Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Welcome – post issues of interest to administrators.

For urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems, use Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. If you are new, try the Wikipedia:Teahouse instead. Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead use Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. For administrative backlogs add {{Admin backlog}} to the backlogged page; post here only if urgent. Do not post requests for page protection, deletion requests, or block requests here. Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page. Pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:AN-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Sections inactive for over seven days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.(archives, search) Start a new discussion

Admins with history merging experience wanted

This discussion is now in Wikipedia talk:New histmerge list#Automating these history-merges?.

• I decided to embark on a little project, and wrote a program to try and figure out just how often cut-and-paste moves happen. The answer seems to be "OH MY GOD! THAT OFTEN?!?!". The program is working its way through the most recent database dump, and as of this writing, it's 6% of the way through, and it has registered over 3,700 hits. I've been in touch with User:Anthony Appleyard, the only admin who performs history merges on a regular basis. Both of us agree that this is way more than what he can handle, and I, not being an admin, can't do anything to help him.

  So, with that, any admins who are willing to help should take a look at User:Mikaey/Possible cut-and-paste moves.

• WAIT: I like cut-and-paste moves to eliminate useless old revisions. Such as: a new user User:JonQuePublic writes several marginal articles (perhaps named like "My rare notable" ). Well, as a typical new user, he saves each edit after every 5 words, then 200 revisions later, goes, "Wow, now that I know how Wikipedia saves & names articles, I'll just redo all of those articles, renaming them better as 'Our rare notable' etc." Hey, I think that's great: just copy/paste into the better article-names, re-created as perhaps 5 revisions by one user. Then, finally, delete all those neophyte articles that had 200 (or more) 5-word revisions. Please, let's not make Wikipedia a monument to proving newbie editors make 200 revisions to each of their first 100 new articles. It is time to start pruning old revisions. Plus, do you realize Wikipedia is lacking perhaps 10,000 highly notable articles, not yet written? ...because people are obsessing about keeping marginal, minor old stuff. Hence, what I'm saying is "purge the old name variations" and "purge even more old 200-revisions by newbies". Then, focus on adding missing articles, while renaming many newbie articles to better titles, such as "Jon Tee Public" becoming "Jon Tee Public (footballer)". There are over 32,000 footballer articles, so far, and I think many of them could be renamed/purged to remove thousands of the current 315 million revisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Cut and paste moves should never occur. Revisions are saved for a reason. Viridae^Talk 08:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
    • What Viridae said. None of those revisions are actually in the way of anything, and they are required for reasons of copyright and attribution.--Aervanath (talk) 21:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

• Attribution-evidence is an easy issue to resolve: just note, on the talk-page under topic "Copyright concerns" that the article was re-created from the prior name (at a specific time). In cases of copyright dispute, the old-named article can be un-deleted, and the lawyers can check the date/time of the 200 revision entries. There is ample legal precedent for this: in a registry of deeds, documents constantly refer to prior deeds filed by page/line number, without the need to repeat the entire deeds within the scope of the current deed: all that is needed is a named/numbered reference. Hence, that problem is solved, so feel free to copy-paste when moving articles, but remind people to note the original article name on the talk-page (or in an early edit-summary). If there were a legal mandate to keep prior revisions, then user-space versions would need to be history-merged to "prove" the users had written the added text on a certain prior date, within their own user-space areas, as full documentation supporting the day they added those changes into the live version of an article. However, when an article "ttt" is deleted, it should be archive-named as "ttt-2009Jun22-hh:mm" to ensure a unique archival name, relative to future articles of the same name. That would allow precise tracking to a particular "John Smith" article being scanned for copyvio. There is no legal reason to retain every prior revision of a page, especially for numerous 5-word revisions made within a few hours. If you have any other questions, let me know. -Wikid77 (talk)

You might try making the recommended move procedure easier. The 1 time I tried it I couldn't get it to work. Subsequently I did a few c&p moves until an admin told me I shouldn't. Peter jackson (talk) 10:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Overused non-free images

I couldn't find a better place for this, WP:CP is for text and Wikipedia:WikiProject Images and Media/Non-free is inactive, so I'm posting this here.

There are currently 42 images tagged as non-free that are used on 30 or more pages. Many of these are being used in templates, including talk page templates and userboxes, so fixing it is as easy as editing one page, though some may have questionable fair use rationales. So if people are looking for something to do:

List of files

File	Uses
File:UMass_Seal.png	380
File:Glogo-small.png	174
File:Liga-Nacional-de-Futbol-de-Honduras.png	99
File:Seal_of_the_Prime_Minister_of_Thailand.svg	96
File:Canadian_Forces_emblem.png	85
File:EnverHoxha.jpg	82
File:INS_Vikrant.jpg	81
File:U-47s.jpg	79
File:Seal_of_the_National_Assembly_of_Thailand.png	65
File:Minneapolis_flag.svg	61
File:OMosley.jpg	59
File:Tennesseestateseallrg.png	57
File:JoseAntonio-DeRivera.jpg	57
File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png	55
File:Ion_Television_logo.svg	54
File:UnionArabeFootballAssociation.png	51
File:Gpap.PNG	50
File:Uk1pnd2000.jpg	50
File:GLRockwell.jpg	49
File:Paralympic_logo.png	49
File:INRNPA.png	49
File:PrefSymbol-Chiba.png	48
File:Trans-Canada_Highway_shield.svg	48
File:RiverCityLogo2007.jpg	46
File:JCL_Seal.png	46
File:Miami_Dade_County.png	46
File:Libertarian_Party.svg	45
File:Abclocalradio.png	44
File:FloridaGators.png	43
File:MarylandTerrapins.png	43
File:Virginia_Senate_Seal.png	42
File:Us-ok-tu.png	40
File:Newpalmlogo.svg	39
File:StMartinCoat.png	38
File:Artix_logo.jpg	37
File:CBCRadioOne.svg	37
File:DaytonFlag.png	33
File:LSUTigers.png	32
File:Oklahomastateseal.jpg	32
File:Dharmalogo.svg	31
File:Seal_of_ASEAN.svg	31
File:CMCLogo.jpg	30

-- Mr.Z-man 20:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll look at some of these. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I did some of the ones higher up on the list. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify a few things:

• Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is the more appropriate place to post questions of this nature in the future.
• Images used in templates will show as being used in every article where the template is used, which is technically true
• Non-free images may not be used in lists within articles, navigational boxes, or galleries in articles or categories
  • The standards are Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline
• Example: File:Seal of ASEAN.svg is incorrectly used in the navbox {{Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)}}

---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 22:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Who is this directed at? This wasn't really a questions, so MCQ didn't seem like a very good forum. I'm not asking if these are overused and used inappropriately, I'm pointing out that most of them almost certainly are. Mr.Z-man 22:43, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, frack; I didn't notice it was you. Never mind. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on these now. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just to make an example of it, I'd say that 90% of the uses of File:LSUTigers.png are complete bunk. Resolute 23:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Same with the other sport logos. However, removing them would probably be deemed "controversial", as there is a long history of editors completely failing to get it with regards to sports logos. Of course, sports logos, especially for universities, are so different to other non-free content. I'd have removed them myself, but my Twinkle is playing up. Dealt with a good few, but more eyes are needed (and a tool for mass removal would be nice in some cases). J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't there a long RfC on sport logos recently? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 23:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Assuming they're being used in mainspace with rationales, that question is still up in the air (there's an attempt to get mediation on it). However, any use outside of mainspace is clearly a violation of NFC policy (no ifs, ands, or buts) and that action is what needs to be undertaken. --MASEM (t) 23:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

There was a RfC, yes, but it was a joke, naturally. Policy is clear, some people just refuse to accept it, as articles look so much prettier with logos splashed all over them. They should just be removed, I don't really see why it's still being discussed. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the comedy RfC and whatever "mediation" takes place (since when do we do mediation on policy?), of course overuse shoudl be removed in the meantime. Black Kite 01:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I went through over half the list. The majority of the issue was these were being used in templates, which isn't allowed per NFCC 9. Also, while we have half a dozen places this could have gone, I think Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review would have been the best place personally (take that Gadget850 ;) I also didn't want to touch the sports logos with a 10 foot pole. Seems like majority rule/consensus of avid sports fans get to circumvent NFC, and I'm not up for any fights like that again. Just curious, how was this list generated?-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I generated the list with a Toolserver query. Mr.Z-man 00:36, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

When we have respected admins unwilling to deal with blatant abuse of non-free content (presumably because of a fear of drama/general backlash?) we have a problem. This sports logo issue needs sorting... J Milburn (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Try going after television screenshots. I had more fun dealing with the Croatian/Serbian fights. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NFCC is completely clear that non-free images are not permitted outside the main namespace; removing them from user pages is perfectly appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not an issue; article space is different though - still, remember that WP:3RR is your friend and doesn't apply to removing NFCC violations ;) The use of File:MarylandTerrapins.png is ridiculous, for example. It should be used in the main article and nothing else. If someone else hasn't fixed this by tomorrow I'll be wielding the NFCC axe. Black Kite 00:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I misread the original post above. The uses in mainspace are more painful to deal with, unfortunately. Was there actually an RFC on the sports logos? — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:10, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

There was. I can't find it now - can anyone link? Of course, it was just a small number of users pointing out policy vs. a collection of editors who didn't give a shit about NFCC. I've just cleared File:MarylandTerrapins.png in about 12 minutes, incidentally - I'll do the other sports logos tomorrow if no-one else steps up to the plate. If you do remove the violations, watchlist the pages - you will be reverted. As I mentioned above, though, you are in the right - and point it out. Black Kite 01:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The RFC was at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/RFC on use of sports team logos/Archive 1. Mr.Z-man 01:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that was the (still undetermined) RFC. The Request for mediation is currently going on and most (on both sides of the issue) have a de-facto truce not to remove or add anything until the issue is decided. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, some of the images are Trademarked and NOT Copyrighted (apparently the Maryland Terrapin one cited), so that makes the issue even more thorny since they are very likely to be allowable. (as discussed ad nauseum in the sports logo discussions, for anyone interested) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

File:MarylandTerrapins.png? That is without a doubt under copyright protection. Yes, its trademarked too, but that doesn't mean its not also copyrighted. Mr.Z-man 02:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) The terrapin image is tagged as non-free copyrighted. If it were tagged as a free image, I believe it would not have appeared on the list above. If it really is not copyrighted, the license tag should be updated. NFCC does not apply to images that have a free copyright tag, even if they are trademarked. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Aaah, you might be right, I am not sure. I don't know specifically about that image. I just know that it is the case that there are several that had originally been misidentified as copyrighted and then (over the course of the many, many months of discussion in the sports logo fiasco) it was realized many were only trademarked. (and not copyrighted) Again, not sure about the Maryland one because I haven't researched it specifically. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

In the USA and Canada (and I believe the rest of the world), copyright exists as soon as a work is created, and has done so since the mid-70's. That you think something can be trademarked without being copyrighted is a rather disturbing proof that you don't really know much about how copyright works and probably shouldn't be opining on any discussion involving it.//roux   17:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's only true if the material has sufficient originality to be the subject of copyright. Clearly, "IBM" can be trademarked but not subject to copyright. I haven't checked whether this applies to any of the materials discussed, but it is quite possible for something to be trademarked and not copyrighted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree. This also makes Roux's "haven't the foggiest" edit summary above to be interesting. However, this is all sort of drifting from the intent of the thread. Tan | 39 17:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well no, actually. IBM can trademark that arrangement of letters without being able to claim copyright on them... however, we are talking about images here, logos, which as original works are indeed subject to copyright. Indeed, in order to successfully trademark something (Kleenex, Google, Xerox), one must aggressively defend the trademark and not allow others to use it. But again, that's all rather beside the point, since we are in fact talking about logos, not text, so it's all a bit of a red herring for you to be bringing up here. But hey... if you're okay with someone who doesn't actually understand what copyright is and how it works having any influence on copyright policies, by all means go ahead. //roux   19:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Every time I look at the NFCC, I can never ever find the wording that Black Kite always asserts is in there and is being flgrantly/abusively/deceitfully/outrageously ignored by everybody except him. I am always amused by the thought that, by just using one logo in one place instead of x places, for the exact same purposes in each place, that that is somehow protecting a copyright holder, or upholding the free content mission. Sort of like, 'if we hide it in just this one article, nobody will find it to copy it' bizarreness, or even worse, 'look dear re-user of free content, you can have all these page for free, but just not the one that explains the whole topic'. There are many many other examples of simple abc wrongness that surround certain users attempts to 'interpret' the NFCC. I find in these never ending POV wars over the NFCC, its always best to actually look at what the foundation lawyer has actually said about NFCC about a hundred times. And although my memory may fail me as the kilobytes have stretched into eternity in the Good Fight, I am quite sure that not once have I ever seen him agree with Black Kite, and in most cases he never even responds. Too busy on important legal type stuff I guess. MickMacNee (talk) 03:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• You don't need to be a lawyer to be able to read WP:NFCC#3 - "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.". 43 usages of one logo isn't minimal use. I notice that all the overused logos that I removed last night have been put back by User:Strikehold quoting the mediation. My temptation would be to keep removing them until editors get the message that policy = policy. The mediation is irrelevant because mediation won't change policy. Black Kite 10:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The mediation is not about "changing policy", it is about determining the policy's actual meaning. I'm sorry, Black Kite, I guess those who don't agree on your interpretation of NFCC are just a bunch of simpletons. As for the policy: "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." Why would that be interpreted to mean anything other than on a single article? You don't think readers go directly to articles like, say 2000 LSU Tigers football team, without ever going to LSU Tigers, or LSU Tigers football, or Louisiana State University, or whatever article in your interpretation is the supposed only allowable usage? And if they do, that means they are not gaining the "significant information" available through the logo's use. Strikehold (talk) 23:27, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• The previous wording of #3a (it was changed on a basis of consensus here) read: As few non-free content uses as possible are included in each article and in Wikipedia as a whole. Multiple items are not used if one will suffice; one is used only if necessary. It was changed because of discussion here, where it was agreed that "Wikipedia as a whole" was understood to be redundant. That discussion is a further extension of this one where it talks about how these points in #3a are duplicative with #8. The core of all these arguments is that given a piece of non-free artwork, there is likely one and only one article where that article is significant and necessary; if there is an additional article where the image can be placed, it needs a strong rationale as to why it couldn't just be replaced with a link to the core article. --MASEM (t) 12:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

And they're back: File:LSUTigers.png and File:Arkansas-Razorback-Logo-2001.png. Good effort, though, J Milburn. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:20, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

And gone again. If they come back without rationales I think that a hard line is required. Poor rationales are one thing....totally missing ones are a different matter - Peripitus (Talk) 07:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• This is fine, although WT:COPYCLEAN might have helped too. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Ha! Just great. Another page to add to my watchlist. *grumble* -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Here is an idea. Text-only logos. Seeing the Arkansas – Texas A&M rivalry article made me think of this. I could imagine a sports fan being really upset that their arch-rival gets to have a pretty logo in the infobox, but not their team of choice. So I made File:LSU text logo.svg. I imagine almost every sports team has a text only logo equivalent. I believe a coordinated effort with the Graphic Lab could help produce a series of these text only (and thereby public domain) logos that all the sports fans could use in templates and infoboxes and userboxes and so-on. It may take a little work, but I think this is a rather ingenious compromise that would still allow logos on these pages, but still be in compliance with NFC. -Andrew c ^[talk]
    • File:Arkansas text logo.svg. Since these two files have been the source of some edit warring. There are probably hundreds of others to do, Category:Academic sports logos seems like another place that needs clean up, if we really are going to push removing these logos from by season and by sports articles. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I am fine with the text logos (as evidenced by me changing several of the logos to the text ones, haha), but I know most people will not be. Get ready for a lot of pushback if this is widely implemented. (I speak from experience in the many discussions that have taken place on this issue.) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
        • If this "pushback" comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved. As you're familiar with the subject matter, perhaps it would be better if you worked on your idea of implementing non-copyrighted text-only logos (though the threshold of creativity is very low- any styalisation at all would be copyrightable) rather than edit-warring with myself and others? If you meet with resistance, I'd be more than happy to help you as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 17:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
          • "If this 'pushback' comes in the form of edit warring and abuse of non-free content, I see no reason not to block those involved."---I would tend to agree (although that seems a little harsh) since that is what those attempting to make non-policy changes were doing, but I'll leave it to others to pursue that course of action if they feel it is warranted, as I do not wish to pursue it myself. On the subject of non-copyrightable text only logos; As I said, it is an acceptable compromise for me personally (although I certainly would not be excited about it enough to undertake any projects implementing that fix), but I know it is unacceptable for a variety of reasons for a number of people, and I do not wish to have that fight either. Good luck with your edits. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't really care about the text only logos. I'm not certain about their status as PD, but I am happy to trust other administrators in that regard. My concern is that these non-free images are not abused any longer. J Milburn (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Cardsplayer4life

The actions by Cardsplayer4life (talk · contribs) here have been extremely negative. Considering, above, he said that many had taken a truce to not add or remove any content, he has taken it upon himself to mass-revert myself and others, often without comment (a clear abuse of undo) and other times pointing to the lack of consensus at the RfC as support for keeping these images. Clearly, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content, so these actions are wholly inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 12:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You were the one mass removing content. I am trying to keep the status quo that was agreed upon. If it changes, that is fine, but I am following policy. The "burden of proof" argument has already been raised and answered in the many, many months of discussions. (multiple times) I am not going to rehash every argument here again, please read through the discussion or make any arguments there if you wish. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree to any "status quo". I see a large number of images for which there is no consensus, so I remove them. A second mass reversion is completely disruptive. You are really crossing the line now. J Milburn (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am "really crossing the line now", because I have been 1) placing images in allowed spots based upon the current wording, and 2) been upholding a well-established status quo truce? Not sure what line that makes me cross, but ok. I never claimed you agreed to anything. Whether my reversion seemed disruptive to you or not is irrelevant since it upheld wikipedia policy, sorry. To try and accommodate you further (why, I have no idea) I changed most of the images to the less-desirable (for many reasons) free alternative image. (But, that was before you even wrote the above.) If you feel the image policy should be changed (or clarified), then please take any argument you have to the appropriate discussion on the subject instead of trying to argue with me about it, (Lord knows there are enough of them.) as I have no interest in arguing over changes in image policy, but only upholding current policy. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am very interested as to why the text "burden of proof lies with those wishing to include the content" is wikilinked to WP:NFCC, which doesn't make that claim at all. It's true that a rationale is required (which is what NFCC means by "there is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article") but that's not the same as saying that without a strong consensus on the validity of a rationale or a set thereof the default position is to exclude. That position is contentious as you well know. As for the subject of this section, you're welcome to open up an WP:RFC/U of course but there are several editors who have been far less civil and far more tendentious regarding these issues. Oren0 (talk) 10:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Have you people ever actually read the non-free content criteria? Direct quote- "Note that it is for users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale, not for those seeking to remove or delete it to show that one cannot be created. See burden of proof." No consensus to include the images, no inclusion of the images. Seriously, I'm starting to think you people are just trolling now, I'm getting sick of this crap. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read through the NFCC more times than you can count, and there ARE valid rationales provided for these images to be included. Links have been provided to the arguments back and forth on it. (It is likely that the reason the fight has gone on for so long is that there are valid rationales that can be provided to support either side of the debate.) If you would like to read through some of the rationales provided, I would read through the links here. (especially the arguments back and forth in archive 1, where in the initial support arguments you can find most of the rationales, although some are scattered throughout) I am not going to compile and paste every single pro and con argument here because it would be too time consuming, but rest assured that we are certainly not trolling. (please assume good faith in editors, and try to avoid personal attacks) Cardsplayer4life (talk) 21:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was heavily, heavily involved with the "debate" to begin with. I have seen the arguments offered, yet when I continue to see people willing to edit war to keep these images, I become a little dubious. Being agnostic as to the necessity of the images is one thing, but edit warring with multiple admins experienced in NFC issues is completely another. J Milburn (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because it has a rationale for every use doesn't mean it has a valid rationale. Many of the rationales for File:MarylandTerrapins.png are just ridiculous. Some of them just give "infobox" for the purpose of use. The "Purpose" field is supposed to describe "How does the media contribute significantly to the article(s) in which it is used" (quoted from the FUR template documentation). How does "infobox" do that? Others have "Used to illustrate athletics at Maryland." - That's pretty much the same as "decoration" Mr.Z-man 23:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny to see how this is being brought up in multiple corners of Wikipedia. The concept of overuse is being misused when it comes to team individual or multi-season pages. The community has seen fit to pass FAs, 2005 Texas Longhorns football team and 2007 USC Trojans football team, and the logos were permitted because they represent the essence of the team (itself the basis of trademark). The same can be said for bowl and conference title game FAs (example 1, 2, 3, though there are sometimes slight difference when those logos are changed from year to year (example 1 vs. 2). What it boils down to is, though the idea of overuse is valid in some circumstances, this is a case of square peg in a round hole. To make an analogy: interpretation is the cornerstone of the American common law system, which isn't the rote inflexibility of continental civil law systems. The rationale already exists for why these images are being used, and claiming the burden has somehow shifted back to us is inaccurate. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As a separate note, I find J Milburn's conduct here to be a little harsh. --Bobak (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course you would- you've done your best to create an "us and them", and I happen to be the "them". The fact that there are FAs is sad, certainly, but I'm not quite sure how that suddenly justifies abuse. You claim that the problem of overuse doesn't apply in this case, yet make the classic "mistake" of forgetting to explain why. You can state as much as you like that these logos should not be treated as other non-free images are, but stating doesn't make it true. J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure why it needs to be explained, yet again, that an image can have the most fantastically written rationale possible, but if it doesn't pass all the criteria of NFCC (in this case 3a and 8) then the rationale is irrelevant. No-one has yet managed to explain how a non-free logo in a sports season passes NFCC#8, and I suspect no-one ever will. Black Kite 18:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Trademark vs. Copyright

I only just discovered this AN thread today, but I have also been keeping an eye on the sports logo RFC and mediation efforts. In my opinion, I think the biggest issue confounding editors in this area is the status on English Wikipedia for trademarked images that are also ineligible for copyright. For example, Commons has freely accepted the text logo for Sony (Image:Sony logo.svg), and it is marked with {{PD-textlogo}} and {{Trademarked}} licensing information. So far, editors on this wiki have refrained from using that image on the many articles in Category:Sony, but only showing it on the main Sony article as though it was non-free. (But I see that the Chinese Wikipedia have no concerns about its appearance in a navbox: zh:Template:Sony Group.) On the other hand, the text logo for House (TV series) (Image:House logo.svg) is used widely across every page related to that television show, through Template:House and Template:WikiProject House. In the situation at hand, the college sports editors seem to think that text logos of their favourite universities can be used widely on many per-season per-sport results pages, like the House text logo. But in the larger scheme, it seems to me that there is very unclear guidance for editors, from the combination of statements at WP:Restricted materials, WP:General disclaimer#Trademarks, WP:Logos, and so on about what is acceptable usage for trademarked images. We are very clear on our policy with regards to copyrighted images (well, clear to me at least) but not so much for trademarked non-copyrighted images. It would help tremendously if some knowledgeable editors (i.e. no "I like it this way" opinions) could help craft clearer guidelines and policy explanation. I believe that acceptance of those images on Commons does not immediately equate to "not non-free", but I am unsure about what exactly it does mean... Policy for this Wikipedia (which will be different from Commons policy) ought to be clear. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Need page deleted

Resolved

 – HIstmerge complete; FAQ issue is not for this board. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The Article Rescue Squad set-up a FAQ page which was met with some editing issues which seemed to have resolved. Within that scuffle the page was moved mucking up the {{FAQ}} template use.

Our talkpage Wikipedia talk:ARS now correctly links to the correct page at Wikipedia talk:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ

• PLEASE NOTE: Wikipedia talk is where this FAQ is supposed to be, the associated page Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron/FAQ should be deleted but not the talkpage. I've even written that on the page.

This may seem counterintuitive but the FAQ is a subpage to the talkpage not the mainpage. Lordy lawd I hope that makes sense. -- Banjeboi 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I was only following orders. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Thank you! -- Banjeboi 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, but the history has been lost; a history merge should occur. nb: this is a piece of a current ArbCom case and this has messed with evidence. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Presumably the Arbs can see the deleted content if they need - it would seem the case is winding down. I'll look into a histmerge. -- Banjeboi 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the arbs can see it; for transparancy, all should be able to see it. Jack Merridew 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Update. Request is at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen#New requests. -- Banjeboi 22:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

  This is still an incorrect move-back; the issue is that {{FAQ}} is on the wrong-track; FAQs should *have* talk pages, not *be* talk pages. See User talk:John Vandenberg#Namespaces for some background; the FAQ template needs to be more aware of namespaces. Jack Merridew 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  • The histmerge is completed. The FAQ is a subpage of a main talkpage so that is where any issues regarding a FAQ would take place. In any case the article in this instance is now conforming to community standards to both the histmerge and template so further discussion should likely be taken up with the template itself. FYI, there are about 100 Category:Wikipedia article FAQs. -- Banjeboi 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive canvassing on the White people article

To support his position that all images should be removed from the White people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article [1], The Ogre (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) selectively contacted four perceived opponents of images on their talk pages with a non-neutral message [2] [3] [4] [5], in clear violation of Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_canvassing; one editor The Ogre contacted quickly reverted the article to his favored version [6]. To prevent The Ogre from deriving an advantage from his disruptive canvassing, and to dissuade him from engaging in similar misconduct on other articles, I ask that he and every editor he contacted be topic-banned from the White people article for a reasonable period of time. Erik9 (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

nonsense. The only editor exhibiting disruptive behaviour in this case is Erik9, first in revert-warring against consensus, and now in creating wikidrama at ANI. The Ogre is free to avert editors who interacted with the article in the past individually, on their talkpages. If The Ogre's "canvassing" was perceived as spamming by the recipiens, you would, like, expect the complaint to be filed on the part of a recipient.

My involvement at the article in question is completely unrelated to The Ogre's note, since the article is on my watchlist anyway.

In view of the blatant piece of wikilawyering above (zomg, "non-neutral messages" on user talkpages. topic bans for everyone who tries to stop me), I would advocate a rather stern warning addressed to Erik9. Let Erik9 seek consensus before implementing his proposed changes like everyone else. --dab (𒁳) 17:59, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Canvassing#Inappropriate_canvassing prohibits canvassing intended to influence the outcome of content disputes through the non-neutral selection of editors to whom notices are delivered or non-neutral wording, even when the canvassed editors welcome the notices and enjoy the opportunity to participate in the content dispute:

Campaigning

Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, through the use of non-neutral tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of an individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages.

Votestacking

Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion.

Editorial disputes on Wikipedia are not resolved through brute force recruitment of as much "backup" as possible :) Erik9 (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It does appear that User:The Ogre selectively canvassed perceived sympathetic editors with regard to the image dispute at White people, despite User:dab's rather original concept that it would only be the recipients of canvassing that should complain - which would be perverse if the canvassing was accurately targeted; who would complain of being alerted to a position they are sympathetic too, and why would they be aware only certain viewpoint editors were being contacted? However I don't think this is a matter for admins to resolve, since the underlying dispute (of whether and of what images of "White people" should be included in the article) is not one that sysops are remitted to resolve. The issue needs to be placed before a wider readership, likely in the form of a RfC. I will note The Ogre regarding the need to gather the views of a wider range of opinion in future actions, but I don't think any greater admin action is required.

ps. I took the opportunity to further format this page. I trust this is appropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Topic ban someone because another person put a note on their talk page? Well, that would be one way to silence a group of people an editor doesn't like I guess. But we aren't going to do it. Thanks though for drawing my attention to this -- ok, I've just looked at the history, and it looks as though Erik9 is disputing an old consensus not to have pictures and is in a minority. Dougweller (talk) 19:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_can_change. While discursive commentary regarding the matter at Talk:White_people#images is welcome, to merely claim that the issue was decided in a contrary manner years ago is unhelpful. Erik9 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

there is nothing to be said against bona fide "disputing" an old consensus, which would contribute towards a wikilike process of the iterative emergence of a new compromise consensus (aka WP:BRD). This is in contrast to stubborn revert-warring combined with the attempt to fish for attention on ANI. --dab (𒁳) 19:13, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

No doubt you believe that consensus still favors The Ogre - that's why he invited you to the party [7]. Erik9 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

From my review of the matter the old consensus arose from some dodgy attempts to impose a "Aryan" viewpoint of what being White people entailed - and was properly resolved by having no images. Hopefully that viewpoint has been deprecated and a new consensus could be requested over some more carefully chosen representatives. In that the Bold and Reverted parts of WP:BRD have been exercised, perhaps some thought should be given to the Discuss side. Personally, I think an article that relates specifically to a subject based around visual appearance should require some images to illustrate it - but it needs to be a decision that results from discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

"dodgy attempts to impose a "Aryan" viewpoint of what being White people entailed"? Something, perhaps, similar to [8], with further discussion at Talk:White_people#Washed-out_photograph.2C_Werner_Heisenburg? It's unfortunate that none of these "concerned editors", even one who claimed in this very discussion that "the article is on my watchlist anyway", could be bothered to do anything about it when it happened... Erik9 (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Come on, people! This all looks rather extreme, does it not? Erik9 has tried to change the article in question without discussion or a buil up of a new consensus The previous consensus was reached because editors were unable to come to an agreement on who looked white. And the article was permanentely targeted by racist users who basically wanted a full Nordic/Aryan depiction of Whites. Given the fact that Erik9 acted without discussion I dropped a quick message with a very small number of user I remembered participating in the previous consensus. This was a limited posting, with what I believed (unlike Erik9) was quite a neutral message, to serious and established editors who, having played a part in the consensus reached (and you can not just throw away a consensus because it's old...), have different opinions regarding the issue of pictures and therefore constitute a nonpartisan audience. And I did all of this in a completely open and transparant process! Now, even if after these, some may consider that I engage in canvassing, well... My deepest apologies! But I believe I did not. And I do find Erik9's level of violence quite disturbing. You should try talk to people before hitting them with such swift "disciplinary actions"... The Ogre (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Question re Spanish

Hey, need some help re an SPA situation. I was dealing with it here (see Talk:Infanticide, User talk:Thantalteresco etc), and foolishly tried to do so on es.wiki as well, where pretty much the same stuff has been going on, but my language skills in Spanish are beyond poor (I never actually learned the language so it's a mixture of third-iteration machine translation and paper dictionary!) and I think I have probably screwed up the situation over there as noone can understand me :P If anyone is interested, it shouldn't be hard to find the source of conflict from my contribs there. Note this is not a request for admin intervention specifically, as the matter is on another wiki - anyone who speaks English and Spanish well enough to understand both sides is fine. Cheers Orderinchaos 09:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You get your message across all right both at the English and the Spanish Wikipedias, and you and Thantalteresco are debating the same issues at both places. This is not a language problem, it's a content issue regarding infanticide practices among Australian aboriginals. Perhaps you should go for mediation? AN/I doesn't seem to be the right place. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I wasn't sure, as I got some responses which suggested I was not making a great deal of sense. If what I've said over there is comprehensible, then that's OK. I don't honestly feel mediation would help - one need only examine this user's history of contributions to see it would be a waste of time for all concerned as labouring the point, ignoring all reasonable arguments to the contrary and raising red herrings, including accusations at the other editor, are a feature of their style. I have yet to see any evidence we are not dealing with a disruptive SPA across two wikis, he actually has less contribs at his native wiki than he does here and about half of those are on this topic. Orderinchaos 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: it is a content issue about scholars stating that infanticide occurred among Australian aboriginals, as you can see in my discussion with user:Orderinchaos in my talk page. But there’s a question suitable for this board unresolved in Wikiquette_alerts.

Recently I was confused with another user, a banned Australian. I proved that I live in Spain and that I edit the Spanish Wikipedia with the same user name, Thantalteresco, that I edit here. The problem is that User:Gnangarra, a blocking admin, has threatened to reblock me again—that is: blocking a user who is not the banned Australian—if I dare to edit articles of my interest, as you can see in the amin’s talk page:

If you are willing to unblock this account then thats your choice, when this editor turns up again in articles on my watchlist I will apply the duck test and re-block because I have no doubt its the Premier.[9]

Both the blocking admin User:Gnangarra and user:Orderinchaos are Australians who are very upset about scholarship that attest to infanticide in Australia in the historical past; and both have edited the Infanticide article from their own negationist POV.

User:Orderinchaos has removed tons of sourced content in the article Infanticide on this very subject when I was unjustly blocked. The problem is that I cannot even discuss his removals in talk page even after Fred Bauder unblocked me because of User:Gnangarra’s threat that “when this editor turns up again in articles on my watchlist I will apply the duck test and re-block”.

What can be done? Even if I give up editing there out of desperation, a future editor may want to balance the negationist POV in the Infanticide article. But the “duck test” may be invoked again to block the newcomer who wants to challenge the negationist POV: that there was no infanticide at all among Australian aboriginals in the past.

So this is not only a content dispute. Abuse of sysop powers might occur in the future (it’s occurring now: I am afraid of discussing the massive removals in talk page out of fear of being blocked again).

Thank you for your attention.

Thantalteresco (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this source, which looks pretty reliable and is the first I found on this topic, the idea that infanticide was more accepted and significantly more common among the Australian native population than e.g. among the British was a typical misconception of colonialists. It's the usual problem. If a mother in your home village kills her child it's a tragedy caused by a psychosis. If a mother in an aboriginal village does the same, it's because these people are savages. If Grimm's Fairy Tales feature an old woman who eats children it's because it's an exciting literary topic. If some natives somewhere have similar stories, it's because cannibalism is an integral part of their culture. I am not too surprised if there were scholarly sources in the 60s that still believed it, but they can't be used to contradict the more recent research. You would need recent scholarly sources for that.

So it looks as if your activities are in fact misguided, and perhaps you should concentrate on something else for a while. Hans Adler 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you're entering to a content dispute in this board, something we should avoid. (Suffice it to say that a much more recent monograph on infanticide accepts the historicity of the practice among Australians in the past: a subject for talk:infanticide, not for ANI boards.) Thantalteresco (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be wikilawyering. Interesting that I quoted from exactly the same source in that place, and you completely ignored it. I think Hans Adler's advice is well informed. Orderinchaos 03:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How do we transwiki from Wikibooks?

Resolved

 – Easy … for me anyway. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do this GFDL-compliant (since we don't have Special:Import enabled), but a VFD discussion on Wikibooks (b:WB:VFD#Politics_of_Merrimack) has consensus for transferring what content there is to w:New Hampshire state elections, 2004 or similar articles. I'm just not sure what to do about the contribution history... anyone have experience with this? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 15:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Please see [10] Triplestop (talk) 15:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
• Well there are a bunch of ways to comply with GFDL. You can list the 5 largest contributors to the deleted article in an edit summary to the imported article, you can copy the history of the deleted article to the talk page of the imported article, you can copy the list of contributors to the new article and then revert the edit. Most of the time we don't care since in general Wikipedia does a poor job of following the GFDL and very few edits end up being GFDL-significant in the long run. MBisanz ^talk 15:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • People doing transwikification care, and the fact that in other places the GFDL is sometimes not adhered to by some people (a problem that other people devote time and effort to fixing) is not a reason to encourage its non-adherence here (or indeed anywhere else). Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• I know how to do this the old way, without Special:Import and making all of the interwiki links in the edit summaries and talk page and other acoutrements for GFDL compliance; and I have the tools to do so. User:Uncle G's 'bot has just transwikified the article. The tools make the necessary old-style transwikification log records, too. See b:Wikibooks:Transwiki log/Articles moved from here/en.wikipedia and Wikipedia:Transwiki log/Articles moved to here. Uncle G (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick template help needed

I need an admin with template experience to modify Template:Harvard citation no brackets, as it is protected and I don't know how to write template code. From the discussions I've had on the talk page, found here, it seems to be a quick fix. I believe the change needed is also explained by another editor there. Thanks ahead of time! Wizard191 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Does no replies mean I'm in the wrong place? If so, please point me in the right direction. Wizard191 (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You can post here, but it's more effective to add {{editprotected}} to the talk page, along with a description of what needs to be done. These instructions are found on the talk page in question.

I'll look at it and see if I can figure it out. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend requesting someone look at it by using the template I mentioned above (in fact, I've done that for you). This one is beyond my meager skills. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(I edit conflicted with Nihonjoe a little while ago, but since he's punting, I'll go ahead and add it now) No replies probably means no one on this noticeboard is a template coder. On the theory that fairly useless information is better than no response at all, I'll try to suggest a couple of possibilities you can try:

• If you know exactly what to change, you can put {{editprotected}} on the talk page of protected templates, and theoretically an admin will come by to make the edit. However, it seems from the talk page like you don't know the exact change, so that might not work
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates looks like it occasionally answers template help requests, but it seems to be fairly inactive for days/weeks at a time
• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) might be your best bet; that's probably where I'd go in your shoes.

There's probably a much better place than these three options, but I don't know what it would be. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the recommendations. This is the first time I've tried to get a template modified, and was unaware of the {{editprotected}} template. It looks like User:MSGJ is going to help me out. Thanks all! Wizard191 (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Granting "Abuse Filter Editor" to non-administrators

This is to advise that Cobi has recently been given the "Abuse Filter Editor" userright [11] after a brief discussion at at Wikipedia talk:Abuse filter#Abuse Filter editors group membership request.

I support Cobi having the userright, but it has set a precedent. It's probably a good idea to discuss (at the above-noted link) what procedures should be followed when determining whether to grant a user the AFE flag. –xeno^talk 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an awesome idea: why not make it a part of the Rollbacker title? —harej (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Good idea for trusted users, but no, I don't think that it should be collapsed into Rollbacker... they are for very different things, and I'd say that Abuse Filter Editors need a much higher level of trust than a Rollbacker. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 00:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Drilnoth. It's far too easy to seriously bungle something with AFE (which is why I rarely edit it ;>). –xeno^talk 00:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It is probably harder to give non-admins the Abuse Filter right than it seems. The warning templates used by the filter (MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning and friends) cannot be edited by non-admins, so that prevents them not only editing abuse filter warning messages, but from adding warning messages to new filters (unless, of course, they get an admin to do it for them). It simply doesn't make logical sense. The abuse filter (not right now, but possibly in the future) can block or degroup editors. We obviously can't have non-admins creating filters that block editors, can we? And think about it, if we dumb-down the non-admin version of the user right, what's the point of even requesting it in the first place? As much as I want the abuse filter right myself, as do many other non-admins, it just doesn't seem like the abuse filter was designed to work with us. In my own opinion, it seems like a better idea to request adminship than request a user right that doesn't let you use the filter to its full potential. Heck, I'd support a user that ran for adminship simply because they wanted to edit the abuse filter, provided that they were trustworthy nonetheless. The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 01:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent point. Maybe just giving admins the right and getting rid of the actual abuse filter editor right altogether would make more sense? Then admins couldn't give the non-admins the ability, which really isn't a good idea since it can block people and degroup editors. There should probably be a community process for this... aka, WP:RFA. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are several admins I not would trust with the abusefilter right (not because they're bad admins just because they lack the technical knowledge to use and write filters safely). I think it would be much better to keep the rights separate (maybe even have the right assigned by a 'crat) --Chris 10:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I would say I'm a pretty good admin (in the sense that I believe most admins on this project are good) and I wouldn't know - 1. how to do it correctly, and 2. how to know if I've stuffed up and am causing collateral damage. It's more of a technical role. Orderinchaos 16:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, it is possible to add 'editinterface' to the Abuse Filter Editors group. Ruslik_Zero 05:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather see Chris' and Drilnoth's suggestions combined, i.e. creating a community process that decides it with crats given the flag out, something like WP:RFBA. But it would also need a change to the AF itself so that admins without the flag can view private filters but not edit them. For example, I gave myself the flag, not to edit the filter but to understand those filters that are private but deal with certain kinds of vandalism. Regards SoWhy 10:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that excluding non-sysops from the AFE group is particularly criminal, as there are certainly enough administrators to take care of things there, and keeping it sysop-only will probably save a lot of extra legwork in terms of editing system messages, as The Earwig states. I also think that granting editinterface to the abusefilter group is going to be both mostly needless, as any AFEs with sysop rights already inherit editinterface permissions, and potentially controversial as (almost) everyone else with the permission has been vetted by their peers through the RfA process, and it'll only take one WP:DDMP-esque mistake for the torches and pitchforks to come out. I like SoWhy's idea of granting a separate "view hidden filter" right though: bugzilla:19362 (made a right pig's ear of the attachment!). That is something that could be inherited automatically by sysops. It could also potentially assigned to the rollback group, as they've been entrusted with vandalism-fighting tools anyway, so it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to allow them to see what they're up against. If not, then a separate abusefilter-view user group shouldn't be too difficult to implement, and could be assigned through WP:PERM similarly to rollback. haz (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, admins should be able to view filters, since most abuse filters are used for admins-related tasks, like vandalism, for example users reported at WP:AIV by User:Mr.Z-bot, but also deletion, like those at C:SD, and the filters can give relevant information, especially for sockpuppetry cases in which admins are not familiar. But there's no need for non-admins without abusefilter-edit rights to have this access, and it would allow security breaches to grant it to rollbackers since it's easy for vandals to become rollbacker, and they could then spread the info. Cenarium (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion also here. Cenarium (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Moon Is Blue

This was moved from the accurate The Moon is Blue to the incorrect The Moon Is Blue. Could someone please move it back to the title without the capitalized is? Thank you for your assistance. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 17:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done Rodhullandemu 17:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For future reference, see WP:CAPS; The Moon Is Blue would be the correct title. — Edokter • Talk • 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

From WP:CAPS intro: "In general, each word in English titles of books, films, and other works takes an initial capital, except for articles ("a", "an", "the"), the word "to" as part of an infinitive, prepositions and coordinating conjunctions shorter than five letters (e.g., "on", "from", "and", "with"), unless they begin or end a title or subtitle. Examples: A New Kind of Science, Ghost in the Shell, To Be or Not to Be." So it looks as if The Moon is Blue is the correct title, not the one you gave. Fram (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

New user group – 'Autoreviewer'

After a discussion at the village pump, the developers have added a new usergroup to enwiki, 'autoreviewer'. For more information, please see that discussion and Wikipedia:Autoreviewer. NW (Talk) 17:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother to check whether the account is retired or no longer actively editing. It's obviously a race to get as many user rights log actions as quickly as possible. So, GO GO GO. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I granted this right to you. You are now an 'autoreviewer' :-) Ruslik_Zero 19:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Reading logs is hard. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, if you'd bother to educate yourself. Keegan (talk) 05:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it's been implemented in order to keep up with new pages patrol. Especially at the back end to make it easier to keep up with blatant copyvios and gross BLP violations before they drop off the new pages list after a month and go into the general pool of articles. In other words, this user group helps us prevent another Siegenthaler incident. If you'd like to help the very small group that patrols the back end of new pages we could really use more hands. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 17:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec, re to MZM) Indeed. The very first name I clicked on at random at Special:ListUsers/autoreviewer turns out not to have edited for four months. Naturally, Wikipedia's current most notorious recent bulk copyright violator (again, without a single mainspace edit for over a month) is also there. Does anyone check these things? – iridescent 17:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It looks like perhaps one of the admins who's assigning it isn't screening adequately. Admins can also toggle it off, so suggest reversing the action and communicating with the individual who granted it. Durova^Charge! 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally granted it to about a dozen users I knew to be active and whose edits I've been patrolling in the last week or so. I notice several other admins granting based on the Whitelist, which while comprhensive, isn't current. As long as we go through from time to time and prune it for inactive accounts, I'm not motivated to go undo 100+ userrights grants. MBisanz ^talk 17:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

At the current moment, everyone on User:JVbot/patrol_whitelist#No_restrictions is going to be added. This represents no change from the current situation; it is merely the beginning of a move-over from a userspace list to Mediawiki code. I imagine the initial move over to being done without several checking for convenience sake only. NW (Talk) 17:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. As I see it, most additions of the flag are preliminary at this point, until we develop a better system. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems pointless to add them to inactive users. –xeno^talk 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a good time to review the list. Instead of automatically adding the people, could a review done. It would save work in the long run, maybe. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Since the whitelist contains blocked users, including indefblocked socks, it will have to be reviewed sooner or later, and now is better time. The confusion with the WP:FLP/PR review rights is also ... confusing and will complicate discussions for the implementation. Not giving the rights to inactive users would ease the management of this user right. I removed some. Cenarium (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been screening the list for the past couple hours, and only granting the right to active users. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to go through the lists tonight and make sure the rights log is current, but the last time I did that, people yelled at me, so I want to make sure no one is objecting to it for this userright. MBisanz ^talk 18:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections here. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No objections here either. Now is certainly the best time to do this. ~ mazca ^talk 19:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Er, what rights does this new group grant that are different from vanilla Admin rights? -- llywrch (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This would be for non-admins so that they can gain the autopatrol/autoreview ability without being a full admin, kind of like how rollback is handled now. They wouldn't have access to other admin abilities. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I did usernames from A through N, I'll try to do O-Z tomorrow. MBisanz ^talk 02:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All current, now just to keep it up to date every couple of months. MBisanz ^talk 00:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at British Isles

• British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Protection log

I've had enough of the edit warring (over the most trivial matters) that's been going on at this article. The root cause, needless to say, is mutual British/Irish antagonism. I have posted a notice to the effect that any editor who reverts a revert (violating WP:BRD/WP:1RR) will be blocked.

Posting here for review and any constructive suggestions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Definitely agree with your suggested restriction - there's been some utterly ridiculous edit warring over pointless details. People need to be encouraged to discuss more and revert less here. ~ mazca ^talk 20:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The only problem with the ruling is that it allows one side or another to revert valid edits without a means of comeback. Revert restrictions, blocks, protections etc have all been tried on that article to no avail. It is protected more times than not. I honestly think this is one of those articles that needs to be permanently protected to admins only, and changes discussed and agreed upon on the talk page. Otherwise the page will just be an eternal warzone with editors making claims despite references and evidence to the contrary. Too many hot heads for the articles good. Canterbury Tail talk 11:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think this solution is pretty close to what you suggest. Noncontroversial edits or edits with clear consensus can be made either way. The disadvantage of this limitation is that a solitary editor can theoretically prevent a changes that actually has consensus. But in any solution I can think of, that problem would require admin intervention. So far it's been quiet... let's see how it goes. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Special:Nuke

Hey everyone, this is just a note informing everyone that after talking with Dev Rob H, Special:Nuke and mw:Extension:Nuke are now operational on the English Wikipedia. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sexy. –xeno^talk 19:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This should be used with care. Ruslik_Zero 19:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks Dev Rob H! Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You mean I shouldn't type "Dr. Blofield" into the field and then then try and nuke hundreds of thousands of articles? =) –xeno^talk 19:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, two new additions in one day! Thanks for all the hard work, devs. Nuke 19:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Quick, someone go rouge and nuke Nuke. Durova^Charge! 19:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm far too wary to try it myself, so I'll ask: what is Special:Nuke for? Is it a special-page version of the delete button? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 19:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a native version of mass delete. –xeno^talk 19:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So it allows you to delete a bunch of pages at the same time? That could be interesting. Admins only, I presume? → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yep. –xeno^talk 20:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

<humor>No no, it's available for everyone. Now even vandals can delete pages!</humor> –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparently my decision to change the text of my 'delete' button to read "nuke from orbit" was somewhat prescient... Tony Fox (arf!) 20:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Is there any documentation available other than mw:Extension:Nuke? That page is good for the technical side of things but it doesn't give the practical side. It claims to "mass delete pages recently added by a user or IP address" but doesn't say what recent means. Within the last few hours? Day? Week? --auburnpilot talk 22:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
  • If I'm reading the code correctly, it is every page the person created and every image they uploaded for the last month. Dragons flight (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

What use does this have here? Couldn't a malicious admin easily destroy the server by mass deleting many pages with many revisions quickly? Triplestop (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• No, because it only gives you a list of pages created recently by a user or IP, so they are unlikely to have many revisions. Even so, given that a malicious admin could do quite a lot of worse things if they were so minded, the point is effectively moot. Black Kite 23:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I get nervous just looking at that page! I think I'll stick to the old-fashioned speedy deletion process. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

@Triplestop - Well, it's lighter on the server than User:AzaToth/twinklebatchdelete.js =) –xeno^talk 13:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

After recent installation of Twinkle, I see next to all edits in the history have a tab now that says [rollback] and [rollback (Vandal)]. Does this mean I have rollback privileges or do I still need to apply for it before using? ---Scarce |||| You shouldn't have buried me, I'm not dead--- 21:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No, this doesn't mean you have the rollback userright. However, once you've proven that you can revert vandalism responsibly with Twinkle, you may successfully request the userright here. Hope that helps. → Dylan620 (Toolbox Alpha, Beta) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

May I just add, you might find this link helpful. While the official MediaWiki feature known as "rollback" and the Twinkle version of rollback may appear very similar, they are in fact different. The MediaWiki version is significantly faster, but obviously requires an admin to approve you for access of the right. Regards, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I think you'll find that there is nothing to be gained by asking an admin to approve you for rollback if you're using Twinkle; it's far superior. Added to which administrators have an unhealthy tendency to punish by removing, or threatening to remove, your rollback rights for any minor infraction in your use of the tool. All in all just not worth it. In fact I gave it up, as I found that I never used rollback in preference to Twinkle anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:35, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I debated rolling back that edit, just to see the ensuing melee. Tan | 39 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the first time I've laughed out loud today, so thanks for that. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 22:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Aside from its historical importance, rollback actually matters little now. It's original intent to rollback vandalism without additional server load is relatively insignificant with the growth of the Foundation's server capacity. Just sayin'. Keegan (talk) 05:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I find that I hardly ever use rollback "in the browser". I prefer to use popups or twinkle. However, it's required to use Huggle so I'll keep it for now. Popups rollback has one major advantage over native rollback. It allows you to quickly choose the revision you want to revert to. Very useful if a page has been vandalized multiple editors. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Repeated removal of info by an editor who has nommed the page for deletion

Do we have a policy against the repeated removal of information from an article by an editor who has also nominated that article for deletion? (See Talk:Armenia–Spain relations). The editor argues (erroneously in my opinion) that a reference to the fact and a map indicating that both countries were once part of the Umayyad Caliphate are irrelevant to the relations between those countries. He just removed the info for a third time. He also nominated the article for deletion on June 18. It seems like it would be a conflict of interest for the nominator to interfere in the improvement of the page that he wants to erase.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

See my responses here and here. Yilloslime ^T_C 21:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I assume on good faith that the editor is not secretly trying to destroy the article, yet such removals for me do raise problem, particularly with regard to the possible short time the article may be around to work on (due to the efforts of the same editor). Yilloslime has expressed the opinion that he doesn't think anything about the article should be kept, so for him to chip away at the article arguing he is "improving" it, also seems a little disingenuous.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have often tried improve articles that are at AfD. Sometimes, as is the case here, these improvement come in the form deleting superfluous material, but in other cases I have added relevant material. Here's an example of a time I added content to an article, even whilst voting delete it's AFD. And there also examples where I voted keep while improving an article. So it goes both ways. Yilloslime ^T_C 22:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There exists no rule against editing an article even in the midst of a deletion discussion. In cases where there is some attempt at sabotaging the article with regards to the debate, that can be dealt with as it happens, but otherwise editorial actions on an article may continue. Shereth 21:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought conflict of interest policy relates to if an editor has an actual connection with the article subject. eg employed by the article subject, or perhaps he has stated he doesn't like Spanish and Armenian people. Inclusion and removal of information during an AfD is still permitted as per above comment. LibStar (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Does this constitute a legal threat? - user possibly active again

Resolved

 – Account indef blocked by another admin. BJ^Talk 01:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I removed the following that was just added to the archive on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive546#Does this constitute a legal threat?:

Since this issue was looked into, an admin changed the GoDaddy page and this user has since gone back and added his content back in. The user has also added a section mentioning Dotster on the "terrorist" page.--Dotsterrep (talk) 17:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This may need attention. -- Banjeboi 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've indef blocked the account; a look through the contribs shows that slamming this company was the editor's raison d'être. Did not respond to the previous ANI thread and resumed the same pattern of behaviour. Clearly not positively contributing. – Toon 01:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

RfC 3rd party Admin Request

Due to the highly political nature of the RfC at Talk:Golan_Heights#RfC:_Terminology_in_regards_to_the_Golan_Heights, I would appreciate a neutral, 3rd party administrator to close the discussion. I opened the RfC on June 16th, and feel that it has been throughly discussed, however in the interest of neutrality and fairness to all, I would like to request an Admin who is not associated with the discussion to take the closing action. --Nsaum75 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

The talk page has now degraded to personal attacks: Talk:Golan Heights#I do not support the actions and views of Oren0 as 3rd party. Yet another admin is now needed to deal with this. Rami R 12:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikihounding

Resolved

User:Rterrace who is the subject of a sockpuppetry investigation, has singled out my prod tags for a mass deprodding. He gave no explanation for the deprodding, as is required by policy. I ask that these prod tags be reinstated, as they are not deprodded in good faith. Abductive (talk) 03:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

For a little more context, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abductive. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like obvious sock puppetry Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz. To stop the abuse we need a checkuser to verify that these are socks, to find any additional sleeper accounts, and to block all the underlying IPs for a while. A thorough job is needed. Blocking a few known accounts would just turn into a game of whack-a-mole. Hopefully a checkuser will notice this comment and act swiftly to prevent further wikistalking. Jehochman ^Talk 05:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed thread title. Durova^Charge! 06:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Response by Rterrace. *Abductive is a disruptive SPA serial prodder who made his first edit (an AfD nomination), only a month ago. Since then his only edits have been to randomly prod over 130 articles, and to nominate another 50 articles for AfD. He fails to make any attempt to verify or improve an article before adding the “prod” tag. Abductive claims to be an established user who continually changes his account names, but he has refused to disclose who his many different ID's were or are. I am not the only user who has deprodded his deletion nominations. More than 40 different editors have been forced to contest Abductive’ prods. Infact, every single one of his 150+ prods have been contested. The following established editors have all been forced to remove Abductive’s prods on multiple occasions.
• User:Colonel Warden
• User:DGG
• User:Kyle1278
• User:117Avenue
• User:ThaddeusB

In summary, it is true that I have contested several of Abductive’s prods. It is my right to contest a prod, and I have not done so in bad faith. I have contested several of his prods because Abductive apparently randomly selects articles to prod. In his haste to prod articles, Abductive does not follow WP:BEFORE. These articles that I have deprodded can all be improved, and need not be deleted. Policy on this topic is clear (see WP:CONTESTED), a prod tag should not be restored, “even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith”. If Abductive still believes that the articles needs to be deleted, then he should list them on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Rterrace (talk) 11:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• • • Comment: I've never spoken to either editor, only crossed paths in AfD discussions, so I have no dog in this fight. "Contested several" is an understatement in my opinion. user:Rterrace contested 41 of them on June 22 alone, in 21 minutes. That is over 25% of the 150 he says were contested. 25% of the total by a single editor in a 21 minutes does seem a little questionable. He had 3 per minute in some of those 21 minutes. Yes, sometimes I use multiple browser windows at the same time too and click save page on several in a short period of time, but they never all belong to the same editor.Niteshift36 (talk) 13:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• The only reason "all" my 150+ prods were contested is because you went into my contribs and deprodded them, it is suspected from multiple accounts. Actually prior to this Wikihounding many of my prods made it through and quite a few articles got deleted. Frequently other editors have followed on my prods and your deprods and nominated the articles for deletion, and they have ended up deleted. Abductive (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• I invite anyone who is interested to look at the articles I prodded and tell me which ones were prodded incorrectly. In the meantime, I suppose I shall have go directly to AfD until this Wikihounding is stopped. Abductive (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Or you might try to follow WP:BEFORE and make attempts at basic research and article improvements before prodding or bringing an article to AfD. Deletion should be the last resort, not the first effort. Rterrace (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how you determined that all 41 could be improved in 21 minutes, but I disagree. All of them could probably be expanded, but if the subject is not notable, as is the case on some of these I've looked at, no amount of additional prose will overcome that basic shortcoming. Non-notable is non-notable, no matter how much window dressing is added to it. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Rterrace, you are being disruptive, and I am pretty well convinced that you are a sock puppet of a banned user. To prevent further disruption, I have blocked your account temporarily pending the outcome of checkuser. If Checkuser comes back positive, I or another administrator will increase the block duration to indefinite. Is there a checkuser who could look into Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Azviz? Why does it take so long to address disruptive socks? If Checkuser is so backlogged, why aren't we appointing more? Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

We are. Rodhullandemu 14:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In two months. *headkeyboardermntbvghsdf Jehochman ^Talk 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, OK, but such trusted positions should be subject of suitably deep review, and community consensus. I suppose ArbCom could, if it felt appropriate to do so, apply temporary permissions for Oversight and Checkuser to suitable candidates if the backlog was dangerously impacting on the operation of the encyclopedia; but as I see it, backlogs are a way of life here, and although dealing with them should not be a responsibility that is shirked, neither should it be left to any old Joe that comes along, since there are issues such as privacy that arise. ArbCom has, in my view, recently cleared a number of outstanding thorny issues, and for that, they deserve some kudos. It's perhaps no surprise that other arguably less pressing matters have been left until now. Rodhullandemu 00:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that Rterrace is being disruptive though unintentionally. Being overzealous in deprodding is just as bad as overzealousness in prodding. WP:BEFORE should work both ways. Drawn Some (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • They are intentionally disruptive. A checkuser has confirmed that they are a sock puppet of a banned user. There is no assumption of good faith here. Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Community ban on User:Esasus

Esasus (talk · contribs), the sockmaster behind Azviz (which the SPIs should be moved accordingly), is now to date responsible for 20 socks and abusing about six or seven IPs with no signs of stopping. At this time I request that the community acknowledge a ban as no admin will conceivably unblock any time soon. MuZemike 15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Orderinchaos 16:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Strong endorse. I'm trying to clean up after the mess of invalid prods and AFD votes from all these socks, and it's insane. One person is causing a large number of other editors to waste time going through pointless AFDs when the original prods were minutes from expiring when deprodded for no reason. (And I'm afraid we'll just have to keep doing this all the time from the huge number of socks this person is using -- it's a damn shame deprodding/prodding/AFD votes etc. can be limited to established accounts, like semiprotection.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• The account is indef blocked and nobody is willing to unblock. Therefore, they are de facto community banned. I see no reason not to make the ban explicit. Jehochman ^Talk 17:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. The serial deprodding is disruptive but not cause enough for a ban, but the sockpuppetry and harassment is a much bigger problem. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse - People often say there is a difference between a formal ban enacted through a discussion and the 'default' ban that occurs when no admin will unblock. It's worth the effort to enact a formal ban in this case. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we want change?

I've started a ball rolling here User:Giano/The future all comments welcome - whatever their view! Giano (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin abuse by User:J_Milburn

Nothing to see here; no admin abuse. Horologium (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Please see this diff

It is part of a discussion on my talk page.

"if you can't use non-free content fairly, please stay off Wikipedia."

I thought admins weren't allowed to tell registered users in good standing to stay off Wikipedia. In fact, I thought that was exceedingly frowned upon, and considered an abuse of admin power when used as part of a content dispute. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Well being that there is no actual tool abuse here, maybe you should place this at Wikipedia: Wikiquette alerts? – (iMatthew • talk) at 11:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought registered users in good standing weren't allowed to abuse non-free content. In fact, I thought that was exceedingly frowned upon. Seriously, will you stop playing the victim? I hate to say it, but you really need to stop resorting to accusations of personal attacks. J Milburn (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I do not see any misuse of admin tools here. Cirt (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Not even close to abuse. Timeshifter, en.Wikipedia mostly carries wholly free content and the rules allowing non-free content are very narrow. J Milburn was a wee bit snippy after being badgered by you but even one fair use image in the article could be dodgy, two or three are indeed likely to be way over the top. The outcome is that many articles here lack images we'd like to see them carry, but they stay free. In the meantime,external links to non-free images (so long as they're not copyvios) are ok. Admin warnings made in good faith aren't personal attacks or harassment and there is no way to skirt this website's fair use policy. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In Iran women are required to wear a scarf in many situations. So we need a photo of her with and without the scarf in order for Wikipedia not to be perceived as having a Western systemic bias in its selection of photos. Plus in the video of her just before being shot she is wearing a dark scarf also. When she is dying in the other video we see her face and hair more clearly. There is lots of confusion about how she looks, and there are only 2 photos of her so far confirmed as far as I know; this one and File:Neda Agha-Soltan.jpg. There is a third photo that is questionable. File:Neda.png. So the 2 confirmed photos are needed to "convey equivalent significant information" to both Western and non-Western English Wikipedia readers worldwide.

Maybe some people need to remove their Western systemic bias blinders. I am sure that if I asked about this at some of the Middle East WikiProject talk pages that many people would understand exactly where I am coming from.

Also User:J_Milburn called one of my edits today on a Neda Soltan image page "vandalism". See the edit summary for this diff. All I did was add source info for the photo. This is way past being a "wee bit snippy."

There was another incorrectly deleted Neda Soltan image (in my opinion). Please see:

• commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Attention#Incorrect deletion of photo in very timely en:Neda Agha-Soltan article

Or at least incorrectly speedy-deleted. That is also my problem with the actions of User:J_Milburn. What's the rush? Why can't my arguments be addressed civilly, and why can't the deletion discussion be allowed to finish before removing the image from the article. Why does the admin get to keep the image out. Shouldn't the other editors of the article have a say first? --Timeshifter (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I immediately reverted the "vandalism" edit with an apology. That was my mistake, I was looking at the page history and clicked a Twinkle link by accident. It's not at all fair to bring that up here as misconduct. J Milburn (talk) 12:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. But I think it indicates the problem of your rushing around on all this, and your jumping to conclusions, and your tone in addressing me. I repeat, what is the rush? Why not wait until the image deletion discussion is finished. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is a big deal here. Truth be told, I think only one of the images in the article comes even close to being fair use and even that one may not be at this early date. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use is indeed a big deal here. J Milburn has not abused his tools, so the title is misleading. His statement, in addition, is perfectly reasonable - if you can't follow copyright policies properly, you should leave before we kick you. Whether or not your actions are problematic is another kettle of fish altogether, but that statement is a reasonable one to make. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"if you can't follow copyright policies properly, you should leave before we kick you." In a disagreement about Fair Use images, that statement is both offtopic and an attack. We are having a discussion on the talk pages in question. Disagreements on interpretation of Wikipedia Fair Use policies are not settled by your personal attacks. See WP:CIVIL. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• User:Timeshifter has a long history of copyright abuse and, worse, trying to change guidelines and policies to encourage such abuse. His edit war campaign to try to encourage massive use of copyright-violation YouTube clips by trying to call them "fair use" and changing WP:EL and other pages to do so has been ongoing for probably six months or more. He seems fundamentally opposed to the limitations imposed against copyvios and is disrupting Wikipedia to try to get others to follow. I think something more drastic has to be done here. And yes, if someone is uinwilling to follow core policies then they shouldn't contribute -- that's a no brainer. DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamGuy has been blocked many times, and he is mixing me up with someone else. I never pushed for Fair Use of YouTube videos. I pushed for removing his non-consensus addition of the word "rare" to linking to non-copyright-violation YouTube videos. That word was removed. See WT:EL and the YouTube discussion archives there. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Not admin abuse in any way. Throwing around "fair use" is directly opposed to the aims of Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'm finding that Ts seems far more keen on skirting/altering image policy than following it. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have brought up your interpretation of English Wikipedia WP:NFCC policy also. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeshifter, our copyright policies are policies like any other. Your statement to Ironholds that "in a disagreement about Fair Use images, that statement is both offtopic and an attack" is frankly ridiculous- is it an attack when we warn vandals that they are going to be blocked if their vandalism continues? The same thing would be true of a serial copyright offender- they will receive warnings, and blocks. No such thing would have happened in the discussion between me and you, but, in choosing to edit war and read everything as an attack, you have completely blown this out of proportion. J Milburn (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are the one who seems to have jumped to conclusions. You deleted the image from the article without discussion first. Why did you choose that Fair Use image over the other Fair Use image in the article? You should have asked first on the talk page. Now you again use the word vandalism in this discussion. Not appreciated. Let's move on. I withdraw my accusation of admin abuse. Decide for yourself if there is merit in anything I said. --Timeshifter (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I chose that one as the other one was in the infobox. The infobox image served as the "main" image (higher resolution, promintent position, etc) where as the other was the "spare" one. It seemed to have already been decided which was which... J Milburn (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

While we don't always agree I have found User:J Milburn to be good at his job, intelligent and fair, although sometimes his choice of words can be improved upon...Modernist (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Would someone please close this thread? Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:PilotMaker66

Not entirely sure what to do here. This is banned/blocked user Wiki brah attempting to make what seems to be a good faith attempt to edit constructively. He certainly isn't trying to hide the fact and he's asking for mentorship. I'm certainly willing to help him if he's sincere, but he was banned after causing a heap of trouble when he was being mentored some years ago. I've blocked the account and told him I'd done so due to policy; we're communicating via the talk page. Any suggestions on how I should proceed? I've never "unbanned" a user and I don't want to unilaterally act on this and risk getting in trouble. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Technically, users that are banned by the community are supposed to appeal the block to ArbCom; perhaps that is the best route to go. Shereth 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, strictly speaking, a community ban is "a block that no administrator is willing to remove", making a simple unblocking here a possibility. In practice, that's rarely viable given that it can cause a great deal of needless drama if lots of people feel that unblocking would be a bad idea. It is, indeed, probably best to direct the editor towards the ban appeal subcommittee. — Coren ^(talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's not always true. An indefinite block that no administrator is willing to remove is by default a community ban, but a community ban enacted by discussion and consensus cannot be overturned by a single admin. I'm not familiar with this user, or which of the two types of community bans apply, but it is a common misconception that a community ban is only established if a single admin will not overturn a block. --auburnpilot talk 17:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. My personal take on this one - he was blocked over three years ago. If he is (or was) a young user willing to cooperate now I see no reason not to unblock him so long as someone is willing to take responsibility for reblocking him if he does resort to the behaviour which got him blocked. Whether this is an opening to future drama and wikilawyering, though, is something one would have to carefully consider before doing so. Orderinchaos 16:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wiki brah may have been blocked three years ago, but disruptive socks have returned, been revealed to be his socks, and blocked. If they hadn't been disruptive, nobody would have questioned them and there would have been no Checkusers performed. Wiki brah under that account may not have edited for three years, but the person behind the account continues to be disruptive. Wiki brah is Jean LaTore, and see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/JeanLatore. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reporting possible stalker

Someone seems to be looking at my contributions, and reverting them. This has been going on for years. For example, I changed the first sentence in Finance from "The field of finance refers to the concepts of time, money and risk and how they are interrelated" to "Finance is how money is obtained for spending. For example, money might be obtained from fees or taxes." I did this because finance is not a field. It does not refer to time. It does not refer to risk. A professional field does not refer to anything. The word finance does not refer. It has a meaning. When you say, "How are you going to finance that" you mean "How are you going to get the income to pay for that." Therefore, finance is how you get the income, and it does not refer to a specific field or interrelating risk, money and time. However, someone removed my edit, see diff. To that person I would like to point out that edit waring (even slow) does not help improve this encyclopedia. Yes, I believe it's an admin or a small team of them.--Chuck Marean 17:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any kind of evidence to support the idea that someone is "stalking" you or otherwise misbehaving? Otherwise this looks like a simple content dispute. Shereth 17:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That article is wholly unsourced and hence, more or less worthless as an encyclopedia article. Please find some reliable sources and cite them. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When last you raised the issue of your being stalked, ZimZalaBim noted, correctly, that the IP by whose reverts you were troubled had just two edits, and that there didn't appear to be any broader coordination amongst users to remove your contributions reflexively; I see nothing to suggest that the situation has changed: at least six IPs have reverted at least one of your contributions since 9 June, and I cannot imagine that any more than two of them are related (87.198.133.62, which removed several of your P:CE entries—for which removals, it should be noted, a consensus existed—is owned by Magnet Networks Limited and geolocates to Cork Ireland; 130.132.143.49, which reverted the edit about which you write here, is owned by Yale University, located, of course, in New Haven, Connecticut; 69.212.204.244, which removed an image—since deleted at FfD—you inserted into Pet, is owned by AT&T and geolocates to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, as does 69.212.64.248, which removed a P:CE entry that was inconsistent with our guidelines; 71.244.177.15, which removed at least one of your P:CE items, is owned by Verizon and geolocates to Connersville, Indiana; and 76.64.168.94, which removed yet another of your P:CE items, is owned by Bell Canada), and neither, unless we’ve a sockpuppeteer who is able to edit for twenty hours daily for months and months, are the many established editors who have participated in an AfD of your On financial regulation, June 17, 2009, the same person, your suspicion of sockpuppetry notwithstanding). I should not be surprised to find that your contributions are regularly examined by other editors, for the reasons set forth at the last AN thread, but I cannot believe in the absence of additional evidence that your edits are being reverted by nefariously. Joe 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I endorse the revert. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. –xeno^talk 18:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, placing a disputed tag on an article is a claim of factual inaccuracy. "Badly written sentence" does not equal "factual inaccuracy". I fixed (somewhat) the original sentence, and the article is already tagged as needing a major rewrite, anyway. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Disscuss on talk page request

Does this edit have a consensus? The article is about finance? --Chuck Marean 15:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This would appear to be a question that belongs on Talk:Finance. --Onorem♠Dil 15:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Lucaspet

Mostly looking for advice on the next step and/or other admins willing to lend a hand here.

Lucaspet (talk · contribs) has been reverting any attempt to redirect articles on individual Pucca episodes to List of Pucca episodes. (examples: [12], [13], [14], [15] and others.) This alone isn't problematic; the problem arises because several editors, including myself, have made multiple attempts to engage this editor in discussion about the need for references and the importance of notability without success. Unfortunately this editor is not fluent in English, is very young, or both, and the few answers have been difficult to understand. (See User talk:Lucaspet, this, this, and this for examples.)

A previous block did seem to get some small discussion going, but nothing came of it. And my gut says blocking isn't the answer here -- if we can establish some real communication, Lucaspet could become a very good editor. But I've run up against a brick wall on how to do it. Thoughts?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Complain at WP:ANI, not here. --Thinboy00 @140, i.e. 02:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC) could've sworn I was looking at WP:VPT

My Changes to MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js

Because this might cause confusion if not mentioned somewhere visible, let me say I have centralized the blacklist that was previously on MediaWiki:Gadget-Twinkle.js to User:AzaToth/twinkleblacklist.js. This new configuration has the functionality of blocking problematic users from using it via either their preferences or their monobooks. I have included a short documentation on the new page. Yours, —Animum (talk) 22:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

TW does not work for me, and I'm an admin, something is wrong with the change. -MBK₀₀₄ 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• There must have been a botching somewhere =) –xeno^talk 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Javascript

Resolved

 – Animum reverted the change and it works again. –xeno^talk 23:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe I may have broken Javascript by using Mr.Z-man's auto-patrol script to patrol 500 user talk pages created by a vandal-fighter. Immediately after on IRC, users started popping up complaining that their userscripts weren't working... Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 23:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

hehe... no, I think this may be related to Animum's recent changes to the twinkle framework. –xeno^talk 23:02, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that doesn't explain why Friendly, Mr.Z-man's Autopatrol, patrollinks, and move-revert scripts, my dashboard link, and the admin-highlighter script don't work... Nevermind... works now Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 23:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How do you break javascript? It's a client-side deal. —harej (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I greatly apologize for the deal of trouble I've caused. Second, I have unreverted myself after successfully testing and retesting it in my monobook. If you have problems, first purge your cache; if they persist, revert me. —Animum (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously been a long day for me. I instantly got a vision of people I'd like to revert to a previous version of themselves in real life. Now if there was a script for that... ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How to request summary deletion?

Resolved

 – Edit summaries have been oversighted — Gavia immer (talk) 04:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How does one go about requesting deletion of an edit summary? The following vandalism to the featured article is highly offensive [16]. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You would make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight to have the edits removed from the page history. Hoever the request would likely be declined - as Wikipedia:Oversight explains, the function is approved for the removal of personal information, libel or copyright infringement where advised by Wikimedia counsel. It is not approved for removal of simple vandalism or offensive edit summaries, even ones as unpleasant as these. Euryalus (talk) 04:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

To add on to what Euryalus is saying, edits such as these are usually just deleted by admins from the history. In this specific case, the article Ancient Egypt has over 5,000 revisions and due to technical restrictions admins are not able to delete the article to remove the edits. As such, instances like these are when oversight is also used. Icestorm815 • Talk 04:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

... which proves I should keep up with recent developments more. RevisionDelete is a new (2009) feature which effectively hides the comments from public view without entirely removing them as oversight does. Details of how and when are also at WP:Oversight. Sorry for not keeping up with the times :) Euryalus (talk) 04:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision delete is what I was looking for, if that's what was used to strike the edit summaries. Thanks folks. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Afisair

The user seems to be adding original research, unverified claims, and biased edits, alongside acting on ownership of his submitted content and being uncivil to a fellow editor (more specifically, me). I believe he's a new editor who's trying to make his way around the place, but I've brought it here for further review. Diffs (see his contributions for further information): [17] [18] [19] ^blurred_peace ☮ 06:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm most concerned about is him saying that his intellectual rights are being infringed. In my view that's a sign he's unwilling to honor the licenses Wikipedia uses. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 06:42, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not so much as "not honor", as "fails to understand" that his work is immediately placed under the WP licenses. I will drop over to their talkpge. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:45, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ouch. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wonderfool

Jackofclubs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted to being Wonderfool shortly after/before/at the same time as deleting their Main Page. How about we nip this one in the bud before he somehow manages to get sysop here (again)? I'm not even going to begin to understand how the fuck he could have gotten sysop on Wiktionary again (Jackofclubs was probably the fifth time).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked indef as a sock of a banned user. --Chris 08:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, I'm curious about the last point too. Orderinchaos 16:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
  • wikt:Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2009-04/User:Jackofclubs for admin. Uncle G (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

 – Indef'd by User:Bubba hotep. –xeno^talk 13:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We have a legal threat from a person who also says he's not committing sockpuppetry, blaming it on the person he's sitting next to...: [20] Until It Sleeps ^{Wake me} 13:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Human rights in Los Angeles County, California 1985-2009

Resolved

 – Article is at AfD. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this newly created article generally meets with Wikipedia's quality standardss. There might be a suitable article topic in there somewhere but currently it's more of a personal essay than an encyclopaedia article. I think its size, layout and current content would make it very difficult to improve by general editing and I was wondering if someone with experience of this kind of thing could explain to the creator (User:Jz12345678) how to get it up to scratch. I've tried to a bit - adding section headings and stuff but I think generally the piece just needs to be entirely rewritten. Guest9999 (talk) 13:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a no-brainer and requires little discussion. Speedy userfy and delete. Viriditas (talk) 14:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Help on a deletion - David Everett

Resolved

 – Article restored; mistakenly deleted as vandalism

I put together a stub, David Everett on the 22nd July 2008. I see that the article was deleted in 2009 as G3 Vandalism. I'd be grateful if an admin could look at the deleted page ... if it describes a minor poet, would you pop the text in my user page, please. (In short: I seem to think I appended an article, it is no longer there, and I'm trying to find out what happened to it. Any clues gratefully received.) thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've restored the article. An editor came along and replaced the original article with crap; the deleting admin probably forgot to check the page history for prior versions. – Toon 15:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"Spam" in userspace

What is the threshold of spam-ness for a userspace page? Im talking about pages such as User:Baltimore Brownie, User:Latestnews24609 or User:Jeffvlaming/Jeff vlaming created by new accounts. It seems that they are trying to avoid putting spam pages out in mainspace where it will be removed quickly, however the Article CSD types don't apply here and the only one that may apply is dp-spam, possibly, however the promotion might not be blatant. Triplestop (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Baltimore Brownie was deleted by User:Kinu for "Unambiguous advertising or promotion". Other two userpages remain. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

But how should db-spam apply to other similar user pages in general? Triplestop (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia:NOT applies? (Not a blog/forum/web host/homepage, etc.).--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged User:Latestnews24609 for deletion as an attack page - it claims someone is suspected of murder without any evidence. At first when I saw the page I wondered whether it was a death threat, as it makes claims of deaths and I can't find anywhere this have been reported, although the deaths were claimed to have occurred several hours ago. snigbrook (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• I commented (disobeying the rules) on User:Jeffvlaming/Jeff vlaming's user page and gave him a welcome message on his talk page. We might see if it was a "mistake" from his/her side or not.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

In anyone else's userspace, it would, I think, look like someone starting a legitimate article in a sandbox, particularly as the person has worked on some very notable TV shows and I find some google news hits for him[21]. I would probably keep an eye on it for a week or two and see what happens (or even have a stab at writing an article about the chap myself) but there's no harm in making contact as you have done. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Stifle's Talk page

Resolved

 – There is no need for this to be discussed here, a more appropriate place is User talk:Stifle. — Aitias // discussion 22:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see User_talk:Stifle/wizard. This is the page that Stifle links to in his Signature. That message tree is far too complex for the ordinary user who wants to contact not only an admin, but an OTRS member, as well. It's almost as if he's trying to avoid being communicated with. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The message wizard is designed, among other things, to:

• Ensure that users' messages are directed to the right person or place, which may not always be me (e.g. issues that any admin could resolve are directed here)
• Give answers to frequently-asked questions, so that users don't have to wait for me to be online to answer them
• Provide template messages for new users who contact me about deleted pages so that they can provide all the information I need without having to message back and forth
• There is a link at the very top for experienced users which cuts out the message tree, gives four short responses to common questions, and a link to leave me a message.

I, and many users, have found the system helpful; suggestions on how to make it more helpful are welcome on my talk page. However, in response to concerns that some users have raised, I am working on an FAQ-based system to replace the talk page wizard. This is under development at User talk:Stifle/FAQs. Stifle (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You did discuss this with Stifle (talk · contribs) before posting here, I guess? — Aitias // discussion 22:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind providing a link to the relevant discussion then, please? — Aitias // discussion 22:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, he suggested I should change it at 21:59, and then reported it here eight minutes later, before I'd seen his message or had a chance to reply. Stifle (talk) 22:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Stifle's "wizard" is essentially the Wikipedia version of "Press 1 for Customer Service" or "Press 2 for Technical Support". It is just an easier way to get things done for him. As a non-admin, I see no problem with this...and kinda like it :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I think my biggest problem is that none of the topics he wanted me to choose matched what I wanted to say on his Talk page. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps he could add a section for "If you don't see your issue, click here" or whatever. A page for everything else. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Already done., the very last entry is "Some other reason". Stifle (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Also note the breadcrumb at the top of the page which allows you to go up one level to the proper talk page. That's what I would do, if I ever wanted to leave Stifle a message. My suggestion to Stifle would be to create a user talk page header that offers answers to f.a.q.'s instead (if that is your plan already, then - as you were =) –xeno^talk 23:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Father Casey's

Resolved

 – "22:13, 24 June 2009 Stifle (talk / contribs / block) (2,419 bytes) (CC-BY-SA permission received; this page is not GFDL-compatible)" –xeno^talk 22:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A followup from above. Father Casey's is a copyright violation. I db-copyvio tagged it, and User:Stifle replaced my speedy deletion tag with a posting on the Copyright violations board and a template saying the page is copyrighted. Are we now no longer speedy deleting copyright violations which have no other non-copyvio text in their history? If so, db-copyvio should be deleted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The reason I changed it was because we received an OTRS ticket about the page. I should have noted that in my edit changing to regular copyvio; my apologies. Stifle (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Wait, before resolving it. What does all of this gobbledygook mean? There was an OTRS ticket, but it still fails copyright, so we have to wait weeks before it gets deleted because the Copyright violations noticeboard never get resolved, whereas a db tag wasn't appropriate because there was an OTRS ticket? I still don't understand. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And now the copyright tag has been removed altogether, the text that was there copied word for word from the club's website is still there, in an unencylopedic manner, and Stifle's comment on removing the copyvio text is that it isn't GFDL compliant. Please, explain? I'm thoroughly lost here. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

(triple-ec) Sorry, let me give you the full sequence of events.

1. I got the OTRS ticket, and looked up the page.
2. The OTRS ticket didn't have a specific CC-BY-SA release, so I replied to the ticket asking for one
3. I changed the db-copyvio to a regular copyvio so the article wouldn't get deleted in the meantime, but failed to mention the ticket in the edit summary, only providing the details at the WP:CP listing
4. Shortly afterwards, I received a proper CC-BY-SA release in OTRS
5. I removed the copyvio notice and placed an OTRS permission template on the article talk page

Text doesn't have to be GFDL-compliant any more as long as it's CC-BY-SA compliant. Obviously if you feel it's unencyclopedic you can prod or AFD the article.

Hopefully that clarifies things. Apologies again for the confusion; I'm editing while sick and tired which is a bad combination. Stifle (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've asked the Gaelic football WikiProject to look it over. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that WP:CP is generally kept very much up to date, thanks in no small part to Moonriddengirl. Stifle (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it is intentionally a week before issues are resolved to allow time for permission to be sent and verified. – Toon 22:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Donation buttons being discussed at Meta

There's an interesting discussion at m:Fundraising 2009/Donation buttons upgrade regarding donation buttons. All are welcome to participate! --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

How is that an admin issue? --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not, but this board is usually used as a general discussion board. And admins are usually some of the most active (and vocal) users. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Having a conversation with yourself is not a good sign. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias on the main page (On this day)

There is a biased statement on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 25:

"Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was kidnapped by Palestinian militants in a cross border raid from the Gaza Strip on the crossing Kerem Shalom, and has been held hostage by Hamas since."

The statements "kidnapped" and "hostage" are both biased, as from another point of view he was an enemy solider who was captured and detained. If Israel made a cross-border raid into Gaza and captured a Hamas militant, then demanded the Gilad Shalit's release, no one would dare call it kidnapping or hostage-taking. When I brought this up on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and alerted administrators via IRC, I was told nothing could be done about it without discussion. The way I see it, removing bias shouldn't need discussion unless the proposed changes may also be biased, which my proposed changes are not:

"Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was captured by Palestinian militants in a cross border raid from the Gaza Strip on the crossing Kerem Shalom, and has been held by Hamas since."

Anyone willing to change it for the sake of preserving a neutral point of view? Mnmazur (talk)