Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:27, 19 March 2012

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

Dreadstar

User:Dreadstar made a big to-do about disappearing himself from Misplaced Pages in early February and nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation. He is now trying to tarnish my anonymous editing and that of others with a sockpuppet tag. I think he's on some sort of power-trip. Perhaps a neutral administrator could talk to him?

Thanks.

• Inappropriate creation of a category
• Inappropriate use of rollback and here

76.119.90.74 (talk) 04:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm wondering if the witchunt idea is misplaced.
  • This is a complete fabrication, "nearly had to leave in disgrace over conduct outlined in various arbcom cases relating to transcendental meditation." I am very familiar with that case. This comment alone should lead any editor to investigate the IP.
  • The IP's edits to What the Bleep appear to be in the face of editor agreement.
  • The IP is concurrently posting on the Fringe Theories Notice Board against Dreadstar,
  • Looks to me like the witch hunt is not against the IP at all but against Dreadstar.
  • I also worked on What the Bleep at the time Science Apologist was working there, and whether the IP is a sock of SA or not, his manner is very similar and I believe an SPI to clear the air is/was warranted.

(olive (talk) 04:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

• Let's just say that Dreadstar's approach to sock tagging absent CU confirmation is highly inconsistent . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 04:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Mathsci has removed the IP's post on the Fringe Theories NB since my original post here.(olive (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC))
• I have no idea whether the IP is a sockpuppet of SA (the location seems wrong). His editing at the moment seems disruptive and his double posting on WP:FTN was inappropriate, hence the removal. Mathsci (talk) 05:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
• With the caveat that I know nothing about SA, * "Disruptive" in this case could easily be someone new who's behaving normally when accused w/o CU, yes? and * The rollback of the sock-puppet tag removal seems inappropiate. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I think SA is a banned user, but other than that, it seems Dreadstar and the IP are engaged in a content dispute here. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• Aaron, I'd be surprised if the IP is a new editor, given the way he introduced this section (with reference to an old case, but with a misinterpretation of it designed to promote a particular view of Dreadstar). SlimVirgin 06:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This account 71.174.134.165 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be the same editor as the IP, who has been editing with the first IP for over 6 months (on topics related to fringe physics and cold fusion). In the past SA has edited from NY not Boston. However, stylistically these editors seem indistinguishable from SA. Mathsci (talk) 05:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

It's not an account, just another IP. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

SA/jps/VanishedUser314159 frequently used hyphenation: good-or-bad, not-so-up-to-date, etc, in talk page comments and that seems also to be true of the IPs. Mathsci (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As for the stylistic similarities, both the IPs and the vanished/banned user seem fond of the word "pandering" in edit summaries . But that correlation alone is too weak for me to draw conclusions. Further investigation is warranted, I think. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 05:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Using the word "tenor" metaphorically to describe a lead proponent is a bit more striking. Other similarities include "move up" and an interest in serial comma consistency . Ending with "perhaps?" is also a less-common similariy . Unfortunately, this kind of evidence proves nothing according to Dreadstar, so I'm curious what he'll come up with as evidence. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

All the above is intersting enough, true, and I'll eat my hat if Slim's wrong about this person... but... but... I'm always concerned when we (collectivly) get our DUCK hunting caps on. Even if this does turn out to be the SA irritant, shouldn't we be taking the tiny extra effort to be polite and do all the steps properly? Looking at the tag reversion by Dreadstar, particularly with the totally-true "get some CU" edit summary that he reverted over, I find that I'm not comfortable no matter who it is. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 07:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The last ipsock of SA is here for comparison: 128.59.171.184 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Mathsci (talk) 07:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• My first impression here is one of a distinct air of WP:BOOMERANG on both counts.

1. On the content end, it would appear that the talk page discussion shows a consensus which does not favor the 76.IP editor's preferred version. see: WP:CON policy for further information.

2. On the administrative end, I'm not seeing anything actionable in regards to Dreadstar. I suspect that SlimVirgin has been fairly accurate in her observations. I've never been much of a sock hunter, and I do see a distinction between using an IP vs. a registered account - that said, I'd rather see some definitive CU data to the circumstantial "A looks like B" type of diffs that so often fill up these threads; but I do concede the similarities others have noted. — Ched :  ?  08:05, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Prior to the ipsock I mentioned, SA used another Columbia IP 128.59.171.194 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) . That was discussed at WP:AE, after which one year blocks were enacted. The timing of edits might rule out SA in this case. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Or they might not. There is enough time between then to travel from NY to Boston, never mind electronic ways of appearing to have done so. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I also have the impression that SA/VanishedUser314159 is active again using IP socks.

The Columbia IPs he used until they were blocked in Dec 2011 are:

• Special:Contributions/128.59.169.46 - blocked dec 20 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.169.48 - blocked dec 21 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.171.194 - blocked dec 10 2011
• Special:Contributions/128.59.171.184 - blocked dec 23 2011

And I suspected this one too, but it is currently not in use:

• Special:Contributions/140.252.83.241 used until 30 august 2011

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This sequence of edits is a bit strange. SA here acted in concert with the IP. Also they agreed on the talk page of the article. Similarly in the discussions about Energy Catalyzer on WP:FTN and its fourth AfD. However, I am not sure these show anything conclusive. There does appear to be a considerable overlap of subject matter between the 4 ipsocks of SA and the IP here. Mathsci (talk) 10:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I found this remarkable similarity between the currently discussed IPs 76.119.90.74 and IP 71.174.134.165, both at the same geolocate.

76.119.90.74 - Talk:Cold fusion - 18:36 12 March 2012 - explanation that "prove" is not the right word

71.174.134.165 - Tom Van Flandern - 18:57 12 March 2012 - "prove is not the right word"

--POVbrigand (talk) 10:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not realize that witch hunting was what Misplaced Pages was like behind the scenes. This discussion has been very educational. I will not be contributing to Misplaced Pages anymore. If this is the normal way IP authors are treated who are trying to fix the encyclopedia anybody can edit, maybe it would be a good idea to stop asking readers to edit with those ratings at the bottom of the articles. That's why I started changing things here. 76.119.90.74 (talk) 12:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rant Misplaced Pages:Sock_puppetry#Sockpuppet_investigations clearly states only blocked accounts should be tagged; editors are directed to file an WP:SPI if they suspect something is amiss. This fad of editors defacing IP editors talk pages without bothering to file an spi should be stopped in its tracks per it's fucking rude. Someone please indef Dreadstar (and any other tag crazy editor) until they agree to knock it off. Misplaced Pages: The encyclopedia where anyone can get treated like shit. Nobody Ent 12:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Then what is Template:Ipsock for? This "fad" seems to have a template that's been around for years. Without looking at the merit of Dreadstar's tags, he's just mistagging the IP's.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"This is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" means that all editors should be treated fairly whether they are admins or IPs. Bringing an editor to ANI and to the Fringe NB in the middle of a content discussion which is why we are here, and mischaracterizing the admin and the content discussion is not appropriate editor behaviour. That's the fundamental issue here. Secondary to that, is the possibility that IP may be a banned user.(olive (talk) 14:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

Clearly, an anon IP like 76 who exhibits enough knowledge of wiki to bring an ANI and a noticeboard complaint this fast is a former user with an agenda, particularly when it parallels a previous pattern of a blocked user. This is no newbie getting bitten, it's someone who lacks the integrity to get a user name and work according to the rules. And Dreadstar is an experienced admin with a good nose for trouble. IP disruption of articles and topics does need to be dealt with quickly; there's no need to hide behind anonymity. Montanabw 15:19, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a long-term IP editor, and I read AN/I pretty regularly for the lulzy drama. I guess I just lack integrity. 192.251.134.5 (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that we're supposed to rely on "noses" here rather than any form of clearly presented evidence that others may judge by themselves. Has Dreadstar's nose received any official endorsement? Has he ever been a CU, for example? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This is part of a years-long vendetta between Dreadstar and Scienceapologist/jps/etc. I don't think an editor who wrote this (admin-only, see deleted contributions) has any business sleuthing out SA's alleged socks. Skinwalker (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I guess I fail to see how appropriate use of admin tools and then later recognizing a writing style when someone is trying to sneak back equals a "vendetta?" The issue I see here is an unwarranted ANI on Dreadstar by an anon IP who has in fact been engaging in disruptive editing in an area that is a familiar haunt of a user who had his account deleted by Dreadstar. Sometimes someone is in the right and someone is in the wrong. I see from that link (just what I can read, the public bit) that another admin previously also had to address SA's behavior, at least, account deletion would suggest that. As for the rest, we all have bad days and sometimes aren't the perfect diplomat in our phrasing (just today, I had to hit backspace several times to remove some words from a comment elsewhere prior to hitting "save page." I did, fortunately). Montanabw 17:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You misunderstand. The link I gave was to the mainspace article ScienceApologist, not to his user page User:ScienceApologist. Dreadstar did not delete SA's user account. He created a extremely derogatory mainspace article about SA, then deleted it. I see that you are not an admin and therefore can't read the deleted text, but it is quite a bit more than a minor diplomatic failing. Skinwalker (talk) 18:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

If he really did that, why hasn't ArbCom desysopped him for "conduct unbecoming of an admin" and all that? ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the arbitrators. During the discretionary sanction arbitration I submitted detailed (e.g. TLDR) evidence of Dreadstar's behavior that highlighted this incident. They ignored it completely. Skinwalker (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I just did. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why SkinWalker thinks the arbs ignored his evidence. They posted a decision on that case after a lot of evidence was presented, SkinWalker's included.
• My concern is that an editor who didn't get a result he wanted out of an AE is trying again, here, which seems a lot like poisoning the well.
• The issue here, to reiterate, is that an IP whose edits were against talk page agreement then brought one of the editors who disagreed with him here, posted about that same editor concurrently on the Fringe Theories Notice Board, while posting patently false information about that editor. This is not about a newbie editor who was attacked as he suggests for his editing. Its about an editor who may have used Notice boards to gain an advantage in a discussion and against an editor he disagreed with. That doesn't sit well, in my opinion.(olive (talk) 19:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC))

69.86.225.27

This IP editor has admitted to being the "home address" of one of the year-blocked edu IP socks of SA . The 69 editor has edited as recently as Feb this year, despite the block on the edu address. Based on the use of the word "flapdoodle" , I think it probable that the 69 IP was SA as well. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Congratulations, officer, turns out that house you serached w/o a warrent did have drugs in it!" Forgive the hyperbole, but can I please just say "!!" and have it jog our collective memories? Am I alone in thinking that voracious DUCK hunting does more harm than the (actual) socks? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 23:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, there's no warrant needed to look at someone's contributions on Misplaced Pages. They're all public to begin with. On the other hand, you might want to protest against "banned means banned" instead, but this is not the venue for it. (And if you still doubt the self-admitted socking, the 69 and 128 IPs participated in the same AfD, although they had the integrity of not double !voting .) ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE - A trout to any that think this is a "newbie". Close this joke of a thread already: Dreadstar is not on trial here. What a shame this is. Doc talk 08:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Agree, this is not a newbie, and the thread is only stoking drama. SlimVirgin 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This is pretty low-volume "drama" really, and "stoke" implies "fire" which I'm not seeing. Just some people stating their opinions. But, yeah, close away. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(ec)Dreadstar is not on trial, the thread boomeranged to the submitting IP and therefore I think it is legitimate to discuss whether or not the IPs are used by a banned user. --POVbrigand (talk) 15:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• based on my comments above, I don't see anything more to be done here and would support a close.(olive (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC))

• 69 has also tag teamed with 128 in a revert war . ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• I think this is all pointing to a continued ban evasion with different IP socks, can we start a CU for IP 69 ? I would then add another IP with the same geolocate as 69 to that case. --POVbrigand (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been gone a lone time now. I thought I would check in at some places to see if my break made a difference, then I see this. If you think SA is editing against his ban, do an SPI and check. Quit all the guesses and defending a friend and let the checkusers do what they know how to do. This is past silliness already. I'm sorry, but after reading all of the above about this, I felt the need to say, give it to the checkusers to see who it is. It's not rocket science here, it's the rules, remember! The IP was upset and said things not liked, not true maybe, don't know. But IP's are allowed to edit here and this doesn't make anyone want to edit when they can be accused of being someone else without a reasonable doubt. Just wanted to say what I thought before I leave. I sure hope you all decide though to get this checked out and stop the duck hunt at this point. Have a good day! --CrohnieGal 14:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

propose to close the topic here --POVbrigand (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Concern on recent high-speed deletions by Fastily

Quickly, before I get blocked, Fastily has to be one of the worst admins I've ever seen. He', , , and according to his deletion log, he's deleted as many as 88 pages/images in a span of about 5 minutes . There's no way in hell any human being reviewed all of these appropriately. Fastily should be desysopped and blocked. Night Ranger (talk) 02:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment too much here, since I was a dick to Fastily the only time we've spoken, but - an edit summary of "p" is not acceptable, everything else aside. And holy cats, that's a lot of very fast deletions. Can someone who's not pissed in Fastily's wheaties like I have ask him if he's using a script? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's clearly not me then, because I keep seeing instances of clearly inappropriate deletions by him. Snowolf 03:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As can be seen at Night Ranger's talk page, Fastily recently made two pretty bad deletions of cat pages NR created, so yes, NR has a personal gripe here. But more to the point, it seems like Fastily's consistently brought to ANI in regards to bad/questionable deletions and/or overall deletion practices. The biggest concern is simply that he doesn't seem to respond to them at all—his response usually amounts to a one-liner and nothing more. Swarm 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Working too fast, making too many errors, and not communicating well with others is exactly what got Betacommand/Delta blocked by ArbCom after many years of that exact behavior. I would hate to see Fastily go down that road, but this pattern of behavior is sadly close to what Betacommand used to do right up until the most recent ArbCom case. It would be nice if Fastily instead modified his own behavior and worked better on improving his accuracy in deleting files and on his ability to communicate with other editors regarding his deletions, as well as his ability to admit and correct for his own mistakes in this area. If that doesn't happen, this will not end well. --Jayron32 04:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In response to the above:

• I check my all the pages I ultimately delete, compile a list of pages to delete, and use a script to run through them.
• I have restored the two categories in question as a result of . I have better things to do with my time on Misplaced Pages than engage in drama.
• The tags on File:History of New England.pdf and File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg were indeed mistakes. I do, however, stand by the tag on File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg (it is a derivative work with no obvious copyright information on it's sources). I would also like to note that I transferred over 500 files to commons over the last two days while screening them all for potential copyright problems. Being human, I do, and will make mistakes regardless of how careful I am. However, I'm sad that NightRanger didn't first mention these tagging errors on my talk page (in which case they would have been promptly corrected and we wouldn't be having this discussion), choosing instead, to come to ANI seeking vengeance.

-FASTILY 04:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not this again. I raised a similar issue with him here and it even caused me to seek clarification of the CSD criteria and so indirectly led to change in the CSD criteria (after discussion). After all the whole point of the source tag is to help prove that the file is usable here. If this can be done another way then it is not necessary to have a source but I'm not sure Fastily agrees with / gets that idea. I've reverted the tagging of the PDF as it clearly has an appropriate release on the last page so what it's source was is irrelevant for determining copyright status.

What I found more disturbing however is their seeming lack of willingness to discuss people's concerns. Most queries are responded to with a very short link to a sub page. I was lucky enough to get a whole sentence in reply, but that was it, which is hardly in the spirit of a collaborative encyclopaedia. Disturbingly I've not seen any replies or changes in edit habits despite a multitude of recent ANI threads. I'm sure they do lots of good work, and they may even be correct in most cases but this lack of discussion is very worrying. It suggests rightly or wrongly that they are unwilling to listen to others or to change their ways if that is what consensus suggests they should do. I really do think this is at the point where an RfC/U may be appropriate. Dpmuk (talk) 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

In reply to Fastily's post which I edit conflicted with. If this was a one of then it may be wikidrama but it's not. Concerns have been raised several times both here and on your talk page. I'm unsure what better things you have to be doing than discussing your edits with editors that have genuine concerns and certainly aren't trolling - discussion is an essential part of a collaborative encyclopaedia and failure to discuss is a serious problem. Your reply also suggests that you didn't even bother to read this thread properly. You mention restoring two categories yet the original complaint was about your tagging of pages. Dpmuk (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, funny you should say that, I haven't linked anyone to User:Fastily/E in weeks. Furthermore, if you'll look at my recent talk page archives, you'll see that I actually make an effort to discuss with users. Believe it or not, unlike Betacommand here, I am of the belief that I serve the community, and am therefore not deaf to its complaints. -FASTILY 04:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I was about to expand on what I'd posted based on your reply above. To be honest I have no real opinion on whether you're "deaf to complaints" or not but it does seem obvious to me that you often come across, possibly inadvertently, as being that way. Even if you had taken the concerns raised here on board a comment like "I have better things to do with my time on Misplaced Pages than engage in drama" does not suggest you had - it suggests (to me at least) that you'd restored the categories as the easiest way out rather than because you'd taken the concerns on board. Personally I'd have been happier to see you leave them deleted and explain why then simply restore and leave such a short statement. This was also how I felt when you replied to my comments I reference above - I was left with the impression (rightly or wrongly) that you hadn't taken on board what I'd said and you'd just replied in the manner which you thought would give you the easiest way out.

Given the amount of actions you undertake I honestly don't think your error rate seems too high and I will also admit that in many of the areas you work we don't have enough admins and so it probably can be hard to prioritize replying fully to all queries versus dealing with backlogs. Bearing all that in mind I do honestly think what we have here is a communication issue rather than and significant problem with your actions (and this is why I suggested an RfC/U to try to get you communicating). If you honestly do take note of every error you make and take on board the concerns raised then it would appear that if you could give that impression as well as acting that way we may avoid many of these issues. Hope you don't take any of this the wrong way. Dpmuk (talk) 04:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the problem here is that so many nasty people play 'no talkies' and when someone who is rather busy is brief then it looks bad, whether it is or not. The speed of editing and error rate doesn't matter. If people want to avoid mistakes the best way to do that is to do nothing at all. He seems to have a page to tell people what they want to know, and it seems more helpful to refer someone to G10 or whatever on that page than say nothing at all when deleting a page. Shrug. Unfortunately no talkies seems allowed by policy in many circumstances, but Fastily doesn't seem to adhere to the no talkies idea as much as some other editors. He seems chatty but busy. Penyulap _talk 05:38, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. We had a very lengthy and on-going discussion on AN that you basically made a couple of comments on and walked away while people continued to discuss you for days without any further input from you at all over several raised issues. You even went so far, in early february, to claim a complaint about you from December was "extremely old" You then further went on to self-impose a restriction that didn't remotely begin to address the concerns being raised (in that they were from entirely different areas of admin work) and called all further complaints moot. I'm not really sure how that makes you not deaf to the community's complaints.--Crossmr (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Links for the lazy, please? The archives are huge. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

You took part in the discussion Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive232#WP:TFD_deletions_by_admin_User:Fastily. The last comment he makes to that thread is, as far as I'm considered, a lie. He walks away at that point, and people continued to discuss him for 3 weeks before it got archived with no further input from him. Look for the part where you asked me for diffs, I provided them, and Fastily's response was "all of these are extremely old", despite one of them barely being 2 months old. He then says "I hereby agree to self-abstain from closing long, contentious discussions without providing a statement of some sort. At any rate, I no longer plan on closing such discussions anyways, so I guess that makes the concerns we're having here moot :P" with a cute little emoticon no less. Despite the concerns being raised not only being about his closes, but his deletions he declares all concerns done because he's going to self-impose a restriction that he no longer does closes. Not sure how that addresses the bad deletions at all, but as far as he was concerned they were a done deal because of that. So again, not really sure how this is an indication that he's listening to the community's complaints. It looks like quite the opposite.--Crossmr (talk) 00:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Which it appears he's now done again. Despite on-going discussion and direct statements being made to him, he's continued to edit without returning to this discussion. I don't really see any evidence that Fastily is listening to the community's concern and instead appears to be saying whatever he feels is necessary at the time to appease the community and then walking away. As I mentioned before, the Deja Vu is very strong.--Crossmr (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just my take on the three files cited above: File:History of New England.pdf was a useless PDF ("wikibooks") compilation of existing Misplaced Pages articles, falsely tagged as uploader's "own work" and public domain. Could have been speedy deleted on sight as a copyvio (done so now). File:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia.ogg is legit copyright-wise (obviously user-created), but has no foreseeable encyclopedic use; nominated at FFD now. File:Woodman Spare that Tree.ogg seems legit to me; it's a user-created, synthesized computer rendering of a song that itself is obviously PD-old. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the speedy of File:History of New England.pdf as it's nowhere close to being an "unambiguous copyright violation". I've just checked again and all the appropriate attribution and licensing information is in the pdf so this is simply a case of wrong tagging rather than a copyright infringement and we don't speedy for getting the tags wrong. I'd agree that their seems little point in hosting it given that it's just a copy of our articles but I'd suggest restoration if the user asks for it (e.g. if they want to use it as a historical snapshot). Dpmuk (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, even if the copyright had been fixed (and I agree it would have been fixable in principle), it would still fall under WP:CSD#F10, "files that are neither image, sound, nor video files, are not used in any article, and have no foreseeable encyclopedic use", so it's rather moot. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Well true, they'd have to come up with a good reason for keeping it, and I think that's unlikely to occur, which is why I didn't restore it. Given that most of the work do is in copyrights I pointed it out as I didn't want people to think I'd missed something when I commented above. Dpmuk (talk) 16:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no opinion regarding the deletion rationales of the images or the speed at which they were deleted, but I do have concerns about Fastily's deletion log entry for the two sockpuppet categories as "Attack Pages". It looks to me (at least from the comments on Night Ranger's talk page and in the block log) like Kumioko was indeed blocked for sockpuppetry, the socks were tagged and the populated categories were created. I agree that they could constitute attack pages of the accounts tagged were not Kumioko's socks, or if the category pages had personal attack language in them (did they?), but otherwise a sockpuppet category doesn't seem to be anything like an attack page. I'm also a little concerned by Fastily's responses when Night Ranger requested an explanation: basically providing non answers, answering questions with questions and then deleting the thread with the edit summary "troll". NR's subsequent response to that was not appropriate, but at least a little understandable. I'd be angry too. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

TLDR: In Misplaced Pages, socks are sock unless they have admin friends. ASCIIn2Bme (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Which admin are you talking about? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet categories are not "attack pages" if the socks are correctly tagged. If they were, deleting them under G10 is a no-no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

correctly tagged being the key phrase here. :-) — Ched :  ?  12:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Even if the sock accounts were tagged incorrectly, a category is not an attack page. You could make a case for someone tagging random accounts as socks as attack pages I guess, but as far as I can tell those were confirmed socks of Kumioko. Attack pages say things like "Joey is a Nazi", or "such and such person is *insert unsupported negative claim here*". Not a category that simply populates user pages based on userpage templates. Kumioko was, indeed, blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The deletion rationales of those categories aren't correct and without condoning his subsequent behavior, I can see why NR was upset. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

CommentIn my humble opinion, if Fastily feels that he has better things to do than engage in drama then I suggest he move to the (relatively) non-controversial areas of expanding articles and editing out-dated or bad references which require minimum interaction with others. These are areas where smart scripting etc. is of good use. My point is that Fastily's behavior is borderline contempt (or maybe even full contempt) that clearly demonstrates his beliefs that other editor's are not competent enough to question his conduct or maybe he is far superior to others. I can't imagine an experienced user not being able to answer simple queries for technical or other reasons. Wikishagnik (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I can understand the view that Fastily tends to show up here on a semi-regular basis over these types of deletion things. I can even understand the concept of comparing some things to delta/beta. My problem here though is this: Some people are actually good at doing computer programming, and perhaps they're not the most "chit-chatty" types of folks. But if you try to talk to them, they can give you some very valuable information, and be very helpful in the end. You may not come away with a "warm fuzzy feeling", but that doesn't make them "contemptuous". Sure, maybe a break now and then from various activities can be good for all of us - but in the end, if you stick with what you're good at - then it shouldn't be an ABF issue. — Ched :  ?  15:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem is the deletion logs are incorrect. Autopopulated categories aren't attack pages any way you slice it. See my comment above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I recently had an image deleted, no warning, that was a drawing made by me in the public domain?? Bzuk (talk) 17:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC).

Ched, do you honestly believe that's the issue here? I can understand somebody being pre-occupied and focussed in their work and I too have met my share of Geeks (scholars etc.) but civility and trust are very important in Misplaced Pages. A person merely busy now can choose to reply later. A person not very communicative can make a few terse statements. We are all used to that in Misplaced Pages, but refusing to pariticipate in a Misplaced Pages discussion to me shows either contempt for the policy structure of Misplaced Pages or towards its editor's. Wikishagnik (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine Blocked

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I blocked Badmachine (talk · contribs) for a week for obvious trolling and bating of Night Ranger (talk · contribs). Badmachine's trolling only made this situation worse. --Guerillero | My Talk 03:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why has Badmachine (talk · contribs) been blocked here? I see "Obvious trolling and bating" (sic) in the block log but, given that Badmachine hasn't edited in some days now, it's clear that this block was entirely punitive and serves no purpose at this point. He's a long-term constructive editor in good standing here and his only failing appears to have been having penis pics on his talk page. Something which, as I pointed out on his talk page, shows the rank hypocrisy of WP, given the current state of Wikimedia Commons. Seriously - this block achieved nothing here, other than blocking a constructive editor - Alison 05:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Badmachine has commented on his talk page and is understandably confused about the block. Frankly, so am I. I've unblocked him now, for the reasons stated here. I'm not going to wheel-war on this, so feel free to reinstate if you must, but this block is totally uncalled-for here - Alison 05:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I replied to Alison on my talk page because I saw her note there first. It is nice to know that encouraging people to sock is OK these days. --Guerillero | My Talk 05:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

And I've replied there. Also, BTW, I was asked by another admin to run a check on NR and, other than the one POINTy sock, there are no others. Given BM had stopped editing days ago and had already disconnected prior to this, I utterly fail to see what your block was to achieve here other than being punitive - Alison 06:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

In the diff linked I see no encouragement to sock, rather, the opposite unless I'm misunderstanding something. Snowolf 06:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• i did not encourage NR to sock. -badmachine 06:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

From the comments on NR's talk page it looks to me like Badmachine encouraged NR to NOT sock. This was a bad block and deserves a trout. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Alison. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Brewing problem

Could someone(s) who has more time than me take a look into a brewing problem on a number of different user talk pages. I happened to make a comment on User Talk:Guy Macon (a user I tried to assist in the past) to User: Hengistmate about distinctions (or the lack thereof) between admins and non-admins, and ended up finding out that there's a whole mass of less than pleasant interactions between at least 5 editors here. I see 2 very experienced users (User:Andy Dingley and User: Biscuittin unhappy with each other (note, specifically, User Talk:Andy Dingley#Undiscussed deletions). I see User:Hengistmate using that discussion as a claim that Andy Dingley is incivil (at least), at User Talk:Borealdreams#Don't let it get you down. (which looked like this before Borealdreams removed part of it on the advice of Guy Macon). Hengistmate is partly upset and Andy Dingley because of a less than civil conversation that occurred at Talk:Tank#Country of Origin. and lead to this discussion on Andy Dingley's user talk; later, he became more upset because Guy Macon warned Hegistmate but not Andy Dingley (see [this since deleted discussion on Guy Macon's talk page, and the followups on my talk page at User Talk:Qwyrxian#Your recent message. and User Talk:Qwyrxian#I was wrong.. Guy Macon also made claims of bad behavior against Hengistmate at User Talk:Borealdreams#March, 2012.

I have no idea what's really going on here. I don't know if everybody's acting badly, and all need to go to their separate corners. Or if just some people are acting badly, and they need to be warned more strongly and/or sanctioned. Or maybe just these people have different interaction styles and aren't dealing well with others. I'm not even sure if all of the above discussions are actually "really" connected.

Of course, the inevitable question is "what admin action are you requesting"? I am not in any way recommending sanctions against anyone. I'm simply seeing a bunch of tinder that looks set to explode, and I'd rather stop it now if there's some way to do so, since, at a first glance, all of the participants seem to have something positive to contribute to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately, I don't have the time or inclination right now to figure it out myself; thus, I throw it open to this board to see if anybody (including the principles) can make sense of what's going on and find a way to diffuse it. I'll go notify the lot of them now...give me a minute though.Qwyrxian (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

A quick scorecard of the players:

I have chosen to not have any further interactions with Hengistmate. His actions have not risen to the level of stalking, but he has inserted himself into several discussions where I am trying to resolve a content dispute, all critical of me and none of which he had any previous involvement with. My opinion is that he just wants to pick a fight.

Borealdreams is an editor with a self-admitted COI (he sells a product that is marketed as an alternative to lightning rods) who went into full attack mode when I questioned his COI editing. He offered an "olive branch" and expressed a desire to make a fresh start. which is why we both self-deleted several comments about each other. My opinion is that he means well and has the potential to create a good article on lightning protection, and I would like to assist him with this if he is willing to let me do so. He has misbehaved, but appears to have a genuine interest in improving.

User:Wtshymanski‎ (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) was the first editor Borealdreams went into full attack mode on. Wtshymanski‎'s sarcastic style greatly contributed to that conflict. Wtshymanski is an experienced engineer and he is correct both on the technical issues and on Misplaced Pages policy issues in this matter.

Andy Dingley is another experienced engineer who is correct both on the technical issues and on Misplaced Pages policy issues on the matter of lightning rods. I don't know anything about his conflict with Hengistmate on the topic of military tanks.

User:OlYeller21 (who Borealdreams neglected to mention, and who should be notified) is an uninvolved editor who worked with me at Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Lightning rod in a previous attempt to resolve this mess.

I don't know anything about Biscuittin. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just one note about the above, Guy Macon: you cannot choose to "not have any further interactions with Hengistmate", and then bring up complainsts against him to another editor as you did in this edit (which is after you told me you were ceasing interaction on my talk page). If the issue is too stressful or unpleasant for you to deal with, you've got to leave him alone entirely; otherwise, you're essentially creating a situation where you can complain about him but he can't raise complaints about you. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I participate at WP:COIN regularly and came across this issue when Guy Macon reported the COI here. I dealt mostly with Guy Macon and Borealdreams as the other involved party (Wtshymanski) only left one message on in the discussion and did not respond to a request from me. I reviewed the situation lightly and in my opinion, Guy Macon has attempted to be neutral with both parties. Please note that I haven't read every single edit from all three editors. It would take several hours to understand as the format of most discussion is dismal to say the least. As Guy Macon said, Wtshymanski has been sarcastic and condescending in his responses which seems to have offended Borealdreams who then responds very negatively with clear incivility. I can provide diffs if needed but I didn't plan on writing a report at the moment.

At COIN, I attempted to mediate for both all involved editors, as an uninvolved editor. Borealdreams seemed very interested, Wtshymanski never responded, and after the controversy quickly reignited, I bowed out. Borealdreams and Guy Macon, from what I understand, then came to an agreement and redacted several of their comments at COIN to attempt to get a discussion going. I saw that as a good sign and was/am hopefully that their discussion prove productive.

After that, I have had no interaction with Borealdreams, Wtshymanski, or Guy Macon. The only interaction I've had with any party listed in this ANI report, is here with Hengistmate. When I was looking over the case at COIN, I noticed this edit by Hengistmate which was very confusing, to say the least. I then asked who Hengistmate was at the COIN report, to see what the involved parties thought of his involvement, and Guy Macon replied that "Hengistmate appears to be an editor who is still upset over an unrelated issue. Otherwise uninvolved." After reviewing Hengistmate's edit history, he appeared to have no involvement so I moved on. I won't venture to guess what his involvement is because realistically, I haven't the slightest idea.

That's a summary of all the information I have. I'll watch this conversation and respond if necessary but as far as my interaction with Guy Macon goes and from what I've seen of his interaction with others, it looks to me like he's just attempted to neutrally participate in some inflamed debates. I've had no problems with him at all. OlYeller21 03:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Guy Macon is not an admin, but he has more capabilities than the run of the mill editor. Guy Macon righteously presents himself as neutral, incapable of breaking any rules. Rather, he frequently conducts himself on these pages in a passive-aggressive manner, violating the assumption of good faith required of and deserved by all editors, and decides who deserves 'lessons' and what those lessons should be. He chooses which rules apply to himself on a case by case basis. Although he regularly deletes criticisms from his talk page, Guy Macon is often involved in confrontations similar to this. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I do try to stay neutral, but my attitude is the exact opposite of believing that I am incapable of breaking any rules. I have mild Asperger's syndrome with many of the behavioral and cognitive traits that are typical of Asperger's, and because of this I welcome corrections to my behavior. Qwyrxian in particular has shown himself to be a trusted guide, and when he offers a correction (as he did above) I embrace it and do my absolute best to follow his advice, which I am very thankful for. I would like to invite anyone else who is reading this to examine my behavior and to offer corrections where needed. Positive reinforcement - telling me when I did something right - helps too. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@76.190.228.162, can you please sign into whatever account you use that has dealt with Guy Macon, please? Your 3 edits on that IP don't show any interaction with him. OlYeller21 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The message is what is important. The messenger is not. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The underlying message is also important. That message is "I wish to make unsubstantiated assertions about another editor's behavior without anyone being able to check my history to see whether those claims are true." Also see: Misplaced Pages:IP edits are not anonymous. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

@76.190.228.162 - Given that your message isn't substantiated with any evidence, I would say the messenger is all that matters in your case. OlYeller21 23:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

And here I was thinking someone was having trouble making beer... Prioryman (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

hehe! Yes, that was my first thought, too! Pesky (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, Im having trouble getting the boiling time of the hops just right. Any suggestions?--Racerx11 (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't I who started a topic titled "Brewing Problem" on the Misplaced Pages Administrator's noticeboard/incidents page. I've provided well intentioned input on what I believe is a cause of the "Brewing Problem". Any editor interested in understanding the issues here can select and read Guy Macon's diffs. Or they can choose to do otherwise. 76.190.228.162 (talk) 01:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, not a problem! Sometimes we let our sense of humour out for a little run. Anyhow, to address your concerns (hopefully) Guy Macon has a perma-invite over to my talk page. If you imagine a room full of people, a third of whom are red-green colour-blind, a third of whom are blue-yellow colour-blind, and the remaining third can see only in monochrome, none of whom realise that there are things the others can't see, and getting annoyed and frustrated at the apparent arrogant and stubborn and obstructive stupidity of most of the rest ... there you have a close parallel. Autism-spectrum (including Asberger's people) people can miss things which are blindingly obvious to a load of other people; non-autism spectrum completely lack the ability to see (with immense speed) non-obvious details which are overwhelmingly clear to the autism group, and the remaining third lag behind both groups and can't see what any of them are going on about, which means they must all be crazy ... I think the whole world is a bit like that. It's one of the biggest reasons why one shouldn't think of high-functioning autism as any kind of disability, it's just a huge difference in thought-processing. We can't help it, and the non-auties can't help not seeing what we can see so clearly, either. That's just the way we are. Pesky (talk) 12:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

hrrmmmm, this appears to be a real sh*tstorm, strange as though I don't care about it anymore... especially with W disappearing from the conversation (which is exactly what needed to happen as he had no value to add to the discussion.) I've redacted a whole bunch of statements made, most as directed towards Guy. I'd like to basically remove that entire COI discussion, not that I am wrong, but I already am long on my way to making a relevant page that will completely negate the validity & "weight" of the lightning rod page, so if W get's his plug in their for some BS product, who cares... the page is garbage as it is and all his merging will be for naught anyways. As far as further redacting goes, it won't happen as I won't give W the honors of adding more "victories" to his page, as he is far from correct in any point he has made.

Guy, I'm willing to let a whole lot pass, but not if you keep putting it out there I was wrong, in attack mode & had a COI, without conceding W was even more so doing such. It does get old quickly being blamed and labeled when I clearly argued my positions based on document-able evidence, whereas W just did whatever he wanted with either no justification or blatant attacks (not sarcasm & hyperbole as you've defended). And this here is exactly what H is pointing out.

I'm not here to fight, I'm here to add credible knowledge to wiki, so wherever this little SStorm goes, I don't really care. Alright, gotta get up in 4 hours to go certify our voodoo science/fringe technology is protecting the #1 priority shipping company in the US's primary distribution hub/facility. Oh that's not right of me, I didn't do my research, they may be only #2, but that's ok, as we protect both of them anyways!  ;) cheers! Borealdreams (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained to you multiple times, I did not criticize W. because my experience is that he will not listen, and I tried to help you in the hopes that you would.

You 'do have a conflict of interest. You have admitted it. And now you are spending a bunch of time creating a page in userspace about a product you sell while ignoring all advice about successfully creating a page on Misplaced Pages. Experience is a harsh teacher, but some will accept no other. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Another issue to deal with again

This time, things have gone out of hand again. I didn't know that under an interaction ban, you weren't allowed to revert another editors edit's if there's an interaction ban between the both of you. I'm now getting tired of this. This issue between me and Dave1185 will never seem to stop. First this editor threatens me to report me to ANI , then proceeds with an outburst over something incorrect I've done and at the same time accusing me of violating numerous things. Please note that I only recently contacted an interest in Aircraft, hence my edit to the Northrop F-5 Article, and not knowing that you weren't allowed to revert someone else's edits when you are with an interaction ban with them. Point taken, and I don't need to say sorry, since we are all on the learning curve, just like I am with some other editors and some admins. As a result of this, I hereby propose of an indefinite interaction ban between me and Dave 1185 if our differences continue to clash and us hurling vulgarity and throwing silly arguments worth no value. If there's another issue, please note it. Thank you. Abhijay 02:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Here's a positive reading of things: Abhijay acquires an interest in a big and mean fighter plane, reverts Dave's edits while his mind was elsewhere. Dave responds, to which Abhijay responds, etc. etc. I propose that Abhijay accidentally reverted Dave, that Dave hastily warned Abhijay, that the escalating responses were typed overzealously on both sides, and that apologies from both sides, in as few words as possible, here in this ANI thread, will settle the thing. And we can all move along, and no one will get blocked, and etc etc. Drmies (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• (e/c) There's already an interaction ban; it doesn't need to be extended, it needs to be followed. It appears you're clear on reverting now. That said, if Dave1185 continues with this ridiculous, over-the-top, almost cartoon-like aggression, I'll block him from editing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  p.s. I've notified Dave1185. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• Floquenbeam, I think you should just proceed with a block/indefinite block. Given the ongoing problems with Dave's maturity, he's just here to screw around, just like what happened with Spongefrog. Why should we trust an editor such as Dave who with such insolence attacks anyone for making a gentle and small error. I would have to be a complete idiot to not realize if I couldn't see I did something wrong, and yet Dave1185 feigns innocence while at the same proceeding with threats and other things. His comic-like attitude is very disturbing and has even over-reacted to other editors such as Kober when Kober spoke in Georgian. But lets put that to one side. I think a block is suitable for Dave because he's just screwing around, his maturity is a major issue and behaves the same way with other editors (including myself). Abhijay 03:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Smell blood, huh Abhijay? Your thoughtless edit started this latest round of The Dumbest Feud In The World, so now's not a good time to try your luck at Admin Roulette. That's the last time you get to suggest a block of Dave1185, is that understood? I wish I had a dollar for every minute of other people's time you two have wasted. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  Oh, absolutely, Floquenbeam is right: were I to have made an obvious blunder such as revert an edit of an editor with whom I was under an interaction ban (what exactly would that encompass aside from a ban on all interaction?), I figure my best bet would be a meek and 'umble apology, followed by slinking off for a week until the dust settled. It would not be to follow up with an exhortation to block the guy. Think of this as an analogous situation to WP:AUTO - if his current behavior is egregious enough to warrant a block, no doubt some admin will notice without your assistance. Ravenswing 05:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  In the mean time, I'll go and mind with my own business elsewhere. I will stay away from Dave1185 at the moment, and I guess it's now an admin business to take look into the uncivility he's been hurling. Floquenbeam, you carry on with whatever is it you need to do with Dave1185. Now that this matter is now in admin hands, I will not want my entire day to be ruined just because of an editor. Thank you Ravenswing, and other admins present here for your points presented, I hope this will be dealt without my points. In the mean time, I would like to retierate that it was only one gentle error made and it's been realised and dealt with. I want to say sorry for ruining your 'meals' today because of this, and I don't want to upset you guys over this, and neither do I want to ruin mine because of Dave1185. Have a nice day. Abhijay 07:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  On another note of Dave1185's cartoon-like behavior, take a look at this: . Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhijay (talk • contribs)

  I've blocked Dave1185 for 2 days for that gem. Gloating will result in a symmetrical block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

  ...aaaand I've blocked Abhijay for 2 days for gloating on Dave's talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know the backstory between Dave and Abhijay (I've only had positive interactions with Dave in the past), but in my experience Abhijay has a knack of escalating minor issues into major grudges — see and Wikipedia_talk:ITN#Over-nominating.3F. He claims to 'learn from it' when his mistakes are pointed out, but never seems to. I seriously believe we are dealing with a competence issue and I think we need to consider mentorship for Abhijay. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 14:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Block Review Request

Dave has published a fullsome apology, like the commentator above I've only ever had positive interactions with Dave and can only see his outburst as out of character. WP:NPA doesn't require suspension of disbelief and from what I see of Abhijay's interactions with Dave eg as trolling. In contrast, Dave started out with a more than polite message . Whilst the admin who declined the block gives a good reason, cooling off, Dave already appears to have done so - hence the apology. Concerned that the block is now punitive rather than preventative. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the block is now moot, as Abhijay has indicated on his talk page he has retired. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 11:57, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it is quite as one-sided as that, as both were being childish and insulting with each other despite being under an interaction ban - and I've seen Abhijay generally being very positive too. Also, I didn't actually decline their two unblock requests for "cooling off". I thought the two of them needed their full time on the naughty step to properly feel what it is like to be forced away from each other, and so minimize the possibility of their breaking their interaction ban again once their blocks were lifted (and it was in keeping with the blocking admin's suggestion on Abhijay's Talk page). But there's only a couple of hours to go now, and if anyone wishes to unblock early, that would be fine with me - I'd just ask they they unblock both editors at the same time (saying "retired" doesn't necessarily mean anything - teenagers get angry like that all the time). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all I would like to apologise to Boing! as I failed to give him notice on his talk page that I was posting here. I was about to correct that when I noticed he'd replied here. Secondly, whilst Dave has apologised and is thinking of taking a break, Abhijay hasn't responded in anywhere near as mature a manner eg fuck this, i'm now going to retire forever.. Lets not forget Abhijay violated the 1 month interaction ban the second it expired. The reason for Dave's block is no longer valid and so I'd ask his block be lifted. I'm not 100% sure about the other party but happy to leave it to others judgement. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No worries - since I reviewed their unblock requests, I've had this page watchlisted :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Any admin who thinks we're better off unblocking now can do so without my approval, and without needing lots of discussion here first; I'm not precious about blocks I make, and my judgement certainly isn't perfect. FWIW, my opinion is that we might be better off having both blocks remain in force until they expire, mostly for the reason BsZ gives above. I don't interpret Dave's unblock request as optimistically as WCM.

  Regardless of whether the blocks are undone, or expire, I suppose if neither editor is going to see the light, then a full-blown, strictly-interpreted, zero-tolerance interaction ban should remain in place forever. But I note both editors have had similar problems with other editors (just not nearly to this magnitude), and allowing the blocks to expire might send a message that we're serious about further similar behavior with other editors not being tolerated. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  p.s. note that the blocks were for 48 hours, so we're not a couple of hours away from expiration, we're one day away, in case that makes a difference. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an optimist, I'm a stubborn, curmudgeonly old cynic. The one thing I do know about Dave is he keeps his word, if he's apologised he meant it. He's not the type to weasel out of anything with a faked apology. The interaction ban is a good idea, however, you miss the point that the first thing Abhijay did when the last one expired was to violate it. I don't think continuing with the block is serving the community and if its violated again the blocks will be longer next time. Hence, I don't see the current block as anything other than punitive at this point; if anything the message is that a sincere apology is a waste of time. Do we really want to send that message? Wee Curry Monster talk 13:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(Oh yes, there's another day to go - I had it in my mind that it was the 19th today -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC))

Abhijay still commenting on Dave in violation of IBAN during block

One would think that while blocked for an interaction ban violation, he wouldn't even dare to mention the person he's under an interaction ban with. But apparently not... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Abhijay's ability to edit his talk page for the duration of the block -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good grief. Concur. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that kinda validate my point that Dave didn't appear to be the principle aggressor here and given he's apologised and made an undertaking not to repeat, doesn't his block now appear punitive? Wee Curry Monster talk 17:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dave regards me as kind of an unofficial mentor or role model. (I'll pause here to let the snickering subside) ... I don't think ethnic labeling of other users is a wise thing to be doing, unless they bring it on themselves somehow. We disagree on other things as well. But I think it's fair to say that neither of us "suffers fools gladly." And we're both aware that we sometime step over the civility line, and pay the price for it, and pledge to do better. But we're not perfect. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:33, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Will Dave tone it down? Is he aware of the boundaries of individual expression (let's call it that) in this place? I think I've seen good work from him, and I was surprised at the lengthy dramahtribes. If he doesn't see what was wrong with his warnings and reports, he's in for more trouble. Thanks Bugs, Drmies (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy's uncollaborative behavior

• Radiopathy (talk · contribs)
• Red Hot Chili Peppers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is locus of dispute.

Radiopathy's behavior recently has been quite bothersome. The following problems need to be addressed. I first tried to handle this without bringing it to others, but he didn't wish to engage constructively, so I am seeking advise on how to handle this. The following problems are happening:

• personal attacks: Calls me "ignorant" and an "idiot" .

• Refuses to use sources to back up his preferred version of an article, ignores sources when he is provided with them: (see discussion at links above)

• Changes comments of other people to give them new meaning:

What is most problematic is the refusal of this user to abide by both established policy like WP:ENGVAR and WP:MOS and refusal to provide any evidence or sources that his preffered use of language in an article is correct. When faced with source material to back up something, he insults me and then refuses to provide his own. I am fully willing to consider sources provided by him, but his stance appears be that he doesn't have to provide any. I am concerned with how to handle his beligerant and uncooperative behavior here. I am looking for opinions on what needs to happen here. --Jayron32 17:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

• 3+ years experience and over 12,000 edits = this editor should know better. I left a link to WP:NPA on his talk to review. Hopefully it was just a matter of him having a bad day; but we'll see. — Ched :  ?  18:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your input, but the insults are of minor concern. The real concern here is his refusal to provide sources for his position, and his dismissal of sources others have provided. The issue is that he states his position on the matter is correct merely and only because he states that it is, and that sources others provide are irrelevent, because he says they are. This position is not compatible with Misplaced Pages's core values, for refusal to collaborate and for refusal to engage with source material in any way. Misplaced Pages articles are not written a certain way merely because Radiopathy states that they should be written that way. What I am looking for is outside input as to what should be done to handle his obstinancy in this matter. Calling me an idiot is of no great consequence. Refusal to accept Misplaced Pages's basic principles of how to solve disputes by using source texts is. --Jayron32 19:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The insults are symptomatic of the attitude, which is a tired "I've discussed this to death, and don't want to waste my time explaining this all over again to each successive new person that comes along.". I can understand such frustration. I can even understand the notion of using a singular verb for a proper noun that denotes one corporate entity. (It's a non-trivial linguistic point, that is subtler than the explanations that we are taught in primary school.) I can also sympathize with how badly such brush-offs are received, however. It's not good to be on the receiving end, and you have my sympathy. Uncle G (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Radiopathy has engaged in similar uncooperative, beligerent behavior over the same subject at Eagles (band), disregarding sources provided to him and offering none to support his argument (see User talk:Piriczki#The Eagles). By the way, he was placed under an indefinite 0RR restriction here and I see no indication it was ever lifted. Piriczki (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• And continues to insist he's right over and over at Talk:Red Hot Chili Peppers.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Given the 0RR restriction and history of past problems of this exact type, is there any reason why, if he reverts again, he shouldn't be blocked? --Jayron32 18:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Bzbzbzbzbzb

• Bzbzbzbzbzb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Template%3ANotes&action=history

Someone please block this vandal and clean up the history of that redirect; it's fixed positioning vandalism re Jews and 9/11 and it click-hijacks all pages using the redirect. Alarbus (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Solipsism-blocked by 28bytes; that edit he made will likely be revdel'd soon. —Jeremy v^_^v 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked and history deleted, but that should really get fixed in the edit filter. Thanks for letting us know about this Alarbus. 28bytes (talk) 18:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought this was fixed in the edit filter a few weeks back by Anomie. CU the account and your prior blockee. Alarbus (talk) 18:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I made the filter, but somehow code is being inserted into the edit that evaluates to nothing when the edit is parsed. Without access to the initially submitted wikicode (which is what the filter sees), I cannot block the edits. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You should have access to the wikicode, it's the rev-del'ed (but not oversighted) link in the template history Alarbus provided above. Just be careful and don't click anything if you don't want the target site to harvest your IP. 28bytes (talk) 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Handling this with edit filters seems like a crappy and unreliable stopgap measure. It really needs a server side fix. Is there a bugzilla ticket open? I sort of half remember one. Could someone either please find and add a note to it, or open a new one? 67.117.144.57 (talk) 18:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The edit filter is server-side. I may apply for toolserver access to run a bot that will revert these in realtime, or I'll get Chris G to fire up the adminbot AntiAbuseBot again. Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, if this happens again, could somebody please let me know. I think I've tweaked the abuse filters to potentially stop this mess, but I'm not certain. (I'm taking potshots in the dark, here.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

VenomousConcept and varieties of English

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A largish portion of User:VenomousConcept's edits are dedicated to changing varieties of English to to "proper English" without "stupid Americanisms".

Explanations have included that a disease "was discovered by an Englishman" so "it's only right that proper English should be used" and that a "European battle" should be written in "correct English".

Previously claiming to understand our policy, and having been warned several times, maybe it's all a mistake. "The word is spelt incorrectly. How am I supposed to know that some particular misspelling is used by a bunch of retards in another part of the world who are incapable of using the English language correctly?" After all, can we expect editors to "sit down and learn all the misspellings, mispronunciations and misuses of grammar that are employed in another country just to keep you happy? I think not." There's more, of course.

As a silly bitch/cow (I'm a dog-cow! Crazy scientists these days) who has been invited to fuck off I have nothing more to do here. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

"Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

12 hours is quite generous as those diffs show that he fits in here about as well as pork at a passover seder. This is one of the reasons why I don't use the block tool. I would not trust myself to be too aggressive with it when it comes to crap like this. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Summer, it might amuse you to know that we have an article about the Dogcow. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Ahem, "Moof!", said Clarus -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 02:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies to the scientists of the world. I should have said, "I'm a dog-cow! Crazy Apple people circa 1983." - SummerPhD (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• Maybe where Concept is from "Fuck off" is perfectly acceptable. Where I live, it means "fuck off". I've perused the Concept's edits a bit, and it's clear this is a long-term issue, and twelve hours is quite lenient, esp. given that they chose SummerPhD as a target for their venom. But here's what will happen: Concept will play nice after their block, and we can all live happily ever after. Or they don't (they again change spelling against guidelines or convention, call someone names, etc), in which case they'll be blocked for two weeks or more, possibly indefinitely. I'm sure Concept can understand my broken English. Drmies (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • 5 years ago, I had someone point out to me that I was doing what VenomousConcept was doing. I responded by installing the Firefox dictionary switcher. I would then cycle through all the dictionaries (us, uk, au etc) to see which spelling convention was used in the article. If it was all mixed up I would use whichever variant came first. Example, if "color" was the first variant I encountered then "labour" would be changed to "labor" if it appeared later in the article. (unless it was the British political party) Had no problems after that. If I instead responded by saying "fuck off" then things would have gone a lot different for me. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • No doubt, Ron, and I'm in complete agreement with you about the lenience of a 12 hour block. IMHO, someone who responds with "fuck off," in addition to his other hostile comments, is not just another Someone Who Doesn't Quite Get What Misplaced Pages Is About. That person is a jerk, plain and simple, because there's nowhere in the civilized world where such language or deportment is considered the proper way to handle disputes. Ravenswing 04:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • This mysterious world where "fuck off" is a neutral comment is somewhere this bitchcow doesn't need to visit anytime soon. Anyway, hopefuly this thred/block is enuff of a wakeup call for VenimousConsept and well all walk off, hand-and-hand intwo the sunset toogether. ETA: Rats! I should have said something about behavior. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've just come across this from the discussion of Stygiophobia (AfD discussion). Consider this your wakeup call, SummerPhD. From this edit and this edit it's pretty clear to me that you're now more interested in playing revert war with VenomousConcept than you are in the contents of the encyclopaedia. You didn't pay any attention to what your reversions made the encyclopaedia actually say. Focus! Uncle G (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see anything wrong with those diffs. As Favonian later said, the primary title used in the article should generally follow the article title and I'm AGF that SummerPhD claims that both are used in sources is accurate. Were you perhaps mislead by VenomousConcept's edit summary that said "so you think it should read 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra, also translated as Thus Spoke Zarathustra"? If so look carefully as the article never said that, at least not that SummerPhD reverted recently. In fact, it said and says (emphasis added)

  Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None (also translated as "Thus Spoke Tharathustra" ....

• and there's nothing wrong with that. If Spoke is also translated as Spake, then it seems to me the article should reflect this, but VenomousConcept's method of trying to add it clearly wasn't the right way.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

  • You should pay more attention, too, Nil Einne. VenemousConcept wasn't the person who added the alternative translation, and the words that you've boldfaced aren't the very clear — from the diffs — subject of the revert war. No, the revert war was very obviously SummerPhD seeing an edit by VenomousConcept, and reverting it solely because it was by VenomousConcept, not because it corrected the article in any way. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)

  Just some observations:

  • The AfD seems sound on its face - it is a stub that is more of a definition than an article - just really, really bad timing.
    • VenomousConcept's rebuttal to it makes a blatant statement of assuming bad faith on SummerPhD's part. Frankly, as pointed to above, it looks odd, but the definition is valid at this point for PRODing and AfD making the shot uncalled for.
    • Thus Spoke Zarathustra should be at the discussion point after VenomousConcept's bold change was contested. Not a continuation of trying to get the lead and the first paragraph to not match the article's title. IMO SummerPhD's actions are more in line with maintaining the integrity of the article as it currently stands. If VenomousConcept wants "Thus Spake Zarathustra" in the text, the either a list of alternate translations needs to be included - that's a 1 time thing - or the article needs to be moves.
  • - J Greb (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • You haven't read the lead, either. That makes three of you. Good grief! You make it fairly apparent why editors become frustrated to the point that they do what VenemousConcept did. You aren't paying attention, and your analysis is patently flawed to anyone who has actually bothered to look at the edit history. Open your eyes and actually read what was being written in the lead by SummerPhD, and at least make the effort to find out who actually wrote the material in the lead in the first place. It's no wonder that VenomousConcept thinks to call people names who act like this. You're not thinking or even reading. Stop demonstrating such foolishness, and editors won't get so annoyed with your ineptitude to the point that they swear at you. You're an administrator. You're supposed to be capable of reading diffs and following an edit history. Uncle G (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
      • VC and Summer seem to be cooperating at Talk:Bank of England. Maybe if we go away now and not try to highlight who did what to who here it would help? I don't think anyone is asking for an Administrator to use their tools, so this should be continued elsewhereDougweller (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
        • You don't think that anyone is asking for administrators to use administrator tools? I remind you that I arrived here from an on-going AFD discussion initiated by one of these editors against an article written by the other. That's asking for use of administrator tools, right there. Uncle G (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Jouannet

Here is my notification regarding the spoiling-like edit of Thomas Jouannet (diffs:), made by Bgwhite, Drmies, TenPoundHammer and other editors, notorious for their deletion activity.

They demonstratively deleted most of filmography related material and biographical details, also all the references, including the French ones, in obvious contradiction with other actors' pages. Also some similar practice on Alexandra Lamy' stub (diffs:). Their "improvements", including deletion requests, were "firmly within policy".

The w-donors-IRS controversy will be debated externally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coagulans (talk • contribs) 10:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

So, 3 long-time editors want something out, and 1 shorter-term one wants it in ... besides the fact that this is a content dispute that should follow WP:DR, have you read WP:CONSENSUS yet? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It's very good that they did so. The page was originally a cornucopia of BLP violations. Less importantly, it was an ugly, cluttered mess containing very poor English and even contained a Flash GIF, which made the entire article unreadable on iOS devices. This actor is not notable enough to have scurrilous gossip about his private life - and especially not his income!!! - bandered about on Misplaced Pages, even if said scurrilous gossip were sourced to reliable third parties, which this was NOT. Strongly suggest that User:Coagulans read WP:BLP and WP:MOS before editing again, because none of that was "firmly within policy". None of it. None. --NellieBly (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is for encyclopedia articles, not for fanpages: I have a very, very hard time believing that this would be an acceptable page on Misplaced Pages. --MuZemike 15:01, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Good lord. If I knew the proper procedure for speedy deletion of templates, the one on that page would be up for nuking already as completely unnecessary and non-notable. Do we need a huge navbox template where there's only ONE bluelink in the entire box? rdfox 76 (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• The real loss is this, File:Dunantanimation.gif, removed by some deletionist admin who had no feeling. The image received various interpretations on my talk page, which is indicative of the polyvalence of the work of art in question. BTW, I am perfectly happy to have the IRS monitor my activities and reprimand me for it, if that's in accordance with Misplaced Pages's laws and federal guidelines, or the other way around. Drmies (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm really upset that the OP didn't mention my edits to the article and my comment on the talk page. What does one have to do to get attention these days? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a bit creepy

A couple of days ago, User:Chiton magnificus misunderstood a comment I made to another editor and issued a misplaced warning . This included a comment that I was being talked about in other forums as being a "hardcore falklander" or "British agent". I have asked him to explain his comments twice and but he has declined. Whilst the misplaced warning is a stale issue, I remain rather creeped out that my editing is being discussed on these forums and editors here are participating. My editing does seem to have been targeted by sock and meat puppets of late eg User:Abenyosef and User:Gaba p. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I'm suprised that you are suprised. My own experience of you is that supplying references that disagree with your view can be a pretty unpleasant experience. Tom Pippens (talk) 13:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I couldn't recall any interaction with you and had to resort to Google to find it. Is this it? Please could you identify why you thought I was unpleasant to you? As to be honest I'm mystified why you thought I was unpleasant to you, or for that matter what point you were making. Do you think this justifies what is going on? Wee Curry Monster talk 14:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
    • The same thing happens to me. I forget about some users who, for whatever reason, remember me for a long time. Back on topic, I have a similar experience with users from a certain nationality. I doubt anything can be done here to actually help you out, but I'd recommend you to avoid placing your exact location, date of birth, etc., with your real name and your account name (Don't use the name "wee curry monster" for anything outside Misplaced Pages). I've known Chiton for some time, and could probably vouch for him as a generally well-intentioned person and good contributor. However, given the existence of a forum, for all we know the other people could actually be dangerous. I did a research once on this topic (internet stalking), and found a series of sad cases where people seriously got hurt (needless to say, some ended up dead). The main problem was that people did not take it seriously; one feels protected by the computer screen. However, the internet nowadays is a dangerous tool for stalkers and people with bad intentions (anyone can see whatever you post on the internet; even the best of security programs can't stop the best hackers). So, just watch what you write about yourself in the internet. Hope this helps. Regards.--MarshalN20 | 15:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I suspect "forums" is intended to mean it in the sense of "forums on Misplaced Pages" - not external sites. At least that is how the comment reads to me. --Errant 15:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Need administrative help

I know this may be a subject of dislike for most of the people. But I presume that someone may have some technical help for me.

I added some information regarding "Human's similarity to herbivores". Apparently, all my sources (mostly MD or PhD) amounted to a "vegan propaganda". I am not a Vegan. I'm really in support of truth. But simply claiming that my whole contribution is a "propaganda" is not likely an adequate reason for removal of the whole section.

My question is a fairly simple one, Is calling/labelling my edits as "propaganda" a sufficient ground for undoing all my changes(~16,503 bytes diff)? Visit this history page and the talk page.

Please do something soon. They are repeatedly deleting my additions. Without actually discussing it with me or providing any reliable source that claims anything contradictory regarding human anatomy. --DrYouMe 15:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Your problem here seems to be compound, but I suspect that the major part of it is the undue weight which your additions gave to that subject within the article on herbivores. Pesky (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic.

There are also no reliable sources for the contribution, just a webpage for a vegetarian organisation, earthsave.ca. User also engaged in a edit war, already violating the 3RR rule, and deleted my last comment in the talk page with a link to a debunk of Mr. Mills article (by a vegan even) http://veganskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/10/are-humans-omnivores.html--Mihaiam (talk) 16:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pop-up shows only 396 edits, though, so some unfamiliarity with the way we do things here is to be expected. A bit of kind mentoring is probably the best way to go. Pesky (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I did post a message on User:Mrt3366 talk page. Looks like it was deleted as "removing needless messages" without self-reverting.--Mihaiam (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've posted the welcome-with-huge-links-list there; hopefully this editor ca\n get something useful out of it. Also a link to adoption for consideration. Pesky (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

... aaaand it's all just been summarily deleted! So much for trying to help! Mind you, the editor opens their talk page with "Try not to write anything on this page unless you're absolutely sure that bringing your thoughts to my knowledge is a necessity for me. I am trying to keep it empty (mostly)," so maybe we shouldn't be surprised. Not very open to communication. Pesky (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I find it highly ironic that they refer to articles they edit as "my articles" and then goes on to link to WP:OWN. Blackmane (talk) 17:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Their user page creeped me out a little too. At the bottom is says something like "This editor has been informed of your visit". I left with the strange feeling as if I had entered a place where I was not welcome, and that there may be consequences if I do it again. Overall the atmosphere at his user page and talk page do not appear to be conducive to working productively within a collaborative project. Racerx11 (talk) 18:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed the irony of "my articles" in such close conjunction with WP:OWN. And the generally unwelcoming atmosphere. BUT' ... the editor is still a relative newbie, and obviously isn't very comfortable with social / sociable interactions. This may change; I don't think we can just write them off. Mrt3366/DrYouMe, if you're reading, you're more than welcome to wander over to my talk page and just lurk if you like, or join in if you like. We're a slightly unusual bunch over my way (I'm a HFA myself), but we're not a bad lot, and between us we have years of experience and a huge range of skills and interests. Pesky (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure--but Pesky, you're a crumpet. You could get away with murder. Drmies (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Pesky (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like he got a sockpuppet, User:Topy1991, to reinstate his change to Herbivore page, without even bothering to comment on the talk page. I cannot reverse it due to 3RR. Some administrative action may be in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mihaiam (talk • contribs) 20:39, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, dear. Pesky (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've warned the OP. I was particularly unimpressed by this. Continuation will result in a block. --John (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

vandalism

Moves of anime and manga demographics categories against prior consesus

User:Armbrust listed some anime and manga demographics categories at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy (this is my first experience with that subpage, so I don't really know how it works). He has now started moving the articles in those categories. I explained to him on his talk page that the old names were decided by consensus at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_45#Renaming_demographic_categories and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_April_21#Category:Josei, and that I didn't think the new names made sense. However, he just removed my comment without a reply and kept moving the categories. I don't think the categories should be moved from the titles which previously had a consensus without a new discussion. Can someone please get him to stop moving the pages against consensus and get him to start discussing the moves. Calathan (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If a category is listed at WP:CFDS for more than 48 hours without objection and passes the speedy criteria, than it is speedy renamed. The categories were also tagged, and everything went according to the rules. The mentioned CFD was almost two years ago, and consensus can changed. Also in this CFD, the categories were not change from "FOO anime and manga" to "FOO manga", thus this move isn't event going against that consensus. (BTW also Cydebot (talk · contribs) does this moving and this thread should be at WP:AN and not WP:ANI.) Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 16:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one informed the anime and manga wikiproject about the listing there. I don't think the people with knowledge of those subjects even saw the page during those 48 hours (as I mentioned, I hadn't even heard of that page before it showed up in edit summaries in my watchlist). I don't think there is any evidence that consensus has changed, and think a new discussion is necessary. Plus, I gave some other reasons I don't think the move should happen on your talk page. Just because the listings went unnoticed on the speedy move page doesn't mean they should be moved when the new names don't make sense. Calathan (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Than feel free to nominate the renamed categories (after the rename has finished). Armbrust, B.Ed. _{about my edits?} 16:40, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Armbrust expanded his comment while I was posting my above comment, so I'm replying to the second half of his comment. I'm posting here because you are continuing to place pages in the new category, when I think you should hold off and discuss this (see Special:Contributions/Armbrust). If this should have been at WP:AN, someone can feel free to move it, but I posted here because I thought quick intervention was needed becasue you were actively editing the pages. I still think it is inappropriate to continue with the move without discussion after I explained reasons why I think it doesn't make sense. Since it looks like a simple objection is enough to stop a WP:CFDS move, I would assume an objection after the fact is also sufficient to require a discussion (similar to how prod works). Calathan (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment as closing admin As stated by User:Armbrust, the categories were listed for 48 hours on the Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy page - here is that page immediately before I moved them for processing. They met all the requirements for a speedy rename, namely that the new names were based on the conventions of the category tree, the nomination had been open for at least 48 hours, and nobody had objected (one user suggested an alternative new name for an individual category which was accepted by the proposer but there was not substantial objection). In such circumstances they were fit for processing. These categories are some of the slowest to process - I believe this is because many of the individual articles are rather large. Consequently despite being over three hours since they were listed on the working page, the bot is still only on the first of these categories and is committed to keep going until all the articles in these categories have been moved, no matter how long it takes. In such circumstances all help in processing the move is welcomed as it speeds things up and allows the rest of the CFD decisions to be implemented. It's not a question of if but when. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:48, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Now that I've objected though, can the categoy pages be moved back (similar to how deleted prods are restored upon request), or is a discussion necessary to move them since they sat there for 48 hours. The process sounds like a prod-like process to me, where a simple objection stops it, but is it more of a binding decision like an XFD discussion? Would moving the category pages back stop the bot from going through the individual articles and moving them? Calathan (talk) 16:58, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

For clarification, the moves I'm objecting to are the moves of the Shōnen manga, Shōjo manga, Seinen manga, Josei manga, and Children's manga categories. I'm not objecting to the moves of the other categories. Calathan (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If any admin or experienced user can explain to me (here or on my talk page) whether a CFD is the right way to try to get these categories changed back, or if there is another way to have them moved back, I would greatly appreciate it. It still isn't quite clear to me if just objecting after the fact should get them moved back, like how you can object after the fact to a prod and get the article restored (since no discussion took place). Regardless, with Timrollpickering's explanation, I don't think I want any admin action against Armbrust, so this discussion can probably be closed unless anyone else has more to say. However, Armbrust, in the future when someone posts on your talk page and says they don't understand or agree with what you are doing, please don't just blow them off without a reply and continue on doing what you were doing. Calathan (talk) 18:03, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid the bot will just keep going until it's moved them - we're in a grey area because normally the time between closure & finishing processing is much shorter so there's little in the way of precedents to abort a processing and discuss anew. Because of the sheer length of time this processing is taking I'd be reluctant to do any further moves on these categories before more discussions take place. Normally once a discussion is closed it's binding, though in any subsequent discussions admins will take into account how recent a change was made. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to go ahead and create a CFD on these categories. By the time the CFD closes, the current moves should be done. Thank you for the help. Calathan (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

If the bot is mucking with 100's or 1000's of articles because of a catmove that shouldn't have been done, can someone block it / reset it / whatever? Me, I find it pretty annoying that such a large move could take place without a more substantial discussion. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Except the move was wholly within process - whether or not it needs to be moved back is another matter. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Meh, process should never get in the way of doing the right thing. However, it looks like enough people (including some who I know are clueful about this stuff) commented on the CFD supporting the move, that stopping the bot probably would have been dubious. It had sounded like it was just one or two people, in which case I'd have said contact them and discuss the issue. Spewing yet another N thousand useless edits into the diff stream isn't the end of the world, but it's also not completely inconsequential. 67.117.144.57 (talk) 05:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like you are misunderstanding a little. The current CFD is the one I started to get the move undone. There wasn't a discussion supporting the move before hand, just a listing on CFDS with no comments about these categories. Still, stopping the bot probably wouldn't have made sense as it was most of the way done when you first commented, and it really isn't a problem to have the categories moved back later. Calathan (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat

All my recent edits were reverted by this user for no reason. What can I do? 119.237.156.246 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could try talking to him about it and asking him why he reverted you. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, since you seem to have missed the bit about notifying people you report here, I have notified him of this thread. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

An anonymous Hong Kong IP playing revert wars on the same pages as previous blocked Hong Kong IPs and arguing on talk pages? How surprising. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)—Preceding undated comment added 16:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC).

Indeed; obvious Instantnood socks are obvious. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Can someone kill it? SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere

Editor above was warned to control his tongue (very politely, and i also asked to discuss and started a section at Talk: George Tupou V) after this. He then believes he OWNS the article (vs. WP:WRONGVERSION and BRD), he then imposes his whim and asserts no sources are needed for what he believes as eternal truth, then culminates after warning with a blatant NPA

In case its just me the same exists on other royalty pages on his premise against WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.Lihaas (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the edit summaries you have provide, I think you are exaggerating. Leaky Caldron 19:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

In what way? He was warned and THEN abuses? that he wants HIS version (that was explicitly said)?Lihaas (talk) 19:13, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• I agree I think Lihaas is making too much out of nothing here and is bordering on edit warring on the page with more than just the editor he has brought this dispute over. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 19:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
• "Don't be a total ass"--well, I guess sometimes that's a personal attack but it is sooooo mild that I can't see this is a big deal. Does everyone who farts when someone else can hear it have to be brought before ANI? Drmies (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

God knows i havent pioneered that...even ive farted before ;)

saying "dont be a total ass" is civil and conducieve to discussion?

How in any way/form/mean is : "but I will absolutely not let you slide this by as the status quo until you are convinced" --> per WP:WRONGVERSION and BOLD edits mean BRD to get consensus not to stick to one way with an abject refusal ("I don't need an RS") to use cite and go to the whims of one WP editor who thinks hes god almighty professor be acceptable on ANY level? If WP was owned by editors without any citations god knows the kind of suff laden with pov that would be here.

Further, despite the fact that said user would rather abuse and impose his status quo while hypocritically saying he wont tolerate "mine" (that is in line with BRD too) there is a discussion on the talk page with OTHER editors and an easy accomodation "you could just wait until the facts are known" instead of warring and adamentally refuse the need to even cite or accomodate.

Any rate, im just calling for discussion not imposing anything or reverting/warring...at the very LEAST a warning/slight reprimand is in order id think for deliberately ignoring and using said summaries repeatedly without consensus building

For the record, ALL three articles he reverts to have his "expert" opinion as the status quo ...which is in stark contrast to his words "i will not havve YOUR version being the status quo" (emphasis added)

See the talk page and CIVIL discussion with others (as i asked)...was that hard? did he need to blow his top with language? i was going to withdraw this but i wont...hes still wrong and ill wait for an admin to see itLihaas (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

This particular admin has reviewed the edits complained of, and there's nothing to see I'm afraid Lihaas. There is some minor intemperance in edit summaries (I have asked the editor concerned to tone them down.) Otherwise, nothing actionable here. Kim Dent-Brown 08:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

New Class Project Article

I encountered Northwest Kansas Technical College earlier today and nominated it for speedy deletion as a test page. In the course of advising the user to utilize the sandbox, I noticed that their talk page is implying a username with multiple users attempting to complete a university project with inadequate experience. I have advised them to use the Sandbox, but the two previous speedies on their page suggest that they made need additional help. As it stands, the article I mentioned was speedied by WikiDan61 on 3/14, but was re-created by the user on 3/16. They have not responded to any talk page messages, and it is possible that they may not understand the significance thereof. CittaDolente (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

• No one else has edited that page or its previous installments--rather than a project, this is someone from the college giving them their article. That's a great thing, but the username is unacceptable. I will delete the article (and there is nothing worth userfying), block the user name, and leave them a note. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One of the online ambassadors should probably reach out to this school. They are likely editing in good faith, but just don't know how to get started. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 22:05, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Baseless accusations by HudsonBreeze

HudsonBreeze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is accusing me of canvassing Grandiose (talk · contribs), Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs) and BoogaLouie (talk · contribs) to gain support in an RfC on Talk:Sri Lanka. I can guarantee that I have never communicated with these editors prior to the RfC and they too have rejected the accusations. He has not provided any evidence to support his claims. These baseless and continuous accusations has made it literally impossible to proceed with a discussion to resolve the dispute regarding the Sri Lanka article. It has been fully protected for the 7th time within 8 months! Worst part is that the issue which paved the way for an RfC, is not regarding a controversial historical fact, but on a structural matter. HudsonBreeze is accusing the non-involved editors who have bothered to comment are ignorant of complex geo-political issues, whereas RfC is asking something completely different; more of a common sense problem. I previously warned him of lack of good-faith dealing with issues on Talk:Sri Lanka, only to receive more accusations in return. As his comments suggest, the user has strong political convictions, and is not ready to tolerate any opposing views. I believe that without administrator involvement, we are not going to see an end to this problem. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 20:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What sort of administrative involvement are you asking for? A warning? Block? 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

His whirlpool of accusations has made it impossible to deal in good faith to obtain a stable version of this article. He says he is 100% certain that these editors have been canvassed, and flatly rejects their opinions. I'm not sure what is the administrative procedure with SPAs like this. Whatever the action taken, it must ensure that this level 4-vital country article is not held hostage due to accusations of a single editor. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 04:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Why are you expecting Admin involvement? I accused you, even from the very beginning you are trying to be a mouthpiece of so called non-involved editors and trying to protect them. So there is a possibility you might have invited them to comment and then to capitalize those comments. I asked one of those non-involved editors, whether he participated in any other RfCs before he commented on Sri Lanka RfC, and the answer is something else that he or she is with 10, 000 edits on Misplaced Pages. And then he is coming out that there is currently a RfC on Talk:Northern Ireland and he or she has commented there rather answering to my question. And that creates me to believe he or she might have been canvassed most probably by you on a Structural issue of a deadly Civil War which was waged by the Sri Lankan Government in the last phase with a "War without Witness" with 40, 000 killings of ethnic Tamil minority by 99.9% Sinhalese dominated Sri Lankan Army under the pretext of a "Humanitarian Rescue Mission" against LTTE which waged a war for last 30 years with the prime objective for an independent homeland for the minority Tamils.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Good. More accusations! You accused me of being a mouthpiece of the "so-called" non-involved editors regarding this comment. But what I said there was that your reply to Grandiose was too hostile, thus inappropriate. Now, is that being someone's mouthpiece? You say you accuse me of bringing these editors to this RfC. If so, why not provide some evidence, without coming up with more speculations, to support your view? I must be asking this for the 5th time now. Your excessive commentary about political issues is irrelevant. Please focus on what we are discussing here. ASTRONOMYINERTIA (TALK) 18:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

RPP on The Midnight Beast

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We appear to have a twitter organized vandalism spree at this page, I've listed it at RPP but two hugglers have been unable to keep up with it all. Fast-paced-multi-IP editing that is decimating the article. Pol430 talk to me 21:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

On the assumption that the registered editors who are also vandalising it are not autoconfirmed, I've semi-protected it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Boing! From what i could see most of them are new accounts today, so semi should do the trick. Pol430 talk to me 21:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Yep, all new - and now all indef blocked as vandalism-only accounts. I'll keep it on my watchlist for when the protection expires. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Activity on Joachim Gauck

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I ask that an admin intervene with the scenario on this article. It is about the newly elected German president so edits come in thick and fast. Because this individual originates from once-East German territory, there is the usual recipe for conflicting usage. I have tried (with the most recent edits) to clean the article by removing terms such as "dictatorship" and "regime" which are either WEASEL words, or blatantly-POV. No party uses such terms for themselves. Be that as it may, there is hardly ever a situation where they cannot be avoided. For example, I favour state over dictatorship when the term is being used for "country"; here, "dictatorship" (sourced or not) is just a provocation. I may appear at this stage to be edit-warring but a closer look will reveal that I have made changes even to my own edits. I have also been accused of vandalism by one of the others involved, User:Josh Gorand who also described me as disruptive. I am certainly not here to report my own self but I know that further edits by me on the same topic might only be detremental. This is why I ask that an admin look at my edits, and those which revert me, and decide which is best. I would be grateful. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 23:47, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The only ongoing problem with this article is your unilateral edits against several other editors. The discussion on the talk page agreed that dictatorship was the appropriate term, and is the term used by the source. You cannot change it to a term of your own choice, ignoring what the source says, ignoring the discussion on the talk page. Regime is a neutral term in English as explained to you, used in thousands of Misplaced Pages articles. Josh Gorand (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Regime isn't neutral as I too have explained, and consensus is irrelevant. Everyone knows that a one-party system spells dictatorship but was that the subject? Gauck has misfortune with East Germany alone, that was a country, we already stated "totalitarian" so unless you can explain what a "totalitarian system that isn't a dictatorship" is, I fail to see where the "consensus" helps this context. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

No, consensus is not "irrelevant". Consensus is the relevant issue. It is explained on the talk page why dictatorship is the correct and appropriate term in the specific context, changing it to "contributed to the downfall of the Soviet-backed state of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany" is misleading, the key issue is the downfall of the party dictatorship referred to as the SED Dictatorship by the German government (months before the state ceased to exist). Josh Gorand (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Look at the full picture. First the "dictatorship" falls, in other words, the government. The fall of the government means that another form of governance has replaced it, that body in turn is West Germany (FRG), so East has fallen and Germany has "reunified", the state fell. Or atleast the government if anything else. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

1) The dictatorship of the SED party fell 2) East Germany became democratic and had a democratic election 3) Only several months later, East Germany ceased to exist as a state. The relevant issue was Gauck's contribution to the downfall of the party dictatorship (aka the Peaceful Revolution), not the state. Josh Gorand (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I will leave "dictatorship" per consensus. I may yet edit the page but it will be aimed at improving the article not looking for conflict with editors. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 00:16, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• WP:DR is thatway. 140.247.141.165 (talk) 00:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Returning sock of User:Xanderliptak?

Pratt232

Oddly, this user has uploaded an image created by long-banned Xanderliptak (an image which was previously deleted, partially due to his attempts to rescind copyright licencing, partly because of his insistence that they retain his signature). Xanderliptak has socked before, this won't be the first time. Yes, I'll go to SPI if necessary but this user only just popped up on my radar and should be nipped in the bud. → ROUX ₪ 05:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm calling that  Likely. Also Pratt232 (talk · contribs) and JDF6574 (talk · contribs) are the same editor. He's also logging out to edit-war - Alison 05:41, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Both blocked, a couple of images G5ed, checking for others. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

JDF6574 also exists at Commons, created in November, and one coat-of-arms thing uploaded: No Pratt232 at Commons, as near as I can tell. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't appear he uploaded that, just edited the description. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 06:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

It was uploaded by an editor with a suspiciously (though possibly coincidentally) similar name, and who remains active, has done a lot of coat-of-arms work, and has never been blocked: ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 06:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Patrick's Day

On Patrick's Day, an IP pointed out that "Patty's Day" is not the correct spelling of the nickname Paddy's Day and requested that it be removed from the infobox as it causes some offence to people in Ireland. The IP was slapped down saying that this would be "censorship" but in fact it makes sense to try to explain this. It is easy to explain, because intervocalic /t/ and /d/ are reduced to an identical intervocalic alveolar-flapping in North American English. Since the status quo of the article was unacceptable, I attempted to write text about the situation. Oh no! I got accused of Original Research. Of course "common knowledge" is not OR, but you know how it goes. So a sentence, with a footnote, gets put into the lead, with a request to discuss the text on the Talk Page. The sort of edit I have made hundreds of times. Two editors, User:Murry1975 and User:Escape_Orbit, instead of discussing the text (as requested) just keep blanking it, and now the former has even thought it sensible to "warn" me about the 3RR on my own Talk Page, as though I were some sort of newbie. (I'm an admin on the Irish Wiki and have just been made admin in the Volapük Wiki). User:Murry1975 suggested I file an ANI, which is why I'm here, though I don't know whether it will do any good. This crap sure makes one despise the Misplaced Pages though. -- Evertype·✆ 14:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

If your all of those things you should know better than edit warring a disputed addition into an article - No one cares who despises[REDACTED] - its irrelevant. As for the issue - all that paddys day and pattys day is just the beer drinking celebrations, the main focus of the article is on the religious festival, some people are also offended by the paddy expression and it is sometimes seen as an insult, and its better left out of the lede. - and the infobox.Youreallycan 15:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

What? St. Patrick's Day is not all about drinking! It's about...well...let me get back to you after I finish this beer here. --MuZemike 15:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, "Paddy" offends a very few people and only in the context of certain types of jokes or abuse. The term "Paddy's Day" offends no one in Ireland at all. And huge numbers of people are actually named Paddy. And nobody is agaist "Paddy's Day" appearing in either the infobox or the lead. The problem raised here is about the term "Patty's Day". And thanks for the levity, but I'd like this to be taken seriously. -- Evertype·✆ 15:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I have a good Irish friend called Paddy, but I also have a couple more I Irish friends that find it offensive. - Paddy - offensive name for ...bigots ... - It doesn't belong in the lede like your desirous of. - Add a small paragraph in the body of the article. Youreallycan 15:15, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi guys havin' fun today? Joking aside, WP:BLUE is bieng misused, as it is making the direct connection between the American sounding of 'tt' and 'dd' and the usage of Patty's Day. The main point there is actually no proof that as pointed out, by certain editors, that it is a mistake that should be removed from the article, right now the weekend thats in it I can find a lot of sources stating Patty's day. We have discussed the text and it has previously been discussed User:Evertype has inserted hisown referene in the article not attributing it to a source and breached the 3RR. I am juggling a few things today and havent came across anything clear cut. The removal seems to be WP:CENSORship because of dislike of Patty, btw for the record I dont like it personally but unless I can show it doesnt belong I am not going to remove the thing. Murry1975 (talk) 15:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I see no reliable sources for Patty's Day in the first few pages of a Google search. I do see a site devoted to making the Paddy/Patty distinction, so it's obviously out there, but IMO it doesn't need mentioning in the article itself. Not really an AN/I matter, but I understand you were asked to bring it here. Kim Dent-Brown 15:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Kim Patty is used widely in the North aAMerican media and some other global sources. @Strange Passerby, I dont think a block on anyone is merited other than Evertype, as the reverts I made were for lack of source which is allowed, I can not speak on behalf of Escape Orbit and I can not act for him either. Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to cite some reliable sources for that. I see you saying that "I can find a lot of sources stating Patty's day" but I don't see any here, on the article or on a Google search for the same term. Even if there are some, to give it equal billing with other contractions such as "Paddys Day" would be a violation of WP:UNDUE, in my opinion. Kim Dent-Brown 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that you don't see Patty's Day in the results for a search for "Patty's Day" because your using google uk. I get lots of results when I search. --Onorem♠Dil 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I'm getting about twice as many results for "Patty's Day" as I am for "Paddy's Day" on both versions. I'm not saying they're all reliable sources...but evidence does appear to be there. --Onorem♠Dil 16:00, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

85+million for Patty angainst 46+million for Paddy. Murry1975 (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont like Patty but its out there in abundance, I dont think it should be omitted or degraded without a resonable source. Thats the point of my reverts. Murry1975 (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This an interesting interpretation of events by Evertype. Evertype has a theory about why some refer to "St Patty's Day" with a t, and not the "correct" (as Evertype has determined) St Paddy's Day. Evertype doesn't have any source for this theory, because Evertype came up with it as original research. After I removed Evertype's additions I requested that they were discussed, and that they were cited. Evertype responded by saying it wasn't original research, it shouldn't have been removed and reinserted it. I've tried to explain the the onus is on Evertype to support these additions, but am not getting very far. I don't believe anyone is edit warring, but it does need pointed out that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your ideas. A discussion is occurring on the talk page, but has reached a bit of an impasse. --Escape Orbit 17:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• - User:Evertype is an admin on the Irish Wiki and have just been made admin in the Volapük Wiki with four reverts and he should be blocked for his edit warring - Youreallycan 15:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
  • All three of them deserve blocking for edit warring, really, imo. Evertype has clearly violated 3RR and arguably Murry1975 and Escape Orbit have teamed up to game 3RR too. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Haven't seen this before

Could anyone available please take a look at the second paragraph in this section Macbeth#Sources. There is some obvious vandalism (Harry Potter etc) there when you read it. But when you go into edit the section it isn't there. The vandalism might be in a template somewhere but I don't have a clue where to go to find it. Thanks to any of you who can track this down. MarnetteD | Talk 15:37, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see it... perhaps your cache needs to be refreshed? The vandalism was reverted by ClueBot. 28bytes (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

I think I must have been caught in between versions. It did disappear after I went into the edit history and found ClueBots reversion. Thanks again for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 15:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards