Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aditya Kabir (talk | contribs) at 11:03, 14 April 2015 (→Help needed: added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If I left you a message on your talk page: please answer on your talk page, and let me know, by pinging me there, or if you prefer by dropping a note on this page. (I make scarcely any use of watchlisting, because I have found otherwise I am unable to keep it under control, and soon build up such a huge watchlist that it is unworkable.) If you leave me a message here: I will answer here, unless you request otherwise, or I think there are particular reasons to do otherwise, and usually I will ping you to let you know. Please add new sections to the bottom of this page, and new messages to the bottoms of their sections. New messages at the top of the page may be overlooked. Clicking here will open a new section at the bottom of the page for a new message. After a section has not been edited for a week it is automatically moved to the latest archive. Links to those archives are given below. However, I reserve the right to delete vandalism, trolling or other unconstructive edits without archiving them.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Glossaries

Do we have them as articles? I can only think of Lists. This is to do with something at User talk:LordTrant. I did ping Melanie, but she hasn't responded. If you get a moment, I'd appreciate you having a look. Peridon (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: Sorry it's taken me a few days to respond, but I've not had much time available for Misplaced Pages recently. My thoughts on this matter are as follows.

1. I don't think that we normally have glossaries of this kind. I certainly can't think of any.
2. To me, the page seems to run totally against the spirit of Misplaced Pages is not a directory, even if nothing in there explicitly refers to glossaries.
3. Does the topic satisfy Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines? Bearing in mind that we already have an article Pewter, does specifically the glossary of terms related to pewter have sufficient coverage in its own right to have a separate article? Looking at Misplaced Pages:Notability#Stand-alone_lists I doubt it.
4. I wonder about the copyright status. Do individual editors of pages at governmentauctionsuk.com have the authority to over-ride the general copyright provisions of the site as a whole? I cannot find anything saying so, and the statements not only at the bottom of the page but also at http://governmentauctionsuk.com/page/terms-of-service are certainly not compatible with the CCNA. Of course, it is entirely possible that the copyright owner is allowed to post the content at governmentauctionsuk.com while still retaining the right to license it under freer terms than the strictly controlled access at that website, but I would be much happier if I could see a statement from that website explicitly saying so. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

He's certainly able to edit that site, or get edits done very quickly - he was getting CC licensing up on it. I don't know if it's still there, as I suggested he was getting a bit ahead of things by doing that before we knew if it was going to be needed. It is gone - but the 'LEARN MORE' buttons are still out of the box, which they weren't when I first saw that page. I have a feeling he is GAUK, or at least a webmaster with no worries about changing things in a quite major way.. The membership mentioned looks to provide info not available to the non-member rather than having your own page there - things like the prices achieved in the auctions. Peridon (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: Yes, but I have known cases where someone such as a webmaster, or a teacher designated to keep the school web site in order, has been under the mistaken impression that being in that position gives them unlimited authority to post anything about the organisation they work for, whereas someone in a more senior position has taken the view that they do not have the right to release content subject to copyright. However, in this case I don't really regard that as a major issue, and very probably this editor does have the necessary authority to release the copyright, as far as that site is concerned. On the other hand there is the complication that the text was first attributed to http://www.pewtersociety.org/resources/glossary, which also claims copyright: can we be sure that is not the original source? I think of my four points above, I would attach least weight to number 4, and most to number 2, but I am still distinctly unsure about the copyright situation. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: By the way, what 'LEARN MORE' buttons, and out of what box? I don't see anything saying 'LEARN MORE' anywhere. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

At the bottom of the http://governmentauctionsuk.com/antique-auction-guides/pewter#8 page - but I've just noticed the CC licensing bit is still there on the white part just above. That's what I was saying to him about contradiction. I've not heard anything from him for about a week, but he could just be waiting patiently for a reply. (Unusual that, here...) Would you have a word with him? Your explanations look clearer than my thoughts... Peridon (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hold the presses! Being interested in pewter (and possessing a few tankards which are very nice with some good ale in them...), I was reading the rest of the GAUK page. I suspect there's a copyvio there, indicated in the 'How it's made' section by "As with most hand-crafted work, our pewter pieces may vary slightly in shape", which is obviously a statement by a manufacturer rather than an auction site. If that's copyvio, the rest probably is too. Peridon (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

@Peridon: Well spotted. That seems to come from http://www.woodburypewter.com/history_care.asp, as does a large chunk of the text at the governmentauctionsuk.com page. Prompted by that, I have searched for a few more quotes from that page, and unfortunately what I have found is the all too common situation where text appears all over the internet, making it difficult to track down the original source. (It amazes me how many people honestly think that anything posted anywhere on the internet can legitimately be copied and reused anywhere, copyright for some reason not applying.) However, even without knowing which sources are original and which are copies, it looks as if the page at governmentauctionsuk.com has been entirely assembled from bits and pieces copied from various other web pages, making it virtually certain that the whole thing is a copyright infringement, and the claim to have the right to release it under a Creative Commons license is probably completely spurious. I will drop a note to the talk page of the editor in question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

• FYI, glossaries are explicitly allowed by WP:DICTIONARY: "Some articles are encyclopedic glossaries on the jargon of an industry or field;" and we have many of them – see category:glossaries. Andrew D. (talk) 13:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Cal Wells

I think the dab page should be deleted. The hatnote (itself irregular) in Cal Wells (motor racing businessman) should suffice to distinguish the two people. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: I fully understand your point, but it seems to me that, in view of the potential damage to a living person, it is better that anyone looking for Cal Wells the financial investment executive on Misplaced Pages should see a page where it is made abundantly unambiguous that the person covered is a different Cal Wells. It is very easy to just launch into reading the text without reading little things like an italic note at the top of the page saying that there is another person of the same name, whereas if the search leads in the first instance to a page where the only information given is that there are two different people of that name, the risk of misunderstanding is far less. I clearly remember a time many years ago when a businessman called John Le Mesurier was much in the news in Britain, because he had been involved in serious illegal activities. At that time the actor John Le Mesurier was still alive, and very famous in Britain. Television and radio news reporting about the crooked businessman always said "the businessman John Le Mesurier", evidently in order to avoid confusion with the actor John Le Mesurier, but even with that disambiguation, I knew people who were convinced that it was the actor who was in trouble, and that "the businessman John Le Mesurier" was just a journalists' way of referring to him. When it comes to protecting the reputation of innocent people, I really think we should err on the side of providing more disambiguation than might seem to be needed needed, rather than risking providing too little. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's not what a dab page is for. It's for navigation to existing articles. There isn't one for the other Wells, nor do I see any notoriety that might be affixed to the wrong person, as in the Le Mesurier example. Time for an WP:AfD? Clarityfiend (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I know full well that "that's not what a dab page is for". I was, in fact, assuming you would have read my comment at Talk:Cal Wells, which begins "I am well aware that this page does not comply with the guidelines for disambiguation pages", but presumably you hadn't, since if you had you would see the potential for "notoriety that might be affixed to the wrong person". Do you have a suggestion for a better way of dealing with the problem, or do you think that we should just ignore it, and leave Cal Wells the financial investment executive to suffer? When he asked for help on this issue, this was the best solution I could think of. If you can think of a better solution, then that will be great, but unless and until a better solution is produced I think the policy WP:IAR should take precedence over the guideline WP:DAB. If you strongly disagree then of course you are free to start a deletion discussion, but if so then please let me know, so that I can explain my reasons. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Where does it say that Wells "bankrupted his team"? I don't see it in the history anywhere. Seems to me somebody would have to dig deep outside of Misplaced Pages to make that connection, and even there I only find it mentioned in one forum. Therefore I will go ahead with the Afd. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Open proxies

There are a large number of IP addresses accessible through a VPN application called Cyberghost which haven't been blocked on Misplaced Pages. I can send you a list; would you be willing to take a look at and potentially block them? Conifer (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

@Conifer: I saw this message about a day after you posted it, by which time at least one of the IP addresses had already been blocked, and since I was short of time I left it at that, assuming someone else had dealt with it. However, if you know that some of the IP addresses are still not blocked, please do send me a list. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Conifer (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

• I know I've accidentally edited Misplaced Pages in the past whilst forgetting that I had CyberGhost enabled. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:08, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

So, remember to disable it? Not sure if this is a problem. Conifer (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Cal Wells for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cal Wells is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Cal Wells until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Fishy articles

"James", there are a number of articles being produced about various fish, which purport to come from a number of different editors. You have removed linkspam from one or two. The articles are all in the same format - an infobox ,and a small number of paragraphs, each of only a few words, giving the common name of the fish, distribution, etc. The article titles are the latin taxonomic names of the fish. This must surely all be the work of one editor. Calling it sockpuppetry is only marginally correct, as the articles are edited only by one editor and, apart from being excessively short, are not controversial. Some have been CSD labeled, which is not an accurate connotation. Any thoughts? --Anthony Bradbury 18:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Anthony Bradbury: I agree that the word "sockpuppet" is questionable, though at least one of the accounts was created while another one was blocked, no doubt to evade the block, so I suppose that one at least is a sockpuppet. Also, whether intentionally or not, an effect of using so many accounts is to evade scrutiny, as editors seeing the unhelpful editing of one account and not seeing all the messages sent to the other accounts treat it as a new editor who does not know how Misplaced Pages works, rather than as a persistent disruptive editor who is ignoring numerous messages about the problems with his or her editing. The WP:CSD#A1 (no context) speedy deletions (at least the ones I have seen) are not really valid, as it is clear what the articles are about: namely particular species of fish. The creator of the articles has explicitly described his or her intention as "to bring up publicity through wikipedia", so there is no doubt that the purpose is spamming. Apart from the spam links, though, the articles, although very poorly written, do no harm, and to have an article giving a few bare facts such as the Latin taxonomical name is perhaps more useful than not having an article at all, so I'm not inclined to delete them. Now that I have blocked a couple of the accounts indefinitely, though, if any more are created it will be block-evasion, and I will be willing to consider deleting them. There are still 114 articles with links to the spammed site (down from 533 when I checked yesterday), and I think all 114 of them should be removed; the only reason I haven't done them is that there is a limit to the time I am willing to spend on it in a day. Also, if any more links to the same site appear, then it should go on the spam blacklist. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for ploughing through this lot - I wasn't sure what was to happen with these over-headlined stubs. If they are to be kept (minus BEDO link), I can make a start on condensing them into one para (by rolling up the blocked editor's contrib list from the bottom). Elmidae (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Elmidae: If you are willing to put the work in, that will be very helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, will get on it (tomorrow - yawn :) --Elmidae (talk) 21:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, a link search now shows the spam link on 218 pages, instead of 114. However, I have looked at a substantial sample of the pages, and none of them has had the link added since I checked and found 114. Linksearch sometimes seems to miss a lot of pages, for no obvious reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

about deleting sollie ephraim page

hey, please i need help i want to create a page for a local modeler on wikipedia page please gelp me on what to do please!

@Jodyegenasis: I suggest a first step is to look at Misplaced Pages's notability guidelines to see whether she is suitable to be the subject of a Misplaced Pages article. I will try and give you more help when I can, but now I am out of time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

notability

okay thank you for the respond. but what do i write first before i beging the page? like

{{notability} } {{model } } | name = |birth_name etc ???

confused

Range block

Would you discuss about the possibility of a range block? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: I will certainly discuss it if you let me know what range, and why it should be blocked. However, right now I am out of time, so I will not be able to follow this up at least for several hours, and perhaps not until tomorrow. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

A week ago, I happened to discover the real master of 3 suspected socks that are now blocked by Elockid. Upon my findings, I have realized that there is problem with the IP addresses. You sure remember , Gilliam had blocked one of these for 1 year with the summary {{blocked proxy}}. 216.81.81/94 is the particular extension that is abused by this editor. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

@OccultZone: You seriously overestimate my memory if you can write "You sure remember.." and link to blocks I made nearly three years ago. No, I don't remember them at all. However, I have spent some time looking at the history of the range you mention, and have come to the following conclusions.

The IP range is allocated to the United States Department Of Homeland Security. I can find no evidence that any IP address in the range is hosting an open proxy: if one was in January 2014, at the time of Gilliam's block, then it does not seem to be still doing so now. The smallest blockable IP range that covers all the IP addresses you mention would be 216.81.64.0/19 (i.e. everything from 216.81.64.0 to 216.81.95.127). Since the beginning of 2014, that range has produced 1357 edits, at an average rate of 88 per month. I have checked a fairly substantial sample of recent edits, and a smaller sample of older ones. A few of the edits I checked were unconstructive in one way or another (as for example this sequence of three vandalism edits) but the substantial majority were perfectly constructive. Also, none of the few unconstructive edits I saw were very recent, and there is no point in blocking because of past problems which are not continuing. I did not see any recent edits which in any way resembled the editing which led to the blocks you mentioned three years ago, so those are irrelevant as far as considering any new block is concerned. The Sockpuppet investigation you link to has links to edits from this IP range, but those edits date back to 2012. The overall conclusion of all that is that I don't see any grounds at all for any block now. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And you can block the individual IPs that are used by this editor? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Help needed

User:CosmicEmperor made his first Misplaced Pages edit a couple of months back by stating in his userpage - "My Username is LoverBoyInGarden . I don't remember my password and i didn't register anu E-Mail so i am unable to access . I had no other choice . So I created a new accountFrost The World (talk) 04:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)" (). A sock of User:Undertrialryryr took over the account User:Frost The World for short while. User:LoverBoyInGarden made a total of 4 edits, though his talk page and user page was regularly edited by CosmicEmperor.

The CosmicEmperor's userpage was repeatedly vandalized by another sock of Undertrialryryr - like User:Fawadkhooburat () - and a number of IPs. I met him on Talk:Bengali people where he behaved most erratically, probably charged with emotions. He did not like my stand and my rebuke, but was unable to take strong stand. So, he created yet another account - User:কসমিক এম্পারার, and came to call names on my talk page. Even in the discussion on Bengali people talk page another sock of Undertrialryryr - User:Universal tiger - made an appearance.

I am sorry to be slightly uncomfortable at this bizarre story. I really couldn't help noticing that the socks listed on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Undertrialryryr/Archive have modus operandi similar to CE. And, I was also not very surprised to notice the similarities between names like CosmicEmperor and Universal tiger. I hope this is not some kind of juvenile game. Can you give me any advise? Aditya 10:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

BTW, this looks like another attempt to discredit CosmicEmperor. User:কসমিক এম্পারার has been blocked. If he needs guidance, please intervene. My level of patience is totally useless for this kind of stuff. Aditya 11:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)