Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Drashok (talk | contribs) at 16:05, 1 October 2007 (→‎Submit request to use images: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purge the cache to refresh this page

    Welcome — post issues of interest to administrators.
    Shortcuts

    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)


    Current issues

    Protected Administrator User Talk Pages

    # To request assistance from a specific administrator, enter User talk:Whomever in the search box to the left and press "Go."

    How do I leave messages to admins who've sprotected their usertalk page? (and their user page). 132.205.44.5 22:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You can click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox on the left side of the administrator's page. Unless their talk page is suffering from enormous amounts of disruption or vandalism, sprotecting it is generally not endorsed. If you can point out the page in question, someone can look into it and ask the admin in question about unprotecting it. Thanks! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I dont't see such a link. Is it only available to non-anons? 132.205.44.5 23:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User Talk:Bishonen 09:17, 29 July 2007 Bishonen (Talk | contribs) m (Protected User talk:Bishonen: fed up with abusive IP edits for now. [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (undo)
    You can also create an account. Corvus cornix 22:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have to wait four days after creating your account if you wish to edit a semi-protected page, though, so e-mail is of course faster if you need to contact a specific administrator urgently. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The anon is right; "E-mail this user" is only available for logged-in users. For that reason, admins should not semi-protect their talk pages long-term or without a pressing situation. Chick Bowen 01:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And over two months is far too long. Bishonen should really unprotect his/her talk page. Natalie 13:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Her email is enabled, and that's good enough.--MONGO 17:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No, anonymous users cannot use the Special:Emailuser function, so they currently have no way to contact Bishonen. Melsaran (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Did anyone happen to mention to Bishonen that this discussion is going on, in case she didn't see it? I'll mention it to her just in case. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    CrossRef here.Rlevse 17:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Since the thread on ANI is marked "resolved" and will soon be removed, I'll reply to both that and this one here. First of all, thank you, MONGO, your defense is much appreciated. Secondly, it's not that I'm especially sensitive to having anonymous little penis vandals I've blocked coming to my pages and calling me Bitchonen. (Disappointingly, only a few have in fact had the inventiveness for such a simple pun.) Not at all. There's another reason why I've sometimes been keeping my userpages semiprotected for quite long times: it's to discourage a special "friend" of mine who never gives up. I would rather not elaborate, but instead ask people to consider my record before they decide whether or not to extend an assumption of good faith to my words. If Wikipedia is in fact not for me,[1] I suppose now is as good a time as any to find out. Bishonen | talk 21:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    As I have so recently asked another administrator, please unprotect your talk page, user talk page protection is not nice to legitimate anon and new users, as well as being a violation of the protection policy. Prodego talk 21:11, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Regarding Friday's post, to which Bishonen linked above ("If you can't handle being abused by random strangers, Wikipedia is not for you."), I very much doubt that Bishonen would protect her page because of random strangers. I am aware of several cases of user talk pages being semi-protected because of a particularly vicious form of trolling. I don't think one should do it just out of whim, but I have no trouble in extending an assumption of good faith to productive users and admins who don't have a reputation for being over sensitive or for making unreasonable demands. Nor do I feel that it's ever essential for an anon to be able to post directly on a particular admin's page. If Bishonen blocked you, posting on her page would be block evasion anyway; use the {{unblock}} template or try the unblock mailing list. If she protected a page that you want unprotected, make a request at WP:RFPP. If she deleted a page, there's always deletion review. If you have something you badly want to say to her, you could make a post on the talk page of one of her friends. And I don't see that it's a violation of the protection policy, which says merely that it shouldn't be used "with the sole purpose of prohibiting editing by anonymous users." Let's not make too big a thing of this. There are hundreds of active administrators with fully editable talk pages. If a very small number, who are not known for being unreasonable and who are known for contributing productively to the encyclopaedia, have personal reasons for being more comfortable with semi-protection, it's not really doing any harm to anyone, so why not just leave it and go and spend more time writing an encyclopaedia? ElinorD (talk) 21:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    From WP:PPol: "Indefinite semi-protection may be used for (1) Articles subject to heavy and continued vandalism. (2) Biographies subject to vandalism and/or POV-pushing that are not widely watchlisted (3) User pages (but not user talk pages), when requested by the user" No mention of being allowed to semi-protect a user talk page there, it is expressly forbidden. For temp protection: "(1) Preventing vandalism when blocking users individually is not a feasible option, such as a high rate of vandalism from a wide range of anonymous IP addresses. (2) Article talk pages that are being disrupted; this should be used sparingly because it prevents new users and anons from being part of discussions." Once again, shouldn't be protected. Here there is a caveat, since semi-protection is ok on user talk pages for a short amount of time, when disruptive users can't be blocked. But July was several months ago, so the page should be unprotected, the troll probably did give up. WP:IAR says "[if something] prevents you from working with others... ignore it". But protecting a talk page does exactly that, prevents you from working with others! So the policy and ignore all rules both say to unprotect the page. Prodego talk 01:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but I find this response to be anal retentive and excessively legalistic. Nothing is permitted unless it is specifically written down? No, not really. Admins should be accessible to users but there may be exceptions, and as this thread shows, this anonymous user has had no problem getting attention from other admins. It's a wonder that no one has actually asked the anon what he or she wanted and why only Bishonen could provide that. Thatcher131 02:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Sometimes, maybe just sometimes, longtime great contributors should be able to do things others can't. ie IAR and make an exception. It's not like it's so desperately critical to the functioning of the encyclopedia that all anons need to be able to get a hold of her immediately. I submit that good contributors are more important than trolls and we shouldn't feed. - Taxman Talk 03:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Silly me, thinking we should actually follow policy. Prodego talk 16:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's now 3 months since Bishonen's talk page was semiprotected - surely a trial period of unprotection could be attempted without the world coming to an end. Neil ム 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Or we could let it go and reallize all 2,000,000 articles are more important to work on than continuing this issue. - Taxman Talk 14:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    While admins with semi-protected talk pages should be few and far between, I guess I can imagine situations where persistent IP harassment makes no other option feasible. We’re smart people here, we can figure out a workaround. Assuming that the admin doesn’t want to create an unprotected subpage (which the troll could just attack instead), I think Ryulong’s solution shown here seems reasonable; the admin just needs to be willing to watch the talk page of IP’s and new editors they interact with, and talk pages of articles they edit. This breaks down if too many admins do it, or if the admin interacts with too many IP's, but for special cases, it seems a reasonable compromise. Perhaps a note at the top of the admin's talk page that tells IP's that this is how it works is appropriate. The only other problem is that there is no way for an IP or new editor to contact the admin if they have never interacted before, but I'm trying to think of a reason this is vital, and I can't come up with one. --barneca (talk) 15:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (more) Plus, there's always {{helpme}}. How's this: if you feel the need to semi-protect your user talk page for long (or even short) periods, put a notice similar to this in a prominent place on your talk page. --barneca (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I would reword that to avoid feeding the trolls. I'll make a duplicate revision on the page you started. - Jehochman Talk 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahh, I see your point. Personally, I'd average the two versions, and at least mention semi-protection, but the idea is the admin can adjust it however they wish, to fit in with their overall talk page scheme. The important thing is that a good-faith new editor isn't left staring at the admin's user talk page going "????". --barneca (talk) 15:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Featured Article red link

    Just to let you know that the article links on the Featured Article are red linked. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, someone got it already. :) Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 13:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Redirect

    Resolved

    Could someone point me in the right direction, or tell me how to create an article page that redirects to another article? Jefferson College (Mississippi) is also known as Jefferson Military College but there's no article for Jefferson Military College and I don't want redundant, just simple redirect for anyone searching for Jefferson Military College to Jefferson College (Mississippi). Any help is appreciated. Thank you. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 14:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    See wikipedia:redirect. This does not require administrative intervention so a better place to post this would've been the help desk. Graham87 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Police Community Support Officer

    Anon IP 81.159.187.114 (talk · contribs) and brand new account Travis1985 (talk · contribs) have been making huge numbers of edits to Police Community Support Officer over the last 24 hours, with no discussion either on the talk page or at the relevant Wikiproject (WP:LE), and in so doing so removed a large amount of sourced content, as well as (among other things) deleted all the categories. As another editor's raised concern to me about this, I've temporarily protected The Wrong Version and left a note on Travis1985's talk page encouraging them to discuss largescale changes like this before making them. As I've written a number of law enforcement articles (albeit have never worked on this one) whatever I do I may be accused of bias - can I ask someone not involved to also keep an eye on it? — iridescent (talk to me!) 16:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Sockpuppeto & User:Kaoruchan

    We may have a new sockpuppeteer.

    • [1] & [2]

    User:Sockpuppeto had made similar edits on Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice then User:Kaoruchan during his block. Kaoruchan was blocked inserting inappropriate images and then 12 hours later may have evaded his block while creatin User:Sockpuppeto who has been blocked indefinitely for suspected sockpuppetry and similar vandalism to Dick Cheney and Condoleeza Rice.

    Although looking at the Karouchan contributions I may suspect also that this account may have been compromised by another person and thus later himself may have created the block evasion accountJForget 17:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

    The Morning Post vs. Morning Post

    There appears to be a violation of the 3RR over the above relaively minor issue. I maintain that the Former is correct. My opponent reverts my editing to the latter. Furthermore, I supplied evidence in support of my view on the Talk page. My opponent has not. I ask for Administrative assistance to resolve this dispute. Thank you. --Ludvikus 17:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    The evidence already presented on Talk:Morning Post suggests that 'Morning Post' is more common. I note there have been six moves already. Please obtain consensus at Talk:Morning Post before attempting to move the article yet again. You and User:Bkonrad have both shown your mastery of the 'Move' button, but consensus is good to have. Filing an issue at WP:RM can allow for wider input, and can provide an administrator to close the discussion. EdJohnston 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The (over) use of the move button is tiresome. I've move-protected the article and the redirect (both at The Wrong Version, of course) for 7 days. EdJohnston is right - consensus and/or WP:RM, that way lies peace. ➔ This is REDVEЯS 18:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Creation of redundant articles

    Codyfinke6 has created a series of articles and redirects that I believe meet the standard for a speedy deletion tag.

    Reasons:

    1. Covered material already in Wikipedia under American cheese and Processed cheese;
    2. They are a single, declaratory sentence articles that are not cited;
    3. he failed to mark them as stubs.

    Could an administrator please take a look at these and tag them appropriately?

    Here, here, here and here

    Other information about Cody:

    1. He has done this repeatedly and been warned not to;
    2. He has been blocked for other issues, including edit wars;
    3. He has a history of unproductive edits;
    4. I and other editors have repeatedly tagged his user page with warnings to stop his unproductive edits and he is currently at level 4.
    5. He does not respond to contact requests from editors and administrators;
    6. He makes changes that go against established consensus;

    Thanks for taking the time to look at these issues, Jeremy (Jerem43 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

    Need help reverting this...

    Resolved

    This user appears to be some sort of vandal sockpuppet who is probably running a script of some kind. He made a ton of vandal edits, so any assistance reverting them would be appreciated. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 22:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Done. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    He's bragging on his Talk page about being two other indef. vandals. Can account creation block be implemented on this guy? Corvus cornix 22:13, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It appears to be a dynamic IP, so you'd need a checkuser to consider a range block. I've just blocked ClaimJumperDan (talk · contribs) (0). -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Opera proxies

    At ANI, it has been discovered that a banned user has operated off of IP addresses that resolve to the offices for Opera Software. Two of these IPs are 195.189.142.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 195.189.142.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), and both appear to be open proxies (putting the IPs into Google gives many results). Currently, the range that is given in the WHOIS data is being scanned for other IPs that open ports and allow for open proxy usage. If it turns out that a sizable amount of IPs can be utilized (or have been utilized), the entire range may be necessary to block. However, as this is a prominent company, there may be issues with blocking it for any period of time, even if no one should necessarily be editting through an IP owned by a company that is not an internet service provider.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've already hardblocked the first address, unbeknownst to all this. I portscanned it and it came back as an open proxy (both squid and socks). Blocked for 12 months and templated. I intend to contact netops at Opera in the morning and discuss the situation & maybe they can tighten up their public network infrastructure - Alison ❤ 06:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I've found a few (at least a hundred) that might be open proxies as well, based on having either 1080 or 8080 open. List is at User:SQL/OProxy SQL(Query Me!) 06:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently, this is a proxy system used, by Opera Mini, an browser applet used by many mobile phones, and PDA's. SQL(Query Me!) 06:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we've got the Google Web Accelerator problem all over again?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's nothing like Google Web Accelerator. I do half my editing via Opera Mini; if you have to block them, block them anonymous-only. Neil ム 11:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as I can tell, the proxies don't actually seem to be open to casual surfers. The open ports I've seen are 22 (SSH), 113 (identd), 1081 (SOCKS?), 4949 (Munin?), 8080 (Roxen webserver) and, for one of the servers I scanned, 8120 (unknown, no response). Of those, 1081, 8080 and 8120 would seem suspicious, but I haven't actually been able to use any of them as a proxy: port 8080, which seems to be the one actually used by Opera Mini, returns an authentication request when asked for its root document and "Proxy support disabled." when asked for "http://en.wikipedia.org/". —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    They are usable via the Opera Mini demo applet, though. So, yes, I'd say these do seem to qualify as open. So, an anon-only range block on 195.189.142.0/23? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Short blocks when vandalism takes place only, please - again, these are shared IPs. Neil ム 15:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems that the Opera Mini proxies do provide X-Forwarded-For headers, although they are of limited usefulness: when accessed via the demo interface, they simply give the IP address of demo.opera-mini.net (195.189.142.176). Neil, since you say you have access to a genuine non-demo Opera Mini, could you try looking at, say, http://showip.net and check what the X-Forwarded-For header looks like. If it gives a different address for real Opera Minis than for the demo interface, then it might be worth having the proxies added to the trusted XFF list so that we can only block the demo interface if and when it gets abused. (Of course, it'd be even nicer if the demo interface were to pass along the actual IP of the user, as they apparently do for the User-Agent header.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Alrighty ... www.showip.net gives the following info when accessed via Opera Mini 4:
    • IP address: 195.189.142.149
    • IP number: 3283979925
    • Host name: p10-15.opera-mini.net
    • Network owner: OPERA SOFTWARE ASA
    • Country (guess): Norway
    • City (guess): Asa
    • User agent: Opera/9.50 (J2ME/MIDP, Opera Mini/4.0.8993/58, U; en)
    • Browser: Unknown browser 0
    • Connected at port: 49120
    • Operating system: Unknown platform
    • Accepted languages: en
    • Accepted encodings: deflate, gzip, x-gzip, identity, *;q=0
    • Then a bunch of lines repeating the same info, then
    • X-forwarded for 195.189.142.148, 193.113.200.172, 10.206.75.68
    Is that what you need? Neil ム 17:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, that's very nice. So it's only the demo interface that stops at the first hop. Yes, I do think we ought to add these to the trusted XFF list. Thank you. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So what does that mean? Assume I know nothing about this stuff. Can we stop the demo interface being used to vandalise without hurting people who use the actual browser? Neil ム 22:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Today's Featured Picture - Again

    Here goes again: I reported the following earlier this evening, Picaroon removed the link but didn't explain why, so Zzyzx11 in good faith put the link back and we're back where we started. Can someone please look into this? Thanks, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • The photo credit for Today's Featured Picture leads to a page which says, "If my involvement in Wikipedia is so dam important to you that you will threaten my family then fine, you win, I am outta here. I hope that satisfies you and you will leave me alone. It is just a web site for fucks sake. (H) 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)". I'm not up-to-date on user:H's wishes, however I had the impression that he might not have wanted his real name to be associated with the account. Does anyone know whether he wants his name hyperlinked to his userpage, or would it be better to delink it? Feel free to remove this message and contact me privately if discretion is needed here. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikirage Enhancements

    I found some time to do some enhancements on wikirage (website that tracks the most edited pages on wikipedia for various periods of time). I added a home page indication and mashed in the WikiCharts data. I've also started capturing flags like 'Unverified', 'Cleanup Needed', and 'Disputed'. I'll try to get some change direction and velocity data in soon. If there are other 'flags' that I should be on the look out for, let me know. w3ace 13:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Overlong request for protected edit

    Template talk:Film has had {{editprotected}} for six days now without either implementation or a comment on why it wasn't. But it seems like the category is not backed up, so I assume there's no backlog. Could an admin have a look at this? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola 17:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    It was probably because someone asked did the code work, you replied you'd take a look and then never said whether it worked or not. I'm assuming it did work as you're asking here about it, so I've done the change. Neil ム 17:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Desperate Vandalism Help Needed

    I know, this is not the right place to report this, but just in case the individual involved really does think he's in the right, I'm hesitant to actually report him. User "TTN", keeps vandalizing the Wild ARMS 5 video game article. He's messing with a lot of sections and completely deleted over half the article. It took me a long time to get back all the stuff he got rid of, since he did not make all his changes in the same edit. I don't want to start an edit way, but if I don't keep undoing it, it's going to make things a lot harder when more people come along and make appropriate edits. Can a mod or someone in charge say something to him?

    He deleted ALL of the character profiles, the trivia section, and just about the entire article. People have been working on all of that stuff for months, and he deleted it all without even bothering to try and discuss it first. He is trying to claim that video game articles should not have that stuff. but I've seen plenty, and I know that's not the case. It's information. And Wiki is an encyclopedia of information, isn't it? Please, someone step in and stop him. I don't want to get in trouble, but if his edits are left unreverted, it's going to become harder and harder to get back all the information that he's taken. I've asked him to stop, I've requested he at least discuss it on the talk page first, and he refuses.MagicalHopStep 18:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all, this is a content dispute (an argument about what the content on the page should be, not a larger issue), so it's not somewhere administrators need to intervene. Second, I asked User:TTN to post what part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games he is following (I assume just the base article style guidelines) on the talk page. Magical, perhaps you should look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines, which is what I think TTN is basing his view of the article off of. Don't be so quick to call it vandalism; assume good faith. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    TTN's edits have always been somewhat controversial, but they aren't vandalism. TTN usually edits sections that he considers fancruft from articles, of the edits on this article I concur that most of what he removed is fancruft perhaps the only section that can be seriously debated is the "Characters" one and its in serious need of a cleanup being written from a In-universe perspective. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    When a person deletes that much of an article and refuses to even discuss it with the many people who have been working their butts off on those sections for months, it's vandalism. Someone needs to step in, or else a serious edit war will likely develop.MagicalHopStep 18:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You need to stop editing and take some time to clear your mind, you also need to stop reverting since you are already at the limit of the WP:3RR, TTN already stopped reverting the best thing is that you do it to. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not reverting. I'm fixing. Someone edited the article, and I don't know how, but somehow duplicated some stuff. I was getting rid of the extra sections created by that, not reverting anything.MagicalHopStep 18:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    You reverted TTN's edits three times its clear on the article's history, and I suspect that you are editing as 24.3.186.152 right now to avoid the three revert rule. - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    That is untrue. And you should not make accusations like that. Too many innocent people get in trouble that way.MagicalHopStep 19:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    MagicalHopStep and The Prince of Darkness both blocked for 24 hours for breaking the three revert rule. Neil ム 19:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    MHS is claiming utter innocence and the IP edited the page "long before I ever joined" - judge for yourself, noting timestamps: IP's first edit, MagicalHopStep's first edit. Hmmm. I'm tempted to extend his block for obvious IP sockery at this point. Neil ム 19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have a checkuser done first and probably include our new friend, User:Tantei who just decided to join in. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quack quack. Two sock accounts (User:Tantei and User:Coreyzard blocked. If anyone feels like running a checkuser, there's probably an involved user (making no assumptions as to who) behind all these. Neil ム 22:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And dear God, all the Wild Arms pages are garbage. Wild Arms 3 was comprised of links to Amazon sites, in depth game play guides and links to cheat sites, yo tube videos, and copy and pastes from the character bios in the instruction book. Neil ム 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ugh, I removed about 20,000 bytes from Wild Arms 4 that was either totally irrelevant or sounded like it was copied from the game's documentation. Mr.Z-man 22:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Userspace Salt Pages

    I've started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Protection_policy#Private_Salt_pages. Regards, Navou banter 19:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:GladstoneandRosebery.gif

    Resolved

    It has been pointed out repeatedly to User:Giano II at [2] that the image is not in the public domain. User:Giano II remains defiant and refuses to consider any alternative licence. 41.208.217.170 20:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    This seems just plain silly. Yes, there's an infinitesimal chance that the photograph was first published after 1937, but it's a minute one. It was taken in 1879 for god's sake. Aside from anything else, given the sitters there's a reasonable chance this is a crown copyright in which case it's undoubtedly now in the public domain. Can you really not find more problematic images to worry about? — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    There's actually no chance that the photograph was published after 1937, as it was published in 1879 by being handed out to the participants in the house party that is the subject of the photograph. - Nunh-huh 21:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Contrary to "anons" statement above I don't care what copyright tag it has (I see it has just been changed [3] so long as Anon is not trying to have it deleted), as that is plainly daft. I just though {PD-old}} was the most logical. Giano 21:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    FGS [4] If Carnildo is happy what on earth is all this about? Giano 06:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Truly, if Carnildo is satisfied that's the last word on the matter. No administrative action is required here; the IfD will run its course. Mackensen (talk) 10:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    7-day old MFD

    Resolved

    Hello AN. I am trying to tie up loose ends here, and with this in mind I ask that an admin please consider Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:The Behnam/Local news and close the matter. Many thanks in advance. The Behnam 03:33, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Copy & paste move help needed

    Resolved
     – assuming this is resolved, the article has been edited after the merge --ais523 12:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    UCE Birmingham has renamed itself Birmingham City University. Unfortunately a user went and created a new article at Birmingham City University, largely copying the text but with amendments, making it hard to just delete it and move. Can someone with the skills do a bmerger to Birmingham City University? Timrollpickering 09:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done the history merge, but I'm confused about what version should be 'top'. Could someone please revert to the correct version, if it isn't on that version already? --ais523 10:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

    Old/first generation FAs

    There are many FAs which got promoted under the old FA criteria. A quick glance at these first generation FAs reveals that several of them fall way short of FA-quality under the present guidelines. Political integration of India and Malwa are just two examples. The former, for example is almost entirely unsourced! Even the sparse referencing is studded with non-RS sources. The latter too has serious sourcing issues. And sourcing is just one of the issues with these articles. Both suffer from rambling prose, possible POV, MoS issues, non-WP:EL links in external links etc.,. I am sure that there are more FAs like this. Is there any way that these articles can be de-featured without having to go through the motions? imo, de-featuring these articles is only fair because it would be a travesty if these articles were to hold up more deserving FAs from gracing the main page. Also these FAs are certainly not among wikipedia's best and shouldnt be anywhere near the main page. Thoughts? Sarvagnya 11:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes - {{sofixit}} springs to mind. And this is not an issue requiring administrator attention - it would be better off being brought up at Wikipedia:Village pump. Neil ム 11:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    {{sofixit}} springs to mind. Yes. And if you peek into the recent edit history of the article, you'll see that i've been doing my bit to "sofixit". Being Indian myself and being reasonably familiar with the topic, I can tell you that the article needs a complete overhaul and large portions of it may even need to be restructured and rewritten. And I dont see that this has to go to the pump. Lot of admins gather here and if enough admins agree with what I'm proposing, it should save us all a lot of trouble. Wikipedia, afterall isnt a bureaucracy, for us to keep running from pillar to post. We could probably agree on something like ... "If atleast half a dozen editors of long standing admins agree that an article is not FA-quality, the article should be downgraded to say B-class." - this of course, would apply only to FAs promoted under the old guidelines. So do you have anything else to say other than "sofixit" and "take it to the pump"? Sarvagnya 12:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins do not have special authority over content issues, which is what FA/FAR/FARCs are - such issues are determined by the community, of which all admins happen to be a part, but only in the fact we are all also editors. Issues such as this ought to be discussed on the Village Pump because it is the appropriate location for such discussion. Admins do not have special authority to revise community-determined policy - everyone has an equal right. Neil ム 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just work through them gradually. Nominate them at a slow enough rate to (a) allow work to be done on them, and (b) not to overwhelm FAR. Carcharoth 12:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Both these articles have already appeared on the Main Page (see here and here, and thus will not appear on the Main Page again for the foreseeable future. See the "Article Milestones" template on the talk pages to confirm this. Just let these article appear on FAR in the fulness of time. ie. Don't overwhelm FAR with excessive nominations, and, as always, be prepared to work on the articles you nominate. Carcharoth 12:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. FAR is the way to go. That is exactly what it is for. This is not an admin matter at all. --Stephan Schulz 12:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    So whenever the FA criteria changes all FAs should be un-FAed for not meeting FA? Luigi30 (Taλk) 13:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strange articles

    I occasionally come across some strange articles. That have issues with the scope or just seem like they don't belong in an encyclopedia in the form that they are in. If they are stubs and contain very general information like Food crisis I have nominated them for deletion. But some of these are large with specialized information that would not want deleted, but they don't fit in very well either. Like Comparison of open source wireless drivers, Empire of Japan (additional economic and financial data), and Identification in Burkean rhetoric. What should I do about these sorts of articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BirgitteSB (talk • contribs) 14:17, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    If the issue is that their context is unclear, then {{context}} may be what you are looking for. If their scope is the problem, then you could either try raising the issue on the talk page, or raising an AfD or RM to discuss what to keep and what to move elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 15:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Submit request to use images

    October 1, 2007

    Hello,

    I have gone through the details on Administrators' noticeboard.
    As per the instruction:
    "Post request on the administrators' noticeboard,"
    I am submitting request for using the following images on
    http://mysexdoctor.blogspot.com,
    which covers [uncovers] human sexual health.

    Image 1]
    This file is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.0
    This is the link to the image originally posted by Inferis:
    "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Closeup_of_female_breast.jpg"

    Image 2]
    I seek permission to use the images licensed
    under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2
    secondary sexual characteristics MALE
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Mann_geschlechtsmerkmale.jpg
    and

    Image 3]
    secondary sexual characteristics FEMALE
    source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Frau-2.jpg
    Thanking you in anticipation.

    Dr. Ashok Koparday

    Consultant in Sexual Medicine

    http://www.mydoctortells.com

    ask(at)mydoctortells(dot)com

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=161583239"