Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RyanCross (talk | contribs) at 21:19, 12 April 2008 (Undid revision 205197699 by 76.2.179.86 (talk)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1 • Archive 2 • Archive 3 Archive 4 • Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

What do you suggest we do to address User:Calton's tagging?

Calton continues, I randomly pulled user out of Calton's many spam warning contributions over the past day and got this one: User_talk:Billseidle - the user has never been blocked, let alone indef blocked. Should I start a separate WP:AN thread to address this issue? What are your recommendations? Calton never responded to your request for an explanation.--Doug. 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever left a note on his talk page, asking him why he does it? . . . (posted at User talk:Doug)

Most certainly, you will recall this recent post by me at Misplaced Pages:AN#Talk_pages_for_indef_users (which we agreed was slightly off topic) :

Well, no offense Calton, but I know you commonly tag userpages as spam and then add {{temporary userpage}} to their talk pages. Several admins have addressed this issue with you before, including me, but we apparently have a clear difference of opinion over the proper usage of {{temporary userpage}}. (See User_talk:Calton#Temporary_userpage.3F, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage, User_talk:Calton#Tagging_user_pages_of_unblocked_users, User_talk:Calton#Template:temporary_userpage_2). If I notice these I review them. Some of these are in fact indef blocked and don't have an indef block tag, so the {{temporary userpage}} tag is valid. Others have never been blocked, let alone indef blocked. If you look at CAT:TEMP you'll probably find that many, if not most, usertalkpages are due to {{temporary userpage}} on the talk page - though I'm not saying they're all there due to Calton - I have no idea. Alternatively, will give a good starting place if you go through the ones tagged as spam in particular (Calton puts the template in the edit summary so this is pretty easy). --Doug. 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

There are four notices to Calton there, comprising the concerns of five separate admins, the last one is mine. When Calton replies, it sounds like "Don't complain to me, I just tag them, complain to the admins who are deleting" - that's a paraphrase not a quote. Of course, the complaining parties are the admins. In at least one case, the third one above, Calton appears to convince the admin that he doesn't understand policy and should be deleting these. There is at least one other notice on his page regarding inappropriate use of CSD against user talk pages too. Calton's attitude seems to be that these pages don't belong here so I won't stop tagging them. I'm a new admin and don't really know the best way to handle this, several very experienced admins seem to have given up already. Problem is, from that AN thread we have evidence that some admins have been just cleaning out the queue and maybe not always noticing whether the user was actually indef blocked (of all the tags that I'm aware of that feed CAT:TEMP, {{temporary userpage}} is the only one that is not clearly an indef blocked tag) --Doug. 23:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

So, any thoughts on this?--Doug. 15:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

I see Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology was deleted, but I was more puzzled to find Hersfold (talk · contribs) removing all incoming links. Hersfold says that he was acting on your request. To be sure, there is little doubt that FASEB is notable, and I'm therefore not convinced that all the links need to be removed. Could you clarify the situation? JFW | T@lk 00:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this was a really unnecessary action. Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology is perfectly valid and important article (also indicated by the number of wikilinks). You should not remove redlinks, and redirects simply because an article was deleted due to copyvio issues. The article was recreated immediately with non-copyvio content. Please take your time to check each case individually! Also, please try to remember all deleted redirects and reinstate them. Thanks, Сасусlе 02:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(cross posted) Sorry to the 3 of you for the confusion. Yes, I deleted the article as a complete copyright violation. The links that were removed by Hersfold, was after I had asked him to do it, as my tool wasn't functioning properly. In this specific case, the links did not have to be removed and it may have in fact been best to leave them, to allow for recreation of the article without copyright violations. My apologies for this error, and thanks for bringing it to my attention. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks. JFW | T@lk 09:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Lectures

The lecture has started. irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-en-lectures

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey

When wikipedia starts blocking racists i wont need to. Hes vandalised my talk page for days already. Realist2 (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DXCJ

Let me know if there are any I missed. The socks all seem to be blocked now. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Tighina

I notice you have blocked the page Bender, Moldova from being moved by the request of Mikkalai. That user has abused his powers in previously protecting the page.

Refer to the Misplaced Pages protection policy at Misplaced Pages:Protection_policy#Move_protection:

"administrators should avoid favoring one name over another, and protection should not be considered an endorsement of the current name."

However Mikkalai has stated that: "This is the official name of the city, according to the evidence presented. Period" in order to justify his actions.

There was previously a proposal to move the page, however it ended with no consensus. This definitely doesn't favour either name. I would be interested to hear your reasons for further protecting the page at his request. Rapido (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at this

When you thought fake BB articles were no more. → Big Brother Canada it has been tagged. Vandalism I say. Pure hoax. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have no idea where these articles are coming from first BB Kids then BB Canada. At this point if CBS says they are having an CBB edition I wouldn't believe them. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 03:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)