Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:34, 30 January 2010

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Sentry Insurance

Please don't roll back edits currently under discussion on the talk page. Make your point on the talk page and work towards reaching a consensus with other editors. It makes things easier for us all.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HornColumbia (talk • contribs) 03:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Drew Nelson (musician)

You appear to have deleted the page shortly after I just started it, putting an "under construction" notice specifically to avoid a deletion decision until the page had been substantially established. Would you please reinstate the page on this basis. If you had gone through the website referenced, you would see that the individual in question has 5 albums released and a 30-plus professional music career in Canada. Here is the link to his recorded output, where 4 of his five albums are particularized:

http://drewnelson.ca/music.html

He is also an associate of the late and well-respected Canadian blues singer Back Alley John.

Hope my request will be viewed favourably.

Dreadarthur (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Restored per your request, but please do try to add some material to it, as it is rather threadbare. If you need any help, just let me know. TNXMan 00:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for giving me a bit more time here. Thanks also for your offer of assistance.

Dreadarthur (talk) 06:00, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Accantrellband

Hi. You may want to change the block for this user to allow account creation, unless they've been more disruptive than just that non-notable band article. I'd do it, but I prefer not to step on other admin's shoes! Cheers -- Flyguy649 21:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done So it has been written, so let it be done. TNXMan 21:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock question at Smithers, British Columbia

Weird stuff going on at Smithers, British Columbia, and I'd like some clarification if you don't mind. A while back, an editor who was throwing out anti-Semetic rants blanked a section on the Jewish community in Smithers. This editor, SMRyaacresitaenr (talk · contribs), was blocked for vandalism, then you tagged him as a sockpuppet of Webley455 (talk · contribs). I don't doubt he was a sock, but I'm not at all familiar with the original sockmaster, who doesn't appear to have ever been blocked or even warned.

Two more SPAs showed up tonight at the article (which has very few editors, it seems), the editors were 911WasAnInsideJew (talk · contribs) and Mozzul-San (talk · contribs) (which was actually what SMRyanwhatever changed his home page to read ). They both appear to be disruptive SPAs, but then Webley455 showed up again and reblanked the setion as a hoax (right after another account added sources).

I'm a bit confused about the whole matter, so I thought I'd come to you and see if since you initially tagged this as coming from Webley455, you could figure out what's going on. I was sure the two SPAs were SMRyanwhatever, but if he's also Webley (who isn't blocked), should they be blocked?

Sorry for the confusion, but thanks in advance for taking a look. Dayewalker (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I was originally responding to a ANI report for the first blocks. After reviewing the contributions here, I've blocked the lot of them. I will not be here most of the day, so if there is any review that needs to be done, I have no problem with other admins modifying/lifting the blocks. TNXMan 11:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the help, that's what I figured would happen. It must have just slipped between the cracks, and I couldn't figure out why he was still active if he had blocked socks. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop vandalising this fine institution.

Please stop adding in vandalism to this page . This section has been removed numerous times. This section is puffery and salacious. Why do you continue to vandalize this page. Warning 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmb2010 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not vandalism if it is attributed to reliable sources, which this is. Please read our info on what vandalism actually is. Furthermore, do not continue to remove sourced information from the page. TNXMan 00:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion. G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject

G10. Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. These "attack pages" may include slander, legal threats, and biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to. Both the page title and page content may be taken into account in assessing an attack. Articles about living people deleted under this criterion should not be restored or recreated by any editor until the biographical article standards are met.

Please remove this section that you have continually reposted for no purpose other than to disparage. Warning 3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmb2010 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

You completely missed the section of that description that says "unsourced". There are two reliable sources for the material and I am in the process of adding more. TNXMan 00:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

What is the problem? Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmb2010 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no problem. Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source that reports material that has been reported in reliable secondary sources. There was coverage in the LA Times about the controversy at Cedars, thus, it warrants mention in the Misplaced Pages article. TNXMan 01:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There are so many positive contributions this institution has done, why don't you focus on that? Can we find a resolution or are you being paid by someone? I don't understand why the negative when there is so much positive. Please consider removing or explaining yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmb2010 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There is positive material there (see the sections on the notable doctors as well as the rankings the hospital has achieved). There is also negative material there. You cannot have just one or the other. TNXMan 01:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I hope you never have someone close to you get cancer, or need a transplant or have a terrible accident or get caught in a natural disaster and need the finest medical care. There are a million other pages you can add controversy to. I really do not understand why you have to target this one. Because this is one of the few good ones that helps people, creates new scientific breakthroughs and SAVES lives. I still hope you might consider this and remove this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmb2010 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. The material is sourced and should stay. TNXMan 01:25, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, there are a million other targets for you. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmb2010 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

They're not targets. They're simply encyclopedia articles. TNXMan 01:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why not target every fine institution? But you didn't. Only this one. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmb2010 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Because I removed a ton of spam (this is a history page, so you can see who has edited the page) once a upon a time and have kept my eye on it ever since. Nothing more sinister than that. TNXMan 01:35, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

3RR & disruptive editing by User:Scania N113

Should I take this to ANI? Scania N113 (talk · contribs) keeps deleting the warning and block template on his discussion page prior to edit warring twice on the article page of Airbus A340, as well as being BLOCKED twice for it. --Dave 16:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Users are allowed to remove material from their own user talk page (excepting declined unblock notices), as it implies they have read the material. See this page for more details. I've restored the declined unblock request on this page. If it's removed again, please let me know. TNXMan 16:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

• This guy is really incorrigible, he just remove your template to him for the second time~! --Dave 09:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

• FYI, he just deleted your decline template and switched to a sock Travel.airbus388 (talk · contribs) to edit on this page → Shaming Pillar after being BLOCKED. Suggest disabling of edit own page function to prevent further mischief and trolling. --Dave 12:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Handled. Cheers! TNXMan 15:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

page for deletion

Look at Harry potter8 by user:wapz for deletion. I do not know how to request this under the preferred method. 66.76.57.45 (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up! TNXMan 17:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

IP Vandalism

Reverted changes by user:206.41.88.154 on David Reubeni. repeat offender. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Red3biggs (talk • contribs) 19:03, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, vandalism can be reported on this page. TNXMan 19:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for blocking 92.23.155.140. I noticed them but wasn't sure what if anything I could do about it. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Very odd indeed. If you see further problems, just let me know. TNXMan 21:49, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Leverhulme Park

Hello Tnxman307. Thanks for helping me with my new article! Should I always use capital letters for each word (well, except at, in, of, the, etc...)? Fly by Night (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just for proper nouns. Since the park is a location, it should be capitalized. Also, you may want to check out {{cite web}}, as it's really handy for citing web references. Cheers! TNXMan 15:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll read that now, thanks. Should I replace every "park" by a "Park" in the article? Fly by Night (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea, just to keep it consistent. TNXMan 15:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, it's FbN. I tried to use {{cite web}} but got into a bit of trouble. I added the link you added to Leverhulme Park to my new article Queen's Park and edited, but it didn't work. It linked to a Google I-can't-find-it page. Could you help me with the web links on my new article Queen's Park and tell me what you did to make the links work? Thanks in advance. Fly by Night (talk) 17:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the template to the page so you can see an example in action. If you have further questions, just let me know. TNXMan 19:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

deleted article: lab(au)

dear tnxman307, you just deleted my article on lab(au) because of "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". i can tell you it is definitely no advertising, as i follow the work of lab(au) now several years and am simply confused about the fact that they are not represented in the wikipedia, while many less important artists are. so could you please give me more information why you think that the article should be advertising or promotion? thx t-o upet —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-O UPET (talk • contribs) 17:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Your article was deleted because it was blatant advertising. Please read our info on writing your first article and writing from a neutral point of view, as that may assist you. TNXMan 17:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. I still don't see why, but well, i'll try to figure out and optimize... T-O UPET

19:10, 22 January 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by T-O UPET (talk • contribs)

hello tnxman, i've worked on my article and have it now on my user subpage User:T-O UPET/labau - would you be so kind to check if it is ok this time? thx! --T-O UPET (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I've read over the article. It looks better, but there are still issues. Many of the sources you've cited appear to be self-published (i.e. published by the subjects of the article). The references used must be independent third-party reliable sources. There also appear to be some instances of peacock terms. Finally, some of the material appears to be uncited. Be cautious of original research. Keep working at it! TNXMan 12:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, thx for your help. I'll improve and tell you again. --T-O UPET (talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, again I worked on it. User:T-O UPET/labau - would you be so kind to check again if there is still stuff to work on before publishing? --T-O UPET (talk) 19:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) I've tweaked the material some, removing some of peacock terms and formatting some of the text. I would also encourage you to cut back on the number of external links, replacing them with internal Misplaced Pages links where possible. After that, you should be ready to go. TNXMan 20:12, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

yeah thx a lot! i've putted external links only, where internal wiki-links were not possible (but still removed some and added some internals, where reasonable). i re-wrote the list of activities in the 'mediaruimte' clause, because it expresses directly 'transdisciplinarity', which is mentioned before (considering that you took it out because of the 'being perceived as...'). if this is still ok and you give your 'yes', i'll publish finally. --T-O UPET (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've moved the page to LAb(au). I also have the page watchlisted so I can keep an eye on it. If you have future questions, just let me know. TNXMan 04:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Litratarianism

Don't take administration/moderation too seriously. Me and my friend had a religion called Litratarianism where we believe most books hold the answers and truth. You recently deleted this saying it was a 'Blatant Hoax'. Before you start deleting pages like a pillock would, maybe contacting the user first, quizzing them about it then you can drop the delete hammer. Me and my friend would like our page back.

Regards Soulman,theoneandonlyoriginal (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)Soulman,theoneandonlyoriginal

I'm sorry, but the page did not indicate why it was notable enough to warrant inclusion. Please note that Misplaced Pages is not for things you made up one day. TNXMan 21:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Litratarianism

Well I'll get more people to join our religion and then you'll see the truth. The pages of power know all! Knowledge is power and power is knowledge. Just remember that. Soulman,theoneandonlyoriginal (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm reminded of Schoolhouse Rock. TNXMan 21:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Litratarianism

Hi, I'm the main "founde" of this religion and I understand it may not be the kind of content wikipedia wishes to host, thank you for your co-operation.

Ps. It was founded 2 years ago

PPS: LOl, I didn't authorise these wuestions.Effy11 (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Litratarianism

Also, we have a few followers in foreign countries, including Australia, America, etc. It hasn't become totally well known, it's kind of a secret religion. The pages know all. Soulman,theoneandonlyoriginal (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Seriously soulman :| This is wikipedia, and I must say what you just said is .... Effy11 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Would it be ok if you dealt with this user? We seem to be having some problems with them advertising unsourced material on imageboard and repeatedly reverting anyone who tries to correct the article.

Thanks 222.116.210.143 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the user. However, for future reference, please be sure to leave a warning on their talk page (there's a list here) so they know to stop. You can also report vandalism to the vandalism noticeboard. Thanks! TNXMan 00:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Stephenson Harwood

I think Stephenson Harwood is a re-creation of a deleted page. Should it be marked db-spam? Biscuittin (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it as such. In the future, you can go ahead and tag the page for review by an admin. Cheers! TNXMan 23:11, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, what tag should I use? Biscuittin (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

{{db-spam}} is the best tag. You can also use a {{prod}} tag to mark it for proposed deletion instead of speedy deletion. TNXMan 15:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Police Athletic League

Hello Tnxman307. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Police Athletic League, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

So noted. Thank you. TNXMan 15:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Outraged

Excuse me... but I did not deserve to have my page on Dotsy Bingham deleted. I am new to wikipedia and I am just wondering, if you create a page do people just delete it immediatley without even reading it? Because that seems to be what you have done! Please write back as I would like to know what you have against me creating a Dotsy Bingham page. I don't mind constructive criticism and I would like to know what you think about improving that page.

86.163.72.111 (talk) 13:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The page was deleted because it did not indicate why the person was notable enough to warrant an article. I would suggest reading our info on writing your first article, as that may assist you. TNXMan 15:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks for handling the auto-block issue swiftly, by unblocking my account.

Starpluck

Starpluck (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem. If you run into other issues, just let me know. TNXMan 16:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Really appreicate you offering help, I'll be sure to ask you first if I run into any problems

Thanks a lot! Starpluck (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

exploration summer programs

hi, i saw that you deleted the exploration summer programs page for 'unambiguous advertising'.

i was working on that page last week, trying to get it to conform to wikipedia standards (ie, make it sound less like an advertisement). i first tried citing sources. then i removed entire sections that felt too much like marketing speak. when i looked for the page today, i saw that it had been deleted.

can you explain what specifically on the page fell outside the wikipedia community standards? is there a way to undo its deletion or access what had been posted on the page?

Cnglasser (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)cnglasser

The page was deleted because it read like a brochure and did not cite any independent reliable sources. I would encourage you read our info on writing your first article and draft an article in your userspace (something like User:Cnglasser/Sandbox). You can then ask another editor to review it for you. TNXMan 20:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mass deletion of pages added by Womblethereof"

While you're at it, would you mind taking a look at File:Andrew-de-rothschild.jpg. which now-indef blocked Womblethereof (talk · contribs) added? —KuyaBriBri 17:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done Cheers! TNXMan 17:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/BlackJack/Archive

Hi Tnxman307, there's is currently a discussion at WT:CRIC relating to the above case. As the blocking admin, it would be useful to have your input. Although the CU confirmed that the accounts used the same IP(s), I for one am not entirely convinced that the use of the accounts conflicts with WP:ILLEGIT and I think this may be because the IP filing the case misrepresented the situtation. For example I looked at the actions of Orrelly Man mentioned in the case and could find nothing abusive or disruptive and have explained as much at WT:CRIC. Further illumination would be welcome if you have time. Thanks, Nev1 (talk) 20:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the SPI case, it was clear that BlackJack had used alternate accounts disingenuously. However, I also reviewed the comments at the Cricket Wikiproject and consensus seems to be that the block could be shortened and the case was not presented to BlackJack the way it should have been. I have no problem with admins who are more familiar with BlackJack altering the block. If there's any more input I can provide, please let me know. TNXMan 20:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well considering that the BlackJack account was being harrassed by IPs (as explained here), transferring to the Orrell Man account would seem to fit with WP:SOCK#LEGIT. However, I have only examined the incidents mentioned in the case and am not really sure about the Douglas Mortimer account (although judging from the recent date of creation I'd suggest it was because both the Orrelly Man and BlackJack accounts had become comprimised to the person following BJ around). If the incidents metioned are the worst there is, the person operating the accounts was editing productively. Thanks for the reply, I'll leave a note on WT:CRIC. Nev1 (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Shortening the block doesn't really make sense - it implies the block is punitive, rather than preventing disruption. Abusive sockers are indeffed to prevent their abusive disruption. If others agree with me that he's not been disrupting, remaining blocked for any period of time doesn't really make sense. --Dweller (talk) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize - when I said "altering the block", I should have clarified. Any alteration to the block (lifting entirely, shortening, etc.) is OK. As you point out, alternate accounts are allowed. However, according to WP:SOCK#LEGIT, they must be clearly marked as such. If, as Nev1 mentions, the user was being stalked by an IP, starting a new account is OK. However, the old account should be abandoned, per WP:CLEANSTART (the SPI page points several instances where both accounts edited at the same time). Again, if there's anything else with which I can help, please let me know. TNXMan 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote here some of the facts have been misrepresented by the WT:CRIC members. It wasn't just a case of voting in some AFDs, BlackJack in his own words used the Orrelly Man account to "flush out" somebody he was in a dispute with. Secondly there's no evidence of harassment prior to the creation of the Orrelly Man account. Thirdly Orrelly Man posted to suggest he wasn't BlackJack. Fourthly he misused clean start by repeatedly switching between the BlackJack and his socks. I suggest there should be a discussion in a neutral environment before this block is lifted. --88.109.8.46 (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of "flushing out", the reference to the Bedle review in the WT:CRIC post makes clear that the editor who wrote the above is either or both of User:Derek.cashman and User:Eustress. If you go back to the Bedle review you will see clear interactivity between these two with proven abusive use of an IP address by Eustress. I submit that the IP address which instigated the BJ sockpuppet investigation, and the one which supported it, is Eustress/Cashman again.

This is malpractice of the worst kind and Misplaced Pages has effectively acted as an accessory in it by failing to implement its stated procedure, which incorporates giving the accused user a chance to defend himself, a key aspect of any modern legal system. This is not forgetting the hypocrisy of a "sockpuppet" being able to denounce a "sockpuppet" and get away with it. As for his assertion above that there was no harrassment before OM began, see the User:Richard Daft stuff which includes actual defamation that can still be found on the site.

I am definitely going to see my legal advisor about all this and, depending on his views, Misplaced Pages may find it has some explaining to do. --86.148.207.61 (talk) 07:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Arthur de Rothschild

Hi Tnxman. Thankyou for sorting out those hoax articles. A potentially very serious issue. However, the one article Arthur de Rothschild was well written and not a hoax. I would like to restore this minus the small amount of hoax info contained within it. Therefore could you please userfy this for me. I will remove the small amount of hoax before putting it into the mainspace and then I will request deletion the userfied article. Polargeo (talk) 10:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done. You'll find the page at User:Polargeo/Arthur de Rothschild. Cheers! TNXMan 12:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why did you delete the Stefan de Rothschild page?

I was looking his name up from Felix Salmon's post and had to use the cached version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.107.56.222 (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it was a hoax article created by a serial hoaxer. Polargeo has more of the details if you would like ask on their talk page. TNXMan 23:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Mercantile Football Association, subjective non factual input.

I am at a loss to understand how you can let something that is not factual remain on Misplaced Pages as pertaining to the section of the sentence after the comma, below. The Wooroloo team went through the season undefeated, although with some complaints for rough play and intimidation of the opposition. From the sentence above the portion, although with some complaints for rough play and intimidation of the opposition, is a subjective observation made by the person who edited the Misplaced Pages article and is derived from anonymously sent general public e mails to the referred opinion based website. I therefore ask you how those personal opinions placed anonymously by the general public can be deemed by you as a reliable source. What is factual is that no concerns were received by the club or its governing body. Only one footballer sought medical treatment after the game and that was due to being bumped into by his own team mate. The Association at no time received any form of complaint from either its members or any one from the general public over any matter regarding that portion of the sentence under question or the covering article. Browsing through Misplaced Pages and looking at other like sporting associations nowhere did I see any negative connotations towards those organisations even though historically and factually there have been instances of notoriety. I will leave it to you to make a balanced, objective decision on removing the second portion of the sentence in question. Thankyou Bobbie44 (talk) 01:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Hey Tnxman, remember blocking User:Lyxorcommunications? Perhaps you'd be interested in the edits made by User:Thecomdude. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got the article watchlisted. The original name was blocked a username violation only and the block message encourages them to create a new account. If they continue to spam, you can definitely report them to AIV. Cheers! TNXMan 16:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Fartashat

Fartashat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which you blocked as a inappropriate user name, was an innocent mistake by someone who is not familiar with those words in English. I'm asking him to create another account. Fred Talk 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)