Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:46, 23 October 2006

Please add new comments to the bottom of this page.

Moved old talk to

• User talk:The Anome/archive 1
• User talk:The Anome/archive 2
• User talk:The Anome/archive 3
• User talk:The Anome/archive 4
• User talk:The Anome/archive 5
• User talk:The Anome/archive 6
• User talk:The Anome/archive 7

Work in progress

The following is the result of taking Misplaced Pages's category links and the NIMA GNS data, and rubbing vigorously. With quite cautious checks applied to both datasets, this gives an unambigious location for 12660 out of a possible 28628 (44%) articles about non-US cities, towns and villages.

The results are sorted by country, then place, and binned into four files. They have also been compared to the data in Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt (see ), and labelled by whether they are new coordinates (NEW), or duplicate coordinates already in articles (dup), and, if so, whether they are exact duplicates, or if not, roughly how many km out they are. (The distance calculation uses several approximations, so treat it only as an order-of-magnitude figure).

• User:The Anome/Geodata 1: countries A-F
• User:The Anome/Geodata 2: countries G-I
• User:The Anome/Geodata 3: countries J-M
• User:The Anome/Geodata 4: countries N-Z

Experimental data, please do not use:

• User:The Anome/Geodata test (25km tolerance) These data points are more questionable: GNS has more than one point for this name in the relevant country, but they can all fit within a 25km diameter circle. There are 149 of these.
• User:The Anome/Geodata differences en:GNS gt. 10km These data points have data both in Koordinaten_en_CSV.txt and the GNS. The figure given is the approximate distance between the two coordinates given, using an approximation that is only good for short displacements. Only points with an discrepancy of greater than 10km are listed.
• User:The Anome/Geodata - outliers gt. 100 km: just the 117 outliers from the above with differences of > 100km between the datasets. These are roughly 3.2% of the set where distance can be calculated. A random selection from these should be manually checked for QC purposes.

See User:The Anomebot2 for more details.

See also Misplaced Pages:Missing articles for towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants

Misplaced Pages:WikiProject on Adminship/a la carte

I agree.

One of the things that became clear as I wrote Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_on_Adminship/Role_of_admins is that the relative importance of the various technical abilities of admins has undergone huge shifts over time. Perhaps this has stopped, but I doubt it -- look at the changes in the relative importance of things due to the use of RC patrolling software. I don't think we can reliably predict how this will change in the future and accordingly believe that any changes in adminship process should reflect the fact that we're trying to select people we trust rather than following a security-driven "principle of least priviledge" model.

All the best and thanks for weighing in. I know policy isn't really your thing but you're one of the few who has been here and can think in terms of the MeatBall:LongNow so I value what you do care to share.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Fleshlight revert

Apologies if my revert took out a valid edit of yours. Just having an ongoing battle with spam links on that page - sorry and regards -- Nigel 07:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Khwaja Mir Dard

Hi. Sorry, I can't... I uploaded that image with no sense of Misplaced Pages policy, copyright, or style at almost the beginning of my existence here. Granted, I think it is probably PD because its trivial work (unless the font is special). But, I think your best best is to ask someone in Category:User hi-N since it's Devanagari... although... Dard would likely have written in Nastaliq... since that's the script more associated with Urdu. I think they best bet may be deletion of the image since it adds about nothing to the article. gren グレン 12:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Bots

Can you tell me how to make a bot? Is it difficult to take care of bots?--Sean gorter

Bot2

I've approved your bot's trial run, see WP:RFBOT for details. — xaosflux 16:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take a look at this diff by your bot? Eugène van der Pijll 11:44, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that: I've now added a check for redirects, and that won't happen again. -- The Anome 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now finished reviewing all the test edits, and I've caught a few other special cases where geotagging was alredy present indirectly, using the geolink, infobox, or placebox mechanisms. I've reverted those edits, and also added checks to prevent these from occurring again. -- The Anome 12:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I think the present preference is to put the {{coor title dm}} template at the bottom of the page. Eugène van der Pijll 11:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I was working on the basis that a naive user might expect something at the top of the rendered page to be at the top of the article, but I can easily change the code to put it at the bottom. -- The Anome 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Templates, point 3. It's a small point. Eugène van der Pijll 12:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference: I'll alter the code to put the template after everything but category and interwiki links. -- The Anome 13:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Now done. I've also added several more checks against duplicate geodata being added, directly or indirectly via a template. -- The Anome 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to add another report about your bot. It's adding the coordinates template to articles about cities in Argentina which employ a composite infobox including a {{placebox-coor}} template. Please have it check for that first. It's OK for it to add it to articles that have no coords information, though someone will eventually move it into the placebox structure anyway. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the report! I've just fixed that -- see above. That edit was a one-off glitch whilst I tested the patch itself, by turning it off then on again. The bot now additionally checks for the presence of links to either Geographic_coordinate_system or http://kvaleberg.com/ in the rendered article, thus detecting any transcluded geolinks. This catches every template I've found so far. I've just re-run it, and it now detects Bragado correctly. -- The Anome 15:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Just a few ideas: I think all of the data that you have are cities (are you selecting only those from the GNS database?), so it would be helpful to add "type:city" to the template; and you can also add the country ("region=AR", etc.). This would for example be helpful for Stefan Kuehn's GoogleEarth files, which are categorized by type of feature and country. Eugène van der Pijll 20:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That's right. They are, in order: from the GNS, with the same title as an article which is categorized as a city, from the same country the category links up to, if they are the only city of that name in the country, and the GNS has only one entry under that name. I've added the tag now: thanks for the pointer. -- The Anome 20:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The correct syntax is given at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Geographical_coordinates#Parameters. The region is specified using the ISO codes. E.g., this is a tag I've just added to an article: {{coor dms|51|28|10|N|4|59|5|E|type:city_region:NL}}. Eugène van der Pijll 21:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

If your bot has finished with adding the new coordinates, you could add those properties (type:city and region:ISO-code) to the templates that are still missing them, for the articles that exactly match. I know I did not add them to a large number of articles on Dutch towns, which means they are now "uncategorized" in Stefan's kmz-file. Eugène van der Pijll 15:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Data files now regenerated from new database dump, with approximately 1000 new articles listed. -- The Anome 11:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the caps!

Carfiend 01:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So why are there many articles listed here - http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Upcoming_albums ? Shawn88 12:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Please not that I am Sarah Ziegler as refered to below, the meterials I authors and have copy rights to. I would like to put this meterials up. Do not see how I would be violating my own copyright. If you would like to email me that would be fine sarahziegler@mheresearchfoundation.org "Hello Sarah, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! We appreciate your contributions to the Osteochondromatosis, Multiple article, but various excerpts from it appear to be be taken verbatim from other sources, and we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the article in your own words.

Alternatively, if you are the copyright holder for that material, and in a position to licence it under the GFDL for use on Misplaced Pages, please let me know on my talk page. (I note that you have the same name as Sarah Ziegler, the National Director and Coordinator of Research of the National MHE Registry -- if you are, you should know that we particularly welcome the input of expert authors and editors.)

For more information, take a look at Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Happy editing! -- The Anome 23:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"

Re copyrights

Dear Anome could you please call me on the toll free phone number not sure where you would like me to post the information you requested.1- 877- 486- 1758 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahziegler (talk • contribs)

Not sure how to redirect but you redirect Diaphyseal aclasis and Osteochondromatosis to Hereditary Multiple Exostoses. I would be happy to keep Hereditary Multiple Exostoses up dated and expand this as well. I just need alittle time as in the middle of writting 3 sets of research project paperwork and will be giving a presentation at a research conference. Thanks Sarah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahziegler (talk • contribs)

Done. -- The Anome 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hey. You recently deleted a patent nonsense article, and agreed with me that the author contributed nothing but nonsense to Misplaced Pages. I guess my question is, why is (seemingly) nothing done about these users? I've only been active on Misplaced Pages for a few days, but already I've seen many many users who have contributed nothing but nonsense, and have not been blocked once. Is the blocking policy this strict, or is it something else? Thanks, Fopkins | Talk 00:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's blocking policy is better characterized as pragmatic, rather than as lenient or strict. Usually, most vandals are people new to Misplaced Pages who do it once, submitting a series of silly edits, see them get deleted, and never come back again, as the experience was less fun than they thought it would be. In these cases, there's not much point in blocking them. Surprisingly often, some of them will come back later, and start to contribute constructively, and that's to be welcomed.

If they do come back and continue the same behaviour, we usually issue a couple of standard further warnings, and then block them if they don't stop. Even then, we don't usually ban for more than a day or so for first offenders, and allow them at least a couple more tries at editing, applying progressively longer blocks before they reach the end of the process with a permanent block. The reason for this apparent leniency is that we try to assume good faith as a matter of policy.

In really blatant cases of premeditated vandalism, however, administrators have the discretion to just block users indefinitely on sight without warning. Indeed, users may be indefinitely blocked before they make their first edit if they certain types of username which are well known to herald deliberate vandalism.

You might be interested to read the block log to see just how many blocking is actually done. -- The Anome 00:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy reply, and the post on my talk page. I get your point, and agree with the good faith policy. It is surprising to me that users you have described actually come back at a later date and contribute constructively, I guess it will be good to see that firsthand eventually. I think I will read that page; I'm very interested in how Misplaced Pages is not run over by vandals. Fopkins | Talk 01:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That is many blocks, often multiple blocks / minute, but considering the traffic that comes through Misplaced Pages, I am semi-surprised it is not more still. Fopkins | Talk 01:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Current events problem

I saw you were trying to fix the problem at Portal:Current events/August 2006. Don't bother. Apparently, some change has recently been made that is wreaking havoc with pages that use templates many times. See this Bugzilla ticket. Hopefully they'll get things fixed soon. -- tariqabjotu 13:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

rdr over article

Why did you reduce Civil rights movement to a Rdr on top of over 50 edits dating back to March 2002 -- even if the rdr were not to a title ruled out by WP:NAME#Lowercase second and subsequent words?
--Jerzy•t 03:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Because all the edits from the end of January on were based on a copyvio from Encarta, and there was a good, free, article already at the redirect destination. What was there prior to the copyvio was stubby , and seemed to me to already be covered in the better, longer, article. Renaming the article there to the correct title is easy, but I didn't do it at the time. -- The Anome 08:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now move-over-deleted the good article to the good title: I didn't see any point in keeping the edit history of the stub. -- The Anome 08:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable, tnx. I'll clean up the talk-page aspects of it.
--Jerzy•t 09:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Bondage hood article

The images in the article illustrate relevant text in the article and serve a descriptive purpose. I have revised the "fair use rationale" and licensing for the "Hells Belles" image. The size of the images are proportionate to the spacing of the paragraphs, so that the text of the article looks neat and orderly on the screen with the images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaiwills (talk • contribs)

Place locations in western australia

The bot is placing coords between the stub and cat, sort of an odd place? It's like not where you'd expect to see the coordsSatuSuro 13:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

It's the place recommended by the Geographic coordinates Wikiproject people, after I discussed this with them. -- The Anome 13:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well thats daft as in manually provided co-ords in many locations in australia - it is either embedded in the text in the first line after the place name, or even in top right corner?

I'm not putting down your bots marvellous work, but feel bewildered that all the manuualy inserted coords will have to be moved? SatuSuro 14:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, there's no need to touch the manually-entered coordinates: if an article contains any existing geodata information, the bot will not touch it; it checks before each edit. At the moment, the consensus seems to be that it's OK to have lots of different formats, things can be fixed up later, since they all encode the same data in different machine-readable ways, and having the data is the important thing at this stage. Sooner or later, there will be a grand plan that will standardize all the different geodata formats, at which time more bots will probably do the work of standardizing all of the coordinate information. I don't knoiw if that's going to be in an infobox, at the top right, or something else: that's a policy issue for the future. By the way, even though the tag itself is located at the bottom of the article, the actual displayed coordinate is at the top right, in the same way as all the other articles tagged using the {{coor title dm}} template.

At the moment, my emphasis in this current run is simply to put reasonably accurate geodata into as many articles as possible that currently do not have any, both for its own sake, and so the other people working on Misplaced Pages's geodata projects can use it. -- The Anome 14:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort to explain whats happening - all these places I have onm my watch list have been flowing past me today/this evening, your reassurance is a relief :) SatuSuro 14:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Noticing your bot's excellent work on adding coords to Australian towns (watching many NSW locations). It is doing a great job :-) Thanks--Arktos 20:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not

I'm not using wikipedia for that! Well sure, i'm talking to wikifriends, but that's not why i'm loged on to wikipedia! I clean up, edit, create articles etc. If you want proof, go to the article bellard's formula and click history!Qmwnebrvtcyxuz 23:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Your two edits to PiHex (the article you cited in your previous edit to this page) appear to have been to add two pairs of brackets, and then to take them out again. Could you give me any examples of constructive edits you have made? -- The Anome 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You do seem to have made a contribution to Bellard's formula. Thanks! I'd really appreciate it if you could contribute more: you'll find that the more you contribute, the more you will feel a part of the larger community. -- The Anome 23:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes you are not

I'm seriously questioning your cyber-forensic aptitude if you still think I have something to do with the mostly harmless S-Man and his clubhouse. All my edits are legit, and it's bewildering that you would go out of your way to disapprove of my choice to preserve the work of vandals on my user page. I would to see you retract the misguided and poorly reasoned aspersions you have cast on my good name.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

My apologies: I'm afraid you got wrongly caught up in the investigation regarding the other users. Please see my earlier posting to WP:AN/I where I stated that I was mistaken, and you appear legitimate. -- The Anome 00:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's okay. And I shouldn't have insulted your detective skills; I'm sure you're doing a fine job rooting out vandals and sock puppets. But I feel badly about what happened to S-Man. I feel responsible for his banishment, since it was the poorly received (but hilarious) joke on my User page that initially drew your attention to his behavior. I truly believe he means well.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 01:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 u

Why is it that you are deleting the user space pages (the user and user talk pages) for this user? I had placed the correct tags on the user page, but I am fairly sure that it is not the right thing to delete the user talk page, regardless of indefinite blocking. Ryūlóng 00:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The user claimed to be 11, and appears to have put a lot of personal information on their talk page. Either:

• they actually are an 11-year-old child, in which case their personal information should be expunged from Misplaced Pages for their own protection, or
• they are someone impersonating an 11-year-old, in which case their carefully-assembled 11-year-old's persona, which has been corresponding with other apparently very young children, needs removing from Misplaced Pages ASAP.

-- The Anome 00:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Qmwnebrvtcyxuz

Hi. Yamla told me that you are dealing with my friend Qmwnebrvtcyxuz. Is he blocked forever by you or did he leave Misplaced Pages. He left me a message and thanks to him or one of the administors I can't respond. Do you have a source of information to my question? --Bethicalyna2 00:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Bethicalyna2. I'm afraid that we don't let very young children, or people pretending to be very young children, to edit here. Sorry. -- The Anome 00:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, The Anome -- This is Randy Padawer (Misplaced Pages user: Padawer ... also of Psychology.net). The 8-year-old in question is my son, and his infraction is entirely my fault. I had no idea (again, my fault) that there was a minimum age provision for editing Misplaced Pages articles. He is an exceptionally smart rising third-grader, extremely interested in two topics he has edited on the site (anything to do with the number "Pi" and almost anything to do with astronomy). At first I monitored his activity closely (although I let him create his own account, alas), and then I gradually allowed more independent participation given the good behavior I witnessed. Please know that I will not allow him to have an account until he is old enough to do so (12?), and I will only allow him to edit something if it occurs on my account while I am sitting alongside directly supervising. My problem is that this block is indefinite and affects every account in our house, including my account. I have edited relatively ephemeral things here (items related to the early history of America Online and items related to current news events from time to time). I enjoy this community, mostly reading, and I think I set an excellent example for my son -- despite the mistake regarding age limits, a mistake I will not repeat. A review of our history (by IP address and by ID) will reveal only well-intentioned participation, I believe. Would it be possible to lift the block so that I at least may continue to participate as before? If you would like me to document either my identity, my son's, our internet access, or anything else, I would be more than happy to oblige. If you need me to post (temporarily) email, telephone, or other contact information so that you can contact me directly, please let me know. Otherwise, if there is a contact at Misplaced Pages where I should initiate, please let me know that as well. Again, I apologize for my son, as this unfortunate outcome is due to my having failed to read the site's service terms, a matter I will also correct during the next few days. Appreciatively, and hopefully, Randy Padawer. (P.S. I am using my wife's AOL client in order to post this, and I hope I have not violated another policy as a result in turn.)

Hello Randy. Please see my reply on your talk page. -- The Anome 00:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RCU?

Hey, good work on the whole S-Man incident. So now I'm thinking that the next step should be a checkuser to see if the "children" are the same person. I'm thinking of checking S-man, Qmwnebrvtcyxuz, Cute 1 4 u, and Bethicalyna2. Get back to me if you think this is a good idea or if there are any users I missed. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea. Could you also take a look at the various pages involved and see if there are any I've missed? -- The Anome 00:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced a checkuser will help. Many of these users claim to be editing from the same computer and to be (adopted?) siblings. They all edit from 71.231.130.56 (looking at the edit history on that IP shows at least one user account you have missed) but my point is that the checkuser would presumably just show that a number of them WERE editing from the same IP. That said, I have no idea who belongs with whom. It's all very confusing. --Yamla 01:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it can't hurt. I've listed the case, feel free to add any pertinent information I may have missed. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 01:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

I can personally vouch for User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. He is not a sockpuppet of any of the other accounts you have raised concerns about. Email me if you have any questions. TacoDeposit 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I draw attention to TacoDeposit's latest edit on User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Tyrenius 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See AN. Tyrenius 03:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Abdullah

Why did you delete my edit history? now my edit count has dropped no thanks to you it is not your uerpage it's mine so please restore it and add the edit history Abdullah Geelah 13:01, 21 August 2006 (UT

Please see my reply on your talk page. -- The Anome 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At least restore my edit history

I'm sorry, I can't do that without also restoring the text in question. However, please see your user page. -- The Anome 13:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Question about your recent blocks

Can you direct me to any policy that states younger people are not allowed to edit here. I can see that you have blocked a number of users recently for being too young to edit. I have yet to see any such policy, and I thought the general consensus on ANI recently was that children should be allowed to edit if they do so productively. I am the first person to admit that I don't know about any of the individual people blocked. I can tell that some of the blocks seem to be due to vandalism related issues as well. But are all of these users vandals, or are they being blocked specifically for their age? Thanks. Ungovernable Force 21:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no formal age policy. However, this case was a common-sense judgment call: although it started as a concern about vandalism, it rapidly became apparent that these editors were real or apparent eight- or nine-year-olds online, posting their personal details in great detail. I did the minimum necessary to resolve the problem, as far as I could: I removed the the details, and locked their accounts to prevent further problems. As a result, I believe that their parents are now aware of the problem (see above) and are doing something about it. -- The Anome 21:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Anome, I appreciate your alerting me to the problem. My son claims he did not post any personal identifying information other than his first name (bad enough, in my estimation), so I appreciate your vigilance. He also vehemently and credibly disclaims vandalism, so I would appreciate if you have confirmed otherwise. Question: logging onto AOL as a proxy in order to fully participate is something I would rather avoid given the integrated browser's quirks on MacOSX (which include not being able to "sign" posts like this one using the "Sign your name" function below). I would certainly be open to a lengthy probationary period, or whatever you deem best as an alternative, but as the senior Misplaced Pages user in our family I would be grateful if you would consider relaxing the ban on our IP address. -- Padawer

Yes, certainly. I'll sort it out now. -- The Anome 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Right, I've removed two autoblocks that were still extant. I hope that has sorted things out: if not, let me know, and I'll have another go at finding any remaining autoblocks. -- The Anome 00:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I very much appreciate your help. I just spent a moment reading this whole page at my son's behest. He pointed me to your generous comment from last night ("You do seem to have made a contribution to Bellard's formula. Thanks! I'd really appreciate it if you could contribute more: you'll find that the more you contribute, the more you will feel a part of the larger community."). So that I can supervise him as you would desire, would you allow him to continue editing specified topics under his account (and with my supervision)? We had a few tearful moments here last night, with my alternating between the understanding counseling parent and the accusative inquisitor. Needless to say, I want to encourage the considerable (and impressive, I think, given his age) intellectual exploration he evidences, but I also deeply respect the protocols which ensure this endeavor's continued good health. I would appreciate your consideration, and I will respect and adhere to whatever guidelines you issue. Thanks again. -- Padawer

Hello Randy. Please see my reply on your talk page. -- The Anome 00:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Noted and answered. Your intervention was appreciated and will ensure far greater oversight. (I didn't know whether to answer you here or there. I'm afraid I am still very much a "user talk" novice. On a lighter note, I am happy to be typing this on a "real" web browser.) padawer 00:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay 1980 evil?

Hi Just wonduring, Why user Lindsay1980 is blocked? I dont think her age means anything. We are all wikipedians. I didnt understand what your reason to block her was. Why is she blocked?

regards

user: culverin 06:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The situation is in the process of being dealt with, please see above. -- The Anome 20:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Cute 1 4 U

Just to let you know, she's requesting an unblock, I'm passing on it, but you can do what you want. Yanksox 20:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please ask her to take it to WP:AN/I. Thanks! -- The Anome 20:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Um...She can't considering she's blocked...But I'll post on ANI. Yanksox 20:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

We're having a discussion at ANI about a possible unblock of Cute 1 4 u, and a suggestion of mentoring has been thrown out. Since you were the blocking admin, we feel you should voice your opinion. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I've now commented there; I think this is now a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation to resolve. -- The Anome 22:06, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

User:The Anomebot2

All botflagged now :) -- Tawker 02:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You BLOCKED me?

Someone brought this to my attention. The Fat Man took a great deal of pride in his useful contributions and spotless record, and now it's ruined!!! How about some communication before blocking me legitimately, or an apology for blocking me otherwise? I know it was just for one minute, but, truly, I am permanently shamed. Thanks a lot.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 09:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally. It happened in the midst of trying to fix up a quite complex problem which initially appeared to be like coordinated multi-user vandalism, and I unblocked you almost immediately afterwards, as soon as I realised that your blocking was a mistake. See my comments in WP:AN/I, where I make it clear that you are a legimate user, and not implicated in any wrongdoing. -- The Anome 10:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Pumpie has fewer blocks than me!--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 16:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

UFC Spammer

I thought I would pass this on to an admin. It appears the sole purpose of existence for Jpblev and the IP address user:24.12.54.150 is to spam Misplaced Pages articles regarding mixed martial arts fighters. If their edits are actually legitimate, then I'll leave my complaint at that. Chicken Wing 03:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants

Just to let you know, I've done a bit of cleanup on the Canadian entries in this list. A few (Etobicoke, Gloucester, North York) simply don't exist anymore, having been merged into larger cities several years ago. A few were at the wrong name ("Chicoutimi-Jonquière" —> Saguenay; "Sudbury" —> Greater Sudbury). And except for a few of the largest and/or most uniquely named cities (namely Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Quebec City and Saskatoon), Canadian cities are otherwise always at "City, Province", not "City" or "City, Canada". Just thought I should let you know, so you didn't think it got vandalized the next time you look at it and see entries under Canada that you don't remember. Bearcat 03:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there another criterion you're using for addition to that list besides the population figure specified? Because you put quite a few Caribbean towns on it (Bridgetown, Cockburn Town, St. Johns, Antigua, etc.) that don't even have 10,000 people, let alone 100,000. Bearcat 03:46, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Capital cities were also listed. -- The Anome 08:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Holocaust

Hi Anome, thanks for correcting me on that point. I will stick with the slight rewording only. Regards Albester 11:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not link standalone years

Per WP:DATE do not wikilink standalone years like you did here. Dates and years are only linked when they allow date formatting preferences to work, but since date formatting preferences don't do anything with just standalone years, they shouldn't be linked. --Cyde Weys 18:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't agree with your reading of WP:DATE: I believe that the relevant part reads:

There is consensus among editors that bare month and day names should not be linked unless there is a specific reason that the link will help the reader to understand the article. There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text.

I agree completely about linking months and day names: however, I don't believe that any consensus exists about years. I belong to the first camp mentioned, who think that "links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article" -- for example, in this case, giving the reader to compare and contrast the state of the world in those two years. -- The Anome 18:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Classy

Just noticed the barnstar on User:Abdullah Geelah's user page. That was very classy of you. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 06:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Possible S-man Sock

I came accross this account today and I noticed on the page that he claims to be a relitive of User:S-man. This user page was also created by S-man. Not sure if he is a sock of S-man but wanted to bring it up to you just to be on the safe side. Æon 20:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Please could you report it on WP:AN/I, if you are concerned about it? -- The Anome 20:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok wasnot sure if it warrented AN/I but I will post it there to be safe thanks. Æon 20:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Lindsay1980 autoblock

This user is blocked from editing because of an autoblock. As you blocked Lindsay1980, I thought you might want to review this block. _{talk to} JD 20:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Note about Bot message

Hi. I wrote a message at the bot's page. / Fred-Chess 22:25, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

For your input in action reaction

Thanks & regards --Nigel 17:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored user page

Hi The Anome, User:Abdullah Geelah asked me to restore deleted edits of his user page which I've done. I know that you deleted them previously for reasons that I do understand, but he has asked me explicitly and seems mature enough to understand the implications. The personal info seems fairly harmless anyway. I thought it courtesy to let you know. If you feel strongly that I've done the wrong thing let me know or redelete them. Regards -- I@n 04:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Ignore this. I've redeleted them after reconsidering. Sorry to bother you. -- I@n 05:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Page mentioned on ANI

Will delete soon. Can you courtesy blank the ANI discussion? -- Samir धर्म 11:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Bigballs vandal

Any idea why I can't block this bigballs vandal and why I can't delete talk page!--File Éireann 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Blocked users can still edit their user pages. Blanking and protecting will stop them from re-making it, but why bother, let them waste time re-creating it over and over... -- The Anome 18:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Geodata?

Hi, Anome. Anomebot2 added geodata to the article Abong-Mbang, but I can't see that it changed the article in any way. What does this geodata template do exactly? — BrianSmithson 22:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Look to the right of the article title, above the dividing line that passes between the article title and the article itself: you'll see some geographical coordinates. Click on the numbers, and the link will take you to a page full of links to maps of that area. For example, clicking on that link in thw Abong-Mbang article, and then on the "find this location on Multimap" link, will take you to this map. -- The Anome 22:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah-hah. Thanks for the explanation. Very nifty little trick. — BrianSmithson 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a dumb question, but...

Do you think that maybe you could set the children's accounts that you have blocked to an appropriate setting (e.g. for the 11 year old, 2 year block; for the 8 year old, a 5 year block)? I'm just thinking out loud, pardon me if I'm being really stupid. Thanks. --AndreniW 00:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I think your suggestion is a good idea, but I don't think that I, or any admin, should do any more about this. Given the issues involved, I believe that this is a matter for the Wikimedia Foundation to decide. I believe that Brad is aware of this situation -- we should wait for the Foundation to decide what to do. -- The Anome 07:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Trollius Vandalus Maximus

The protection of this user's talk page was lost, especially since you deleted it to remove vandalism and undeleted one revision of it. It still contains the {{deletedpage}}, so that you can either protect or delete the page. Thanks. -- ADNghiem501 07:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now re-protected it. Thanks! -- The Anome 07:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Stingray

Compared to Steve Irwin, which was also recently semi-protected, Stingray is getting nothing. Although I agree with your protection as the page was not developing while reversion was necessary. Cheers, Ansell 12:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Usenet posts mentioning wikipedia graph sep 2002.png listed for deletion

User talk:For Great Justice

Please protect the page User talk:For Great Justice for whom you blocked. He is repeatedly removing the block message. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 18:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

your userpage

What's a second-wave wikipedian? --Snarius 19:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Drdavidhill

This guy sent a request for unblocking to the unblock list and I checked him out and found out that several people had warned him about spamming, and told him that that was the reason. Since then, he's been sending emails to me on a daily basis, and has now sent an email to Jimbo complaining because *I* won't unblocked him. Grrr. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

World Innovation Foundation

After reading your post on ANI I did a little research. Here is a copy of my reply from the noticeboard:

I've done a LexisNexis seach on this and what I've found is even more mysterious. While the article and the site claim Glenn Seaborg as the founder, an article I found in The Yorkshire Post from 2003 tells the story of Dr. David Hill, who after "his construction company went bust" created the Foundation, whose "boldest idea is the creation of Open Research Establishments, so-called People's Creative Thought Incubators, where individuals would have their ideas and inventions analysed and developed." When one of these incubators, described as a "£50-billion scientific super city" was proposed to be built in North Lincolnshire in 2005, the local media at first reacted with breathless excitement, but in a later story said "... since speaking to one of the organisation's founder members, Dr David Hill, the Telegraph has contacted a number of organisations which claim they know nothing about the project." After that date I can find no more articles about the Foundation. There is definitely something amiss here, and the fact that so many scholars have accepted membership, yet no major news source has explained what this group actually does, is bizarre. I really am at a loss as to how to proceed. —Nate Scheffey 08:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits on Innovation

I'm very confused by the edits that appear to be made by you to Innovation. Your comments refer to removing portions related to the World Innovation Foundation. I'm not concerned with the WIF edits, but other edits that you did, or somehow were merged into your edits. Specifically, a paragraph, uncited, that appeared to be a book promotion with a link to an external promo page for the book. Additionally, a number of links to a consultancy and pdf publications by one of the principals of that consultancy, links that had been removed previously. Were all these edits yours? --Ronz 15:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No: I'm afraid that I reverted to a previous version with the linkspam in it: my bad. I see that other people appear to have removed the linkspam now. -- The Anome 17:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what it looked like. Thanks for the confirmation. --Ronz 19:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Company names

Thanks for pointing that out, however I didn't notice something like that in Wiki's editing policy. By the way, join editing if you want, I'll try to promote the article to the GA status in the future. --Brand спойт 18:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Extremely strange revert on the Obedience Article

Firstly, i dont mean to sound like i'm being nasty, but i have the same book which this article was used to create, and the information on obedience is ENTIRELY CORRECT as i have a more recent edition of the book, as well as several newer books and the information has changed very little over the past years since such experiments have been made. I'm also getting the idea of a very "religious zealot" undertone from the amount that Christianity is mentioned in the edits. I dont know why, but i get the feeling that the article, despite the fact it wasnt perfect, was much much much better than IMMEDIATELY reverting to a .version which, for all intents and purposes, was dog shite. Sorry, but you're VERY wrong for flagging this one up. No offence to you.

"The research was also conducted with amazing verve and subtlety—for example, Milgram ensured that the “experimenter” wear a grey lab coat rather than a white one, precisely because he did not want subjects to think that the “experimenter” was a medical doctor and thereby limit the implications of his findings to the power of physician authority"

Take a look here also.

The American spelling for Grey, a neutral color.

James S 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh. See my lengthy reply on your talk page. Suffice it to say that I didn't revert that version of the article to the previous version, I instead edited it to merge the two together into a single longer article, and removed parts which appeared to duplicate the pre-existing Milgram experiment article.

Regarding the substantive element of your comment: great -- then add that cite, and reinstate the material, mentioning the nuance. By the way, I didn't revert your edits, I copyedited them, removing only some parts where they appeared either to be unsupported or duplicative of other articles, merged appropriate parts of the old article, and then expanded on them. For example, I removed the grey labcoat reference exactly because it seemed unlikely without a cite to support it. -- The Anome 23:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record,i was the one who did the edits for the material, not the person who posted above. The grammar in some places was rushed, but i was typing on an extremely poor keyboard which seems to enjoy jumping back places in experiments. In any case, the edit summary titled "Gray lab coat?" seems to be the idea that the article was just whizzed through with foreknowledge, and i can understand why "gray lab coat" rings alarm bells, due to the fact that it's very.

I appreciate the fact that you're editing the article, but if you removed, for instance, EVERYTHING which was not entirely devoted 100% to the name of the article itself, very little of the articles for the main fields of Scientific study would be empty and just a list of links to particular topics in that field. I think it is relevant to include references to the milgram experiment in there because it is one of the most well known, and well referenced obedience experiments that has ever been attempted and sheds a lot of light on the topic of obedience.

Also, you re-instated some material which is to do with animal obedience and should belong in a different topic. Anyway, i was going to continue editing here, but i think i'll not bother after this lovely endeavour which has quite soured me on the idea.

Cheers anyway. You can delete/ban my account now if you would be so kind, or at least disallow others from taking it or so.JCraw 09:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't be discouraged: even though your edits needed polishing, they were still very useful, and have helped improve the article. I'm not upset by other people editing my work, and nor should you be. I expect that within a few months this article will be substantially different from the version I left it in, and that it will, in all probability, be a substantial improvement on the current revision, as the slowly improving article attracts the attention and careful revisions of multiple editors. -- The Anome 10:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I spoke to the other editor outside of the wikipedia using email, and he said that these things happen all the time. I can assure you that the errors which were made on the article were made due to poor hardware in this facility, and not myself. Sounds like it's a nice place to edit as long as you all agree with administrators.

Out of interest, have you studied Psychology, and if so.. at what level? I'm studying it currently at degree level, and the other editor James, S is a physician.. so i imagine he will have had to do some form of module or soforth on it.

Still, i thank you for your dissonance, but i'm afraid i won't continue editing here. JCraw 11:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, believe me, they do happen. If you'll take a look at the comments above, you'll see that the other contributor referred to my revision of the article as "dog shite", something which he would be unlikely to have said to my face. Please don't let things like that get you down -- if we all assume good faith, these misunderstandings tend to work themselves out eventually. Your contributions are appreciated, and you should not feel bad about having your edits copyedited by others; we are all working towards the same goal, even if we temporarily disagree on direction.

About administrators: you are not required to be any more deferential to admins than you would be to any other editor. When admins edit articles, they are editors like any other. We're janitors, not authority figures: the admin powers are there to help enforce the rules, not make them. -- The Anome 11:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Jason Scott (2004).

Sorry, i assumed good faith. You're the one who removed some information which was accurate because you didn't hear about it, so it's therefore fact. You've marked the article as "expert attention" and that was the reason why i went to the page in the first place. Now, i'm not going to waste my time if it means that personal opinion and thought comes anywhere near the editing process here. Not an Editor, Don't respond 12:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC) User:JCraw 12:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for hanging on! Yes, Misplaced Pages can best be described as "it's broken, but it works". If people remove your accurate but uncited information, simply add a citation, so it can be checked. See the verifiability policy for more details. As I say, your contributions are actually welcome here: it's just that the to-and-fro of Misplaced Pages editing takes some getting used to. -- The Anome 12:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, the guy who was editing seems to have taken this badly.. Perhaps it'd be better if next time we posted explanations on the talk page before doing big edits. Nevertheless.. i'm sorry i named your edit "Dog Shite", but despite the somewhat "lax" order of the article beforehand, i think it was a bit nasty to so publicly call that editor's work "Terrible", and maybe that was the reason for the change in attitude. There's a lesson to be learned from this, but not just for the editor and me, but for you, and moreso. Case in point: the "Gray lab coat" issue.

Well, anyway. I'm chiming in to say what we all do isn't perfect, and some of the work you have done is far from perfect, and so is some of mine due to whatever it is that limits our ability to concentrate at the time. I'm sure JCraw will learn to add information in a more wikipedian-way if he/she continues to stay here, but you must admit that these kinds of issues could put people off who are new to the process. James S 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Please Unblock my IP

I know that I have been vandalizing a lot, and I was just about to learn my lesson and give up. The other day, you reverted a paragraph I had added to short bus claiming it was vandalism. I don't see how that paragraph could be considered vandilsm, it was completely relavant and helped to expand the article. I promise I'll stop vandalizing if you unblock me. I believe that the block was unfair because the edit that you reverted wasn't vandalism at all. Yes, I know I have a history of vandalism, but I had already decided to quit when I was blocked. My ip is (24.29.37.46) BigBadUglyBugFacedBabyEatingO'Brian 14:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think i may stay

Although i may be impeded by my ability to utilise computers aptly or properly, i can assure you that i am an "expert" on the study due to my educational involvement on the issue, and the breadth of the reading i have done on it.

I may not be entirely aware of internal wikipedia guidelines, but i am willing to learn them and forego social relations if others would do the same, in order to concentrate such "energy" on articles. Not an Editor, Don't respond 13:55, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Double-entry accounting system

Despite my best efforts I cannot get this article back to your July 1st entry. Someone messed with the redirection and it should point to Double-entry bookkeeping system. Can you have a look. Thanks --NilssonDenver 21:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a look: I see you've managed to fix it since your comment above. Thanks for doing that. -- The Anome

Misleading edit summaries

If you write somethig like this "... misleading edit summaries are not acceptable behaviour, and do not encourage others to believe that you are editing in good faith." -- The Anome 19:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)" first look at Gmail for somethigh similar "Gmail Drive: How to use Gmail as an external hard drive" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joa987 (talk • contribs)

Indeed: that was one of the cases I was referring to. As you can see, I had already reverted that edit. -- The Anome 14:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Populist Party (UK) Listed for deletion

Blast from the past possibly. JASpencer 20:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfinished edit?

You ended a paragraph in your Robert Bishop edit with "and". I was going to delete the incomplete sentence but I think the article would be improved more by it being finished.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like I'm rdering you around, which I didn't intend to do, or giving you an ultimatum, which I certainly didn't intend to do. Having at least once filled in the edit summary and clicked "Save page" without actually making the edit, I understand how these things can happen; I intended only to bring it to your attention.–♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not a problem; it was a copyediting error, and I've fixed it now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. -- The Anome 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User:127.0.0.1

This IP has been used in the past, and may be used in the future, to add pages to Misplaced Pages from a user logged in on the server. Please see Special:Contributions/127.0.0.1 and User talk:127.0.0.1. While the developers (who would be the ones to use this IP) can obviously unblock themselves, there's neither anything in blocking policy that says they should have to deal with it. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not been used since 2004, back in the day when "the server" had some meaning. Today, there are hundreds of servers, and developers editing from within the cluster will almost certainly not be logged on to one of the Squids, where the IP addresses are captured: even if they were logged on to a machine on the local LAN, their address would most likely be in 10.0.0.0/8. I'll unblock it, though, since the reason for my making the block was that I misread the year on the contribs log, and assumed that someone had edited from a Squid in the last month, which would have been somewhat suspicious, for the reason given above. -- The Anome 04:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

TEMPLATE

Dear Anome, yes you are right. TRNC is the best. But allready some one directed Template:TRNC-> Template:N CYPRUS,(which make no sense). I can not redirected back. So I redirected to Template:"Tur..Re..No..Cyp..". What is the best way to do this. Help? Regards. Mustafa Akalp 10:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree: TRNC is the best choice of tag for this template, regardless of your opinion on the legitimacy of that entity: this is consistent with the choices previously taken for other flag-and-country tags of disputed states. I've copied the template text back to Template:TRNC, and also left it in place at Template:N CYPRUS. I suggest you change the links in all the pages that link to Template:N CYPRUS back to use TNRC, but that, after doing that, you leave Template:N CYPRUS as-is, so we don't get into an unnecessary edit war about template names. -- The Anome 10:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I will try my best.
There is no any country/state which is named as Northern Cyprus or N CYPRUS. Accepted name is Turkish republic of Northern Cyprus.(unrecognized or recognized is a different matter that allready all articles related with this country is marked as "recognized only by...". So there is no problem to change this template to internationally known name. I may need your help in the future. Thanks a lot. Regards Mustafa Akalp

Just having a laugh

You can't take yourself too seriously, you know...--MonkBirdDuke 21:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also think you could use a history lesson....I don't think Eichmann ever tortured or sadistically murdered anyone. Although he arranged for it, of course. But I suppose it sounded better to say that in your little soapboxing episode...sitting on your cloud of judgment, passing down life lessons to all of us sinners...give me a break. --MonkBirdDuke 22:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel able to "have a laugh" about Adolf Eichmann's program of mass murder. Unfortunately, there's not much that I can do to help you, except perhaps to suggest that you visit one of the many Holocaust memorials set up around the world to help keep the memory of these horrific crimes alive. -- The Anome

TRNC

I was reverting it to the state that the organization in question placed it. See the page's talk page for details on why it is faulty to edit the page in most instances.--Thomas.macmillan 02:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Curious about User:Lindsay1980

Hey, a bit of old news I know, but you blocked this user indefinitely and the log was a bit vague on why. I'm sure it's a good reason, as the 24 hour block seemed to be for good enough reasons, it's just that I'd like to know that wasn't the end of it. Anyway cheers, and you all keep doing what your doing. Galactor213 23:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was a good reason -- the block was related to protecting user privacy: I can't really say much more about it for that same reason. -- The Anome 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Reichsjustizamt

Thank you for the compliment! — PM Poon 08:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Jew Town notability

What exactly is that you need to know? The Jew Town self titled single was a major hit in Australia.The Kasparov of Sheshbesh 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide a verifiable third-party cite for that? If so, please cite it in the article. -- The Anome 09:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Direct copying

Hi, I thought that citations would be okay. Anyway, I could rephrase it, if it is absolutely necessary. — PM Poon 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

If you write your own original text, using the sources for sources of information, and cite the sources, that will be fine. Please don't paraphrase whole passages; this is not in general enough to be considered enough to avoid being a derivative work, unless there are so few ways to phrase a particular statement that the form of the statement is essentially dictated by the nature of the information. (for example, "Paris is the capital city of France", or "the sky is blue"). -- The Anome 13:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yescard

The above article has been edited. Can you please take a look, and let me know whether this is acceptable? — PM Poon 13:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On 19 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article sanitation, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Andrew Levine 19:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyright infringement: Just a heart-to-heart talk

Hi Anome, I accept your verdict of copyright infringement when I did paraphrase whole passages. I have since rewritten Yescard and Graphism. Maybe you would like to take a look. Unfortunately, I did not bother to rewrite Inis Baeg when I found that you had deleted my version.

Writing involves two stages:

• Data collection
• Rewriting.

I do not think there was anything wrong with the data collection. What was wrong was that the second part, ie. rewriting, was not done well enough. Under the circumstances, I would have thought that it would be more appropriate for you to contact me to do a better version. Unfortunately, you did something rather drastic.

Your statement, "Repeatedly violating Misplaced Pages's copyright policy is likely to result in your being blocked from editing" is actually unnecessary. In fact, repeatedly violating any of Misplaced Pages's policy (not just copyright, and not just in Misplaced Pages) would lead to punishment. It is not as if you informed me early when I wrote those three articles. As you can see, your notification came ONLY after I wrote all those three articles:

• 18 October 2006, time deleted: Inis Baeg
• 20:38, 18 October 2006: Yescard
• 00:00, 19 October 2006: Graphism
• 10:06, 19 October 2006: Notification on Inis Baeg
• 10:21, 19 October 2006: Notification on Graphism
• 10:27, 19 October 2006: Notification on Yescard

Had the sequence being:

• PM Poon wrote Inis Baeg
• The Anome notified copyright infringement on Inis Baeg
• PM Poon wrote Yescard
• The Anome notified copyright infringement on Yescard
• PM Poon wrote Graphism
• The Anome notified copyright infringement on Graphism,

then your statement would have been justified. "Assume good faith." Remember? It is not as if I am purposely trying to hurt Misplaced Pages. You praised my article on Reichsjustizamt just recently on 17th October, remember? And Caliga10 praised my edit on Bass River (Massachusetts) the same day. Well, you were not the only one. I collected quite a handful of compliments before I left Misplaced Pages a year ago because of some power-crazy admins. Sometimes our lapses fail us. That's all. And maybe because my writing skills have blunted after a one-year lay-off, and need a bit of time to warm up. What kind of motivation and emotional support are the admins here giving? You gotta answer that yourself for my assessment of people like Pascal Tesson and Mel Etitis is blatantly negative, lol.

As to the threat of "being blocked from editing", I am not bothered by that. Did I get paid for my time or effort? No, right? Moreover, it is a toothless threat. Can anyone really be blocked, except his pseudonym which is worthless to me? As Justforasecond puts it aptly in Pascal Tesson's discussion page:

hey pascal, don't know how long you've been on wiki but you should take it easy on the warnings. my edits aren't vandalism and even if they were, its near impossible to get someone banned here. you're welcome to give it a shot though! Justforasecond 03:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Justforasecond is happily retired. Do you think some admins are actually hurting this portal? — PM Poon 08:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above

PM,

I'm glad that you've come through this OK, and I hope that you won't be put off from working on Misplaced Pages. If I've offended you, I apologise; that was certainly not my intention. I hope the comments below can help explain why I made those comments.

Tracking down copyvios is a boring, thankless task. After spotting your first example of literal copying (which itself was the result of many, many checks on other articles) I then checked each of your articles by hand, going back over your entire edit history to do so, time which I could have spent writing or improving articles, or spent away from the computer having real-life fun or earning a living. It is sometimes difficult to AGF when one has to track down and confirm not one but three cut-and-paste copyvios by the same author -- still, I try very hard to abide by WP:CIVIL, and I hope that the tone of my comments was, at the very least, polite and measured.

As you say, none of us get paid for this. Our whole reward in editing here is the pleasure of the work itself, and the satisfaction of knowing that we are creating a work which has the potential to revolutionise the way information is collected and disseminated. Nevertheless, there is some janitorial work that needs doing, and tracking down copyvios is part of that.

I rather hoped that the tone of my reply to you, both above, and on your talk page, when you contacted me above, showed that I could see from your reply that you were acting in good faith. Online writing does not have non-verbal cues, and it is easy -- for any of us -- to take offence where none is intended.

Articles with copyright problems have the potential to severely damage Misplaced Pages's core mission of providing the world with information that is libre as well as gratis. Unfortunately, there are people who start to create numerous cut-and-paste articles, and although they eventually get tracked down, blocked, and reverted, doing so is a pain. From your edits to those three articles, you appeared to me, until you replied to my comments, to have become one of them.

In my defence, I'd like to point out that there is a message in big bold text directly under the "save" button on the edit form. It says "Do not copy text from other websites without permission. It will be deleted." It is hard to see how we could make it any plainer without putting it on the button itself, or presenting editors with a click-through licence.

Moreover, there is, regardless of any self-imposed rules on Misplaced Pages, a legal requirement on you under copyright law not to do this. I'm afraid that copying large chunks of other people's text, reformatting it and putting it into Misplaced Pages is not fair use. We should not have to tell you not to do this (although we do so anyway, in big bold type like this).

Apart from any legal obligations, I'm afraid I also disagree with your comments above about the two stages of article writing being "research" and "rewriting": I believe that the second stage should be "writing", rather than "rewriting". As I said in my comments, mere paraphrasing of source material is not sufficient for an encyclopedia article. Even if the words are reworked, copying the structure of someone else's work still at the very least risks being seen as a form of plagiarism.

When writing Misplaced Pages articles, you should ideally use, and cite, multiple sources, and then cross-check and synthesize the information, rather than the writing, from those sources into your article.

There is one exception to this, which is material that is in the public domain, which may be directly copied, re-written or hacked about to your heart's content; even so, the use of public domain text should be acknowledged out of courtesy to its author, and to help maintain the integrity of Misplaced Pages.

Please don't be put off by copyvio warnings; I particularly appreciate that you have now set the articles right, and I can see that you are a good-faith editor. I look forward to seeing more of your writing on Misplaced Pages. -- The Anome 12:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Anome, for your explanation. I was just wondering why you wrote it in your own discussion page, rather than mine. I was about to write to you when I found this message of yours that has rendered what I was trying to write irrelevant. If you find my discussion page unworthy of your response, I hope you could leave a message to request me to visit your discussion page instead.

Different writers have different approaches to writing. I have worked in a publishing firm before, and I have seen how some authors write. Of course, that was commercialization, the aim of which was just to technically avoid copyright infringement. I do admit that my version was too close, but to say it was cut and paste was not completely true. I did try to paraphrase the sentences. Unfortunately, after being put off from this portal for almost a year, my writing has blunted. In fact, I have written many articles (probably more than a hundred) for Misplaced Pages before I left a year ago, without any copyright vio problems, except for Betty Ting, which I subsequently rewrote, this time with no problems. Writing requires data, and therefore the originals are the sources of information from which your writing is based. Do you not agree? At the end of the day, you still need it to cite your source. Or are you writing, not based on any source?

To say that I did not refer to other sources is also not true, although the evidence does point to that. In fact, all articles had multiple source from the Google search (it's so easy with Google!), but I only picked from the one which to me was the best. In doing so, you may say that you are right, but to say that it was not cross-referenced for accuracy.... To me, the basic problem was that I did not put in enough effort to make the article sufficiently different from the original. As for whether it is unethical even if the article was sufficiently different, that's another story altogether. We can argue until the cows come home but in so far as there is no copyright violation according to any court of law, I am satisfied... but maybe not you. — PM Poon 08:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• Anome, can you show me your source that says "... reformatting it and putting it into Misplaced Pages is not fair use"? I do not agree with this, but I do agree that I had not reformatted sufficiently.
• "Even if the words are reworked, copying the structure of someone else's work still at the very least risks being seen as a form of plagiarism." Can you show me where it says that? As far as I know, copyright only protects the final form of the works, not the ideas behind it, such as structure. We can have the same structure, but not the same sentences, copied word for word, which I had not changed sufficiently. One problem which I encountered was that the original writer had written too well, so much so that I was so reluctant to change it, LOL. That, to me, was the main problem, and I will look into that in future.
• "... the use of public domain text should be acknowledged out of courtesy to its author, and to help maintain the integrity of Misplaced Pages". Well, even with copyright vio, didn't I do that? LOL. — PM Poon 08:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to conclude. No, no, no hard-feelings after your explanation, but not before that, LOL. In fact, your points and that of Pascal Tesson were constructive after I knew exactly what both of you meant. These comments will definitely help me to improve my writing. — PM Poon 08:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Harlan K. Ullman new article

Thanks for the help on the Pumphead syndrome article. I started another new article. I did a thorough search to make sure there already wasn't one. I'm pretty certain there isn't one. This is one of the founders of the shock and awe doctrine. In the shock article his name came up red. the question is how do I do a redirect so Harlan Ullman goes to the article. Thanks. Will314159 19:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:New articles vs. article count Jun 2003.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:New articles vs. article count Jun 2003.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you.

Yescard: Cut and paste

Hi Anome, can you show me how to cut and paste the following:

The yescard is like a credit card where the chip is recognized by bank terminals. The yescard has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal (hence the name yescard). The emulation of the bank card is done on a virgin gilded card usually called gold card and it is extremely easy to hack. Same process as the one for pay-per-view TVs, phone cards (telecarte) and GSM SIM cards.

Bit of history

Serge Humpich (a French Engineer) made a discovery that criminals can only dream of - how to forge credit card that can defeat security measures put in place by the organizations that issue genuine cards. He found a method that would enable him to withdraw the equivalent of more than $2,000 every 15 minutes. Mr. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees security for the 33 million French credit cards, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported $150,000. The organization turned his offer down (the system was believed to be 100% secure). In order to prove his method efficiency, Mr. Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and, using a doctored card, bought himself some tickets. The banks then pounced and Mr Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting. The public prosecutor called for a $7,500 fine and a 2-year suspended prison sentence.

Serge Humpich used in 1997 the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes using algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve".

to become

Yescard is a programmable smart card that enables the processing of purchasing instructions on certain types of automated electronic payment systems. The name "Yescard" comes from the fact that this card has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal.

History

In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them. This discovery could enable him to withdraw the equivalent of some USD$2,000 every fifteen minutes.

Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees the security for the 33 million credit cards in France, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported USD$150,000. The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure. In order to prove otherwise, Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and using a doctored card, bought himself ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account. The banks responded and Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting.

The reason why I asked is because I am still puzzled as to how you can do it. In particular, I would like to know how many steps you take to reach my "copyvio version", as you labelled it. Additionally, I would like to know whether the percentage of materials extracted from the entire article has any bearing on copyvio. I need to know this so that I can avoid copyvio in future. — PM Poon 12:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to the above

Well, you've come to the right person to ask about this. Unfortunately, I haven't got time to compute an optimal edit sequence, but if I were you, I'd try to avoid copying long runs of words from the original, like this (identical runs of text highlighted in bold text):

BEFORE:

The yescard is like a credit card where the chip is recognized by bank terminals. The yescard has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal (hence the name yescard). The emulation of the bank card is done on a virgin gilded card usually called gold card and it is extremely easy to hack. Same process as the one for pay-per-view TVs, phone cards (telecarte) and GSM SIM cards.

Bit of history

Serge Humpich (a French Engineer) made a discovery that criminals can only dream of - how to forge credit card that can defeat security measures put in place by the organizations that issue genuine cards. He found a method that would enable him to withdraw the equivalent of more than $2,000 every 15 minutes. Mr. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees security for the 33 million French credit cards, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported $150,000. The organization turned his offer down (the system was believed to be 100% secure). In order to prove his method efficiency, Mr. Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and, using a doctored card, bought himself some tickets. The banks then pounced and Mr Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting. The public prosecutor called for a $7,500 fine and a 2-year suspended prison sentence. Serge Humpich used in 1997 the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes using algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve".

(Quoted from http://www.win.tue.nl/~ecss/2IF04/presentations/i.majeri.ppt presented here for the purpose of comment and textual analysis.)

AFTER:

Yescard is a programmable smart card that enables the processing of purchasing instructions on certain types of automated electronic payment systems. The name "Yescard" comes from the fact that this card has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal.

History

In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them. This discovery could enable him to withdraw the equivalent of some USD$2,000 every fifteen minutes. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees the security for the 33 million credit cards in France, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported USD$150,000. The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure. In order to prove otherwise, Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and using a doctored card, bought himself ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account. The banks responded and Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting.

In other words, 120 out of 222 (54%) words in your text are literally copied segments of the original text, with only minor punctuation changes. Several other segments are almost literal copies, with minor tweaks and paraphrases: for example, making a couple of edits to your edited version to remove the prefix "USD", changing "fifteen" back to "15", and changing "responded" back to "then pounced" extends the overlapping areas even further, to 132 out of 222 words (59%) being in literally copied segments. And that's not even starting to count the other sections which might reasonably be considered to have been only slightly paraphrased from the original while preserving the original sentence structure, for example, "that can defeat security measures" vs. "that could defeat the security measures", "33 million French credit cards" vs. "33 million credit cards in France", "The organization turned his offer down (the system was believed to be 100% secure)" vs. "The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure." and so on.

Need I go on?

-- The Anome 18:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated comments

On review:

Oh. Apparently I do need to go on. I noticed that the one major sentence from your "after" version of the article that appeared to be devoid of copying from other sources was marked with a "". So I went back to that version and followed that link, to http://www.clusif.asso.fr/fr/production/ouvrages/pdf/CyberCrime2001.pdf ... and discovered that your first sentence was a literal, word for word copy of the first sentence from page 5 of that document. So that's another 21 words lifted directly from someone else's copyrighted document. Let's now put it all together, with direct copying in bold, and paraphrase in italics:

Yescard is a programmable smart card that enables the processing of purchasing instructions on certain types of automated electronic payment systems. The name "Yescard" comes from the fact that this card has the special property to always accept any PIN code typed and sent to it by the bank terminal.

History

In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them. This discovery could enable him to withdraw the equivalent of some USD$2,000 every fifteen minutes. Humpich showed his discovery to the Interbank organization that oversees the security for the 33 million credit cards in France, with the idea of selling his secret for a reported USD$150,000. The organization rejected his offer as it believed that its system was 100% secure. In order to prove otherwise, Humpich carried out a controlled experiment on a machine that issues tickets for the Paris Metro and using a doctored card, bought himself ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account. The banks responded and Humpich found himself on trial for fraud and counterfeiting.

Now, let's unmix your original contributions from the literal copyings and the paraphrases. They are, as far as I can tell:

... comes from the fact that this card ... In 1997, using ... by means of ... discovered a method of ... issuing them. This discovery could ... otherwise, ... ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account.

That's 40 words out of 222 that, as far as I can tell, are not either direct lifts or lightly paraphrased from another work. The remaining 162 words appear to me, as far as I can see from the analysis above, to be derived directly or indirectly from the sources cited.

Of course, I could be mistaken in my analysis above. If so, would you care to enlighten me?

-- The Anome 00:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Second update

I noticed that you had one quite lengthy run of words that appeared not to be copied from elsewhere. So, just out of curiosity, I had another look at the previous source documents, and found the following sentence from the Powerpoint presentation cited above:

The experience made by Serge Humpich at the RATP allowed him to buy 10 subway tickets but the banks were not able to trace the transaction to a bank account.

Comparing this with your sentence fragment:

ten tickets for which the banks were unable to trace the transaction to a bank account.

shows quite clearly that it is a paraphrase of the latter part of the sentence above. So, that's another 16 words that are paraphrased from elsewhere (of which the last eight are a literal copy from the sentence above). This leaves 24 words that are not either literal copies or lightly paraphrased from elsewhere.

As I said above: I could be mistaken in my analysis above. If so, would you care to enlighten me?

-- The Anome 00:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply

Thank you very much for your time to analyse. So what you mean by cut and paste includes getting different phrases and combining them together into one sentence, and you call it "cut and paste"? I think you have stretched your definition a little to far. You consider the following sentence a copyright infringement?

In 1997, using the latest methods and research in factoring large numbers into primes by means of algorithms derived from "polynomial quadratic sieve", Serge Humpich, a French engineer, discovered a method of forging credit cards that could defeat the security measures that put in place by the organizations issuing them.

Are you stretching things a little too far? How about getting a second opinion on this statement? Who can we approach?

You mentioned: "Unfortunately, I haven't got time to compute an optimal edit sequence, but if I were you, I'd try to avoid copying long runs of words from the original..." How you do things is your business. Do not impose your personal style of writing on other people! Our business is whether I had committed a copyright infringment, not how you would personally have handled the article.

Personally, I am under the impression that you are just trying to be a hero to impress this community and in so doing, totally forgotten the No. 1 rule, "Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith. How much do you really know about copyright violation? Can you list down the criteria so that we can have a meaningful discussion?

The reason why I am harping on this is because I have consulted my ex-company's lawyer and he did not think my article on Yescard was a copyright violation. And I certainly hope that you do not go round creating havoc with your overenthusiasm. — PM Poon 02:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

That's right. Taking excerpts from other documents and stitching them together is exactly what I would call "cut and paste". In the case above, one of the cut-and-pasted runs of words was nineteen words long, another was twenty-three words long, and another was a complete sentence of twenty-one words. What are the chances of that happening by chance?

In any case, I think you're missing the point. If you have to argue about how much you need to alter a text to avoid accusations of copying, you are going about things the wrong way. If you write your own original text based on facts from your sources, the question of copyright infringement should never need to arise. So, why not do that instead? -- The Anome 09:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Stop being a smart alec, okay? I guess you do not know what is copyright? Please read:

• When Copying Is Okay: The "Fair Use" Rule and
• Fair Use Chart.

Do not come out with your own rules. Do that in your own personal portal, NOT here in this community portal!

{P/S: Talking about "going about things the wrong way", I think posting a reply in your own discussion page is REALLY DOING THINGS THE WRONG WAY! What kind of person is this?) — PM Poon 10:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see that we have arrived at an impasse. I suggest that you post a request for your pre-deletion version of the Yescard article to be restored on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, on the basis that your initial version satisfies the fair use criteria, and was unfairly deleted as a potential copyvio. Don't forget to mention the discussion above when you do so. Good luck! -- The Anome 13:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead if you wish. The only problem is that I do not know whether the rest here are laymen like yourself. Are there any qualified lawyers here?

Actually, as far as I am concerned, the Yescard issue was settled when my ex-company lawyer vetted the article. What I am trying to forward to you is NOT TO CREATE HAVOC WITH YOUR HALF-BAKED IDEAS ABOUT WHAT COPYRIGHT IS ALL ABOUT.

Have you read the two articles that I gave you? What does "Portion Used Compared to Length of Work" in the Fair Use Chart mean to you? Percentage of copied words in my article OR percentage of copied words from the original article? Fancy wasting so much time on calculating the wrong thing! Talking about "going about things the wrong way", ahem.... Stop arguing for a moment and think!

In the article, When Copying Is Okay: The "Fair Use" Rule, it reads:

Sooner or later, almost all writers quote or closely paraphrase what others have written. For example: Regina, a freelance writer, closely paraphrases two paragraphs from the Encyclopedia Britannica in an article she's writing. Assuming the material quoted is protected by copyright, does Regina need permission from the author or other copyright owner to use it? It may surprise you to learn that the answer is "not necessarily."

Why then are you still arguing? Does it not show you that your idea of copyright is too rudimentary? Remember the quote, "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing"? DO YOU KNOW THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND COPYRIGHT LAWS? Obviously NOT, if our discussion were to go by. As far as you are concerned, copyright is SOLELY to protect the copyright owner. WRONG!!!

"Copyright law has traditionally sought to strike an appropriate balance, between the rights of creators to be recognised and rewarded for their work, and the public interest in ensuring access to information and ideas." (Source: British Library)

That is how the fair use concept came about. You don't know that, right? "Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain."

Cannot accept, right? Any source from your side? Nothing, right, except unsupported blabber, right?

And best of luck if you wanna continue to behave like an expert on copyright. Copyright is definitely NOT your field, at least not now!. — PM Poon 14:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, if you are convinced that you have a case for fair use exemption, please list the article on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, where it can be reviewed by the community. -- The Anome 15:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

This is not necessary. I asked you to consult others if you want, not me... or you would rather live with your ignorance. Anyway, ignorance is bliss, because if you ever find out the truth, you may indeed be very embarrassed over the whole argument (that is assuming that you have the capacity to feel embarrassed at all). I am not interested in consulting anyone in here cos I have already consulted an expert in the field. (Fortunately, I was involved in publishing, although not in the publishing dept.) Moreover, for all I know, I may be asking another ignoramus, unless you can assure me that they are qualified lawyers, well-versed in copyright. In any case, go ahead with what you are doing for all I care. Wonder whether you read my two references. Did anything go into your head? I bet not.

A commercial motive doesn't always disqualify someone from claiming a fair use. A use that benefits the public can qualify as a fair use, even if it makes money for the user.

For example, a vacuum cleaner manufacturer was permitted -- in its advertising -- to quote from a Consumer Reports article comparing vacuum cleaners. Why? The ad significantly increased the number of people exposed to the Consumers Reports's evaluations and thereby disseminated helpful consumer information. The same rationale probably applies to the widespread practice of quoting from favorable reviews in advertisements for books, films, and plays.

On the one hand, "violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain." On the other hand, "a commercial motive doesn't always disqualify someone from claiming a fair use."

Well, copyright is a very complex field, and not as simple as you would like to think. So enjoy your meticulous counting. I rather go and polish charcoal. No difference, right? — PM Poon 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The article Yescard can go to hell for all I care. I left Misplaced Pages a year ago because of people like you.... half baked pies trying to act smart. The "best" part is they talk like you, without any substance, nor supporting references. Even solid evidences given to them appears to change nothing. That's the crux of this argument. Look at some of the arguments at Mel Etitis, and you will know what I mean. — PM Poon 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Anome, if you do know of any qualified lawyer (especially if he is well-versed in copyright like my ex-company lawyer) in here, do let me know. Let's have a more enlightened discussion. — PM Poon 16:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

An unsigned comment

Message

I was not being abusive, it is the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellj (talk • contribs)

Describing another user as "a whore" is contrary to Misplaced Pages's rules. Please don't do it again. -- The Anome 01:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Evaluation of article on Yescard

Would this not be a more constructive way of discussing this issue? What is the logical conclusion? Need I say more?

Why don't you start counting the percentage if you don't take my word for it that the amount copied was small? Wouldn't this figure be more meaningful than those useless figures that you churned out? — PM Poon 16:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, if you are convinced that you have a case for fair use exemption, please list the article on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, where it can be reviewed by the community. -- The Anome 16:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you do not understand plain English. Didn't I say that that article can go to hell? To be honest, the article doesn't mean anything to me. Moreover, I do not know who those people in charge of the Deletion review are. They may well be as "good" as your goodself in terms of copyright knowledge, and I won't be surprised a wee bit. With due regards to them, they may be better than you whom I have confirmed to know next to nothing.

If you understand what I had been driving at, I am telling you that I left a year ago because of one or two overenthusiastic admins who seems to be doing great injustice to this portal. I only hope that admins like them do come to their senses. That's all.

Are you not convinced that you are one of them? Why don't you take a good look at yourself in the mirror? Seems like all the supporting evidence that I gave you can't move your ego a wee bit, even though you can't rebut them. Ask God whether you have indeed been honest to yourself, and had weighed the evidence fairly and squarely? Or you merely reject them just because it proves you wrong? — PM Poon 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you have deleted Yescard. How about deleting Graphism too? As I said before, my contributions here mean nothing to me. Go right ahead! — PM Poon 21:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting that the Fair Use Criteria Chart means nothing at all to you. Just goes to show how arrogant you are. KEEP IT UP! YOU ARE DOING A "FINE" JOB FOR WIKIPEDIA WITH YOUR NONSENSE AND ABUSE OF ADMIN POWER! — PM Poon 22:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

1. http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/2/objectId/C3E49F67-1AA3-4293-9312FE5C119B5806/catId/B2BF24DF-082A-4813-A840F5080C3EAB71/310/276/240/ART/
2. When Copying Is Okay: The "Fair Use" Rule