Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:14, 4 March 2012

Neoclassicism kerfuffle

(By the way, please forgive me if this is the wrong venue to give you this info, but.) I didn't mean to edit over freshacconci's last edit; we crossed by accident, and I wouldn't have edited if I'd seen their change. 203.109.211.160 (talk) 14:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Neoclassicism". Thank you. --203.109.211.160 (talk) 15:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Kherli proposed decision

I understand your rationale and I was considering adding something along those lines from the past Shakespeare case, but I was trying to focus on the behavior presented heading into the case. If Kehrli continues such tactics, that is something that can easily be handled by the community. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 21:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rickrolling

You tried to AFD it but it didn't go through. I've fixed it for you. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:13, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, I fell for that one. Third time to be Rickrolled! :) EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 03:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Haha :D That really made my day.... PaoloNapolitano (talk) 10:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

<font color="red">]<font color="blue">] (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

'Good Faith'

I'd Like to ask why all my edits I made were removed, I took hours redoing it so it looked neater, It was not "Good Faith", I've watched the show, I know about the Characters, I hate to see messy Wiki pages, or ones that are not full-detail, especially when its one of my favorite shows... I want my changes reverted - CTCB

Proposed deletion of Harald Ramsfjell

The article Harald Ramsfjell has been proposed for deletion because, under Misplaced Pages policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The-Pope (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

ACE2011 Statement

Hello, I have reverted your addition of your statement at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates because your statement is currently a redlink. As the instructions say please create your statement first before transcluding. To readd yourself after your statement is made, just use {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}/Statement}}. On behalf of the ACE Coordination Team, -- DQ (t) (e) 20:04, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• You should be aware that your candidate statement must include a statement that you will comply with the criteria for Access to nonpublic data, and a disclosure of any alternate accounts. See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Policy#Selection and appointment. Monty₈₄₅ 20:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not believe that you are eligible to be a candidate, as it seems you did not have the prequisite 150 mainspace edits prior to Nov 1st.  Chzz  ►  20:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please see this. PaoloNapolitano 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Just as a minor FYI, you have a typo in your nomination statement, "While others might see my lack of administrative experience as a weakness, I see it as my strenght." Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Non-sysops for ArbCom

Since you were interested in having non-sysops run in the election, I just wanted to let you know that there are three non-sysops (Hot Stop, NWA.Rep‎, and DeltaQuad) running for ArbCom this year, although one of them (DeltaQuad) is a former sysop. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Undeletion request

As I wrote in the talk page of the page you deleted, Khirbet Kerak ware, the information was taken from a wiki called ArchaeoWiki, whose content is available under the Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike. Therefore I am not in breech of copyright. I merely forgot to add that point in the edit.--Coin945 (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

As long as you didn't attribute the content to ArchaeoWiki, you violated the licence. The article as it stood was just a wall of unwikified text which is not something we want. You should have copied the text to e.g. your personal sandbox (which you can create at User:Coin945/Sandbox), edited and wikified it and then posted it to the mainspace. PaoloNapolitano 19:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahh... okay. I understand.

Rush

Hi Paolo, why do you rush to tag articles for speedy deletion while they are still under construction? You didn't even let me finish it...Tacci2023 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

The subject of the article isn't notable and his name only gives 4750 hits on Google, none of them are reliable from third-party sources. The subject is therefore not significant enough to have his own article. PaoloNapolitano 16:17, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Please correct me if I'm wrong, if the subject isn't notable, shouldn't we tag it with the notability template and discuss it? Does the google search hit number is a notability criteria? I couldn't find any google counter requirement at Misplaced Pages:NOTE. If it is a criteria, what is the number that a subject should reach? --Tacci2023 (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Google will list any eventual reliable content third-party sources. In this case, the search does not list any third-party content and the article should therefore be deleted. PaoloNapolitano 13:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

google.com or google.com.tr? Anyway your message box is not the place to discuss it. Thanks for the info--Tacci2023 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! Malinaccier (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Dear Paolo Napolitano You blocked one Bell Pottinger Member of Staff

Dear Paolo, You blocked this user ---> bibbleswiki

however the following wiki member is also a member of bell pottinger staff as evidenced by his post changes on 'the mccanns', 'carter ruck' and other notable clients of bell pottinger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:TerriersFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.46.187 (talk) 00:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I did not block the user, I am not able to block anyone, as I am not an administrator. I merely added a notice to the user page. As for the othe ruser, he has been confirmed to be innocent. PaoloNapolitano 12:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Players that changed clubs.

I appreciate your effort to keep article about Norwegian footballers up to date, but sometimes you might check the articles you've edited and see what your edit did to the article. For instance the article about Fredrik Nordkvelle now says that he is "currently playing for Brann. He joined the club during the 2007 season after impressing coach Dag-Eilev Fagermo whilst on trial at Marienlyst.", and your latest edit to Håkon Opdal removed a reference that is still used in the article. Even though the orphaned ref most likely will be fixed by a bot, errors like this might remain for a while since there isn't a lot of people editing articles about Norwegian footballers. If you also add a line of text about the transfer (with a reference) each time you update a footballers club, it will improve the quality of Norwegian footballers a lot! Have a pleasant day. Mentoz86 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to follow your advice. PaoloNapolitano 09:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad images workshop question

Please see my edit summary here. NW (Talk) 06:23, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2012 WikiCup

Hello, and welcome to the 2012 WikiCup! The competition officially began at the start of 2012 (UTC), and so you are free to claim any content from after that time. Your submission page, where you must note any content for which you wish to claim points, can be found here, and formatting instructions can be found in hidden comments on the page. A bot will then update the main table, which can be seen on the WikiCup page. The full rules for what will and will not be awarded points can be found at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Scoring. There's also a section on that page listing the changes that have been made to the rules this year, so that experienced participants can get up-to-date in a few seconds. One point of which we must remind everyone; you may only claim points for content upon which you have done significant work, and which you have nominated, in 2012. For instance, articles written or good article reviews started in 2011 are not eligible for points.

This round will last until late February, and signups will remain open until the middle of February. If you know of anyone who may like to take part, please let them know about the comeptition; the more the merrier! At the end of this round, the top 64 scorers will progress to the next round, where their scores will reset, and they will be split into pools. Note that, by default, you have been added to our newsletter list; we will be in contact at the end of every month with news. You're welcome to remove yourself from this list if you do not wish to hear from us. Conversely, those interested in following the competition are more than welcome to add themselves to the list. Please direct any questions towards the judges, or on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn (talk) and The ed17 (talk) 14:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your request

Check your mail. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Abdurahim Laajaab‎

The article Abdurahim Laajaab‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

In other words, Ibba doesn't meet the notability demands nor as a footballer or a futsaler. As a footballer, you'll have to play in a fully professional league (Tippeligaen) ( more info here), and as a futsal-player you'll have to participate in the olympics or world championship (more info here) if I understand this correctly. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

He passes the GNG. PaoloNapolitano 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, that your opinion and I respect that, you are welcome to contribute to the deletion discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Abdurahim Laajaab. But I am a little sorry for this, we should rather use our time improve other articles about Norwegian football or write new articles about players that actually have played in Tippeligaen and is notable. Just a little note: If Ibba passes GNG, why does VG write "Norsk futsal-stjerne til VIF" instead of something like "Ibba har signert for VIF"? Mentoz86 (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my nominations for deletion of Ibba affected your motivation. I hope your motivation for editing on Misplaced Pages returns, cause you are doing a good job! Mentoz86 (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention, but no, not at all. I have been busy with other things lately, but I am coming back now. PaoloNapolitano 15:58, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article RfC

Would you mind commenting on these two RfCs?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 January newsletter

WikiCup 2012 is off to a flying start. At the time of writing, we have 112 contestants; comparable to last year, but slightly fewer than 2010. Signups will remain open for another week, after which time they will be closed for this year. Our currrent far-away leader is Grapple X (submissions), due mostly to his work on a slew of good articles about The X-Files; there remain many such articles waiting to be reviewed at good article candidates. Second place is currently held by Ruby2010 (submissions), whose points come mostly from good articles about television episodes, although good article reviews, did you knows and an article about a baroness round out the score. In third place is Jivesh boodhun (submissions), who has scored 200 points for his work on a single featured article, as well as points for work on others, mostly in the area of pop music. In all, nine users have 100 or more points. However, at the other end of the scale, there are still dozens of participants who are yet to score. Please remember to update your submission pages promptly!

The 64 highest scoring participants will advance to round 2 in a month's time. There, they will be split into eight random groups of eight. The score needed to reach the next round is not at all clear; last year, 8 points guaranteed a place. The year before, 20.

A few participants and their work warrant a mention for achieving "firsts" in this competition.

• 12george1 (submissions) was the first to score, with his good article review of Illinois v. McArthur.
• 12george1 (submissions) was also the first to score points for an article, thanks to his work on Hurricane Debby (1982)- now a good article. Tropical storms have featured heavily in the Cup, and good articles currently have a relatively fast turnaround time for reviews.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) was the first to score points for a did you know, with Russian submarine K-114 Tula. Military history is another subject which has seen a lot of Cup activity.
• Sp33dyphil (submissions) is also the first person to successfully claim bonus points. Terminator 2: Judgment Day is now a good article, and was eligible for bonus points because the subject was covered on more than 20 other Wikipedias at the start of the competition. It is fantastic to see bonus points being claimed so early!
• Speciate (submissions) was the first to score points for an In the News entry, with Paedophryne amauensis. The lead image from the article was also used on the main page for a time, and it's certainly eye-catching!
• Jivesh boodhun (submissions) was the first to score points for a featured article, and is, at the moment, the only competitor to claim for one. The article, "Halo" (Beyoncé Knowles song), was also worth double points because of its wide coverage. While this is an article that Jivesh and others have worked on for some time, it is undeniable that he has put considerable work into it this year, pushing it over the edge.

We are yet to see any featured lists, featured topics or good topics, but this is unsurprising; firstly, the nomination processes with each of these can take some time, and, secondly, it can take a considerable amount of time to work content to this level. In a similar vein, we have seen only one featured article. The requirement that content must have been worked on this year to be eligible means that we did not expect to see these at the start of the competition. No points have been claimed for featured portals or pictures, but these are not content types which are often claimed; the former has never made a big impact on the WikiCup, while the latter has not done so since 2009's competition.

A quick rules clarification before the regular notices: If you are concerned that another user is claiming points inappropriately, please contact a judge to take a look at the article. Competitors policing one another can create a bad atmosphere, and may lead to inconsistencies and mistakes. Rest assured that we, the judges, are making an effort to check submissions, but it is possible that we will miss something. On a loosely related note: If you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages, or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn and The ed17 00:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 8 February 2012 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding <!--noautoarchive--> to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

RE: Your involvement with Misplaced Pages Review

Free speech is more accepted and appreciated at the Misplaced Pages Review than it is at Misplaced Pages. There are things that I may say at the WR that I may not say on Misplaced Pages. I don't have any problem with joining websites and forums that Wikipedians have a distaste for. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:56, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3ARequests_for_comment%2FF%C3%A6&diff=476007622&oldid=475954123 – I guess that my initial reply to you wasn't all that convincing. The following comment is probably a better defense of the WR: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/F%C3%A6&diff=475976577&oldid=475972527. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

WR defamation discussion

I closed the discussion as unsuccessful/wrong forum. Before pursuing this further, you might want to consult the WMF's lawyer, User:Geoffbrigham to get his take on the situation. --Philosopher  02:34, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Account creation interface access

As required, I hereby state that I request access to the account creation interface. PaoloNapolitano 19:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello PaoloNapolitano, thank you for your interest in the request-an-account process. As of yesterday (I was actually changing the user guide when your request came in) all new users granted access to the account creation process are required to identify to the WMF. Your request cannot move forward until this requirement is meet. If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to ask. cheers Mlpearc Public (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Your failed AN/I filing on me

I stand by my edits. I have attacked no one, and your attempts to intimidate people who want reform here are ineffectual. You have indulged in implied legal threats, guilt by association, dragging people to AN/I—and you try to paint ME as disruptive? Let this be known—I will always consider my words carefully, and for effect. I work within the mechanisms and rules of Misplaced Pages, and reason with anyone with whom I disagree. My wish is for this place to develop a rule of law. Work for that, and my shoulder is with yours, to make Misplaced Pages better. Align yourself with a clique to further muddy the waters here and you will find me standing nearby, shining a light on what you hope to do in the dark corners of this place. →StaniStani  01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please excuse me while I butt in in an entirely obtuse fashion, but threatening other users is just rude. I understand that may not have actually been your intent with that comment, but that is how it read, and given the consensus regarding the ANI seemed to be that despite your having not having outright attacked anyone, you could perhaps use some etiquette coaching, please consider this some unsolicited etiquette coaching from someone completely uninvolved who happened to notice it. — Isarra (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your worthy advice and will take it in the spirit in which it was intended. →StaniStani  18:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Armenians in Baku

On 13 February 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Armenians in Baku, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that after being a major part of Baku in most of the 19th and 20th centuries, the city's Armenian population almost completely disappeared due to a pogrom in 1990? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Armenians in Baku. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Fred Flintstone

Paolo, please note that the section in question here was completely unverified and seems to consist entirely of original research. I wish the IP had explained better--but what they were doing did not constitute vandalism. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll pay more attention next time. PaoloNapolitano 20:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll not deny that a lot of unexplained and incorrect blanking (by IPs) takes place, but it's worth the second or two to make an editorial judgment. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 20:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Te Kooti

See Slazengers talk page re this.Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.58.184.199 (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Declined Speedy

Hi. I have declined your speedy deletion request at Waller Drive, as it is not a CSD:G1 candidate. G1 is for "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish", and the article, very short though it might be, is written in clear English. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that I also earlier declined your A7 request, as A7 does not apply to places. You should not just attempt various deletion criteria in the hope that one of them might stick - you need to review the CSD criteria and only propose one if the article actually satisfies the described criteria. As far as I can see, this article does not satisfy any Speedy Deletion criteria, so if you think it should be deleted you will need to try WP:PROD or WP:AFD -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I tagged it for A1, as it does not provide sufficient context. (very short). PaoloNapolitano 18:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• A1 is also wrong, as it is clear from the description what it is - it is a place in Banbury, Oxfordshire. Being short is not the same as not providing context. Now stop this and try WP:PROD or WP:AFD if you think there is a valid reason for deletion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I replaced it with a A1. . I'll post it as an AFD, then.. PaoloNapolitano 18:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Tripura cricket team

Hello PaoloNapolitano, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Tripura cricket team, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 23:19, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, I have a question...

Why did you revert this with the edit summary of "unexplained removal of content" Using "Huggle", which states in it's summary information: "Huggle is a Windows application for dealing with vandalism on Misplaced Pages". The IP editor made an edit summary and explained, "again, it cannot be true that nc doesn't use pastels given that David himself famously used pastels in his Empire period & after." Your edit appears to be a misuse of the tool and violates MOS by accusing the editor of Vandalsim over a content dispute. Please refrain from such edits in the future as they go against the spirit of Misplaced Pages, are disruptive and could make editors uncomfortable on one side and make others feel justified when in fact the information is not referenced and may be removed. Allow the editors to iron out their disputes or attempt to mediate and not appear to take sides as this edit could be seen as. If the ditor is edit warring, report them for 3RR.

For the record the information can be viewed as POV, OR and is clearly not cited. There is a dispute that went to DR/n and this is not an appropriate way to handle the situation.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Huggle has several reverting options in its interface, among them "vandalism", "page blanking", "biased content", "unexplained addition/removal of content", "personal attacks", etc. I would assume that in the process of approving Huggle for use, the features have been approved, among them the "removal of content". I could see that the edit had been reverted several times by the user in question, so I saw the revert as unproblematic. PaoloNapolitano 11:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. The Huggle options are "approved", but the Huggle user still has to choose an appropriate one. So when you use a Huggle revert option, like "unexplained addition/removal of content", you need to be sure it is appropriate to the change you are reverting. In this case, the edit you reverted *was* explained in the edit summary, and so reverting it as "unexplained removal of content" was incorrect -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I merely followed consensus per the other users who had previously reverted the IP. I didn't revert it as "vandalism", and while the "unexplained removal of content" tag was incorrect, it was the most appropriate of the tags available.. With that being said, I'll try reverting the "hard" way to make it clearer. PaoloNapolitano 12:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, you should not choose a reason that is "close but not actually correct" - if there is no correct automated reason, then you should not choose an automated reason at all. I don't use Huggle (it's a Windows tool and I don't use Windows) but does it not have a generic revert option that allows you to enter your own revert reason? (I use Twinkle, and that does) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I get home ;)

My RfA

Thanks for jumping in quickly to support my RfA, which was successful and nearly unanimous. Be among the first to see my L-plate! – Fayenatic L (talk) 13:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion review for Christine Kuo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Christine Kuo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Just thought I should let you know that the AfD you closed, were not as clear a keep as a NAC-closure should be, in my opinion. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of information from Lady Frances Brudenell

The correct thing to do, when you find a dead link, and you cannot replace it, is not to remove information from the article, but to insert {{Dead link}} into the reference (look it up in Help). This facilitates other editors who might be able to fix it. Regards Hohenloh 01:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:PaoloNapolitano/WikiProject Privacy & Personal Attack Protection

A tag has been placed on User:PaoloNapolitano/WikiProject Privacy & Personal Attack Protection, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. PaoloNapolitano 09:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Careful with AWB

Your edit of List of banned films in Malaysia was premature and incorrect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

The article was indeed an orphan, and if I remember correctly a bot will remove it some time after linking. PaoloNapolitano 20:02, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I had created it a very short time before you tagged it and you also changed the wikicode which would have made the page render incorrectly when transcluded. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I will pay more attention. The final two clauses are Greek to me, as I'm not specialising in the technical part of the "game". PaoloNapolitano 20:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Take care in patrolling

A complete copyvio, like all of his other articles-- tipoff that it was put up in one edit with no sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Siarhei, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sergey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiCup 2012 February newsletter

Round 1 is already over! The 64 highest scorers have progressed to round 2. Our highest scorer was Grapple X (submissions), again thanks mostly to a swathe of good articles on The X-Files. In second place was Tigerboy1966 (submissions), thanks an impressive list of did you knows about racehorses. Both scored over 400 points. Following behind with over 300 points were Ruby2010 (submissions), Cwmhiraeth (submissions), Miyagawa (submissions) and Casliber (submissions). February also saw the competition's first featured list: List of colleges and universities in North Dakota, from Ruby2010 (submissions). At the other end of the scale, 11 points was enough to secure a place in this round, and some contestants with 10 points made it into the round on a tiebreaker. This is higher than the 8 points that were needed last year, but lower than the 20 points required the year before. The number of points required to progress to round 3 will be significantly higher.

The remaining contestants have been split into 8 pools of 8, named A through H. Round two will finish in two months time on 28 April, when the two highest scorers in each pool, as well as the next 16 highest scorers, will progress to round 3. The pools were entirely random, so while some pools may end up being more competitive than others, this is by chance rather than design.

The judges would like to point out two quick rules reminders. First, any content promoted during the interim period (that is, on or after 27 February) is eligible for points in round 2. Second, any content worked on significantly this year is eligible for points if promoted in this round. On a related note, if you are concerned that your nomination, be it at good article candidates, a featured process or anywhere else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAC, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which would otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiCup and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn (talk • email) and The ed17 (talk • email) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list

On User:PaoloNapolitano/Wikipedia Review user list you have identified a number of Misplaced Pages editors and associated them with accounts on Misplaced Pages Review. I have two concerns about the list. Firstly, I think this may be in violation of WP:OUTING, especially where you connect different usernames on the two sites. Secondly, there are currently over 1,500 members on Misplaced Pages Review and you have singled out 8. The page may be seen as an "enemies list", especially given your previous statements about Misplaced Pages Review. Rather than take this to ANI, I thought I would give you a chance to ask for the page be deleted yourself. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Up to you as to how you want to respond, Paolo, but personally I would tell DC to fuck off. They identify themselves on WR with their own Misplaced Pages user accounts or usernames, so there's no "outing" involved. And it's the height of hypocrisy for DC to complain about "outing", given his own lack of scruples in that regard. Prioryman (talk) 19:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken this to ANI, since Prioryman has expanded the list and you do not seem to be editing regularly. Please see here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please stop adding inappropriate images to Misplaced Pages, as you did to User:PaoloNapolitano. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Youreallycan 23:08, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

You knowingly uploaded a copyright violation, claimed it as your own work and used it to impersonate another living person. This is unacceptable. I have waited a couple of hours to allow you to provide an explanation, but so far you have failed to do so. As a result, I have just blocked you indefinitely. Salvio 09:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

PaoloNapolitano (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I made a mistake. The image was deleted within 10 minutes per own request and an indef block, with no previous blocks seems harsh. I have almost 1000 constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages, and I repeat, I apologise, I made a mistake. PaoloNapolitano 09:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Accept reason:

The copyright problem has been separately resolved on Wikimedia Commons where an administrator there has explained why this is not acceptable and warned your account there. Taking this out of the block rationale leaves us with impersonation, which is reasonable to conclude that you meant as a joke rather than with any malicious intent for the subject. You have provided a reply that Salvio was asking for. I am revising your block to 24 hours in light of these considerations and to give time for the inflammatory drama relating to this block that many other accounts have contributed to on ANI to subside. --Fæ (talk) 10:28, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that blocking you after the violation has been rectified seems problematic, but could you explain what you meant by using this picture? Max Semenik (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

TBH, I really don't know. I did something stupid, and I apologise for that. I never had any malicious intent, and I swear that it will never happen again. I can also suggest a voluntary WR topic ban. PaoloNapolitano 10:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Fæ, thank you so much. Please note that many of the contributors to ANI had a conflict of interest in the case, by being WR members. PaoloNapolitano 10:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably advisable to take a break from worrying about WR for a bit, try to avoid digging a hole for yourself. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

PaoloNapolitano (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Fæ wrote in his explanation that "to give time for the drama to subside". The discussions are now closed, so I would kindly ask to have my block lifted with immediate effect. Thank you. ]] 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Fæ wrote in his explanation that "to give time for the drama to subside". The discussions are now closed, so I would kindly ask to have my block lifted with immediate effect. Thank you. ]] 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Fæ wrote in his explanation that "to give time for the drama to subside". The discussions are now closed, so I would kindly ask to have my block lifted with immediate effect. Thank you. ]] 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock