I didn't realise you weren't supposed to merge histories when the same author performed the cut-paste move. I assumed (it doesn't really specify on WP:HISTMERGE) that all cut-paste moves were supposed to be merged regardless. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cut&paste-move repairs (and page histories) are required by the GFDL for the correct attribution of the authors. If one is the exclusive author of the content (and only in that case), it may be copied to everywhere by the original author, what makes a history merge unnecessary. It isn't important how many edits you needed to create the content. That's why it is possible e. g. to prepare expansions of articles at your user space and are allowed to copy it to a pre-existing article after you are finished (as long as you are the only author of the prepared content). Regards --Oxymoron8313:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I ask a simple question about why semi protection is being abused on this article, and the first reaction is for an admin to block my IP, instead of undoing the manifestly out of process protection. How about allowing anyone to edit? (copied to ANI) 122.145.6.138 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Oxymoron83, on behalf of my snow-buried Canadian region of Ottawa, I would like to wish you a Safe and Happy New Year 2008. JForget02:33, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The bio we put up for John Basedow is something from our website, which we own the copyright for. Please don't make the mistaken assumption that we put up copyrighted information without permission. We did not appreciate your "warning" and would prefer if you simply ask us about things you're unsure of rather than writing threatening notes. We were trying to help you make John's listing more factually accurate.
Kind Regards,
Pat Riches
FMS Operations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laddypat (talk • contribs) 09:04, 3 Jan 2008
You my friend have no sense of humor whatsoever. I do not like you that much. Please leave me alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ubergeek92 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 3 Jan 2008
Help in deleting unwanted redirects
Hi Oxymoron83. The last three days I am tagging redirects found here that have the same common thing. They all have quotes and redirect to the same article without the quotes or a redirection without the quotes exists. Almost all of them are orphan. Since you are an admin and you have better tools than mine, maybe you could help me delete many cases of these? At least the very obvious ones? Btw, you acted very good by renaming one redirect I have tagged for deletion. Viele Danke. :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will look at it :) There's a lot to do. My renaming of the one redirect actually was nonsense (I moved the page to the title without quotation marks only to redirect it to another page afterwards - could have been done without the move) ;) --Oxymoron8315:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My user page
Many thanks for your good work on 31 December to my user page, which seems to have become a playground for retards when I wasn't looking. I've only today noticed the changes, with witless IPs adding crap and a couple of good people (who should have spent their time partying or similar) clearing it up. -- Hoary (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I have no clue why this persistent spammer who has operated over for over a year and a half is only getting a 1 year block. This guy will not stop, I know he won't. There are single purpose vandalism accounts that get indef blocked for less, I don't understand why a single purpose spammer doesn't. Please reconsider the length of your block. SaturdayContribs00:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Saturday, this is an IP address, not an account. IP addresses are indef blocked only in very rare cases, and this is no such case, because the owner of this IP may change. 1 year is appropriate. --Oxymoron8300:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that, but this ip address has not changed for the past year an a half, I can see it staying like that. Within that stated, I would say a block of maybe 2 or three years would be more appropriate then, with a proper warning on that ips pages. SaturdayContribs01:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the IP's owner won't have changed in 1 year, it can be reblocked. Your personal assumption that this guy will not stop and that you can see it staying like that can prove true and wrong. A 1 year block for 1.5 years of disruptive behaviour is not too short. I'm definitely not going to extend the block. --Oxymoron8301:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dear oxymoron83, the page ADEPD was deleted by you as logged:
2007-12-08T08:36:20 Oxymoron83 (Talk | contribs) deleted "ADEPD" (Speedy deleted per (CSD G12), was a blatant copyright infringement.)
because of beeing a web page copy. I have placed the related web page (and the whole site) now under a GNU FDL license as recomended by admins on User_talk:Hgrobe.
May I ask you to reactivate the ADEPD page. Thank you and best wishes Hannes Grobe (talk) 08:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are interested in the Life On Mars Television Series, as I am.
At the moment I have A Life On Mars Wikiproject currently up for approval by the Wikiproject Approval Council. As you are interested in Life On Mars I was wondering if you would be interested in adding your name and joining. If you are interested you can find it on Wikipedia: WikiProject Council/Proposals its right at the very bottom you cant miss it as its titled ‘Wikipedia: Wikiproject Life on Mars (Television Series)’. And after your name is added to Wikiproject propsals please add it to the main page Wikipedia:Wikiproject Life On Mars
If you are interested by all means feel free to join
Thanks for the invitation, but I can't remember I've ever heard about Life On Mars, so I don't think I can be of much help. Cheers --Oxymoron8320:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Message from 69.157.50.5
Please do not block me again. This is an ongoing issue with Blotto adrift and he was been blocked by others several times. Please read his history. The Trenton Ontario page is correct and he keeps changing it. In the future please look into both sides thank you.
PS I recommend that you block Blotto adrift if he changes the Trenton Ontario page again.
I got a message from you saying you changed something I edited. I don't remember editing anything on the Worm article. Is there any way I can see what changes were made?
No problem, I've repaired it. Please read the links at your talk page carefully; if you have any questions, I'm glad if I can help. --Oxymoron8316:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can revert and warn the vandalizing IPs/Users. If they received a level 4 warning and continue to vandalize, please report them at AIV. If the vandalism to this will continue for some days by multiple IPs or users, a page protection can be in order. It's likely that they all resolve to the same person, but there are too less edits to be sure for now. --Oxymoron8317:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it didn't vandalize.
The user didn't vandalize Bongwarrior's article. It merely greeted someone it considered to be a "Wikipedophile". It probably didn't even know where to go to properly do that. Blocking the user was unnecessary. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological: The IP added the message to random articles [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], Bongwarrior warned (20:09:35), at the next IP's edit [7] (20:09:42) the new message bar popped up and the IP added the same nonsense to the user page of the user who put the warning [8] — an extremely typical behavior. Why was this not vandalism? Two days ago the IP has shown exactly the same behavior, only with User:Wikieditor06 as the warning & attacked editor, what likewise needed a block to be stopped. That's all I have to say, and I assure you there was nothing wrong with the block; maybe only that Bongwarrior may complain that I "stole" him the block, which I apologize for. --Oxymoron8322:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That just flashed before my eyes the same way a bunch of clips from sixties' programs would. When you blocked him (the user) how did you "steal" it from Bongy-boy? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Duration
Several people have been trying to talk me into going up for adminship. If I do, I'd like to have objective guidelines for determining the duration of a vandal's block. Having been impressed by your work, I'd like to ask how you pick durations. Thanks. Doczilla (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I throw a dice for every vandalism edit the IP/user made — the sum of the pips is the block duration in hours ;) Seriously, this will need some time to write down as multiple factors play a role in determining the duration, I hope you don't mind if I'll do this tomorrow or the day after — I'll notify you when I'm finished. --Oxymoron8322:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70.228.252.94 has vandalized nitrogen as soon as your 48 hour block expired. I suggest perhaps a week, this time? Double length of block each time, until somebody at the other end (the IP admin for the school, probably) has their attention drawn to the problem. Can't be fixed except at the other end. SBHarris20:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking care. As this is a school IP probably shared by multiple persons, this was the only edit after the block and they stopped to vandalize after the warning, I don't want to block at this time. If they continue to vandalize, a block will be in order to avert damage from Wikipedia. Regards --Oxymoron8322:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I've been working on List of cryptids and I'm going through the list's redlinks removing the ones which have been deleted due to notability issues, speedied, simply don't exist or ones which will never be created into a good article. I checked the Beast of Durham's deletion log and noticed you deleted it due to CSD#G1 and was wondering if you could say if it really was just drivel or if there is any potential to make a workable article? I checked google (-wikipedia) and it came up with only a few links; most of which were from crypto-nut pages and one from the BBC (Although it was only comprised of reader's sent-in accounts of various big cat sightings). Now I know absence of information doesn't equal information of absense, but do you think I should try and create the article, or will it not meet notability guidelines as I suspect? I can either create an article out of the info on the net, or I can simply remove the link from the list. I had the same problem with Flying humanoids which was deleted due to notability issues, but since I can't see the deleted content, I won't know if it was a poorly referenced page, or just nn full stop even with references. Anyway, I won't hold you up any longer, but I thought since you're an admin, you might have some insight. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 23:48, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the Beast of Durham, actually it was a A1 (probably I've mistakenly chosen G1 - I can't remember), stating that "Its a beast that is supposed to live near durham". For this kind of articles, I think the most important is to find reliable (!) sources to include something. For the Beast of Durham, nothing reliable can be found via google, the BBC link goes to a forum post. I will look into the other articles. --Oxymoron8300:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Same for glow man and flying flashes. As flying humanoids has been deleted after a regular deletion discussion (the article included several links as sources, but the outcome was nevertheless a clear "unverifiable"), I don't think a recreation will have a chance, I also wasn't able to find reliable sources via google. Regards --Oxymoron8300:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Thanks for the help! Yes it would be great - I've got a few others. Of course I'd do it myself, but I'm not an admin. :) Here's the list of red links in the page and my thoughts:
Flying Flash - Don't know why it was deleted originally, but most of the search hits refer to company brand names etc, so probably can't be sourced.
Giant Anaconda - Probably could make a good article, but I'm unsure if it would withstand notability...? — some sources can be found, worth a try to create
Glow man - Don't know reason for deletion and most search hits refer to company brand names etc, so probably can't be sourced.
Lithgow Panther - I think I could easily make a good article out of this, but it was deleted before and I'm not sure if it was due to notability issues or just lack of references. — deleted article had no content, maybe a redirect to Phantom cat (and expansion if additional content can be found) is the best solution here, as this seems to be the only non-forum link
Mahamba - Pretty sure this may be article worthy, but I unfortunately don't have the book which was written on it. Searches turn up the town of the same name, so sourcing could be difficult via internet. — try searching for +Mahamba +crocodile, but all links seem to direct to forums or pages that have no content; Mokele-mbembe is an existing article on such kind of creature, maybe you can find some links there
Mecheny - Don't know original reason for deletion, if it was notability or just reference issues, but I think this may be article worthy. — was a copyvio of [9]; google links seem to go to forums only
Ndendeki - Same boat as Mahamba (They were accounted for on the same expedition) and shares the same name as some Japanese product I think... — less useful links, you may try it, but I'm unsure if enough reliable sources can be found to establish notability
Ngoima - Same boat again (Was seen on same expedition) and shares name with actor. — Polish Wikipedia has an article about it, google search interfering with the actor, I'm not sure
Tessie - Shares name with song. Checked it out and was found to be a hoax, so I mgiht just redirect to the lake... — best write a sentence in the lake article
Tirpaccus - Don't know original reason for deletion, but google search (Although only a few hits) turns up all crytpozoology hits. Unsure what to do. — google hits go to forums exclusively, notability is a sufficient reason to delete an article about this if no additional sources can be found
Winnie (lake monster) - Yes, will be a joy finding a lake monster which shares the name with the most successful bear of all time... Although I just realised that the Glowman and Winnie lake monster both reportedly come from the same lake, so it may just be a fake attempt to their lake on the map etc...? — looks like some links can be found, you may try to create an article, but imho it's better to include 2 or 3 referenced sentences about these monsters in the lake article
I feel kind horrible just walking up to a complete stranger admin and dumping all these links on him/her for advice, so sorry if I've put you lout in anyway. I won't be offended if you ask me to go elsewhere. Anyway, any help/insight/thoughts for further action are greatly appreciated. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 00:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Thank you so much for your thoughts and insight. They've certainly helped me plan out my course of action. I thought I saw more references for the Lithgow Panther, but I may have been mistaken. Just a question - forums do not count as reliable sources riight? Anyway, thanks again; you've been a major help. Cheers, Spawn Man (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've dropped Tirpaccus and the Lithgow Panther from the list and redirect the panther to Phantom cat which is already listed at list of cryptids. I'm going to create giant anacondas tomorrow and I've written a short piece on the glow man and winnie on the Lake's page (So I'll include them on the cryptid's list). I was going to do the same with Tessie, but all the internet hits I found were to some lake in the USA, different from the supposed one in Australia, so I'm just gonna remove it from the list altogether (Besides, it's already listed again as the Lake Tahoe Monster, which I think they've gotten confused with...). Then there's the african reptile cryptids, which I'm going to leave for now and see if I can get a hand on the book which covers the expedition they were found on. I'm not sure of Mecheny - I mean is this link valid enough to be a reference, or is it just some crypto-nut job's ramblings? Wow, anyway, you've really helped me sort it all out. Cheers, :) Spawn Man (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for answering so late, I'm already delayed answering Doczilla's request (but nearly finished) due to real-life issues. The article looks quiet good, I don't think it will be deleted; but my opinion can't replace the consensus ;)
Yes, forums aren't reliable sources as everyone can post everything (the same applies to most personal homepages). Regarding the Almasti link, I think one source isn't enough to establish notability at this area; if you find additional sources, I think an article creation would be fine --Oxymoron8300:57, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cut&paste content from articles into another. The attribution of the original authors is an important part of the GFDL, you aren't the author of the content. Mentioning at least the 5 main authors of the content is required, and state where it was copied from (both in the edit summary). Best you include the edit history since this edit, e. g. at the talk page. Regards --Oxymoron8323:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fine, apparently I don't know to do that from a technical standpoint. Would you move the soundtrack portion to its own webpage, as most soundtracks have their own page instead of eing merged into the article. Berenlazarus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berenlazarus (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 Jan 2008
Thank you, at least one appreciates my work :) Unfortunately there are even some admins who think that everything can be cut&pasted to everywhere intra-Wikipedia without any prerequisites and are improvement-resistant. --Oxymoron8308:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve been awarded this barnstar. Partially because it spreads wikilove, but mostly because I’ve seen you around vandal fighting and I think you’ve done a good job. Kannie | talk04:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do know that he didn't vandalise after the final warning you gave him? ClueBot beat you to the rv but you beat him to the warning, so he reported to aiv. I'm not questioning you block just thought you'd be interested to know --Chris00:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually not, Xy7 beat me to the revert, I warned for the second Westbrookville, New York edit. Although my additional warning was unnecessary (the warning wasn't at the talk page when I typed it in thinking I reverted, and due to Twinkle I got no edit conflict), he vandalized after the final warning. --Oxymoron8300:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just created an article on Quincy (Ohio) in German, and used the infobox that includes a locator map. The coördinates are right, according to the US Census data, but the map shows it in the wrong place (here is a proper illustration), and I don't know what to do. Do you know how to work with these maps? Nyttend (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, but it looks like a problem with de:Vorlage:Positionskarte USA Ohio. Possibly the border coordinates of Ohio are wrong, because de:Columbus (Ohio) also uses this locator map and is placed a little bit more down and left compared to the map used in the English article. Best you contact de:Benutzer:Obersachse as he created the template (I'm clueless about template programming), he will know best. He says he's en-2, so it's possible to contact him in English; if you don't want to I can do this also. Regards --Oxymoron8320:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a relief to the editors (usually not me!) who work on Crusades to have it so promptly semi-protected for several months. This will be an immense help to continue improving the article instead of having to defend themselves against vandalism.Student7 (talk) 01:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me. It isn't me; his/her reverts seem to be more random than high-speed. I think the name is a bit confusing, but I'm not sure if the username combined with the edits is sufficient for a username block, I think it's ok if we wait if he/she responds to the username concern message. --Oxymoron8315:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
I'm very sorry for all my disruptive edits it was very silly of me and shouldn't be done agen, sorry
posting a revised article after one has deleted one's first one
Hello,
After receiving a note regarding an article I had unintentionally posted (I am new to this and did not realize I had "saved" - horrors!) I deleted it myself. Evidently you and I deleted at the same moment, and so I am writing to you for help.
My question for you is - now that an article of that name has been deleted, will I be able to contribute a new one of the same name?
Thank you so much for your help!
Eileen
Yes, in this case you are allowed to. You saved the article and afterwards blanked (not deleted) it with the edit summary "I did not realize i had saved this page - did not intend to!", which qualified the article as WP:CSD#G7, so I deleted it. Feel free to create a new article, reading WP:YFA may help you. Regards --Oxymoron8301:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kaomso has not responded for over a week to any of the objections to his proposal that is inconsistent with what a neutral party and I have agreed with. Is it appropriate to consider it an abandonment of the argument? Butterfly0fdoom (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for keeping the vandalism off my user page! I haven't been on wikipedia for a while, so i didn't see it. Those jerks are so annoying! Thanks again. --Turbokoala (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hmm excuse me but YOU *very wrongly* made a change back to what i had corrected.
for your info, russian names stay the same also after they'd been translated into english. seriously it's not called "vandalizing" BTW.
the correction i made on "tsar niCHolaS II" was rightful since it should be called "tsar niKolaI II".
not trying to be rude but please don't wrongly fix thing you don't know about. thank you.
P.S = it would be nice if you changed the names over on the wikipedia page "tsar niCHolaS II" since it's locked for other users.
Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage. I always love it that people who spend their time messing things up tell us that we're the ones with no life. Have a great day. -Mastrchf91-03:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to include a bit more information, there; from a few quick looks, it's not immediately obvious who you are or what block you're referring to, though perhaps Oxy will recognize you from something I've missed. Which IPs/usernames are impacted, say? Also, if you specifically are blocked, please be aware that intentionally evading blocks is usually frowned upon, and can turn a good situation bad quickly (this is less important if you were simply hit by collateral damage, by a block on a school for example). So: more info? – Luna Santin (talk)10:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Luna; dear anonymous, please include some more information as mentioned above, otherwise it's impossible for me to answer your question, particulary as I found no IP from the 212.121.0.0/16 range which I blocked directly this year. Thanks --Oxymoron8312:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Your message
Thanks for that. I reported the bot because it kept removing the IPs which were blocked indefinitely by a now-inactive admin, who hasn't participated for quite a while (I think 2006 was his last contributions).
I'll try and avoid that next time, though. Thanks for the tip. I guess I learn from my mistakes here... this is one more to avoid!
No problem; the bot is coded so that it removes all reported users and IPs that are blocked from AIV disregarding the comment you write behind and how often you report them. --Oxymoron8313:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Will you look into the IPs I reported for me?? I don't know where the right place to report the indef-blocked IPs is, so I leave it to you or another admin to do so. Thanks again, --Solumeiras • Talk13:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I wish to nominated the article Orion (constellation) to be semi-protected because of the extreme number of anonymous vandals editing that article. Considering it's a high profile article, an article children would be likely to look up, the detrimental effects of the vandalism to how Wikipedia looks as a whole, and the proportion that most edits are vandalism and reversions, I think semi-protection against anonymous users would be appropriate. Since the process requires a consensus on the article's talk page and you are one of the registered users who have reverted vandalism recently, I am writing in the hopes that you will go to the talk page and agree to the semi-protection. If we can get a convincing consensus, we can continue the process to the next step. Thanks for your time. --Bark (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally WP:RFPP is the proper place to request a semi-protection. You wrote that the process requires a consensus at the article's talk page — is there a special agreement regarding this article/topic that I don't know about? I think the article qualifies for a temporary semi-protection; an indefinite semi-protection as you proposed at the article's talk page should only be applied if former temporary protections where unsuccessful. --Oxymoron8315:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstood. I was not actually asking for protection at this time. I was trying to build a consensus on the talk page as a way to gauge others' views on this, and to strengthen the request when it's officially made. I only contacted you because you had reverted vandalism on that page recently. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "special agreement". It just seemed to me, looking at the official policy, that developing a consensus is preferable before actually requesting protection. It's not being heavily vandalized according to the standard of George W. Bush was, for example, but considering the not-so-topical nature of the article (I mean, the constellation isn't changing its appearance in the night sky or falling to Earth or blowing up), and the amount of vandalism that page consistently gets, protection seems like a prudent move. Anyway, me coming here was really just an invitation to participate in the discussion. --Bark (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think a page should be protected according to WP:PROT, just file a request at WP:RFPP and an admin will decide the case. There's no need for a consensus, and I don't find anything like that in the policy. --Oxymoron8317:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what I did. I misread, "Changes to protected pages should be proposed on the page's discussion page, and carried out if there is consensus to do so." I think I saw "Changes to protect pages should be proposed on the page's discussion page, and carried out if there is consensus to do so," instead. Every year, I seem to burn more brain cells. Apologies for the confusion. --Bark (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Me and another user are having trouble with another editor over at the Johnnie Ray page. Basically, that editor is rolling back changes over several edits and removing maintenance tags for no real reason. We've had some issues with this same editor in the past so any attempts to compromise are pretty much out the window. Could you possibly step in and help as they've already resorted to name calling. Thanks! Pinkadelica (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's possible although the page is linked from 2 articles. I've put the page on my watchlist, according to the user creation log, if these are socks I would be surprised if there aren't more. --Oxymoron8319:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tariqabjotu, I've protected Causes of the 1948 Palestinian exodus some time ago to allow an undisturbed discussion at the case you mediate. The mediation and consensus building has made good progress but without a final conclusion. User:Screen stalker asked me to unprotect the page, but I don't want to do it prematurely what could worsen the situation. Do you think an unprotection should be tried now or is it better to wait some more days? --Oxymoron8318:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Whilst browsing Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Requests I found this game had been requested and located some sources to interest a potential creator. After clicking on the link I found that it previously existed but the author requested deletion which you obliged. Does that mean that version is out-of-bounds or could it be brought back and sourced? Got the feeling deletion was requested because it was prodded or some discussion took place about notability. Here are the additional sources: [11][12][13]. Thanks. Someoneanother17:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The game was only in the beta phase at this time, the article was prodded for lack of significant coverage from independent, reliable sources, and the original author (User:Artman40) requested the deletion at the article's talk page, saying that the page has been posted too early. I can restore the content in your userspace, so that you have some time to work on it. Inclusion of reliable secondary sources that cover information such as distribution, critical and popular reception, development or cultural impact can prevent a potential deletion. --Oxymoron8318:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, I just found another 2 sources (Shacknews' blog and Jay is Games) and the game is a finalist in one of the categories at the IGF awards, there are sources and the game has 'landed', as good a time as any. Once the work is done would it be OK to ask you to transfer the userpage version, edit history and all, back to the old location? Thanks for your help. Someoneanother19:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, could you specify which you feel fail to live up to our reliability standards? I have re-read WP:V but it isn't terribly helpful when dealing with this corner of the videogames world, since many of these blogs are a lot more notable (and reliable) than they first seem. The impetus for larger gaming sites and publications to cover these games has evaporated due to the quality and consistency of coverage provided by blogs like these for browser/flash/casual games. Unfortunately I've not bookmarked it, but a writer for Edge online used to write reviews of these games but said in a later article he wasn't going to bother any more due to the coverage in more specific sites (Jay is Games and a few others were listed as examples). I promise to try not to bore you to death but I would like to discuss this. Someoneanother00:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with those blogs and personal websites is that everyone can post everything. While the posts from readers at the pages linked above are completely the opposite of a reliable source, in some cases self-published material may be acceptable, "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so" (cited from WP:V). Why isn't this helpful? A kind of better source is e. g. the IGF page. Probably if the IGF is over, you'll find some reliable newspaper articles. --Oxymoron8315:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Remove indent) It is helpful, as you have been, but when it comes to areas such as less-heavily commercialized video games the definition of "an expert of the topic" has to reflect what the topic actually is. In this case the sites which are found to be reliable sources of information and reviews are the sites listed above, almost all of which (bar TIGsource, which I haven't looked into properly yet) could be considered as authoratitive. In terms of 'everyone can post everything', these sites may offer separate areas for visitors to participate in but the actual posts are reserved to site maintainers. Besides wishing to present a reliable and verifiable article which you took the time to undelete, these sources represent a massive amount of material which could be of much use to the video game project - if they're discounted as unreliable it will greatly affect our potential coverage. Which is why I want to impress upon you why I think these sites are reliable.
Play This Thing is a sister site to Manifesto Games, see [14] and [15] for a better idea. The writer of Play This Thing's article "costik" is Greg Costikyan, "an iconoclastic veteran developer". So what first looks like a random post by Joe Blow in a general blog is actually a notable 'veteran' of the industry posting on his own specialized website. The blog format used by these sites does not mean that anyone can post actual articles.
Jay Is Games is piped through numerous blog sites/websites (including VH1's gameblog) as an authorative source on browser/casual/flash games and is frequently referenced by other sites (many of them with articles here and deemed reliable by our standards). The writing editor, John Bardinelli, is a freelance game journo who has written for Game Tunnel and Joystiq, all other posts are from the site's reviewers, which are presumably vetted by Bardinelli and Jay. Jay's is specifically highlighted by Play This Thing here as covering casual games and doing a good job not worth repeating. The site hosts regular game design competitions which receive a lot of attention. If you take a few minutes to browse I think you'll understand why I really don't want it to be seen as unreliable - a lot of my intended future contributions hinge on material from that site.
The Game Axis 'blog' is the online arm of a magazine belonging to HardwareZone, apparently a large and influential publisher, the piece is written by European associate editor Ismet Bachtiar, who's handle "RexRetry" makes it look like another Joe Blow post.
The only other two sources are the IGF, not a problem, and TIGsource which is the one I need to check out. Hope you're not nodding off on your keyboard, but can you see where I'm coming from? Someoneanother21:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading my last post, it could sound like I wanted to say that all other links are unreliable — this isn't what I meant, I only wanted you to re-check these web pages regarding this issue and sort out what content you cite, what you've done above. I didn't wanted to know it that detailed ;) I think the things you cited until now at the article construction site are done good (except the John Bardinell quote - is this really needed in an encyclopedia?). I did never say that I want the article to be deleted nor is this a deletion discussion ;) --Oxymoron8309:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is how I took it, which is why I was interested to know which specifically. Because I needed to use them to actually write anything I was worried you'd think I was ignoring your concerns, which is not how I work. Hence the justification. Anyway :) I've left out TIGsource for now but used the rest, the article is roughly all it can be without further sources, so would you mind restoring it to the encyclopedia proper? Thanks for your time. Someoneanother21:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the article is ready for mainspace, you can move it by using the tab of the same name (simply remove 'User:Someone another/' from the preset target at the 'To new title' labeled textbox and it will be at the right place). I don't know how an article about a game only in beta phase is regarded, but you'll know best how similar cases have been handled in the past. Regards --Oxymoron8308:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My userpage...
...thank you for the revert. Was just scratching my head over whether I could do a 3RR violation report or not on Snark, so didn't notice it until I saw your warning on their talk page. Thanks again! Giles Bennett(Talk, Contribs)21:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the quick revert of my user page, humble though it may be. It's nice to know that we've got people watching our backs :) Xymmax (talk) 21:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After much thought and deliberation I have decided to return. Many wikians contacted me by various means and I truly appreciate the support from all of them. Man, did I need that wiki break! I have learned from it and will use the experience to improve. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching that vandalization of my user page -- it's appreciated. Why is it the "YouTube celebrities" who get their noses so far out of joint when you suggest they don't have any notability? Accounting4Taste:talk17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, I don't know. Maybe they think when they can post what they want on YouTube, they may do this on Wikipedia too. --Oxymoron8318:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The page history prompted that - what else? I know you have this page on your watchlist - if you want to deal with the vandalism without protection feel free to unprotect. --Oxymoron8318:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page gets a lot less vandalism than some of the others on my watchlist, so I was just curious if there was anything specifically or just in general. Not interfering - and I certainly don't care enough to remove it from protection :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs)20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I also have more often vandalized pages at my watchlist. There was nothing specifically, I only responded to the RFPP request and decided to protect after reviewing the page history. Regards --Oxymoron8307:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for notifying me, it's always interesting to see the correlation of those accounts ;) The probable reason I was targeted was the username block of User:Wiki coach some days before, obviously another sock then. --Oxymoron8309:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for notifying me, I came across this tool in the past. Unfortunately it only runs under Windows, so that I'm reluctant to use it regularly. --Oxymoron8308:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a place where we can read the changes that this IP made? It is a public PC and we would hate to be banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.230.191.51 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 Jan 2008
Thanks for the notification. If you see one, please report to AIV (warnings are not necessary) and best write Illinois-vandal or something like that, seems to be the best way to stop this. Thank you --Oxymoron8303:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the vandal seems to have stopped for the moment: Thank you very much for taking care and the good collaboration. I come across this vandal since end of last year, but wasn't able to find a related SSP/RFCU case some days ago. Do you know more about it? Cheers --Oxymoron8303:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Last message for tonight. I don't have to be up early, but I do have to be up :O)) He was active on the DuPage article and on other Illinois-related articles in early December, with much the same content. And then he disappeared; I thought he had given up. I don't know if there was a RFCU case; I never noticed one and I had forgotten about him until tonight. He was editing from an IP address which he used tonight 192.203.136.252, and any of the user names that seem to be random on the page history of DuPage from early December are him. LIke I say, I thought he had gone. Might be time for an RFCU all right.FlowerpotmaN·(t) 04:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An odd request
Hi Oxymoron83,
I saw something someone said a while ago on ANI: “...a block notice wasn't even left, leaving the user with no way to even know how to request an unblock...”. I’m pretty sure that’s not right, but it reminded me of something I’ve wondered about (for this very reason) for a while: what it’s actually like to be blocked. Especially, what information is given for how to get out of it.
I hope you don’t think of this as a frivolous request (it isn’t, I promise), but would you mind blocking my (completely legit!) alternate account, User:Barneca sock 1 for say 15 minutes? With autoblock enabled, so I can see both the block screen for the blocked user, and the autoblock screen from User:Barneca too. I’m quite confident no one else is using this IP (it’s static). I won’t waste anyone’s time with an unblock request; I’ll wait for the 15 minutes to be up. The only possible hassle to other people I see is the possibility that the autoblock could malfunction, and not be lifted after the 15 minutes, and then I’ll have to pester someone with an un-autoblock request.
Scientizzle mistakenly (but in good faith!) blocked that account when I first created it, but I kind of knew what to do already, and was so busy getting the autoblock lifted, I didn’t take the time to pay attention to the specifics of what information was provided to the blocked editor. I know I could look at the mediawiki templates somewhere (I’ve done that before), but it isn’t the same. All the variables are empty, and it’s a jumble of brackets and really hard to see and understand what the blocked editor would actually see.
Thank you very much! FYI, in case you've never looked, our block notices and autoblock notices are really quite well put together, and really quite kind, and assume a lot of good faith. I'm impressed with whoever put them together. Thanks again for the help with my experiment; I figured edit warring on purpose would have been a bad way to go... --barneca (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i'm new to wikipedia and i need some direction on creating new articles i'm a little confused
please contact me back.......>>>>> user:jadawg19 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadawg19 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 Jan 2008
If you can tell me how to edit a deletion summary, I'd be delighted to. I do not intend to undelete and delete and create a thoroughly confusing deletion log. Sam Korn(smoddy)20:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course you don't need to do this. But the copyvio isn't documented in the page itself and therefore hard to find in some weeks for an admin who wants to restore the page. As the AfD is still open, I think the best is to close it with a comment so that the information about the copyvio is available at a closely related page. --Oxymoron8321:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Oxymoron83, I was wondering: isn't an 8 hour block for that disruptive of an edit (an he's done other vandalisms too) a bit minor? I think Wikipedia needs to crack down on these vandals - I like undoing them, but I'm starting to get frustrated at so many. I know wikipedia has this open editing policy, and even still people can get an account and still vandalize. But it should only be a place for constructive editors to... well, edit. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with you that Wikipedia only should be a place for constructive editors. But this affects only the decision if to block or not, the length depends on other factors. This IP has made 4 vandalism edits (which are the exclusive editsfrom this IP) in 8 minutes, and vandalized after the final warning. The behavior indicates a dynamic IP (and afaik most IPs from the 121.0.0.0/8 range are dynamic). I'm sure 8 hours are enough to stop the vandalism (blocks aren't used to punish) at least for the next 24 hours with less side effects (although it's unlikely that there will be any - but blocks should imho be as short as possible). A block for more than 24 hours is definitely not in order at this time. You can read a bit more here (not yet finished). For comparison: On de.WP such an IP would get blocked for 1-2 hours only, what is in 99.9% of all cases sufficient to stop it. --Oxymoron8306:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My RFA
Thanks!
Oxymoron83/Archive 5, thank you for showing your support in my RFA which passed with 38 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral! I also want to give special thanks to my Admin Coach and nominator, Useight for all of his help and support. I promise that I'll give my best effort as an admin, and I hope that your confidence in me proves to be justified. If I can ever be of any help, please let me know. In the mean time, I have some cleaning to do.
help me build my page on Federation of Nigeria Youth Greens.
Hello ,
How are you i woluld be pleased if you help me build my wiki page on Federation of Nigeria Youth Greens.
Here from you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Federation of Nigeria Youth Greens (talk • contribs) 02:23, 31 Jan 2008
You once said that you worked with regexes to detect vandalism on VF... how would I use them too? Is there a list already made to import all the words that need to be detected? -- Mentifisto11:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such list, and what needs to be detected depends on what you want detect ;) E. g. if you want to detect linkspam, you may add "External links" to the regex list, this will highlight all edits that have this phrase in their edit summary (99% of them are section edits with the preset edit summary). You may also get some ideas at User:HBC_NameWatcherBot/Blacklist. --Oxymoron8311:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know what it exactly does, never tried it out. I don't think that there's a an universal prepared list to import, because everyone wants to watch different things. --Oxymoron8312:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah so I guess there can be a lot of lists for everyone? I just want to be more efficient in detecting vandalism since the 'highrisk' on the right of VF isn't always accurate and I'm sure that there must be vandalism in all those 1s too. -- Mentifisto12:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some vandals are just more annoying than others. Thanks for blocking that "Powderbun" character. It never stops around here, does it? In any event, thanks for wielding the mop and bucket. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PMDrive1061 (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Eh, wasn't really sure myself. I'd blocked a possible TougHHead just a couple of minutes before, and I'm not really popular with the vandals so I figured he'd come back to exact a little revenge. :-D east.718at 23:03, January 31, 2008
