User talk:SpacemanSpiff/Archives/2017/February

Incorrect summaries when viewing certain pages on mobile

Hi, when viewing certain pages like Mithila, India and Mithila (region) on mobile, someone seems to have added incorrect and unsourced summaries at the top like "Region gifted by Kingdom of Nepal to British India in Sugauli Treaty". This can't be viewed when looking at the desktop page but I'm wondering is there anyway to remove this as it's misleading. Thanks. Damien2016 (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

No idea what the issue is, you can try checking at WP:HELPDESK. —SpacemanSpiff 12:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Damien2016: They are Wikidata descriptions and are not displayed on Wikipedia when viewed from a desktop client yet. For the two articles in question, the description can be edited at Mithila (Q1076032) and Mithila (Q2891737). The two were recently changed from the descriptions that you mention. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that info JJMC89, I wasn't aware of this as I only use the desktop version even when I edit from a mobile. —SpacemanSpiff 03:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Velama-related sock

Who was the master for the sockfarm working on Velama-related articles? I'm wondering if Chaty typ (talk · contribs) is another incarnation. - Sitush (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rajesh rao kumar. —SpacemanSpiff 13:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I figured it out and we've cross-posted. For some reason, at first I thought that farm was all about Kamma and Naidu, then it struck me that it was a bit wider than that. Now filed a new SPI because I think we need a checkuser - expect me to be bollocked again for doing something wrong there. - Sitush (talk) 13:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Saw your note at the SPI. I suspect some of the anons at Velama (caste) are also the same person. Is it worth semi-protecting it or would it be better to leave it as a honey-pot? - Sitush (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Edits relating to the Khandayat people

We seem to have a POV-pushing problem with anons regarding Khandayat and related articles. I have opened a discussion at Talk:Khandayat, where there is past history of pushing, but the difficulties are evident also at List of Khandayats and Template:Ethnic groups and Communities of Odisha. Fundamentally, aside from at the list, it is the old nonsense of community members claiming a status (kshatriya) that isn't really verifiable except with reference to themselves.

I think we might need some semi while we talk it out. - Sitush (talk) 21:08, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I wish I could remember what user it is that has an excellent critique of sourcing via Google books in their userspace. Do you, Space or Sitush? Bishonen | talk 23:33, 1 February 2017 (UTC).

User:Uncle_G/On_common_Google_Books_mistakes ? - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Uncle G, of course! Great page! Thank you, Sitush. I wanted to tell the IPs about their Google Books sourcing, but I see Space has semi'd now, so never mind. I'd better make a note on my userpage about Uncle G's page... oh, look, there's a note there already. I'm too disorganised, that's the thing. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC).

Protected. —SpacemanSpiff 09:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Want to create an article

Hi I want to create an article on Sanjay Ghodawat, which you had deleted some months ago. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanjay_Ghodawat

Its been blocked because of promotional content; Can you possibly unlock it and help me create the article. I have the relevant references and content to build it to start level.

Thanks, Manan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mananshah15 (talk • contribs) 07:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding wrong information

Sir,

A user known as "Emir of Wikipedia" is continuously adding wrong information without proper reference in the wiki page of the "port of Jebel Ali". The user is continuously giving the wrong information in the "Expansion" subsection. The user without any working reference is trying to show that the port will become the largest port bigger than Shanghai and Singapore in 2030 with a capacity of 55 million TEU. I tried to talk to this user several times and each time this user will delete the talk and continuously gives wrong information. Please check this and do the necessary things.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.97.3.118 (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea about this, you'll have to use the talk page or request help at WP:PORTS. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 12:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

To clarify what the the IP is saying, SS... TheEmirofWP is inserting material supporte by a RS, and the IP is repeatedly removing the reference (because the article title mentions the magnitude of the port). Cheers, O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 13:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Look mate. The link doesnt work. This kind of claims need multiple reference. Without this you cannot claim such things. Guessing things wont work in wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D28E:9650:2C69:4C2:9C09:E63D (talk) 16:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Thequint spammer

Can I just revert everything of his in sight? I see copyvios and, of course, it's spammy. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:46, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I got rid of anything with that blahblah type formatting, and anything that was a copyvio.

Convenience links:

• List of all articles he edited
• My contribs

Over and out, and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:20, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, I mass rollbacked those that didn't have any intervening edits. I noticed that some of them (those that I checked) were verbatim copyvios, I'm guessing we'd have to go through the rest too. Sigh. I blocked another one like this (for a different news aggregator) not more than a month ago. cheers. —SpacemanSpiff 09:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

{{U|Anna Frodesiak}, on searching for thequint.com I found a lot of similar stuff from other editors too, so this is very likely not the first account that's doing the spamming. I'm pinging Lemongirl942 to see if she can make sense of this. Some of the links have been added by good faith editors for sure, including newbies, but there is a promo campaign from the company to spam them here. —SpacemanSpiff 09:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I also did a linksearch and found tons of thequint, but my spot-checking found none of that blahblah type formatting. How is it as a RS, by the way? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is RS, theabout us section on their site doesn't give any confidence. They are a news aggregator, so they may be right on many things but that's not because of their editorial quality, it'd be despite it. —SpacemanSpiff 10:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Anna Frodesiak, see Dreamcatcher (2016) (removed) and Rajesh Khanna (not removed) for stuff not by this account but that look a bit similar. cheers —SpacemanSpiff 10:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Pigning Anna Frodesiak. I had a look a while ago. There definitely is some sort of campaign going on to add links to this site. But some of the additions seem to be good faith ones. Looking at the about us page, I am not seeing any staff editors or journalists. From reading some of the article, it seems like this is a one of the "new media" sites. It seems they source news reports from other sites such as Reuters and then add in some of their own views/explanations to it. Personally, I don't see any scenario where we would need to use these as references. Can we add this to the spam blacklist? --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Lemongirl942. Blacklist, eh? Hmmmmmm. I do not know. Who can we ask about this? WP:RS noticeboard? I mean, it may not be appropriate to blacklist just because the original source is preferred over the reprinted quint. However, if there is solid evidence that there is off-Wikipedia collusion to bomb this project with their refs, then that may be grounds. But that may be baby out with the bathwater. Should we consider just adding a message to usertalks of editors who very recently are obviously spamming? I have to blacklisting on the grounds that it is usedoriginal source rather than thequint is may not be the best thing.

This is the message I use. (Ignore the box thingy. I just paste it as a plain, normal message.) It is taken from somewhere. It works a treat:

The reason you should stop You should definitely stop. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

Best,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:44, 27 February 2017 (UTC)