Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mar4d (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 7 July 2015 (→New socks: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Note: I like to keep discussion threads together, so if you leave a message here I will usually respond here. If I have begun a discussion on your page, I'll see it if you respond there. A {{ping}} would be appreciated if you reply at a later date. {{Talkback}} notes here will generally not be needed. Note to new and non-logged-in editors: Due to a long-term issue with vandalism, this talkpage has unfortunately had to be semi-protected. If you need to contact me and can't post here, please just post your message on your own talkpage or the talkpage of the relevant article and add the code "{{ping|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}" to it, then I'll be sure to see it.

Archives

Soren (given name)

your answer is provided in the talk page!

Happy New Year!

Dear Future Perfect at Sunrise,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Fair use of Eritrean state torture image

Thanks for your comments on , I have uploaded files before under similar criteria, but I confess not usually syndicated ones. I have searched extensively for non copyrighted replacements for an illustration of state sponsored torture of the kind described in the UNHCR report, are you aware of sources I am not? Cpsoper (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Disappointed you have not responded here before acting. Cpsoper (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Cpsoper: You're not the only one.... Luxure Σ 04:49, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for not commenting earlier, but the matter really turned out to be a very simple one: it was a commercial news ageny picture, a fact that makes most of the rest of the WP:NFC issues moot. If it hadn't been for that, we might have discussed your rationale, but there would have been more problems still. You never gave any reasoning why a photo of two random protesters at an unspecified place and time is necessary to make the subject of torture understood, nor why such a photo couldn't be replaced (was that the only ever protest event? Won't there be more protests in the future, where other such pictures could be taken?). There were other formal problems too, such as the lack of declaration on the file page which article(s) you wanted to use it in (in the form you indicated you wanted it for the article allAfrica, but then you ended up using it in two different articles). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I understand this better now, and why I had success before (subject was incommunicado). Cpsoper (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Have uploaded same image to Commons under CC SA 3.0 with permission of the original publisher, and their explicit assertion of this licence , can you please help delete the wiki fair use file? Thanks. Cpsoper (talk) 22:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

An hypothesis

Sorry I added a few words on Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/Language before noticing you had closed the discussion. Do you want me to take them out? I am happy with your conclusion. Also, sorry I seem to have started it in the wrong place - mea culpa. Myrvin (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Darkness Shine's original IP is still unblocked and active, despite the SPI that was filed. Mar4d (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you check if these two are DS . They're reverting in what DS' sock added . Mar4d (talk) 06:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

• You blocked this IP previously as DS sock. He's back. Mar4d (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sock

You blocked Tejas MRCA but he is returned with another account TejasAnand. Both of them are apparently socks of Nangparbat. Thank you. --Human3015 knock knock • 09:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Are they really? I haven't looked too closely yet, but I was under the impression that they were advocating opposite viewpoints? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New Tejas is also a disruptive editor, he created account User:Tag Teaming. --Human3015 knock knock • 09:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer my question, while opening up a new one: why do you think Tag Teaming is a sock of "Tejas" (and of which of the two "Tejas" accounts, if they aren't the same)? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Tag Teaming is most probably Darkness Shines. Nangparbat is pro-Pakistan and would never create an AN/I-report against other Pakistani editors, as Tag Teaming did. And the two Tejas accounts are most probably socks of two different users, one pro-India and one pro-Pakistan (see this edit where TejasAnand removes a !vote by Tejas MRCA on Talk:Kargil War). Editors/socks on both sides in the conflict make some "trick" edits, though, occasionally reverting people on their own side to make it harder to see which side they're on. Thomas.W 10:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

TejasAnand created the user page User:Tag Teaming with the notation "Obvious sock account" but I don't think they meant that it was their own sock account but was someone else's. Liz 10:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

So TejasAnand maybe sock of Nangparbat as per WP:DUCK. If not of Nangparbat then he can be sock of any other involved Pro-Pakistani editor on that page. Any involved editor can create new account to influence decision on RfCs. This is becoming very irritating. Though I'm very much involved in Kargil War page still I'm not taking any part in that RfC, I think controversial disputes should be resolved by discussion on DRN with valid sources. RfC will not give accurate outcome regarding these issues. It clearly means if more Pro-Pakistani editors are involved there then RfC may go in their favour despite whatever the actual reality, same applies to Pro-indian editors. If admin can do it, then it will be better to stop or delete RfC going on talk page of Kargil War and advice them to go for DRN, there some quality editors can discuss that matter with some non-involved neutral editors. RfC is not suitable here.--Human3015 knock knock • 11:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk back

Since you posted this comment after my request for reconsideration, I take it that you chose to ignore. I've posted an appeal at AE to be reviewed by uninvolved admins. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

AE Boards

As you have not responded to my explanation for reconsideration of ban, I am posting an appeal at AE to be reviewed by uninvolved admins.—TripWire  20:24, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Oversight requested

Another sock out there. Please oversight those edits. I have mailed oversight too. Faizan (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If possible oversight this too. --Human3015 knock knock • 13:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

New socks

You indeffed some Indo-Pakistani SPAs and sockmasters from the Kargil War RfC. Some of those accounts have resurfaced hardly a few days ago with new socks and are creating nuisance on the same articles. Please check the following MCIWS, F-INSAS (displaying strong POV as that of Knightwarrior with identical editing patterns/behaviour, and editing the same set of articles; most likely operated by one master and also linked to this account), 115.245.225.125 and all other IPs here, (NP?). Thanks, Mar4d (talk) 13:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Zadon19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is pushing pro-Pakistan POV and was blocked for 36h yesterday at AN3 for it, along with their equally POV-pushing pro-India opponent in that fight, MCIWS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a fight where Zadon19 was deliberately triggered by MCIWS. A triggering that is no excuse for what they did, though. F-INSAS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is obviously pro-India, and has been semi-active today, while Islamabad Queen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) hasn't done anything blockable yet, but is worth keeping an eye on. And a couple of IPs have already been blocked today, for IPA edit-warring. The articles that were hit worst yesterday, Pakistan Army, Indian Army, Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts and Siachen conflict, have also been semi-protected for a month by NeilN after a request at RFPP by me. Thomas.W 13:52, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping me updated. Good job keeping track of all this sock theater. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Islamabad Queen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandalism-only account, judging by the profane Urdu language they used in their only edit. Mar4d (talk) 13:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)