Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hereford Public (talk | contribs) at 01:41, 14 July 2008 (→‎Ip block exempt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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)


    Vandalism of Grand Southern Trunk Road

    Resolved
     – blocked by User:Bearian for 1 week.

    This anonymous user has been vandalising the page already three times today. He has been removing material without discussing about it. Examples 1, 2 and 3. He also vandalised my talk page. I guess the 3RR definitely applies here. Docku (talk)

    GA appears to be out of control

    After using GA successfully in the distant past I pretty much gave up on it about a year ago due to growing concern about the cliquish nature of the project and the ever-reducing delta between GAC and FAC. Combined with a process that was growing increasingly bureaucratic and frustrating to use, I decided that my time was better spent going straight to FA, which required about the same workload but almost always resulted in a better article in the end. It's not like I use either process very much, but my recent FA seemed downright fun, and the same could not be said of my previous GA's.

    Last night I was following links around articles I had worked on long ago, when I noticed that one former GA was delisted. That doesn't bother me, of itself, but what did bother me was that there was absolutely no trace of any sort of review. As I studied the edits, it became clear that there was no review, and the article had been delisted without any effort to either address the problems or try to get someone else to do so. Given the time it takes to be listed, it's simply not acceptable, IMHO, that a delist can take zero time and effort. There are mechanisms in place to prevent this sort of asymmetry, things like GAR. However, it appears that these mechanisms were being ignored.

    Following one of the links I ended up on this page, which quickly revealed what was going on; a small group of editors have proclaimed themselves the "Project Quality Task Force", and went around delisting articles based on their own personal opinion, only notifying the article talk page after the fact. They called this "the sweeps". I cannot find any discussion on any of the mainstream notice boards, like this one, that this process was going to start, nor any hint of efforts on the part of the PQTF to bring in anyone that wasn't already part of the seemingly tight-knit group. When I complained, heatedly, about what I saw as an abuse of the system and an anathema of the entire "wiki way", I received non-answers, statements to the effect that "that's the way it is, so tough". This message is particularly amusing. Nor was I the only one complaining about this, and the complaints are pretty much all about the same thing.

    I find it worrying that the same group of people are both making the rules, enforcing them, and dismissing any dissenting views. To my eyes it looks like a clique that has been allowed to log-rolling themselves into this position. I am curious to know if this bothers other administrators, or am I the only one?

    Maury (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It does sound concerning, but this is really the wrong place to raise it. A request for comment tag and/or Village Pump notice to attract people to a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles would be a better idea. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify: Sweeps essentially function as slow-moving second opinion and quality control. Ideally, reviewers should note why they are delisting, but they are under no impetus to wait for improvements if they are serious problems (half the articles I waitlisted never recieved any attention.) I suggest you bring this up at the Sweeps page as a reminder to those participating to be more thorough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, and the group of people in question all told me I was being unreasonable to expect them to draw in editors to improve the articles rather than just delist them. I don't think it's unreasonable. And I don't think I'm being unreasonable to expect some sort of basic level of effort. Maury (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What administrator-specific action are you requesting? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While playing around...

    Resolved
     – Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ...I came across this. Why it didn't come up with

    The action you have requested is limited to the group Administrators.
    Return to the Main Page.

    (The external link is a screenshot of what I see on that page. I used a screenshot because any admins clicking on Special:BlockIP/J.delanoy would not (likely) see the same thing that I see). J.delanoygabsadds 17:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uh-oh. I see the same thing. I think a thread at the Village Pump may be necessary... Calvin 1998 (t-c) 20:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can block you. Shall I? ViridaeTalk 02:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only when Mediawiki:Badaccess-group1 shows up (only does for non-admins)--> apparently a dev changed the way Mediawiki: messages were parsed without testing it, and that completely messed up that particular message. MZMcBride fixed it, I think. See the Village Pump for details. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia

    We are creating a learning resource at WikiVersity.

    Please look at Ethical Management of the English Language Wikipedia. You may wish to add your name to the list of human resources. You may wish to contribute to one or more of the items on the to do list. May I request input on proposed ethical guidelines for management of the English language Wikipedia? or suggestions on a practical objective method of evaluating the same? WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Um... good luck getting consensus to implement that here. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We are creating a learning resource. We are not creating rules for wikipedia to adopt. We have hopes that some parts of the learning resource will find favor with some contributors at wikipedia. That is all we are doing. 21:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)WAS 4.250 (talk)
    I hope not. Looking at the brainstorming so far it appears you wish to create a system based false claims and the views of outsiders with an axe to grind. Claims like "more often than not, "BLP" stands for "Blasphemies of Living People."" may provide some emotional release but have no place in rational theory unless you can statistically prove them (which given the number of minimalist sporting bios seems unlikely).Geni 11:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If any cool headed admins who are familiar with the history here could lend us some eyes, that would be greatly appreciated at Wikiversity. I tried looking into the history a bit but there's only so much time in a day (and between the stuff here on WP, meta pages, seemingly endless blogs, and Wikipedia Review, it could take months to get an understanding of it). There certainly do seem to be some axes to grind and bones to pick, but I get the impression that they also actually have some respectable "academic" goals, so I'd like to help them cut out the garbage and create a learning resource that distills to the positive aspects. Emphasis on cool headed assistance please: right now it's hard to see which "side" is actually intending to be constructive (in fact, I'm fairly certain that the past rew days have seen Wikiversity's very first edit wars). Our equivalent of WP:AN is at v:WV:RCA... some discussion going on there as well. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Threatening edit

    Resolved
     – RBI, Tiptoety talk 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've just rolled back [1] this edit. I blocked the IP for 31 hours. Not sure if there's anything else we typically do in cases like that. Joyous! | Talk 02:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I say RBI. Standard empty rhetoric. —Kurykh 03:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I undersand this user tends to be the center of attacks like this, WP:RBI is the best way to go. Tiptoety talk 03:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for large-scale edit

    This is a request for large-scale edit that require administrative abilities. The article Van Resistance has been in a very poor condition. The poor condition of the article was accepted, including an injection of fork of Persian massacres [to this article] by User:Meowy and also by user user:Hakob with [this remark]. The article is WP:OWN by couple editors, who work coordinated edits to keep the article as it is. One of them is a user Special:Contributions/67.49.46.213 which administrator confirmed that [is a banned user] who also creates temporary accounts (User:Artaxiadisaloser) to inject his position. Since the page protection, I have been working on the article at my own user space to bring the presentation to an encyclopedic quality and remove clearly objectionable from Neutral point of view and Verifiability issues. I included the argued perspectives that were [stated at the talk page]. The most active objection regarding the two issues Talk:Van_Resistance#Wikipedia:Third_opinion:_The_infobox_is_inaccurate and Talk:Van_Resistance#Wikipedia:Third_opinion:_The_LEAD_section_is_inaccurate presented to the third person. I applied to Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Problems_with_the_Van_Resistance and finally a week ago asked for Talk:Van_Resistance#Protected_edit_request at the articles talk page. For the last seven days, there is no objection regarding the my proposal to replace the article with User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance. The current version is clearly objectionable by many users. There will be continuous editorial interest even to the version User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance. I 'm asking the replacement of the current text with User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance and as the "clear" objections voiced (stated as this paragraph is missing or this paragraph should be rewrite in this form) by the interested editors, we can continue to perform editorial improvements step by step. The version User:Seemsclose/Van Resistance has improved encyclopedic quality with clearly formatted citations to improve verifiability than the current version. Thanks for your help. --Seemsclose (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No admin assistance is needed here. The page is protected due to edit warring. You must wait until consensus about the article's content is reached on the article talk page, and then you may make an {{editprotected}} request on that talk page. Alternatively, you may request unprotection at WP:RPP if you think the protection is not necessary any longer.  Sandstein  17:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked the admin that protected the page to change it to semi-protection. For the "if you think the protection is not necessary," there is no opposition pointed for the request stated at the thread Talk:Van_Resistance#Protected_edit_request for the last seven days, which should be enough time to prove that the page protection should not be necessary. Thanks for your help. --Seemsclose (talk) 18:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One clarification, it has not been accepted that the current article is "in a very poor condition", and I actually think the article will be in a poorer condition if the Seemsclose version were to replace entirely the current version. There are continued objections to the Seemsclose version - though I have grown tired of actively opposing it, all my objections remain. Moreover, I never went as far as detailing my objections to the body of the article he has been working on in his talk page. I had restricted my remarks to the lead section because only the lead section had been changed in the actual article. Meowy 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I choose to post here, as this could potentially prohibit any licensing which allows commercial use of an image which was taken in Trafalgar Square, London. Obviously, this could ruin the article a little.

    A Greater London Authority byelaw publication explicitly states:

    Acts within the Squares for which written permission is required

    5. / [...] /

    (11) take photographs or any other recordings of visual images for the purpose of or in connection with a business, trade, profession or employment or any activity carried on by a person or body or persons, whether corporate or unincorporate;

    Now, there's obviously no problem in licensing any image such that it can't be used commercially (but this is prohibited in Wikipedia). But I wonder if a commercial licence is used, is it valid (or legal)? Or, is the licensing legal despite the explicit (or implicit) allowance of commercial use, but it only illegal to actually use it commercially. If the latter is the case, then no need to panic, but it might be worth noting it on image descriptions. Ian¹³/t 19:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The person isn't really connected with a business so shouldn't be a problem.Geni 23:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Not a copyright issue, as far as I can tell. Just a local regulation requiring a permit to produce a photograph, but imposing no restriction on the use or licencing of photos. (I don't think the city of London would even be authorised to legislate restrictions on copyright, at any rate.) If someone shoots a photo in violation of that regulation, he may be subject to a fine or whatever, but not Wikipedia - the copyright status of the image is unaffected.  Sandstein  23:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not restricting photographs of the square, but rather photography within the square. The purpose of these ordinances is almost invariably to prevent the traffic disruption that comes from someone setting up their rig for a professional photo shoot. --Carnildo (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Definitely not a copyvio; all these photos show permanent structures so are exempt from copyright under Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 ("it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public"). – iridescent 23:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The best place to raise these issues is at media copyright questions, actually. While I normally feel that restrictions on image licensing within a particular property are problematic for our free image policy, this is different as a) we're not talking private property here and b) if you read carefully, this is directed at any photographs whose original purpose is commercial use, not a subsequent reuse. As noted the GLA cannot impose restrictions on an author's copyright. Daniel Case (talk) 02:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, byelaws are legally binding, and it is a criminal offence to break them (i.e. street drinking zones). Ian¹³/t 16:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Trafalgar Square images do not pose a usage problem for Wikipedia. (1) It's a conduct regulation, not a copyright regulation. The resulting image is not "tainted" for copyright or usage reasons; (2) In media usage, Wikipedia generally follows U.S. law, and some international agreements and conventions, but not the specific law of local jurisdictions outside the U.S. (If we did the latter, hundreds or thousands of images would be "illegal", since many jurisdictions have broad regulations prohibiting photography of airports, rail stations, military bases, government buildings, and "sensitive" sites, not to mention nude persons, genitals, etc.) --MCB (talk) 18:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Concur - not a copyright issue. Copyright refers to ownership of the intellectual property, not the conduct of the person who took the photo. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    86.134.54.54

    Resolved
     – block expired

    Relevant discussion at their talk page; I'll avoid reproducing that here, in favor of directing users to review the situation at their own discretion. In short, relations with a new user got off on the wrong foot when they were accused of vandalism, they felt bitten and became combative, and now they're blocked. While they were quite upset, at first, they've calmed down after some discussion and I think and unblock should be considered. Trouble is, the blocking admin seems to have been offline for several hours, and I'd prefer to avoid a unilateral action, here. Bringing it here for review and hopefully consensus. Thoughts, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The edits at Begging the question doesn't seem to be vandalism although I'm not sure if it was really necessary to change the content since it basically means the same. I agree though there shouldn't have been warned that many times for vandalism. However, the block is set to be expired just over 30 minutes, so basically an action will not really make a difference now.

    A question also:are Huggle users using other warning message types then just for vandalism/non constructive edits (i.e is there some less tough warning like for test edits, accidental blanking or unsourced content additions? I have not used that software yet although I've noticed some issues with this. JForget 23:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure as far as Huggle. Block is now expired, so will mark the thread resolved for the time being. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huggle can give other warnings but the default warning is the {{uw-huggle1}} --Chris 04:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Huggle can do warnings for tests, spam, BLP, unsourced, etc., but most people don't use them, unfortunately. Calvin 1998 (t-c) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok thanks, I have attempted to install Huggle (given many admins and other users added it) but for some reason it did not work, an error box popped out. Although I have enough tools (Twinkle, popups and the standard rollback) for now even though they are slower then Huggle. --JForget 19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fix proposal -the sequel

    Before Spartaz took his parting shot and MzMcBride quickly archived it less than five minutes later, I had made a request for a surgical fix of the problem that had yet to be addressed and perhaps implemented. I am fine with letting Spartaz retire in anonymity; we can do that while still fixing the problem posed by the errors created at IfD and DRV. I had proposed the following:
    1. that both of the DRV images (Image:FotD 007x.jpg, Last of the Time Lords) be overturned and relisted at IfD. This doesn't fix the larger issue, but at least addresses the core effect of the problem.
    2. Secondly, I would suggest that we ask Nv8200p to avoid using NFC#8 to close IfD discussions, as it appears to be creating ongoing ongoing concerns (a), at least until we can find a way to deal with this interpretational issue in regards to NFCC. I am not attempting to single out him in this matter (though it was his decisions of preferential interpretation that brought us here); I think that admins should take a lot more care when closing IfD based on NFC#8, up to and possibly including finding a second for such closures/deletions. This redundancy might seem tedious, but it might serve to catch potential problem decisions before they occur.
    3. Lastly, the aforementioned issues surrounding NFC#8 need fixing pronto. Admins cannot and should not be compelled to administrate in an vacuum of consensus, and its unfair to expect this of them. This often leads them to make decisions that aren't necessarily in keeping with the best interests of - or reflective of - the community at worst and at best, cause unnecessary time and drama when those decisions (admitted to be based upon a personal interpretation) are questioned at DRV and here. Let's make their difficult and often thanksless jobs a little bit easier and find a single venue for addressing this issue, be it at NFCC, Fair Use or wherever and find a way to avoid these problems for a while.
    Relisting these images allows for a normal closure to occur, one way or the other (and believe me, I don't care how it ends up, so long as it is done correctly), and corrects the problem that cost us an admin and lots of time. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Image:Nocover.jpg

    WIth Image:Nocover.jpg, it's marked as a "non-free" image (although I'm not even sure about that). It has no non-free use rationale and seems to have never had one. It is used in dozens of articles. I'd fix it myself, but the page can only be edited by administrators. Thanks, Cavenba (talk • contribs) 03:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Its actually a free image. The nonfree bt refers to a different image that used that name. ViridaeTalk 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Now it lacks a licence. Cavenba (talk • contribs) 04:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reverted the license, both the original uploader and the subsequent uploader tagged it as a non-free image they were uploading, without substantial authority that it is indeed a free image, their assertion that it is non-free should control (one of them could own the copyright for instance), might be worth taking it to IFD or uploading an entirely new image under a free license. MBisanz talk 05:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That image has been on WP for years under another name. The licensing that exists atm is useless as it refers to an actual album cover - which that is not. ViridaeTalk 05:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing as the current image has an invalid fair use tag, I've deleted it per WP:CSD#I7. It was not a "cover of an audio recording" which {{Non-free album cover}} covers.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Where the hell is the original though? ViridaeTalk 05:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Did we have an image prior to September 30, 2007?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Namely this one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thats the one I was thinking of. ViridaeTalk 06:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Watchlists

    Since this is the noticeboard for admins, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask:

    How do you all keep your watchlists down to a manageable size?

    I've spent several hours paring mine down, and it's still over 2K items. (most are mainspace and wikipedia space, with category space, template space, and user space close behind.)

    Also, any ideas how big the max is for watchlists? (And wouldn't mind knowing how big most everyone else's are.)

    Who says that every notice must be a drudgery or work-related? : ) - jc37 06:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You could say you don't want every page you edit to be watched. My watchlist hovers under 150 pages and it has for quite a while.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine is around 1000, around 10,000 it becomes hard to load, and somewhere around 80,000 it is impossible to load, I do know of people who have 4000+ that they seem to have no problem monitoring. MBisanz talk 06:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have around 2,300. I have watchlist-cleaning days every couple months or so, which keeps it at a manageable size. 2K is definitely a manageable watchlist size though. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mine is usually somewhere between 2K and 4K (give or take a few K). And that's usually not too bad for readability. But I'm wondering what that says about me as an editor (much less an admin : ) - jc37 06:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That you're participating well in many areas? Hell, I'm surprised all I have is 2.3K if I've done all this :p Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I know that mine is partially due to CfD/UCfD activity. But there's still quite a bit more. I wonder if my WikiStress should be higher or something... - jc37 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Presently at about 7,000, been as high as 40,000 no problems here. SQLQuery me! 08:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How do we know how many pages we have watchlisted? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's at the top of your watchlist. - jc37 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As Jc37 says, the number of pages watched is shown at the top of your watchlist: its says something like: "You have 400 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages).". Its true that larger watchlists can be slow to load. You can go to your preferences and reduce the number of "Days to show" in your list. This significantly reduces the time it takes to render the watchlist. I have mine set down to 0.4 days, since my watchlist now has over 40,000 pages on it. This loads in a manageable time - My Watchlist usually shows between 1000 and 1500 changes for me. One thing to note is that for very large watchlists (somewhere over 20,000) it becomes very difficult to trim them. Going through and manually removing entries is extremely time-consuming through the "View and edit watchlist" UI and the "edit raw watchlist" option doesn't work. So once you're over a certain size it is increasingly difficult to go down in size. Gwernol 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had heard from "someone" (It was a vandal reverter, probably "Clown"), that over 40k the system wasn't happy, so he would just clear the whole list and start over.
    I tend to do like someone else said above, pare down every few weeks or so.
    Also, what happens if you're away for a few days? How do you go about re-reading what you;ve missed? (I'm just having a hard time imagining 40K. Wow.) - jc37 07:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I'll find out if there's an upper limit :-) If I'm away, I just have to accept that I'm not going to catch up. It would be really useful to have partitioned watchlists. Some pages I watchlist because they are vandal targets that I keep an eye on, some because they are articles I am actively contributing to, so I want to see what edits go on. I'd love to be able to keep those on (at least two) separate lists. I care less about missing individual edits on the vandal target pages, but I'd like to see every change to the (much smaller) subset of pages I contribute to. I ought to be able to maintain separate watchlists for different purposes so I could prioritize my time between vandal fighting and article building more effectively. I know there have been proposals for better watchlist management tools in the past. I hope that one day one of these will rise to the top of the devs' priority list. Gwernol 07:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I so agree. I find that there are quite a few things I have watchlisted for, well, "admin" reasons. (Or at least not for personal editorial contribution reasons.) It definitely would be nice to have a second watchlist. (At least I can sort by namespace. That's been a real plus : ) - jc37 07:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got an enhanced-watchlist program I use. It keeps track of when I last visited each page, and gives diffs that show all the changes since the last visit. It also highlights various pages that might need extra attention, such as edits to MediaWiki pages or edits by anons. --Carnildo (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, that's what I need. Is this something that is publicly available, or is this a Carnildo-only option at this time? Gwernol 07:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you happen to have a webserver, MySQL, and Perl installed on your computer, I can send you a copy. Alternatively, if you trust me with your password, I can set up a copy on my webserver. --Carnildo (talk) 09:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply; I apparently have 1,620 pages watchlisted! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if I'm the odd one out or what; I only have 112 pages on my watchlist, and I'm an admin. —Kurykh 07:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So you people are watchlisting thousands of pages, but are you actually watching thousands of pages? I trim my watchlist by removing any page I see pop up that I don't actually want to follow any more. I think mine is at a reasonable ~500 and about half are dead archives. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For me? Yes, actually. For one thing, for quite awhile I had nearly all the policies and guidelines watched (and quite a few essays). I've pared that down some, since most are fairly stable. (Oh no, I've admitted to not watching something... And suddently, the vandals appear voraciously out of the woodwork : ) - jc37 07:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've got around 4,000. A lot are image pages and redirects that don't get edited often. Still, it's a bear to keep track of things. Lately I've been using bookmarks and enhanced recentchanges option with recentchanceslinked, to make sub-watchlists. -- Ned Scott 07:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In a addition to my watchlist (~400 pages), I keep track of thousands of low-traffic pages (disambiguation pages, redirects, obscure vandalism targets) via Recent Changes on subpages, e.g. Special:RecentChangesLinked/User:Sgeureka/Dab, and check them once a day. Works perfectly. – sgeureka t•c 08:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gahhh, some of you are insane. I try to keep my watchlist below 125 pages (right now it's sitting at an even 100, 71 in article space), most of which are pages which I have protected, vandal magnet pages, pages to which I have made significant contributions (or created), noticeboards/wikiproject pages, and pages on which I am actively editing. Because I tend to be a bit OCD, I keep the last three days of changes to the watchlist up, and make sure that I review every edit to the pages that are on it. There is no way that I would be able to deal with a watchlist that included every single page I have edited, and that's with the recognition that my total number of edited pages is far lower than many others here. When my list grows to over 150 items, I will go through and clear out pages that no longer need my attention. Horologium (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heh. "You have 11 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)", and that includes four RfAr pages which I normally don't have but need to at the moment :) Daniel (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's mine: "You have 269 pages on your watchlist". You guys are insane :) And about half of my watched pages are inactive because they are old AFDs, etc. I guess most of you guys with thousands of watched pages just skim your watchlists; however, I really do read each and every single edit that goes through my own watchlist, which is why I put it on a strict diet every day :) Gary King (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You guys will think I'm insane, I've got 6,500 pages in my watchlist, and I've got it set to display for 1.65 days. No problems and I usually have between 900-1000 changes on the watchlist at any one time. -MBK004 19:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow! That is quite a lot! My watchlist only exceeded 300 pages before it drove me up the wall with the amount of things to keep my eye on, and I've since whittled it down to only 158. I can't keep up otherwise! Or at least I prefer to give pages on my watchlist equal and consistent attention. Lradrama 19:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto to being driven up the wall by large watchlists. Mine was a couple hundered, but after a break, I came back and just cleared it out. It's now at 38, which is lovely. I figure, I'll keep the really important things there, and everything else, if it's important enough for me to know what's going on, I can darn well type in the page name when I feel like checking on it. -- Natalya 20:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. I just find it much less stressful with a small watchlist. Otherwise it just starts to get overwhelming. Lradrama 20:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, I'm hovering around 2,500, which isn't unusual for me. I've got a ton of articles watchlisted, as well as numerous images that, while they don't see many edits, are still important to watch (it's amazing how neglected vandalism to image pages themselves can be). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Posh, I got you all beat with 6,866,409 pages watchlisted. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not all 61,225,809 huh? I used to have about 2000, but a few months ago I decided a list where I could actually keep track of all the edits and not miss any important ones in the huge list would be better than the huge list, now I have about 260. Mr.Z-man 21:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have 165 pages in my watchlist at the moment, though a few will get cleared out at some stage. My watchlist page-count has slowly risen over time. Acalamari 21:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can barely keep up when my watchlist hits ~50 pages. I don't know how you crazy people manage. :) — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So it looks like there seems to be 3 "sections" of watchlist usage: The "a few hundred or less"; The "several thousand or so"; and those who just "let it all hang out" : )

    Nice to know I'm not the only one : ) - jc37 22:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the watchlist note from my talk page: "You have 2,928 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)."
    -- Fyslee / talk 22:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I first posted this thread, I was at 2137. Now I'm at 2142. It's already creeping up : ) - jc37 23:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have 187 on mine, but most of those are talk pages of people I've warned. I usually remove those once a week, or if I don't do a lot of editing for a few days. Normally, I have around 70 or so, and most of those are the Huggle warning templates. I think I have around 30 or 40 on it that ever get edited. I've never liked having a huge watchlist, because I tend to miss stuff that matters in the flood or random edits. J.delanoygabsadds 00:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not a vandal

    User:CalendarWatcher is picking on me. He is calling me a vandal for absolutely no reason at all. All I did was go to the page 2007 and insert an event. That's it. The event I put in was that an anonymous user on Wikipedia edited the page Sinbad (actor) and made it say that he died of a heart attack. I even stated that the claim was not true. I don't see anything wrong with what I did. Footballfan190 (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure this counts as a notable event, but it's not completely unthinkable. It generated a fair amount of press at the time, and it has its own section in the Sinbad article. Definitely not vandalism. --Bongwarrior (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    What it was, was so ludicrously trivial--not to mention navel-gazing--that whether to call it 'vandalism' was a judgement call. That judgement was helped by the message just above mine on his user-talk page, a vandalism warning for this edit.
    You'll also note that I'm not the editor who immediately reversed that 2007 edit [2]. And thank you for the notification--oh wait, you didn't, User:Bongwarrior did. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, this is really nothing big. Footballfan, in the future you should cite sources whenever you add any content that has anything to do with a living person. Because personally, I'd have reverted it as well. In the future, simply talking to the person who warned you and remaining patient and civil and calm usually clears this stuff up. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    my article was going to be deleted?

    Resolved
     – blocked indef as vandalism-only account since he now thinks he's Grawp --Rodhullandemu 11:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    i took the notice off the article, Omar Williams. thanks and make sure this doesn't happen again.--Omarwilliams (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, do you have any reliable sources with which to assert your notability? Please also see our conflict of interest guideline. —Giggy 11:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    excuse me but how is the internet movie database not reliable? this is the problem with wikipedia.--Omarwilliams (talk) 11:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because IMDb is updated by volunteers, in a similar way to WP, it is not considered reliable. Do you have any reliable, secondary sources to verify your notability? Newspapers, books, etc. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It's not reliable because anyone can add information to it. From Wikipedia:Reliable sources, "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - IMDB lacks this in general. Newspapers and reputable websites in the industry are a good place to start. —Giggy 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a record for AFD followed directly by DB-BIO application?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Ladies and Gentlemen,

    I would like to beg you to take an official stance and decision concerning linking Official Myspace in Wikipedia. Various artists like Coldplay, Korn, Gackt etc. have an Official Site link and one or multiple Official Myspace links here. What I personally absolutely agree to. Because it enriches the article by giving people the chance to listen for free to this artist's songs.

    But we are having a heavy dispute here on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeyto artist's wikipedia and we don't seem to agree on the Myspace linking.

    Please allow me to copy and paste here few of other editors arguments to this linking:

    __________
    Wikipedia has Template:MySpace for adding links to MySpace, suggesting to me that links to MySpace have their place.

    "WP:LINKSTOAVOID" tells us that:

    Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: [...] # Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace) [...]

    WP:EL has been invoked. The page has at least three things to say that seem directly relevant. These are (in my numbering):

    1. What should be linked / 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
    2. Links to be considered / 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.
    3. Links normally to be avoided / Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid: / 10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

    The first says nothing about additional "official" sites. The second seems to me to invite inclusion of a link to this Myspace page. The third seems to me to invite it: the disqualification of Myspace pages has an exception for "an official page of the article subject" (my emphasis).

    Have I overlooked something here? -- Hoary (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1. 1 is intended to be the sole exception to our general restriction against linking to non-reliable sources, since the subject's own official site is bound to be a nest of POV and COI violations. It permits linking to "the" official site. That to me does not constitute license to link to a raft of additional "official sites". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes indeed the first clause talks of the official site, singular; but it does not go further and explicitly say that the official site should be limited to one. The second one seems to allow a site such as this. The third rules out Myspace except for a site such as this. There's been no suggestion that I recall of linking to any "raft" of additional "official sites"; the question is of whether to link to a single additional page. I'm about equally puzzled by the determination of one user to add this and by that of the other party to remove it. The more I think about it, the more I think it should stay: even if it's short on factual information, its idiosyncratic design esthetic says a lot about its subject. (Still, as it is after all linked from the official official site, its deletion hardly matters.) -- Hoary (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    _____________

    I would like to inform you that I am still a newbie so please don't blame me if this discussion doesn't belong here or if i am not suposed to copy and paste dispute fragments here.

    I just want you the ones that have more authority and power of decision to clarify the WP:EL issue, to write a better text that describes what is allowed and what not and if indeed linking Official Myspace is forbidden, then please proceed to take it down from ALL sites of the likes of Coldplay, Korn, Gackt and hundreds more, you can maybe create a BOT that does it automatically.

    On the other hand, if you all agree that linking Official Myspace is OK, then I would like to ask you to re-add the link at this artist's wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adeyto and to prevent such wars in future. Thank you so much, Tsurugaoka (talk) 11:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see my comments regurgitated above. I don't mind this, but I do think that my (and others') comments are easier to understand in their original formatting, so urge anyone who's interested to head over to Talk:Adeyto. -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll have a hard time getting administrators to make a proclamation on your dispute, since that's not really their thing. You're looking for dispute resolution down the hall. HiDrNick! 11:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    thanks for your suggestion and I understand what you say. I was pondering to go down the dispute resolution road but on the other hand, it's not my personal dispute but I request a clarification of Wikipedia rules what could benefit to a large amount of sites out there and avoid future wars.Tsurugaoka (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I recommend you bring this up at WT:EL; you have a very good point and it is something worth discussing, but it does not require the attention of administrators specifically. Skomorokh 14:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Block review request: User:Ilhanli

    Resolved
     – Indef Block endorsed. Beam 00:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This morning, the oversight list received a request to remove the "outing" of an an editor's IP (and geolocation). Upon investigation, it turned out that an anonymous editor had put a link to an external site set up for the purpose of capturing the user's IP; the anonymous editor then posted those results on the user's talk page. After oversighting both the nasty link and the information, and blocking the IP, and then oversighting the IP's talk page and protecting it for the same offense, I investigated a bit further, and discovered that it was Ilhanli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) operating under cloak of anonymity. I consider this sort of invasion of privacy intolerable, and have indefinitely blocked User:Ilhanli. Comments are welcomed. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mott (live oak)

    There was an AfD to transwiki Mott (live oak) to Wiktionary. The AfD apparently led to the transwiki, but a prod to remove the article now that the tranwsiki has been done was removed. Could somebody check that the transwiki was done, then please remove the article? Corvus cornixtalk 04:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There's something on the English Wictionary but not much. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any sign that it went through transwiki at Wiktionary's transwiki log (or the completed log. I'm not familiar enough with the process to guarantee that it didn't, though, just because I don't see it there. Transwiki to wiktionary is not the simple process it was when the transwiki bot worked. And now that I'm looking at that process, I'm thinking my next project may be to take care of some of that backlog at Category:Copy to Wiktionary manually. Not today, though! I got chores! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If this is simply a regional synonym for "grove of trees", it should be merged/redirected to Grove (nature). — CharlotteWebb 16:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've got a bad feeling about this...

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

    Correct me if I am mistaken, but the image of Ian McDiarmid, the subject of a BLP article is being used in the TFA Palpatine. The image is not, in point of fact, even in the Palpatine article. I am guessing that Mrs. McDiarmid and all his young-uns would be mighty disappointed to know that the chap they have been calling Daddy all this time is in fact a force-abusing megalomaniac from Naboo. Maybe we should reinsert a more appropriate image from the Palpatine article, instead of damaging the actor's reputation by equating him with a character he finished portraying over three years ago?
    How did this mistake happen? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 00:59, July 13, 2008

    Could you link to the relevant discussion? I don't really see it as a huge problem, though. It comes with the territory of being an actor. Likely all the images from the Palpatine article are non-free. –xenocidic (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How did this happen? Well, first, the article was promoted almost two years ago, and second, even today, editors who work on image issues give up quickly because of the abuse. Anyone who can take the abuse is welcome to come to FAC to check and oppose on crit. 3, images. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These are images of a professional, noted actor doing his job, so no BLP worries there. However, the non-free images indeed aren't being used under a valid fair use criteria. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the question might be put whether or not it is appropriate to use an image that does not appear in the article simply to have an image on the main page. We've run TFAs before without images for various reasons. The image, however, is indirectly related to his role (he was speaking at a Star Wars convention, I believe). I'm not sure I have a good answer to whether or not this is the best image to put on the main page, but at the same time it's probably more a philosophical point that might more thoroughly be discussed at WT:TFA.Risker (talk) 05:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose the alternative would be to have no image at all in that section of the Main Page, since there are no free images of Palpatine. Would that be better? Kelly hi! 05:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC 3x) ::It is the mainspace Today's Featured Article, Palpatine. Respectfully, if an article has no free images, and the TFA or Mainspace requires free images, then Palpatine pretty much disqualifies itself, yes? While we are on the subject, where is the bit of TFA that says that the imae onthe Mainspace has to be free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 01:17, July 13, 2008
    Well, per WP:NFCC, non-free images may only be used in mainspace. The Main Page is, technically, project space. Also, we don't want to highlight abuse of this this pillar by using someone else's copyrighted work on our front page. Kelly hi! 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ian McDiarmid is not Palpatine. I am pretty sure his publicist and family would concur with this assessment. As the McDiarmis article is not FA, we shouldn't be swapping images around like that. Of course, I could be wrong. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:17, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Worldwide, he is most famous for his role as Palpatine in both the original and prequel Star Wars trilogies." Really, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. His wife and his children probably know he's an actor, and probably know he played in Star Wars. I doubt his publicist would have a problem with him getting this kind of positive exposure. He was great as Palpatine. –xenocidic (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest we pull the image, since apparently there is a rule I cannot find that says we canot use fai use in mainspace. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The rule is WP:NFCC#9. However, I think the image is fine. Kelly hi! 05:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yea, no fair use on the main page. That's why it's using a cca 2.0 image. –xenocidic (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are no BLP worries here and the image on the main page is free (cc). Gwen Gale (talk) 05:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (←dent) Okay, i am looking at NFCC#9, and I can see that. Thanks, Kelly. However, as an encyclopedia, we are supposed to be in the business of actually being accurate. As the image is in fact not of Palpatine, we shouldn't use it, especially since it isn't even in the FA. Additionally, we are representing a real-life person as a fictional character. I am pretty sure that BLP doesn;t intend for us to do that, right?
    Perhaps we need to pull the image and let it run the article without one. As well, if exceptions (detailed in that very same NFC#9) we might want to put some serious thought into elevating articles that don't have at least one free image in them, and maybe going through ou current FA articles to ensure that they have at least one free image to use, should they become TFA. Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You're assuming that the TFA image is implicitly depicting the actual subject of the article. That's not always the case. Nufy8 (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the text that appears next to the picture: Palpatine is a fictional character in George Lucas' science fiction saga Star Wars. The character, portrayed by actor Ian McDiarmid in the feature films, is the main antagonist of the saga. Seems pretty appropriate to me. –xenocidic (talk) 05:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A caption would be helpful but even without one I don't think there is any reasonable need to worry readers will misunderstand the image. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone added "(pictured)". That should help to allay any concerns, no matter how unlikely, that might be raised. –xenocidic (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec 2x)Respectfully, Xeno, the article is not about McDiarmid, but simply a part he plays. As the Palpatine doesn't even have this image, we are misrepresenting an FA article as something it simply is not; to whit, this image is not in the Palpatine article. Period. The article is called Palpatine, not Ian McDiarmid (which, btw, is only GA-level). If there are no free images for for a TFA candidate, then we either don't choose the FA article or the article runs without an image. Seems pretty clear to me. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And Nufy, I understand your point about Mockingbird, but using an image not appearing in the TFA is simply dishonest. Is there a terrible issue with running the TFA w/out free images sans image? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's appropriate image use with zero BLP concerns in the absence of other free images allowable on the main page. It's not used in the article because fair use statements were written for more descriptive images. If you don't think that this type of workaround should be used in featured articles for other reasons, then you can certainly raise those concerns at the appropriate venue. IMO, there is no further need for administrator intervention here, other than the action already taken. –xenocidic (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay. When Darth Vader makes TFA, this particular justification argument is going to get very amusing, very quickly. Just remember this particular need for an image in articles the next time someone recommends interpreting NFC#8 as a stranglehold. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look this another way: we are looking at this argument in perhaps the wrong way. Remember All the Crazy™ regarding the IfD/DRV stuff just a day or two ago? That was about images, specifically NFC's #1 and #8 (but primarily 8). By insisting that we need to insert a free image in a TFA suggests that articles without any free images will never be TFA. That would exclude almost all comic book articles, television- and television episodic articles, and most films. If TFA must have images, then certain FA articles are going to have an advantage that is non-representative of what articles likely should be TFA - we are potentially excluding better-written articles for those which have free imagery (or connectably free imagery). Is this really the slippery slope we want to walk on down?
    Let's save outselves the hassle and simply remove the non-article image. -Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I won't pretend to be an expert on FA, but as far as I know, having free images is not a requirement for FA nor do we require images on a main page feature. However, I see no reason not to use a completely appropriate free image that's available even if it's not used in the FA itself to use as a picture on the main page. People like pictures. Again, this concern should be raised in the appropriate venue, and I still see no urgent need to pull the image just to make a point. I'm off to bed. –xenocidic (talk) 06:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't particularly mind the image, but I think it should be removed. It makes the main page look nicer, but it also misrepresents the subject of the article ever-so-slightly. I don't think it's a big deal, but it's even less of a big deal to not have an image there at all. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:05, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No BLP worries, no fair use worries, no policy worries. However, there is an editorial glitch here with an uncaptioned image. If the image is pulled only for the editorial reason, I'm truly neutral (don't care). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm having a hard time following your logic on this one. If this all suggests that articles without free images will never be TFA, then why is an article without any free images currently TFA? Additionally, comic book articles could feature a free picture of the author and television/film articles could feature a free picture of the episode/movie being shot on set or something. If nothing free is available, then it goes without an image, which isn't a problem. We have something relevant available for Palpatine, though, so I don't see where the problem is. Nufy8 (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, let's just pull the image and be done with it. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 06:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Arcayne on this one. Having the image up there on the main page clearly suggests the image is meant to show the subject of the article, this at least creates a moment of awkward misunderstanding. I've never been a big fan of the rule that non-free images are categorically excluded from the front page, but in a case like this no image is clearly better than a misleading image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done, for editorial reason only. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've removed the word (pictured)... BencherliteTalk 07:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no stipulation at WP:WIAFA that an article can't be featured without an image. Raul ran the TFA without an image;[3] the image was later added by User:Lid.[4] Arcayne, did you alert Lid (talk · contribs) to this topic? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clearly, I did not. I notified Raul of this discussion, but wasn't aware that Lid was the actual image adder. That's on me; I would have notified him.- Arcayne (cast a spell) 08:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this fair use image thing in the MainSpace something that should be discussed? I've started discussions on the subject at TFA/R([5]) and Talk:TFA([6]) There was no intent to forum shop, as Xeno suggested in Alison's talk page; I have never encountered this sort of problem, and I am aware that some folk simply don't like my way of doing things, so I figured I'd get a lot of input and not waste everyone's time once I found the right venue. Sorry for any confusion or Machiavellian suspicions my requests might have engendered. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 09:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And I added the image based off a suggestion made on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 13, 2008 by Lenin and McCarthy (talk · contribs). Personally, and seemingly policy wise, I do not see why the image needed to be removed. Seemingly if I added the image of Iam McDiarmid to the Palpatine article with the caption "Ian McDiarmid portrays Palpatine in the Star Wars films" there would be no issue. –– Lid(Talk) 09:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) In regards to the "no fair use images on TFA" I think it started here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 12, 2007. At the time, and in fact still now, am on the side of fair use being perfectly acceptable but have come accustomed to free use prioritising. –– Lid(Talk) 09:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only to be clear about this, the image was not removed for any policy reason at all, but only editorially, in that the photo was not of the actor in the role of the article topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Peripherally related free use has been used before if memory serves, though I can not off hand give you an example. –– Lid(Talk) 09:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a long-standing convention to not have non-free images on the Main Page. It is also a long-standing convention to try and find an image that is related and free, though some (including me) think it would be better to have no image at all, as sometimes (as in this case) the image of the actor leads to a double-take ("huh?"). Have a look back through the TFA archives to see what I mean. This is nothing new, and doesn't really belong at AN - it's been discussed many times before - apologies for not having the time to find the previous discussions. Carcharoth (talk) 09:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Just add a picture of George Bush (either one) and be done with it. Jehochman Talk 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC) Make that, agree with Carcharoth. Archiving. Jehochman Talk 09:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Sorry to revive this, but the entire discussion was held while I was asleep. All I've got to say is, wouldn't it have been simpler and quicker than all this to simply email the publicity department at Lucasfilm and see if they would be willing to provide a free-licensed publicity photo of MacDiarmad as Palpatine for Wikipedia to use? Given that virtually every major character in a movie or TV show has publicity stills taken of their actor in costume, and these photos are meant specifically to be widely published without royalties, I'm sure they would have been quite willing to send us something we COULD use on the Main Page without violating NFCC 9... Rdfox 76 (talk) 14:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    On a weekend? I doubt it. If you mean they should have tried that weeks ago, when this was still being discussed, then I suppose. But I still think those particular images are still copyrighted and not compatible with free image licensing. –xenocidic (talk) 14:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The chance that Lucasfilm will release an image of Palpatine under a free license is close to zero (althought you're welcome to try). You seem to be forgetting that publicity photos are nearly always only intended to be used in certain circumstances which while probably including this usage, is clearly not a free license. (Most only allow limited derivatives for example). Nil Einne (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other thoughts on User talk:74.13.44.75 please

    I'd blocked 74.13.44.75 earlier for racially-based harassment at User talk:Avruch; it's a recurrent problem for Avruch, starting with a named account and continuing on now through several IPs. After blocking this account, he returned under 74.13.31.228 and continued the harassment on my user page and that of another editor, and I blocked this one. The original IP now has taken to adding the inappropriate content on its talk page, and has an unblock message up. Would someone be so kind as to review the unblock request and carry out whatever activity is appropriate? I am very hesitant to suggest a range block here, as this ISP is notoriously dynamic and we have a lot of editors who use it. Risker (talk) 05:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Reverted bad faith personal-attack unblock request, talk page protected for duration of block. –xenocidic (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Falun Gong

    See also: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Falun Gong

    This may not be the right place, but whatever. IMO Falun Gong articles have been getting very biased as of late. Examples include Falun Gong itself, Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China (there has to be a better title than this), Persecution of Falun Gong, and Criticism of Falun Gong, which doesn't even exist.

    Now, don't get me wrong, the PRC government has given Falun Gong a very rough ride for no good reason, but at the same time there does appear to be legitimate criticism of Falun Gong that is not PRC propaganda. This barely gets a mention anywhere. Meanwhile, the PRC government gets heavily bushwhacked in Reports of organ harvesting from live Falun Gong practitioners in China, in particular. This is because, I suspect, we have a large contingent of pro-Falun Gong SPAs, including Dilip rajeev (talk · contribs), Asdfg12345 (talk · contribs), and HappyInGeneral (talk · contribs). These guys are not editing in bad faith, far from it, but at the same time they're not helping with overall neutrality. They also have a tendency towards edit-warring. What, if anything, can we do about this? At the least I would like more eyes on FLG articles and a slightly more rational-skeptic approach. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 08:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit warring isn't so hard to tamp down, meanwhile you might post this to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous). Gwen Gale (talk) 08:26, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not edit-warring that usually involves 3RR, though. It's just very persistent and lowish-volume. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 12:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    moot (4chan)

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

    Resolved
     – moot's a pretty cool guy, ehs has no say and doesn't afraid of anything. ;) The Subject of an article has no say in that article, unless you're in cahoots with the cabal.
    Moot's here? Srsly? Pic definitely related. Dragon695 (talk) 12:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, it's moot here. I'm just writing to say that I'd like the article about myself to be deleted. Yeah, I did get two articles written about me in major publications, but I'd rather this information was either included in 4chan or not at all.--Christopher Poole (talk) 09:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. The best way to prove you are moot is to send an email to Wikipedia:OTRS, requesting your article's deletion in that way. —Giggy 09:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)There's really no way of us knowing you are who you say you are. On the upside, though, since your biography might fit notability for one thing, it might be okay to simply merge Christopher Poole, moot (4chan), and 4chan into simply 4chan. On a related note, it'd be cool if you guys took a few more steps to banninate people who rally people from your site to vandalize our featured articles, among others. Just a humble request. :P --slakr\ talk / 09:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There's not that much I can do about it. There's so much spam on /b/ these days and when we issue bans the spammers just come back using a different IP address.--Christopher Poole (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, I've gone ahead and merged moot (4chan) with 4chan (diffs; [7][8]), as it wasn't particularly notable, and was a living person bio. Leave a comment here or on Talk:4chan if you have any issues with the current content, or anything else. Cheers —Giggy 10:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, there is something we can do about it. If the mediawiki developers could implement checking referrers then we could deny automated edits (pre-formatted URLs that get spammed in /b/) to any referrer matching 4chan or tinyurl. --Dragon695 (talk) 11:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That isn't mootykins. Beam 11:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps not. The point is moot (pardon the pun) because the article is borderline notable, was tagged for merging, and is a BLP. moot (if he reads this) is welcome to clarify on the situation by emailing OTRS. —Giggy 11:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, definitely not. But yeah it doesn't affect us either way. Beam 11:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    O RLY? --ɔɹǝɐɯʎ!Talk 13:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mootykins? On my Wikipedia? It's more likely than you think. Celarnor Talk to me 16:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    given that the name was published in the WSJ, and confirmed by an interview in Time, I see no reason why we can not make the equivalent. A person responsible for creating something as prominent as 4chan is in my opinion more than borderline notable. I think it would fully justify a separate article regardless of the the wishes of the subject. (I assume that t here is enough information in those sources to write one) DGG (talk) 16:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Move-protection

    Hello fellow admins. I recently move-protected a batch of policy and guideline pages (I took {{Wikipedia policies and guidelines}} and made sure each page was move protected). My reasoning was that these are high-profile pages that are juicy targets for some page-move vandals we have around here. After protecting said pages, I have had one editor who questioned my protection of WP:MOS and WP:NAME (see here for reference) and another editor question my protection of WP:NC (see here for reference), a page which ironically was at WP:RM (wasn't aware of that). Neither editor has really given me compelling testimony on why these pages shouldn't be move-protected, thus I have not unprotected them myself, but one has called for a wider audience to gain consensus, so here I am. I want to point out that my actions were what I felt was the best for Wikipedia, and I still feel they are, but if the consensus here comes to un-move-protecting these pages, then any admin, feel free to un-move-protect any of these pages. For ease of reference, you can see which pages I protected at my protection log. I probably am not going to be a part of this discussion here, because I really am tired of discussing this and I have better things to do, so if anyone needs farther clarification, feel free to hit me up on my talk page. Cheers everyone, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I somehow endorse this action if it's really a big issue with vandalism (Grawp attacks and as such). Otherwise the protections aren't really needed unless the policies are a big vandal target. What I will not endorse is a possible full protection from editing the policy articles (Just including this here, even though Gonzo didn't edit protect the policy pages). --Kanonkas :  Talk  18:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Batch move-protection over a certain class of articles should almost always be avoided. There's nothing specific or special about the pages you move-protected, other than them being Wikipedia policies and guidelines. That is to say, if a pagemove vandal is targeting policies and guidelines, the vandal could just as easily be targeting all articles about countries, numbers, shapes, porn stars, athletes, or any other category. It's fairly anti-wiki to disallow pagemoves is such a broad fashion. And, it's fairly inefficient, time-consuming, log-clogging, and in the end accomplishes very little except to disrupt legitimate future pagemoves. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need a compelling reason to unprotect pages. We need a compelling reason to keep them protected at all; is there one, here? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    "Drive-by" tagging

    For some time now an anon user has been adding unnecessary maintenance tags to numerous articles. The IP address always starts 88.105. and the tags added are typically {{worldwide}} (even if the article is about an obscure station in Wales, for example) and {{refimprove}} (even if the article has lots of references, for example), though sometimes other tags have been introduced as well. Lately, tags have been added to article talk pages as well requesting photographs for articles on cryptography algorithms, for example. For a recent example of the kind of editing activity, see the contribution for 88.105.18.21. On rare occasions, the anon has something worthwhile to say, but seems to spend much of his editing effort simply wasting the time of other editors. I also believe the anon is closely linked to (or maybe is the same person) as registered user Shin-chan01 (talk · contribs), though that user name has not edited for several months now. Is there an easy way to review the edits by all 88.105.*.* or can the Admins do something about this disruptive editing? Astronaut (talk) 18:48, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See WikiImp. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Problems with User:Xasha again

    They are problems with the user Xasha again concerning this article. He persist to remove quoted data and he prevokes me to an edit war. But an edit war is truly the last thing I want. So please someboy stop this user to continue his disruptive edits. --Olahus (talk) 20:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I echo Olahus' call for restrictions on Xasha's editing. Since June 25, he has been conducting what can be called the "War of the Asterisk" - constantly and disruptively removing an asterisk in a list. It has been explained to him repeatedly that what he is doing is tendentious. First, because even if Moldovans are to be considered a separate group from Romanians, ethnographic texts consider them equivalent, and moreover, in any case, the supposed difference between a Romanian and a Moldovan is vastly smaller than the difference with an Aromanian, an Istro-Romanian or a Megleno-Romanian, yet Xasha's edits suggest they are on the same scale. (Just two examples, for those who are unfamiliar: Moldova is geographically contiguous with Romania, unlike the places where the other groups live, and the "Moldovan language" is identical to Romanian, unlike (say) the Aromanian language.) Second, his edit also leaves a black hole - people in the Romanian part of Moldavia (the dark green portion here) are indisputably Romanian yet also call themselves Moldovan (in addition to Romanian); Xasha's edit leaves no place for them.
    In short, despite repeated warnings, pleadings, demonstrations of sources, proposed compromises (such as using the more inclusive term "Daco-Romanians"), etc., Xasha persists in the disruptive pattern that has already gained him a growing block log under the Digwuren restriction. I trust administrators will act accordingly. Biruitorul Talk 21:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    User repeating same new sections in several articles without any consultation with any other editors

    User:Thegone has added the same very long section called Sectarianism and the Dalai Lama's reasons for banning Dholgyal to three articles where it is entirely inappropriate -- the only article this section might possibly be in is Dorje Shugden controversy and he has added it (copying and pasting from an anti-Dorje Shugden website called Western Shugden Society unlocked) to Kelsang Gyatso, New Kadampa Tradition and Dorje Shugden.

    He has made a huge amount of edits without any discussion with other editors. He has used language hateful to other users and continually and immediately reverted any of the changes they have made. Please look at the history of these sites for details. All that can be done at the moment is to try to revert his huge undiscussed changes or move them temporarily to the bottom of the article so they are not right at the beginning or in the middle. He has also enlisted other editors to revert any other edits that conflict with his own. The material is by and large all cut and pasted with not alternative point of view. Please ban this user. (Truthbody (talk) 00:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    User threatening off-wiki attacks

    Resolved
     – No attack threatened, anon blocked for open proxy by User:Ryulong. Beam 01:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Fyslee has threatened another user with off wiki attacks here. [9] He warned him that editing here "can also have unfortunate consequences for yourself in real life." 62.193.196.219 (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not what I see. You seem to be taking things out of context.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreeing with Ryulong, it seems as though Fyslee was simply raising the same points made at Wikipedia:Wikipedia is in the real world. Vassyana (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How absurd and cowardly, anonymous IP. You have failed to AGF, a fundamental policy here. You could have asked, or at least have read my reply and at the least quoted me correctly. The other comments on the page will make it clear what the situation was. Enric Naval understood perfectly because he AGF. Oh what a tangle web we weave when we fail to AGF. -- Fyslee / talk 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If someone advises me to be careful when walking home because people have been known to be attacked, I can take that either as advice or as a threat. If I know the person has a history of violent assault then I might veer towards the latter. I note from the page where you posted your comments that others have viewed them in the same way I did. 62.193.196.219 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't free you from the obligation to AGF. Colonel Warden wasn't doing that, and even then, there was nothing in his comment that could lead any reasonable person to jump to the conclusions you have. Another piece of good advice for you - don't get involved in other people's squabbles, especially when you don't even know them. -- Fyslee / talk 22:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This IP belongs to a French web hosting company. I've blocked it as an open proxy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:00, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. It is probably the same person as the other IP who attacked myself and Phil Knight on Dr Polich's user page. -- Fyslee / talk 23:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Something strange: User-page impersonation

    Resolved
     – gone

    User:Lawinformationhelper has, for some unknown reason, created an account as of 13 July 2008 and copied my user page word-for-word. I am very unhappy about this, as I suspect this user is attempting to impersonate me. I am a longtime registered user on here with no record of blocks or other misconduct, and I would greatly appreciate your efforts in remedying this situation. --Eastlaw (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deleted per a broad interpretation of Wikipedia:UP#What may I not have on my user page?, Section 5. Advice left on user's talk page. --Rodhullandemu 01:00, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ip block exempt

    Please tell me if im in the wrong place.
    I created a alternative Public account. Can you give it IPblock exempt. it is User:Electrical Experiment Public
    Thankyou,ElectricalExperiment 01:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This one Electrical ExperimentPublic 01:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any particular problem with IP blocks you are having right now? The IP-block-exempt userright has historically been given out rather conservatively and the admins are unlikely to grant this request just because you might run into future trouble. -IcĕwedgЁ (ťalķ) 01:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK ElectricalGone Public 01:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=225507900"