 | All messages posted here will be replied on your own talk page as well as saved upon mine to prevent fragmenting, unless requested otherwise. |
Archives
|
|
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present. |
I found a page that shouldnt belong in wikipedia. I think it was someone's idea of a joke and hence i deleted the page. But i found that it has been reverted. Please check this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Puchu
If you want consult others but this is a "joke page" !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soumyadead (talk • contribs) 15:41, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thrashing0donut
I've made the necessary changes. I didn't intend my article to be an advertisement and I think I've made the necessary modifications that makes it sound more neutral. Can you take a look? If the changes are sufficient, can you remove that advertisement tag on my article. If not, I don't know what to say, I spent some time on it and don't have much more to contribute to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashing0donut (talk • contribs) 09:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- Hiyas there Trashing - i fear i ended up having to delete the article, as another editor noted that large sections of the article have been directly copied from several pages of the university website. For legal reasons content cannot be directly copied from other sites unless those sites specifically state they have a copyright license that is compatible with Misplaced Pages (CC-BY-SA, GDFL or compatible). If such a notice is not present content is seen as a possible copyright violation and speedily deleted.
- The best way to deal with such an issue, is rewriting a page and using the sources as an inspiration for text, rather then using it as a source for words / content. Excirial 09:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- could i have theoretically just referenced them? or is that still not-kosher? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrashing0donut (talk • contribs) 09:43, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
- There are multiple problems with using an institutions own website as a direct source of information. A primary concern is of course the copyright issue, which is paramount in this case. The fact that Misplaced Pages is editable by everyone is rather sensitive as far as most licenses go - its therefor not possible to add a mention that part of the content has been copied - this would not be sufficient to satisfy the copyright requirements.
- Another issue is that an institutions own website is a primary source. Misplaced Pages itself uses tertiary sources as a means to establishing verifiability for its content, as tertiary sources are further away from the subject and thus tend to be more neutral. This was quite visible in the article - the language was heavily promotional which is entirely understandable for a website (Man of course wishes to leave a good impression), but for an encyclopedia information has to be neutral in tone and not advertising for a certain goal. Have a look at WP:RS as well, to see what counts as a reliable source to base article's on. That guideline, along with WP:N and WP:NPOV are the core guidelines to writing a good article, and are well worth a glance if you intend to write an article. If you have any questions, feel free to ask them - either here, or at the help desk. The latter option may be somewhat more convenient, since more people work on that page, as opposed to me and a few other persons who view my talk page every now and then. Excirial 09:55, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure what, if anything can be done, but I would also strongly recommend considering a block of the IP addresses that the user has been editing under for most of the past five days or so. They can be found listed here. Strikerforce (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd also recommend extending this block to a permanent one. This is a single purpose account focused on promotion of a web server product that this editor is associated with. In addition to the edit waring, violation of the 3-revert rule, this editor has is bent on disrupting the AFD on the article in question and has taken recommending deletion of an article on a competing product here: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cherokee (Webserver). No less than 5 editors have tried, in vain, to give this editor the benefit of the doubt and direct them towards more positive contributions. More details are available here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Bugapi--RadioFan (talk) 15:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed there Radiofan - extended to permanent block since that kind of nonsense is beyond acceptable. The 2 day block was intentionally short to allow some input in the deletion discussion, and to (hopefully) prevent a myriad of IP's all over the place. I admit that i was actually close to an indef before, but seeing the addition to the other deletion discussion, i believe that WP:RBI is the only way to go here, as is for any future IP's or socks. Excirial 15:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help here. A lot of time has been wasted by a number of editors dealing with this, time to get back to something more productive.--RadioFan (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello, you removed my edit from a page, where i pointed out a mistake on the page. You sent me a message about it, and then at the end of your message you said " Excirial (Contact me)" so i clicked on the "contact me" and i got here. I dont see how i can talk to you, so i try it this way. Please let me know how we can chat normally. That would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.123.206.87 (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I reverted the edit in question mostly because of the word "Bullshit" in the article content. If you spot an error, there are generally two things you can do: The first one is correcting the error yourself by editing the table, and removing the mistake. As Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, content may be incorrect from time to time. Hence, the edit may actually have been made by someone who didn't know that both names refer to the same country, and just added both based on different sources.
- The second option is asking someone to correct it, by pointing it out. This is most times the best course of action if the edit would be complex, as opposed to simple fact corrections. Your comment was actually a correct way to deal with the issue, it was just the location that was incorrect. Every article has a talk page (A discussion page) where editors can discuss the article itself. Mixing the discussion in the article itself would eventually clog it entirely and make it unreadable from all the comments.
- All in all its most times best to Be Bold! and correct mistakes you see. After all, if something is wrong, it should simply be corrected. :) Excirial 19:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This is to advise you of what is going on with the request to remove our company page. There has been a vandal that keeps trying to post slander on our page, and we keep removing it. Now they have posted the removal request. All info on the page is verifiable and accurate. Can you please cancel the deletion request, and protect the page from repetative vandal changes? Thank you. Brightonmiplace (talk) 20:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
- I have blocked the user who was posting the information on the grounds that he seemed to have made a sockpuppet in order to do so, but the prod deletion, and the subsequent AFD nomination were actually both posted by me - see the deletion discussion for the reasoning behind the nomination and the actual deletion discussion.
- In essence it would seem that the page was never truly notable or supported by reliable sources. The other editor who posted the criticism just made it catch attention i'm affraid to say, which resulted in the nomination from my side. Excirial 20:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hello and Welcome back
Hello and welcome back Excirial !
I have a request;
With this edit , User:PANONIAN divulged his personal opinion about the Hungarians, which is totally unaccaptable regarding both Wiki-policy and the inward of Misplaced Pages when saying that :
| “
|
Ok, Wiki rules are to be respected and if someone conduct revert warring talk page is a place where this kind of disruption should be elaborated. Man can feed his soul from two sources: love or hate. It really amuse me how much of their own free time are some people ready to spend to feed their hate and to spread it around. It amuse me how some Greater Hungarian nationalists are still dreaming that borders will be changed and that they again will rule over "minor races". Justice for Hungary was served in Trianon. In modern free and democratic World it is not acceptable that an local minority rule over local majority. Bačka is majority Slavic, so attempts of asserting an aggressive Hungarism in article about Bačka cannot have other interpretation but one that the person who trying to assert that thinks that in some close or distant future Bačka will be attached to Greater Hungary in which local Hungarian minority will rule over local Slavic majority. Nationalism, ethnic oppression and genocide are examples of poisonous legacy that Hungarian rule left in Bačka.
|
”
|
Could you please deliver PANONIAN this ArbMac warning as an administrator, in order to spur him to adhere to the good purposes of Misplaced Pages?
| ArbMac warning
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
 In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you.
|
Thanks.--Nmate (talk) 15:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Vandalism on Wiki page
I updated the info on the request, is there anything we can to do protect the page as much as possible for however long possible? Phisigadmin (Phisigadmin) 18:14 March 2011 (EST)
- The information being added is being removed on the basis that it is unsourced, and seeing it is a secret society i believe it will be nigh impossible to source it reliably even if one intended to do so - which means that the edit could essentially be mere speculation. I do, however, see no reason to protect the page as of current, let alone fully protect it for an extended period of time. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that can be edited by anyone, and protections are only placed in severe cases as outlined in the protection policy.
- I would add that Misplaced Pages equally isn't bound by internal rules from an origination or corporation, which means that any restrictions that organization has do not apply on Misplaced Pages, provided that no U.S law or Misplaced Pages policy is violated. As an example i would note another secret society who had a rule that their symbols (Much like the ΦΣK that Phi Sigma Kappa has) may not be posted anywhere. For Misplaced Pages however, this rule does not apply, as it was valid, source-able information that didn't violate any copyright or other laws.I would argue that the added content falls under the same category, as there is no copyright on certain information - provided that the sentences weren't directly lifted from a copyrighted document. Having said all that, i see no reason to include the added for reasons mentioned above, so there should be no real problem. Excirial 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
- Words have been "directly lifted" from copyrighted documents. Does that not count? Phisigadmin (Phisigadmin) 18:44 March 2011 (EST)
- Provided that the copyrighted content is still in the article, it certainly does count - Misplaced Pages's copyright policy is quite strict on these matters. If there is a copyright violation, please refer to the copyvio page, section "Copyright owners" for details on how to report it. Normally i could verify this myself, but seeing the subject matter i believe that this will not be as simple as checking a public website for content that was copied over. Copyright violations are not, however, a reason to protect a page unless it meets the criteria in the protection policy. Deleting the infringing content and (if needed) blocking the users who added it is the prefered way to handle such situations. Excirial 22:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Siege of Malta (World War II)
original post
Hi
Can you look over the edit summary again please. I did not, ever, say his edits were vandalism. It was he who described my edits as such.
Further, I don't agree he's trying to prove the article. He was just passing through, took a POV-fancy to something there, and is now warring over it. It is unlikely that he would have returned to the article had I not reverted his edit in the first place. Dapi89 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Which is exactly why i labeled that section "Specifically for user 86.4.81.225" - the comment regarding the vandalism warnings was meant for him. I presume the confusion was caused because i tend to use the same reply for both parties. As for 86's edits, please assume good faith. The edits are not plain vandalism or PoV pushing, and he did bother to write a three paragraph explanation on the article talk page. If the both of you cannot agree, its likely best to seek a third opinion and go by that. Excirial 20:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Ok. Re: he did bother to write a three paragraph explanation on the article talk page. He did minutes ago only. i.e, after the horse had bolted. Dapi89 (talk) 20:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Actually it would be an expanded version of the explanation presented to you at 19:30, 24 March 2011 on your talkpage. The same explantion presented to you during my edit of 19:16, 24 March 2011, and of 08:33, 24 March 2011. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk)
- Hi, this discussion over such a minute and trivial matter appears to have reached an impass following this diff. Two, one involed already, editors have also chimed in but appear to be mostly ignored. I can appreicate we all have better things to do that argue in circles over this pretty superficial matter, but it is going nowhere; can you advise on the best course of action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.81.225 (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism
I thought I was fast with picking up the vandalism on Linux, but you managed to get it before I could hit submit. Good eye ;) - SudoGhost (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well, having rollback and huggle certainly helps in cases just as this - its a lot faster then manually removing vandalism. :) Excirial 12:31, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Message to Anber
Well how about a block then? As you can see from the log, it was protected for a few days, and now he is back to the same old tricks. CTJF83 23:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
- I haven not read the entire AVGN discussion, but from what i gather from it, you and Anber ran into each other before in a negative fashion - After which you made the ANI thread regarding his userpage. No complaint from me about that since the page was indeed way to promotional to be kept around.
- What i AM concerned about, is your insistence to have him blocked. On the ANI thread you made 17 posts (i counted them) and in those you explicitly asked for a block five times already. During this you equally requested a full protection on his page, and messaged me with an explicit request to block him, while messaging EyeSerene, where you more or less asked the same (Though not as explicitly as on my page).
- If i factor this with the previous issues you had with the editor, i find this way and way to close to wikihounding to issue a block in this case, or at least as of current. Don't get me wrong - i agree with your call to report that page, and i agree that the insistence to re-add the same links is starting to get tedious (If your in a debate about them its best to evade or discuss reading discussed content, rather then just doing so)to the point where it will move in the disruptive editing area, and warrant a block. However, for now i am calling WP:STICK on this, and i'd like to ask you to stop asking explicitly for a block. Doing so seven times (+1 protection) in a few days - after the previous AVGN discussion - such requests just look extremely negative in my eyes. Excirial 12:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Well if we had an admin (not you or EyeSerene specifically) that would do their "job", then I wouldn't have to ask repeatedly for a block. Obviously the user in the case of his page, and AVGN Episode has blatantly gone against consensus and did what ever he wanted. Clearly if this user had advertising issues a few years ago, they haven't learned, and never will it appears. CTJF83 16:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- If a situation warrants a straight away block, i would say that no single admin will ignore or evade issuing one. However, not every situation is best solved with a straight away block, as some patience and talk may be a lot more productive way to deal with an issue. As i did note before, asking for a block several times is not a productive way to deal with such an issue, since it tends to sour any form of intelligent discussion. Also keep in mind that i also have to factor in your past dealings with this particular editor; I saw some past edit wars where the editors eventually decided to aim for the editor instead of the article by trying to get the other banned for 3RR and whatnot. I am definitely not stating this is the case here, but please understand that i have to keep this in mind when dealing with a case such as this.
- As said before i don't say don't disagree with your tedious and disruptive editing concerns regarding this editor, and i wouldn't challenge another admin's decision if they decided this already went over the line and issued a block for this. I still hope that this may be resolved peacefully and without the need for admin tools though, so I'll be posting a note at Anber's talk page to point out a few things he should keep in mind (with some luck that will resolve the issue). If not, or in case this simply continues at another page at some later time, i presume that a block would be the best idea to deal with it. Excirial 17:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
- Note: Message posted and linked as a mininote. Excirial 18:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
|
