Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:36, 20 May 2010

Home Talk Email Contributions monobook.js Content Awards Userspace

Wait! Are you here because your article was speedy deleted? Click here before leaving a message to find out why.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Talkback

PP of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi just not cutting it

Greetings, I appreciate your Partial Protection of Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi, but since the main offender has been registered since 2008, he just went ahead and reverted to the POV version right after you PP'ed it. I have contacted him on his Talk page, cited over a dozen examples of his version's inappropriate content on Discussion, filed on Noticeboards, and given clear Edit Summaries for every one of my edits. He however has refused to come to Discussion or the noticeboards, and gives almost no Edit summary or Talk comment except vague allegations of the NPOV 10kB verison being "disrespectful" and "unjustified." I'm sure that with a glance you can tell the 10kB version is more wiki-appopriate, and Thelonerex has reverted the article a dozen times in the last week. Can anything be done about his POV pushing and refusal to communicate or justify, especially given that (except for one article about some Pakistan gov't office) his edits have been largely Pakistan POV-pushing? Stability Information East 2 (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm; that was actually my mistake while protecting. I had meant to full protect it, but apparently I hit the wrong button and only semi-protected it. It is now full protected (and reverted back to the 10k version per WP:PREFER). I'll add a note to Thelonerex's talk page about the consequences of reverting without attaining consensus for the future. NW (Talk) 18:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you please reinstate the edit protection until the editors work it out on the talk page? You have an SPA up to the usual tricks. Tom Reedy (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I full protected it for the next month. Do ask when you want the protection removed. NW (Talk) 18:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here, hope all's fine by you,

Could you please lend me a hand - not literally! - at Antonio López Ojeda's article? Someone (i would not be surprised if it was vandalism!!) changed the last name (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Antonio_L%C3%B3pez_Ojeda&diff=prev&oldid=347252031), this person is not called "OJEDA" but, as article states, "HABAS" (you can check the two external links i provided for confirmation). Apparently, once the page is moved once, only administrators can "re-change" it. Could you get it done please?

All for the moment, keep it up, have a good weekend,

From Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 23:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

 Done as you have requested. Happy editing! NW (Talk) 00:15, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

• Just so you know (and in case something can be done) my friend: opened my account for some "no-holes barred" editing and...VOILÁ!! This person still on my case, now he "profitted" from a friendly message from a good user and wrote this (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:VascoAmaral&diff=cur) ...Charming no?

Take care, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

template:chlorides

Template:chlorides is'n really needed and is not much as a template so it should be deleted and why did you protect it? Ebe123 (talk) 15:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean Template:Chloride? I protected it because it is a high-risk template that does not really need to be edited.

Would you like me to nominate it for deletion for you? If so, could you please explain why? Thank you, NW (Talk) 18:07, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Ratanakiri Province

Thanks for undoing the protection on Ratanakiri Province. I didn't realize it was today's featured article. For future reference, is there a way to tell short of checking the homepage? -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The other reason I unprotected the TFA is because of Special:AbuseFilter/58, which is now catching most or all of the vandalism. I believe the TFA generally has an editnotice these days, but I'm not really sure if that would be faster than checking the main page. NW (Talk) 02:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Fourteenth Amendment

Thanks for those blocks etc, NW. They will probably brag now that they have been 'nuked'! (You guys are quick!) --220.101.28.25 (talk) 03:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:112.203.254.70

Is protection on User talk:112.203.254.70 appropriate? I may have missed something; let me know. Maybe it was to stop the issue which I hope I have dealt with - please see User talk:Can You Prove That You're Human#User talk:112.203.254.70? Cheers,  Chzz  ►  18:04, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The protection probably isn't necessary any longer, but was more to stop the situation that I thought someone else was dealing with. Thanks for helping out. I have removed the semi-protection. NW (Talk) 19:11, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I thought as much, thanks - no worries.  Chzz  ►  04:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS does not stop!!

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here (and i sincerely hope this message of mine has some kind of response),

PARARUBBAS has a new account, called User:Jhkl890 ("contributions" here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Jhkl890). Could you please block and revert his edits? Thank you very much in advance.

From Portugal, have a nice week, --Vasco Amaral (talk) 21:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi there Vasco. I have opened a checkuser request just to double check. Thanks for the heads up. NW (Talk) 22:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

AGW BLP concerns

If have observed anyone else consistently trying to attack Singer in his BLP, please propose their names for ban consideration also. As pointed out in the enforcement request, it appears that the only other editor who has tried to do so was Raul654, and he has left the article alone for more than a year now. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, note "not seeing perfect behavior on all parties" does not necessarily equate to "consistently trying to attack Singer." The former could for example include edit warring to remove well-sourced if not entirely positive information on the subject, or persistent inclusion of unsourced or poorly sourced peacockery. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, recently I noticed that FellGleaming removed the section on the Gore/Lancaster/Revell controversy. I'm probably going to readd that section, and perhaps even start a separate article on it. FellGleaming, however, appears to have left the article alone since then. I do sometimes see editors trying to remove adequately sourced, appropriate but negative material from some BLPs, such as the volcano stuff from Ian Plimer. I will be, as I did with Plimer, doing my best to keep that from happening. If NW knows of anyone else whose editing behavior in the AGW BLPs has been as problmmatic as WMC's, I hope he will propose them for topic bans also. Do you remember the long-running edit war to keep Lawrence Solomon from being described as an "environmentalist?" What was up with that? Cla68 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend not restoring the Singer-Revelle-Lancaster material. In particular, under no circumstances should there be a link to the original depositions or testimony in the case. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, so you support FellGleaming's removal of the material. Anyway, please voice your concern in that thread on Singer's talk page. Cla68 (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

(To NW) Just wanted to point this out to you. Cla68 (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

NW, that's one I'd missed before, but it's quite serious. He has also added RealClimate to Singer's page and of course there's the infamous Martian thing. And the Lyndon LaRouche association in Jawarowski's BLP sourced to his friend Tim Lambert's blog. That's just 2 BLPs, and I know I will find many more examples once I start looking harder, but how many pieces of evidence are required before admins recognize that this is a long term pattern? Recall that you recently sanctioned Marknutley for much much less than this -- he added a single blog source for content that was also repeated in the New York Times -- so you've already set the bar for sanctionable BLP behavior and WMC has far exceeded it. ATren (talk) 11:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I must have missed this section with all the other comments on my talk page recently; my apologies. ATren, I'm afraid that RealClimate is not something I feel comfortable passing a judgment on, as I do know that there are times when it is acceptable to use as a source (and of course, times when it is utterly unacceptable to use). The other points seem to have been discussed in other areas, but could you please provide the diffs for the RealClimate additions as well as any WP:RSN or similar discussions on Misplaced Pages? Thanks, NW (Talk) 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The policy is extremely clear that self-published sources can never be used in a BLP, unless it's the subject talking about themselves. So, WMC's use of RealClimate, and edit warring to do so, are very clear violations of one of WP's most strictly enforced policies. Strictly enforced, that is, except apparently in this case. Cla68 (talk)

I agree with you, but without knowing the context of the situation, I really cannot act, which is why I asked for diffs. NW (Talk) 19:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Sego Lily

Based on recent contributions, Sego Lily (talk · contribs) seems to be a sockpuppet of White Trillium (talk · contribs). Both their userpages start out with the edit summaries "add box", "add template", and "add pict". The layout of both userpages are identical. Also, they use the edit summary "add cmt". Just like White Trillium, Sego Lily is reverting vandalism at the start of his/her account. Goodvac (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment moved to Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/South Bay. NW (Talk) 02:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Quick Question

About this edit they are bote americans and authors, i am wondering why you removed that cat? mark nutley (talk) 11:02, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That category is supposed to be for authors only, not for the books they wrote. A more appropriate category (if it existed) would be 'Books written by Americans'. Best, NW (Talk) 11:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Cool thanks, i`ll have to remember that for the other articles i`m planning :)mark nutley (talk) 11:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

DYK for John Heaphy Fellowes

On 17 May, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article John Heaphy Fellowes, which you recently nominated. If you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Lar.2C_NuclearWarfare.2C_The_Wordsmith.2C_Polargeo

I have noted in the above enforcement request that the admin-only results section is for results, not for threaded discussion. If you wish to enage in threaded discussion, you are directed to do so where the plebians are able to respond to you. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; I'll be sure to comment there. NW (Talk) 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for adding the protection template on the Pauley Perrette article - I forgot!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not a problem; it's a wiki after all ;) NW (Talk) 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Question - Cheryl Bachman

I'm curious, about this edit, and doubly so since the referenced justification is to a secure website at Wikimedia Commons.

How was it determined, and by whom, that these are different people?

Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I believe that the privacy policy prohibits me from disclosing that information without the consent of the person who emailed OTRS. My apologies, NW (Talk) 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested in the process, not the identity of the people involved. Do I understand from your answer that the process is that somebody writes to OTRS privately and says "There is some information on Misplaced Pages that isn't correct", and then somebody at OTRS decides if the information should be removed or or not? Do individual editors or administrators make that decision, or is there some kind of collaborative process? How does one decide if the bit of information in question is something that should be handled through that process rather than the normal editing process? Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, for matters relating to private information, things are nearly always handled in this manner. Depending on the case, the OTRS ticket number may or may not be cited when the OTRS member makes the change. What decision to make is nearly always left in the hands of the single volunteer who handles the ticket, which is why they are almost always chosen solely from very experienced editors and administrators. OTRS members will handle nearly any task sent to them relating to the content of an article when it affects an individual person (otherwise, we will point out the standard editing process). A couple of the mailing list threads at Misplaced Pages:OFFICE#Originalia, although slightly outdated, explains a lot of what OTRS handles.

I hope that helps. I feel like I wasn't very clear, so if you're at all confused, please do request clarification. Best, NW (Talk) 21:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It is all very clear now. Thank you for the explanation. I made an edit here consistent with your edit to the BLP. Fladrif (talk) 21:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

PARARUBBAS

Hi there NUKE, VASCO "speaking",

Checkuser still running...Also, checking the first edit of the new account, i discovered that AGAIN (!!), this "person" has had two simultaneous accounts, because we blocked the previous account way before 21/04/2010.

As you can see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Manuel_Machado_(football_manager)&diff=prev&oldid=362318552), the redirects in articles continue to be created, regardless of my warnings (when i talked with this "person"). When is this going to end? Chances are NEVER! Oh well... --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh fun. Hopefully checkuser will get on this soon to root out any other accounts, although I will block him if he continues editing with this account. NW (Talk) 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Pauley Perrette

I was curious how Jimbo can support putting a year long semi-protection to this article. The article isn't frequently edited and from looking at the history, any inappropriate edits are reverted immdeiately. I've semi-protection refused due to relative lack of current activity at WP:RPP. The reason given is "Excessive vandalism: long history of vandalism/harassment/blp violations - as well as recent ones". I've watched and edited this article for some time now and I am not of the opinion that this article is a target for "excessive vandalism" nor have I see a hint of harassment or BLP violations. How does this happen? It seems knee-jerk to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrators generally have a great discretion when choosing to semi-protect BLPs. I myself have done much longer protections based on OTRS complaints and other such matters. In any case, this sounds like a matter you should take up with Jimmy. NW (Talk) 03:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see this before closing

I think two points need to be considered before closing that request; I put it in the admin section to get your attention but it was moved, and I just want to make sure you see it before closing. Thanks. ATren (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the heads up ATren. I have withdrawn from the general sanctions page for now until Hipocrite's comment is cleared up, but I shall take what you said into consideration if I return before the request is closed. NW (Talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment/Climate change probation

I have started working on a Request for comment on the Climate change general sanctions to follow through on the opinions rendered in the establishment discussion that the probation should be reviewed after a few months; the working draft is at User:2over0/GSCC RfC. If you have the time and inclination, I would appreciate if you would review the statement of concern with an eye to quickly bringing uninvolved editors up to speed. I would like to take this live by the weekend. This is an open invitation, and you should feel free to edit the statement as you see fit and notify any editors you think would be interested. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 17:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. I shall be sure to watch the page closely. NW (Talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Consensus close?

Lar would rather you didn't see this so I'd better point it out William M. Connolley (talk) 18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, that little skirmish between you and Lar looked like it ended well. I shall most definitely take your comment into consideration. NW (Talk) 01:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

:-). Thanks William M. Connolley (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your Barnstar

This user just got a generic mini-barnstar from CompuHacker. Press DEL or click here to sell it for §1.

I'm gonna shove this somewhere. CompuHacker (talk) 01:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

New kid for the block

Hi there NUKE, VASCO here,

Oddly, the checkuser has not produced any results yet, but the vandal has not edited more (must be busy opening three more accounts!).

Sadly, i found this (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/84.238.115.129); this anon user, who has edited today, continues to persist in removing stuff from boxes which are correct. I remember warning (or asking an admin to do so) this chap (just don't remember if the IP was the same, but both are from Denmark, 100% sure!) about his behaviour, see what good it did...

Given that the IP is standard and has been active (today as of latest), what can be done? Ty very much in advance, cheers - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• P.S. You can take my honest word for it, i don't kid around with vandals, this is a case of such, but if you would like for me to provide examples, i will (although it would not help much unless you are familiar with soccer) - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you happen to remember the other IPs? I could possibly perform a rangeblock if he has access to a small number of IPs, but I don't know if that one IP by itself if worth blocking. Also, for the IP that you listed above, are all the edits error-introducing, or just the most recent one? NW (Talk) 19:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• Most certainly my friend, here is the other IP (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/83.108.143.34 - has already been blocked and all http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:83.108.143.34). Although i should be fair and correct myself, this IP is not also from Denmark, but Norway. This must rule out the possibility of this being the same person, but no doubt they are removing things they should not.

Answering your second question, i did not see all the edits of the newest IP, but in Ricardo Costa (Portuguese footballer) (please see here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Ricardo_Costa_(Portuguese_footballer)&diff=362752825&oldid=362751363) and Marc Ziegler (here http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marc_Ziegler&diff=361932231&oldid=361909249) he did remove true info.

Obviously i understand if nothing can be made of this, it was my mistake for conveying the falsehood of this being a single person "operating". I apologize for that and bring a most "reliable" report upon your request. Cheers, from Portugal - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unfortunately I do not know if there are any technical measures that can be used to stop these guys; the IPs are certainly too far apart to hit with a rangeblock. I'd recommend waiting to see if the person from the 84.238.115.129 IP edits again; if so, appropriate blocks can be handed out. I think we are probably good for now though. NW (Talk) 01:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Todd Schoolcraft

After you unlocked his talkpage, he pasted in a copy of an email he'd sent to OTRS, which contained the address & phone number of the copyright holder. I've rolled it back and asked him not to do it again - do you think it warrants removing the revisions? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:58, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I have taken action and informed the appropriate parties. Thank you for the heads up. NW (Talk) 19:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Death of Gerry Ryan

I must say I find your closure of this AfD completely shocking and incorrect. There was a clear consensus to delete here based on the WP:NOT#NEWS argument. How could you possibly justify a keep close?? Nsk92 (talk) 04:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I gave a closing rationale. I do not believe that WP:NOTNEWS applies in this case, although Misplaced Pages:Notability (events) certainly does. No one adequately addressed Candlewicke's argument that it met the latter. NW (Talk) 04:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think your closure was so far out of line that I am taking it straight to the DRV. Nsk92 (talk) 04:15, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Death of Gerry Ryan

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Death of Gerry Ryan. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Nsk92 (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for opinion

I draw your attention to . I don't think that reflects your opinion, or the balance of opinion on the RFE page. I invite your opinion William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I agree with you. The following are snippets on an IRC conversation I had in #wikipedia-en-admins with The Wordsmith.

I'm not sure of the appropriate action to take from here, but I just want to let you know where I stand. NW (Talk) 20:36, 20 May 2010 (UTC)