Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:05, 5 November 2015

Archives

Archive 1

Hi

Check this out: Hassan Ghashghavi. My creation!--Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 04:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC) I'm

• Why was Ankasoprah2 unblocked? His history of reilgious insults and claims of "propaganda" are extensive; calling an editor "a Jewish POV pusher," "illegitimate Israel #1 terrorist" on an editors talk page, addressed to a Shia editor - "Shias are always looking for a reason to eat pork," claims an editor is part of "Jewish Propaganda" , and these are just a few from the past 3-4 days alone. Given this, should the block be reinstated. Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 14:42, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The editor did apologize and seems contrite. Blocks are preventative and not punitive. The editor's editing seems better but I also note it at ANI with no response indicating that the same problems are continuing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Khamenei – 2015 nuclear agreement

Hi. Since you are contributing to the article and you seem to be an impartial editor, I'd like to know your opinion about this? Thanks--Shazaami (talk) 04:33, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Request reconsideration of enforcement action

@Rick:, 08:41, 28 August 2015 you kindly asked for a few days to reconsider your recent discretionary sanction enforcement action. Your notification stated two bases for the discretionary sanction enforcement action:

1. ...you chose to represent this as "a recommendation to step back" from said article which you stated as part of another Arbitration Enforcement Request against another editor (something which I do not find remotely amusing or cute). Misleading others by pretending that you were in some way, shape or form stepping back from the dispute, so that you look better as part of this enforcement tit-for-tat game is not appropriate.

   Please assume good faith, the recent report at WP:AE was not tit for tat, it was not a game, it was a good faith effort to be part of the solution, a sincere request for a review of some behavior, aimed at addressing what in my best judgement was a real problem in the project areas of the Tea Party movement and American politics cases. The report was declined, but the facts of the reported behavior were not contested. I deeply sympathize with your completely understandable mounting frustration regarding frivolous, pointed, retaliatory noticeboard reports directed at administrators of our project, such as recently directed at you and others; this was not that.
   I did not include the ban in the initial statement of the report at WP:AE because I did not know it was relevant. I was not prompted by the request submission form to summarize my recent history. I did not explain the delay in filing the report in the initial statement because I did not know there was a delay that needed explaining. I did not know of the statute of limitations. I did not understand "stale." There was no intent to conceal. This was my second AE report.
   17:33, 23 August 2015 George asked why the delay, and within hours 23:11, 23 August 2015 the reported user jumped in with the answer, "Hugh was banned," before I could answer. 23:47, 23 August 2015 another @editor: jumped in, confirming the answer with a diff and pinging George who originally had the question. By the time I saw the question the next day, I had nothing to add to the previous answers. 09:44, 24 August 2015 I quipped "I was asked to step back" after the ban was clearly and prominently in the record, knowing no one would take me literally. No one did. No one was deceived. There was no intent to deceive. There was no deception.
   As a sidecar, as you know, it is literally true that you did ask me to step back:

   ...Take two weeks off in full from this issue. These two weeks...will give you a rest from the daily routine of that page and hopefully everything can be better evaluated with a little space...

   but deliberately understating the situation for comic effect was stupid in that I should know by now everything I do will be interpreted in the worst possible light.

2. ...the fact that you would welcome a user with the username User:Kochtruth and encourage this behavior without a second thought is enough.

   It is not enough. Yes, at User_talk:Kochtruth I used twinkle to welcomed a new user called User:Kochtruth. I welcome a lot of new users. I welcome every new user I can, every new user I encounter that has not already been welcomed. Check my edit history. I guess I sort of noticed the user name was one that would not last, but I saw no threat to our project that warranted bringing up the bad news about his unfortunate choice of moniker on the guy's first day with us.
   Yes, I interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth to thank him for his initial contribution. I thank all new users for their initial contribution, if I can, that is, if it is not outright harmful; don't you? Here the initial contribution was rough but obviously good faith, well-intention, referenced however poorly, and genuinely helpful in addressing a subtopic seriously under-represented in our article with respect to copious reliable sources.
   Yes, I interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth to recommend fleshing out the initial contribution with secondary and tertiary references; good advice, advice that I stand by, and by the way a plan that is being implemented as we speak, and I would like to help.
   No policy or guideline requires anyone to report a new user with a bad name within 24 hours. No member of our community has every been sanctioned for not reporting a bad user name. No member of our community has every been sanctioned for merely interacting with a new editor who was later asked to change their user name. Another editor interacted with a user called User:Kochtruth at article talk Talk:Koch Industries as well during his brief career as an editor, please see. No one reported the user name. Are we both subject to discretionary sanction enforcement?

In summary, please assume good faith; there was no violation of policy, guideline, or general or discretionary sanctions. Thank you for your kind reconsideration. Hugh (talk) 21:27, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

No, I'd like to see evidence that you can take a step back and act more appropriate in controversial topics before re-considering it. The initial single-page topic ban was due to a very, very disruptive RFC you created. The AE discussion was related to Arthur Rubin and did not require any explanation on your conduct but you chose to engage in it with a let's say supremely rose-colored view of your actions. And before my comment, JzG had commented regarding the drama around your editing. I started with a single sentence correcting it but I saw that it was part of a pattern of behavior whereby you engage in disruptive behavior and then bludgeon everyone who disagrees with you. You are free to request an appeal of the sanctions at AE though but comments wasting people's time like these here tells me that you may need a broader topic ban or an outright block if you can't learn to act civil. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Again I ask please reconsider your recent administrator action. You are accountable for your actions as an administrator. In particular, you are responsible for your notifications. Your notification stated two justifications for your recent discretionary sanctions enforcement action. You are accountable for the accuracy and completeness of your notifications. It is completely unfair for you to broaden your allegations when asked for reconsideration. Here on user talk, I am willing to discuss broader issues you may have with me, but please understand that if this goes further to a notice board, I will ask you to please focus on the specific justifications you gave in your notification. Also, if you want to broaden the discussion to broader issues of my behavior, please understand I may comment on aspects of your behavior as an administrator of our project.

"a very, very disruptive RFC you created" That was the first RfC I drafted and launched. Yes, I created an RfC after EdJohnston urged me to be part of the solution. The RfC discussion was vigorous and contentious and the RfC failed. If it was in your opinion "very, very disruptive" it wasn't all me.

"The AE discussion was related to Arthur Rubin" The AE request was declined, but the reported behavior was not contested, and the filing was not harassment. I understand you are very very sensitive to reports against administrators, including yourself and other fellow administrators. You feel admins are unfairly targeted and I agree. Admins are also human and vulnerable to emotion and lax judgement just like everybody else. I am here on your talk page trying to avoid filing a report against an administrator.

"did not require any explanation" Respectfully disagree. You are responsible for your notifications of your actions as an administrator. You are responsible for answering questions regarding your actions as an administrator. This is not the first time you have clearly stated this attitude in talk, shall I list them? This attitude is not serving you well or serving our project well.

"JzG had commented regarding the drama around your editing" He has the mop, why didn't you leave the ban to him, if he has such a well-informed handle on the "drama" around my editing and who is to blame and who is a threat to our project. To me your comment is telling because in my opinion you are at times suggestible, overly quick to act and have a tendency to act without due diligence, all of which tendencies are highly valued in an administrator by some when the are looking for that kind of admin when it suits their purposes. You were asked to get involved at AE and you made some friends with your ban, good for you. It's a lot of work to dig through a week's edits presented without dates, edit summaries, or context, but if you did, you might see, wait a sec, there's bans to go around here, no one person is the source of "drama."

"a pattern of behavior whereby you engage in disruptive behavior" Thank you very much for your feedback on my behavior. This pattern was not mentioned in your notification. Bludgeon was not mentioned in your notification. Hugh (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

In summary, your ban was unjustified. Please reconsider. Hugh (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Ricky81682 is supposed to suck up bludgeoning, but onlookers might ask for another admin to take action if it continues. See one response at User talk:Dennis Brown#Request feedback. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Your points have been made but my mind hasn't changed. Again, you have every right to appeal any sanctions at WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you! Ankhsoprah2 (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:1912 establishments in French Morocco

Category:1912 establishments in French Morocco, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 06:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:1807 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire

Category:1807 disestablishments in the Holy Roman Empire, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 09:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Category:1977 in Moldova

Category:1977 in Moldova, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Tim! (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dorra Group (September 5)

Notices moved to User:Paradigm Solutions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Template:Cite doi

is already deprecated on this wiki, together with template:cite pmid and such. A bot is automatically substituting those into articles, and some automated process will likely delete all those abandoned templates. I believe there is no use nominating them and flooding User talk:Citation bot with notes - user:Citation bot created zillions of them, and its talk is watched by many editors who want to have the bot operational ASAP (the bot was blocked for updating its code, which became unusable after recent Mediawiki updates; it is being repaired by WMF programmers). Materialscientist (talk) 03:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it being done? Point me to the bot then. Template talk:Cite doi shows that there's an argument demanding a new RFC and ignoring the prior one. Misplaced Pages:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 5 shows a keep for keeping the template (which is worthless if there are automatic substitutions going on). The number of pages at Category:Cite doi templates seems the same (and is still Special:RecentChangesLinked/Category:Cite_doi_templates in heavy use). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But I will remember not to notify the template creation in the future. Sorry, that was forgetful of me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:12, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see User:Dexbot is doing the removals. Sorry, I just saw the new round of arguments and figured it was being ignored and delayed yet again. The orphaned subpages aren't being dealt with at the moment but we'll see. Is there a plan for that? Would those fall under G6? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know. Dexbot started its real work only recently (its was misbehaving on its first substitution runs), and the story with WMF repairing Citation bot is also very recent. I do hope those templates will be deleted en masse by a bot - there are just too many of them for manual deletion. Materialscientist (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. There was enough hostility at the RFC, after the RFC (including some particularly uncivil and insultingly critical remarks on those support of depreciation) and these new rounds of arguments that it seems like more rounds of "people are too dumb to realize how important this is so it doesn't really matter" to me. Is there a central discussion place for this? I'd be willing to help out and delete the orphaned subpages under G6 if that's the relevant criteria (if not, we'll just dump them at MFD in listing and then do it anyways). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Destruction of evidence". Thank you.
Seems to be about you anyway. All this is really familiar..... Three letters come to mind; a 'W', an 'O', and a 'P'.... -- Orduin 22:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Italian sentiment is alive and well, I see. EEng (talk) 19:40, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We made it to the DailyKos!

Actually I'm not at all happy about it]. I'm not sure that banning the IP would mater but I think a perma-ban of VVUSA who seems to have been involved would be good at this point. ] Is this something that should be raised to a higher level? Springee (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC) I did a bit more digging. The IP address just happens to be from Chicago... HughD's town. The article not only mentions me by name but also Arthur Rubin, Capitalismojo, and AdventurousSquirrel with links to the associated user pages. Springee (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Quoted from the comment section,

We are not a formal organization, as we addressed on Misplaced Pages, itself. Only one user accessed the account, per Misplaced Pages rules.

Per "quacking", the users involved did not merely "defend" the Kochs, but often aggressively ganged together and seemingly always took the position that negative information (no matter what it was) was unsuitable to be presented.

by WeAreKochs on Tue Sep 08, 2015 at 10:49:24 PM PDT

The above would imply that VVUSA was not being truthful when claiming he was an individual vs a group. Springee (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Springee: The links don't work for me. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Arthur Rubin: Which ones? I didn't link directly to the article. You would have to click on the first link which takes you to an edit of the recent ANI by an IP address. That IP address added the DK link. Hope that helps. Springee (talk) 15:13, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This comment I believe. It may not be WP:ROLE issue but it's still problematic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

And it appears that HughD again is welcoming questionable "friends" ]. HughD posted a "welcome" to the user page of the IP who kindly mentioned the DailyKos article that VVUSA wrote. Given that the IP's only involvement was with a Koch associated edit does this count as HughD getting involved in Koch whiled banned from doing as much? Springee (talk) 18:56, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

HughD you can take to WP:AE. It's questionable and not productive but I hate political articles with a passion for these reasons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I have created a new ANI to address the VVUSA's attacks and posting on off-wiki sites. ] Springee (talk) 17:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor. I suspect we'll see an update from the DailyKos stream soon enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, sorry I missed most of the hubbub, all. Have been rendered dumbstruck by the truth-blitz for the last few days. They seem to now be indicting WP as a whole in some ways (under the section "Misplaced Pages Editors' Response", in particular), and part of me wants to defend the process to them and any DailyKos readers who might still be seeking out more answers, though the better part of me knows that that wouldn't make any difference and I'm probably not the right person to do it anyways. For any role I've had in the series of events that lead to the off-site harassment and outing of other editors' online (or real life) identities, I'm truly sorry - luckily, as an actual squirrel, I myself am mostly unaffected by it. If anyone has any suggestions on how I/we can prevent further similar trolling and harassment in the future, I'd be happy to hear and discuss them. For starters, Ricky, I know you advised me not to throw allegations around at folks like Veritas, and I'll certainly make an effort to do that. AdventurousSquirrel (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

As I stated at User_talk:VeritasVincitUSA#Blocked, the DailyKos page was the way for VeritasVincitUSA to advocate the way they wanted so I guess they used it. The comments show that there are some people who do question the claims so that's good at least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Milton Kohn has been accepted

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Misplaced Pages. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Misplaced Pages!

Dry places in New Jersey

Following the "keep" closure for the CFD of Category:Dry places in New Jersey, I've followed the closer's recommendation and submitted a new CFD to rename it to Category:Dry municipalities in New Jersey. Please offer your opinion at Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16 if you have one. Nyttend (talk) 15:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi

If you find time for it please take a look at Security-related bills. Any help appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Penbat/Dominic Frisby

Can u delete User talk:Penbat/Dominic Frisby please as it isnt going to happen.--Penbat (talk) 09:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Just the talk page? It's deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoops i meant User:Penbat/Dominic Frisby as well.--Penbat (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

MfD needed?

I'm on mobile but take a look at User:Deaths in 2013. EEng (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban violation?

Hi Ricky. You recently closed this AN/I discussion with a topic ban from all articles related to Inclusive Democracy against User:John sargis and User:Panlis. I have just spotted this edit by the former to Takis Fotopoulos. It is a pretty minor edit and not controversial, but I wanted to get your advice on whether this is a violation of the ban and, if so, whether action should be taken? I'm unfamiliar with the enforcement of topic bans, so please excuse my ignorance. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I now see that Randykitty has already reported this, so please ignore my questions. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:23, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

WP Comics

You know you've just added WP Comics to a bunch of categories that already had WikiProject Comics? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 09:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Anything other than Category talk:1933 comics debuts? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I guess not. A whole whack of them showed up on my watchlist, and I assumed the same thing was happening to all of them. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I decided to focus on those that don't exist first after I realized that one. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

My user page

What's wrong with it? Does it violate policy? Deaths in 2013 (talk)23:22, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It's being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Deaths in 2013. The point is "Userspace is not a free web host and should not be used to indefinitely host pages that look like articles, old revisions, or deleted content, or your preferred version of disputed content.". -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

AfC banners

Hello, Ricky81682. I notice that you are adding WikiProject Articles for Creation banners to the talk pages of drafts. You may not be aware that the AFCH script adds these automatically when the page is accepted. Is there some reason you are adding them early?—Anne Delong (talk) 01:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't aware it did that. However, I also noticed Category:Draft-Class AFC articles so it seemed like some AFC submissions were already tagged before being accepted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject draft class

Thanks for this edit summary - I was either unaware of or forgot that WikiProject templates were now Draft:-namespace compatible. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I'm the odd duck with those. I'm pushing at WP:ALERTS to include alerts when drafts move to G13 eligibility as I think that's an alert that those projects will find immensely helpful and where they can be a huge help as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Question about editing ban

Hello: I have a question about another user's editing ban, and since you're the editor who enacted the ban, I'm asking you. The editor in question is User:HughD. On August 28 you imposed a one-year broad topic ban on him regarding "all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly, including but not limited to anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers." I noticed he violated this ban on September 30 when he edited Institute for Energy Research, which features content about the Kochs. I brought this up with him on his talk page , and he self-reverted . Today I noticed that he edited on American Legislative Exchange Council , another article featuring content about the Kochs. What is the next step in ensuring adherence to the editing ban? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the Koch connection at ALEC. I will revert. Hugh (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

An update on this: not only did Hugh fail to self-revert as he said he would, he just now made another edit to ALEC after acknowledging he understood this type of editing to be in violation of his topic ban. Color me miffed. Safehaven86 (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake. I see I was already reverted. Sorry again. Hugh (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Another update...the edits by Hugh to Koch-related articles have still not stopped. Latest is here . Not sure what the protocol is in these situations, but he has not professed an intention to attempt to comply with the block, and seems to be going full steam ahead with continuing to edit articles from which he was clearly topic-banned. Is this an issue to take up at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Thanks. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

The proper place is WP:AE. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. For some reason I thought that was only for ArbCom enforcement. I'll file an enforcement request there shortly. Safehaven86 (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it's for sanctions based on Arbcom cases. The case allowed for discretionary sanctions and thus AE is for violations of discretionary sanctions as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

DRV

You're up at DRV.

Thank you

Thank you, Ricky so much for the advice about the images. We clearly have different views about deleting the userpage under discussion, but thank you for honorable conduct in allowing me enough time to state my case. Hope all is well. --A.S. Brown (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I asked at Talk:Konrad_Adenauer#Unreadable_prose as well because I don't know why the edits were all removed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Years of demolition of buildings

Re the categories by year, I have added navigation templates to the series for "Buildings and Structures" and "Sports venues" eg Category:Buildings and structures demolished in 2010 and Category:Sports venues demolished in 2010 Hugo999 (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Article creation declined

Hi Ricky can you help me with this creation Draft:Indiabulls_Real_Estate_Limited_(IBREL). I have taken a reference from Mahindra_Lifespace_Developers for creating this. Please help me with what is missing and how I better it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chints247 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The biggest concern is that it is promotional in tone and lacking in factual details. Basically, it needs to be stripped of the business school jargon and written more in plain English. Sources need to be WP:RS which this is not: it's just a group of listings. It needs sources that are independent of itself (this is just the company's history possibly from the company itself. It needs sources that provide more than a passing mention of the company (like here where it's just one of a group of companies mentioned). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the valuable feedback. I would work on getting more secondary citations and even changing the language a bit. I suppose you have marked this for a merger with the group page. I think they need to be independent of the group page Chints247 (talk) 05:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

HughD's ban

Hi Ricky, in the DSLOG it states that the topic ban is from f"articles involving the Tea Party movement" however you left a message on their talk page clarifying that the ban includes "anything at all related to Americans for Prosperity, Koch Industries, the Koch brothers". Could you please add that clarification to the DSLOG so that other admins can find it (as it does widen the ban). Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, quoted in full now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 04:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding edit of Highest grossing malayalam films

I haven't insulted anyone..and do understand that all you people are volunteers like me..I have made a gentleman approach and have absolutely no intention to defame anyone.But you guys should understand that wiki is not the place for giving fake or poorly referenced content. Instead of looking into what I have given,what you have done is irresponsible. Drishyam is the highest grosser in malayalam, not premam.If you continue to spread fake news,I will be forced to block you from further edits with all due respect.

TOKOMOBO (talk) 08:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been an admin here for a decade. You can't block people so don't threaten things you can't do. I don't know what content was put there or by whom so cut the attitude about whether or not it's fake and treat everyone else with a little respect. The person looking at the talk page likely had nothing to do with adding the material. There's almost five million articles here. Also, I made Highest grossing malayalam films into a redirect to the current page as there's a singular page that should have the contents. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I have given the references.. Why r u not checking the authenticity of it..Stop ur bossing attitude.. I don't gv dmn whether you are an admin fr a decade or more..u need to respect our fellow wikiz first..try to admit the mistake that you had made. TOKOMOBO (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Henry A. Lyons, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senora (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

More of your fans

Both blocked. --NeilN 21:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Sadly, this comment] is basically the same as the actual keeps there to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear sir

With all due respect, to be perfectly blunt I believe it is better that if you have some issue with a page, rather than putting a mysterious MFD tag on it so that I have to guess what the problem is, you should (1) read the article to see if it has value and (2) make some specific suggestion for improvement. LaurentianShield (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

There already exists an article. That's the point. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Question on scope of ban

See this AN3 closure. I suggested to User:HughD that he ask you if Watchdog.org is included in his ban from the Koch brothers. Someone needs to check if the funding of Watchdog.org or the Franklin Center by Koch is sourced well enough. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 20:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article Watchdog.org makes no mention of the Kochs. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 20:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The ban is more broad than just the Koch brothers. It is against all articles related to the Tea Party movement broadly. That said, I don't see a connection at all, directly or from Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity or Sam Adams Alliance. The closest is that the Sam Adams Alliance founder Eric O'Keefe (political activist) is a board member for Citizens for Self-Governance founded by Mark Meckler who founded Tea Party Patriots but that's just paranoia at that point. There should be leeway to edit there unless there's evidence that it's becoming a problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't have much experience in the area of topic bans, but in my view the spirit of the law, if not the letter, is being violated here. This recent edit to the Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity adds information about funding received from Donors Trust. There are two issues I see with this: first, our article on Donors Trust clearly lists Charles Koch as a major donor. Second, one of the sources that HughD recently added to the Franklin Center reads "The Franklin Center has been one of the top recipients of money from groups tied to the conservative billionaire Koch brothers," and includes a lot of other information tying the Kochs to the Franklin Center. The unstated implication of the Donors Trust-Franklin-Koch connection is that the Kochs are funding the Franklin Center. Now, since it's currently unstated, perhaps it's not a violation of the topic ban against the Kochs. But it certainly seems to be cutting it pretty close. Champaign Supernova (talk) 02:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Our article Franklin Center for Government and Public Integrity makes no mention of the Kochs. I have made no edit to Donors Trust or Charles Koch. I respect the topic ban. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

First, stop saying "Our". I'm presuming you aren't actually an inappropriate WP:ROLE account. Otherwise you're expressing serious WP:OWN issues. Second, I remind you that your topic ban is related to the Tea Party politics generally not just the Kochs. Third, I'd say you're being ridiculously disingenuous about this and have responded on your talk page with a one-week block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

"Otherwise, there's nothing ot stop an actual vandal from claiming it's a breaching experiment next time". First of all, you're admitting that this account is not an actual vandal by making the distinction between the two. Is it therefore still a "good" vandalism block if it's not really a vandal? Probably not. Secondly, do you really believe that any vandal is actually going to claim a "breaching experiment"? Or even more far-fetched: would a vandal use a case like this to back up such a claim as, like, precedence? Maybe a really sophisticated troll might possibly do this, but a vandal? Doc talk 08:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the dumbest unblock request I've ever seen. "I was only testing" is not a new argument. Disruptive is still disruptive, you can call it a competency issue then. Either way, my point is still the same: you only to do that kind of thing once. After that, you can refer to the same edits without having to actively and repeatedly do things like that and other people shouldn't have to go on with an assumption that this particular editor is editing to make a point (even with the edit summaries) and will self-revert. If they didn't, then what should be done? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how familiar most editors are with reporting vandalism to AIV but there is a longstanding system of warnings that was not followed in this case. Checks and balances. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Only if after the final warning there is more disruption should a block be needed. Saying "I'll make a similar test edit next week" in no way necessitates a block... until the edit is made next week! If they don't get it after next week, then block them. A 24-hour block. It is not only AGF to do it in an escalating fashion: it's evidence that the party got a fair shake. It reflects well on the system. How many vandals have we seen in our time here? We try to give even the worst vandals a fair shake before indeffing them, and I really think this case was botched. Thanks for responding! Doc talk 08:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's aggressive but remember that indefinite is not permanent. Don't forget that the first experiments were back in May and then in October (most likely a new semester) [excluding the no edit summary one from May 2014 so it may be possible that the teacher won't even notice all this chaos even with a one-week block. One year after the first vandalism and even then a warning in May would be fine but no one would know what to expect if they come back in six month increments and edit this way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No admin could possibly walk me through the four diffs that would lead to a proper final warning, or show even one diff of additional vandalism after the final warning that would lead to a proper block to prevent damage. This is obviously a very special case that is exempt from even basic AIV evidentiary standards. My bad. Doc talk 09:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

AIV is more of a "typical" case but it's not the way more blocks are done to be realistic. An AIV series of warnings for someone who edited twice in a year will never resolve this type of issue. Either way, my view is that blocking overall was fine and thus it was a "good" block as long as there's interaction. Not blocking would never resolve anything as we wouldn't know if she was paying attention for months anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Let's be honest: it's not about the merits of the case, but the admin's alleged "misconduct". The ranks have closed with this backslapping and the handwriting is on the wall. The very wording of the "incident" is self-serving. It's basically, "Did I screw up here? Well, of course not, because this teacher is actually instructing her students how to vandalize Misplaced Pages! The nerve! Hold your applause." What most of you absolutely fail to get is that the teacher is not instructing/encouraging her students to vandalize Misplaced Pages - she's showing them how it works. It's not supposed to be used as a source on itself and stuff like that. I've read this many times over, and I really do not see any malicious intent at all; or an imminent threat of disruption that requires a block. Seriously? Some of the "good block" comments I see are actually frightening in their misunderstanding and application of teh rulez. AGF folks! Peace out :> Doc talk 10:15, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's about how to resolve the situation. As someone there said, you can show off how an admin's powers work by randomly protecting or deleting pages too but there's places for that kind of stuff. There's been an attempt even if after the fact to talk about the issue. What else can be done? There has been no comment by the editor. Should we just let it go and say "anyone watching this school article, about once every six months, someone will come by and vandalize it to make a point"? "Let it go because someone on the internet says they are a teacher trying to make a point? Do you want to admonish the admin for seeing what is clearly vandalism here and do what, demand they lose their bit over it? The reason admins follow the rules strictly and seem to have little sense for humor is that there's tens of thousands of examples of the exact same thing every day and it's the rules mean nothing ("ok, a little vandalism is fine, people should just wait and see if after an hour after she vandalizes like this will she come back and fix it like she here" and if not, someone else hopefully catches it and fixes it). Those edits has no edit summary, and were over an hour before they were fixed. The newer ones, yeah, explained but that doesn't mean anyone knows when she plans on fixing it and the point is, overall it creates more work around here and every little bit of work that isn't productive, that eventually adds up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I definitely do not think the admin should be admonished for anything, and I hope that is clearly understood. I think this case was way more mishandled by the peanut gallery than any one admin. Just my opinion. Consensus is obviously going to be in favor of closing the thread as a good block applied; and hopefully that will be realized soon so the thing can be archived. Cheers again :> Doc talk 10:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think looking at the user's talk page, you need what's really happening which is that while there's a block, it's not a template red box "YOU ARE VANDALIZING AND THEREFORE NOT ALLOWED TO EDIT" crazy notice, it's a series of editors telling her that's not the way to go and some people actually being productive and linking her to the educational assignments stuff we have. And besides, I doubt that admin (or most in the peanut gallery including me) will do the same thing next time the next time they see a teacher doing the same kind of thing. You just need one person calling you out to make you regret anything. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Ten Year Society

Dear Ricky,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Ten Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Misplaced Pages project for ten years or more.

Best regards,  — Scott • talk 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hasteur passive aggressive

Hasteur's bot has done something wrong to cause the issues reported all of a sudden but his pride will get in the way of addressing the issue. As you can see from his passive aggression towards us he's not going to answer two editors with 10 and 11 years WP experience in a civil manner, so I am giving up dealing with him and moving on to happy things :) JMHamo (talk) 15:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's fair. Hasteur has a right to be short if the bot is doing precisely what the bot is authorized to do and no more. The problem is there's no clear place where one can see what exactly the bot is doing (and I think Hasteur's main point is that the bot's job is to tag the articles with G13 itself not the G13 eligible category so the G13 eligible category is not the issue). As I suggest, maybe a faq or something at the top of the page will help. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Mrandrewnohome at it again

You unblocked this user, editing under the signature Andrew, when he promised not to engage in promoting antisemetic propoganda. He's at it again, here at the ref desk following the usual M.O. of saying he's doing a university group project. Googling the requested edition brings you to such gems (my bolding) as this http://www.gailallen.com/his/Der-Sturmer-May-1934-Jewish-Ritual-Murder.html: The Jewish Ritual Murder Transcription of the May 1934 Der Strumer (The Striker) published by Julius Streicher

Christian Vanguard - February 1976 Introduction to Der Sturmer

Julius Streicher, German educator, writer, and politician, in whose memory this paper was printed, was a victim of the horrible Talmudic Blood Rite known as the Nuremberg trials....

Apparently his promise not to stoke controversies in the guise of a question "It won't happen again --Andrew 6:17 pm, 17 August 2015, Monday (2 months, 18 days ago)" was meant to indicate it wouldn't happen again for about two months. Let me know if you'd prefer that I take this to ANI, but I figured bringing it to you first. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this to https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continued_Anti-Semitic_concern_trolling_by_User:Mrandrewnohome_at_the_Reference_Desks if you'd like to comment. μηδείς (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As I stated there, I don't think it's fair to call it trolling. While I find the material distasteful to put it mildly, there exists academic resources about the material. I've pointed those out and even added that repeating the propaganda here isn't going to fly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Notice

A discussion of uninvolved administrators has been requested at WP:AE regarding an administrative action with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hugh (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2015 (UTC)