor; this might constitute socking as they edit same articles but don't acknowledge they are one. I've asked Sherlock4000 twice, at his talk, on his relation to IP:76.91.189.163 and received no answer. His replies went away from my questions and make me suspect he is a drama queen.
• As I understand the war (from a very superficial look): Hubschrauber729 is playing tough and requesting WP:RS for certain claims. I've looked at one case only and it was like this: a person got Italian passport because he could play in Europe with that, and the whole reference (on that he is of Italian heritage) was based on his own words. On the other hand, another side of this dispute has its reasons too. Thus as an editor, I would request WP:RSs, but I am absolutely not keen to look at the evidence myself. As administrator, I would listen to User:Marek69 and others and then propose a solution; I fully support a short (not 90d, but until resolution) and immediate ban on warring at those articles. I would support longer ban if misbehavior escalates, but I wouldn't take any claims there at their face values. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
• I saw Hubschrauber729 reply at WP:AN3, would oblige (as you did) Sherlock4000 and 76.91.189.163 to discuss the issue there (or at some talk page), and would short-term block any editor who resumes the reverts. Materialscientist (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

I have no problem with a halt in adding/removing of the categories until a resolution is decided on. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fair result, for now. You mentioned a discussion on an appropriate forum, which would be appropriate? I'm thinking of Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. I see a discussion as the only way to truely resolve this issue. Thanks for your general involvement and advice. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds good. You might start by asking for pointers to past discussions. Another place people may have heard about this issue before is at Misplaced Pages talk:Categories for discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick question: I am not allowed to remove categories that are there based on Last name alone. How am I supposed to know if the category is there based on last name? Does that mean I can removed categories where it is just an unsourced addition? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be better to leave such categories alone for at least thirty days. I hope you are making an effort to find a central place to discuss this. Since the other side appeared to be using the stronger language and be less amenable to diplomacy, any real progress toward having a discussion may depend on you. Anyone making a sincere effort to discuss is less likely to be blocked next time around. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Authorship Talk Page

Can you review the "modest proposal" section at the bottom of the Shakespeare authorship question talk page and let us know if we are on the right track? Or (more importantly) if we are not? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 02:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Anything that the two of you can agree on is certainly a candidate for inclusion in the article. Even if you divvy up the sections, it is very desirable that you announce your intentions before making any large changes. The recent Talk discussion has been on the right track. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way something can be done about 205.172.16.103, who apparently has no intention of using the talk page and keeps reverting relevant and properly sourced edits? Thanks.

And can his edits be reverted without being in peril of being blocked? Tom Reedy (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you and Smatprt are the only ones willing to discuss on Talk, and if you agree that the material should be reverted, then do so. (Propose the change first, in case others are watching the page). He will most likely be blocked if he continues to revert with no discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Response

Dear EdJohnston, A couple of months ago, you had enforced a rather lengthy block on me before I even got to respond to your warning. I had not logged on or edited before you blocked me, so I do not feel like I should have been at a disadvantage for not being able to sign on. (Clearly, I was not editing anyway.) I was eventually unblocked. This is not the issue I have. Your comment that you "see no future" for me as an editor is simplistic, unfair, and mean. Before making a strong comment like that, you should perhaps listen to what another editor has to say rather than making a comment based solely on the narrative of the other user involved in an edit war on one article. It is at odds with WP:Assume good faith. I did not act upon User:George's edit warring behavior, but had you looked yourself you would have noticed countless reverts without making use of the talk page, disregarding serious concerns NPOV, tendentious editing, and of course, the intensification of an edit war. I respect your role as an administrator but I kindly ask you to act more fairly, listen to an opposing side before making a judgment, and to assume good faith before making such a discouraging statement. --Shamir1 (talk) 22:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am happy with the second chance which was granted to you by the Ban Appeals Subcommittee. if you edit carefully from now on, and observe the restrictions, you should be OK. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bunić talkpage

Hi EdJohnston, could you semi-protect the talkpage of the article as well? The IP sock seems to be trying to remove my posts. --DIREKTOR 08:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP has not edited since 29 January. I suggest you just restore your comment. Do you know who the IP is a sock of? I am hoping one of the regular editors will nominate the article for deletion. If not, I may do so. EdJohnston (talk) 14:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Lvivskie

Unexplained revert. Sources were added. --Paweł5586 (talk) 07:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

request a block

Hi EdJohnston, could you please consider imposing a preventative block, per what i describe at User talk:Polaron#Canaan edits and edit restriction. I just asked also at Acroterion's Talk page (and i also mentioned this to admin Nyttend, only because N had just posted at my page, altho he has not been involved in enforcing P's edit restriction, and N has already declined to enter in). I don't know who is online, but I am afraid P is embarking on a new spree that will cause considerable more work to clean up, and that is not directly constructive, whether or not it is in exact violation of P's edit restriction. I am not sure if it is in violation or not, but if not it is skating on the edge. Acroterion has previously given his guidance, as mutually requested mediator, that such redirects should NOT be created. --doncram (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Meredith Kercher

Hi Ed. I wonder if you could take a look at Murder of Meredith Kercher? You blocked a user User:PilgrimRose for one month for SP, which expired yesterday. The user appears to have returned as User:Zlykinskyja and is straight away back editing in the same extremely POV and non-cooperative style. See this diff which adds about 60% in word count to the lead of the article.

There was previously an ANI against the user. I'm not sure it is important for you to read this (archived by now). It didn't end in any sanction, just an admin suggestion to edit more politely, but it does show that multiple users had problems with the editor. Perhaps foolishly, I offered mild support to PilgrimRose there, but his or her behaviour got a lot worse after that.

I appreciate this may be a legit sock, since the old account has been retired. However, the new user is declining to confirm its identity.

I suppose I'm asking if you would be minded to give User:Zlykinskyja some friendly but clear advice regarding making substantial edits against consensus and the importance of not editing exclusively from a single POV.

If I should be posting this at ANI, then please just let me know.

Thanks. --FormerIP (talk) 23:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've semiprotected the article for a month, due to the past history of socking, documented at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikid77, and the previous filing at WP:AN3 which is mentioned there. This will give you a short respite before the new editor becomes autoconfirmed. I hope you will use this time to try to form a Talk consensus. If you think there is enough data for an SPI report, please consider filing one. Consider leaving a message at User talk:Zlykinskyja to document your concerns for the record, even though I see the two of you have already conversed elsewhere. EdJohnston (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To Ed Johnson:

There needs to be a full analysis and consideration of the attempts by FormerIP and some other British editors to block, censor, intimidate other editors from adding some of the American viewpoint to the Meredith Kerhcer Murder article. FormerIP came at me today just for trying to add a paragraph that added some of the American perspective to the article. He deleted my paragraph just two or three minutes after I posted it claiming that it lacked sources, when I was actually in the process of adding sources. The paragraph is well documented, well sourced, quite legitimate. He deleted it twice without prior discussion. This is just one of countless actions by him and other foreign editors to delete information that presents the American perspective on the case. The reality exists that Amanda Knox could be in fact innocent. She is a living person entitled to her good name if she is innocent. FormerIp has made hundreds of edits to slant the article to make Knox sound more likely guilty. Yet I am being blocked for TRYING TO ADD ONE PARAGRAPH that presents the American view, which is well documented by U.S. media and Senator Maria Cantwell. Misplaced Pages solicits funds from Americans, but here we have a situation of discrimination against American editors. Misplaced Pages is not supposed to be about censorship but that is what is indeed going on here. If you look at FormerIp's hundreds of edits over the last several weeks, they are all about making Knox look more guilty, while my one paragraph offering an opposing view gets deleted and now I am blocked from editing the article for a month. It is very difficult to respect policies like this. I am requesting that the article be unblocked to stop the censorship. Furthermore, I am by no means a sock puppet. I post under one name only in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy. The issue of sock puppet is just an excuse for censorship. FormerIp will use any tactic to get his way, such as he is doing now. Zlykinskyja (talk) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

1. http://www.racebending.com/v3/
2. Third twitter update
3. Roger Ebert (December 23, 2009). "Answer Man". Roger Ebert. Retrieved December 26, 2009.