This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mdann52. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mdann52. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hi Mdann52. There's an IP-hopping SPA who has been disrupting the article considerably today. The range 82.132... (which resolves to Telefonica O2 UK and is all probably the same person with respect to this article) has a long record of adding and re-adding information to this article which has been objected to, e.g. [1] and [2]. Their latest ploy was to use this as a ref for her having attended Epsom College which contains the married name. I suspect this was quite deliberate. I've replaced it with a different ref, but Lord knows how long it will last, as the IP is quite determined to edit war. As you're the one who handled the OTRS for this article, I'm leaving it up to you what to do next. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@Voceditenore: yes, I saw they popped up again. While nothing here in interests me in an OTRS sense, I have issued the IP with an edit warring warning (even if they don't pass 3RR, they can still be blocked for it). --Mdann52talk to me!17:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
What does the OTRS action allow to be permitted or not permitted on the article? Unless details are given of what is permitted to be posted then the situation will arise again by other users. (UTS) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.212.214 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 18 June 2014
I think that's been made pretty already, the current content and sources are fine. We can't discuss anymore in public and can't say a lot more by email. To say what the content objected to in the OTRS discussion would has exactly the opposite effect as we'd have to say it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Neil, my take on this is that the mass RFCs being created were basically a smoke-screen for the real goal of getting around the OTRS restrictions on this article/talk page and a continuation of the campaign by LW1982 and assorted socks to make the private information as public as possible. It was the second one started and goes into a mass of intricate detail, complete with links to sources and even arcane diffs like this one. Note that all the other "RFCs" were very generic, general controversies, long settled, and do not go into a 10th of the detail and effort that went into the Lipscomb one. And guess who returns multiple times to restore it? The hopping 82.132... editor. As another administrator commented "doesn't anyone else find it curious that this IP editor suddenly shows up to start "RFCs" on several controversial topics all at the same time? 18 RFCs in 11 minutes, several asking questions likely to result in arguments.". I suspect the talk page is going to need much longer term semi-protection, and it's probably worthwhile to keep an eye on "what links here" for both the article and the talk page in case the restoration of the material surfaces elsewhere in the guise of a "discussion". Voceditenore (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Neil, I know where you're coming from. That's why I also refrained from commenting at ANI, but if that's a newbie I'll eat my proverbial hat. That's why I don't think the saga is over with this article yet. It's amazing the lengths people will go to once they get the bit between their teeth. And for what? Sigh... Voceditenore (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Maybe people are not prepared to accept the whitewash that the wiki admins and OTRS people are trying to impose. Why not have a discussion about what exactly is allowed on the page? When a subject is quite happy to give interviews to the national press discussing their life for publicity they can't then demand complete privacy. (82.132.237.170 (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC))
@82.132.237.170:"why not have a discussion about what exactly is allowed on the page" There have been discussions about certain features being included or excluded from the page. If you have a serious issue with my edits to this article, per WP:OTRS, you are free to bring it up against ARBCOM. However, mindlessly reverting OTRS actions without a very good reason is not the way to go about it. At the end of the day drop the stick and find somewhere else to edit constructively. --Mdann52talk to me!06:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you drop it with the ridiculous OTRS action enforcement? No action should ever have been taken in the first place. (82.132.239.192 (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2014 (UTC))
Oh, so you have access to information on this case I don't then? No, it is the other way around. Considering consensus seems to be in support of my actions, if you wish to complain, feel free to go to ARBCOM. Otherwise, unless you have something meaningful to say, you are no longer welcome on my talk page until your block expires, and you log back in to your account. As it happens, by coming here you are violating WP:SOCK. --Mdann52talk to me!09:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Geoff Cameron played for Bayside United not Bayside FC under coach Stacey DeCastro as you will see in the attached link, if you click "read more", under youth club.
Not a huge thing but I don't think the consensus was Keep for this - in my opinion it was leaning towards delete. I think for non-admin closure it should be a clear keep but in any case I would be happier if it was changed to No consensus especially since references still have not been added to the article.Peter Rehse (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@PRehse: AfD is not to decide on what exists in the article; It is a judgement of whether enough coverage exists to make it notable. If the new sources came to light, it makes justifying closing as delete harder. In this case, the sources that came up seem to show at least WP:GNG notability, therefore I closed it as keep. However, if you feel my closure was inappropriate, feel free to reopen it. --Mdann52talk to me!10:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I commented in the discussion but did not 'vote' meaning I am pretty soft about which direction it should take - just thought a further comment was worthwhile especially since the comments were not unambiguous. I suspect this will be resubmitted sometime in the near future. CheersPeter Rehse (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Just to let you know that I feel that, given the variety of opinions expressed in the above debate, I believe it should not have been subject to a non-admin closure. Inspection of your recent edits shows that you are frequently closing AfD debates even in cases where the debate is certainly not unambiguous. For example, you recently closed this debate as "keep", despite the fact that of the !votes (including the nominator's), there were more "delete"s than "keep"s. This debate was not unambiguous, and should only have been closed by an administrator. Please recognise the customary limits imposed on editors. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
@RomanSpa: counting votes is not always the best way to decide how an AfD (or any discussion) is closed; I close based on the relevant policies and sources brought up. "pile-on" votes have little affect on the closure that I make. In this case, the number of "delete" and "merge" votes created an overwhelming consensus - I regard delete and merge as the same overall result, as they both effectively have the safe effect, but one preserves more content for the encyclopedia. As I said above, if you feel the close is inappropriate, feel free to revert. --Mdann52talk to me!10:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Citing Sources
Hey, I got your message and I'm sorry about that. I just got a Wikipedia account and I noticed something was wrong on Seth Rollins' (Colby Lopez's) page. Thanks for telling me about that. It won't happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny Superbfan (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi User:Mdann52, I've been finding and reverting vandalism that I can find on Wikipedia. However, I have a question, when you said to find "at least two appropriate reports to AIV", do I have to find examples that I have to report to the admin myself? I'm still new to this, so I'm a bit hesitant on giving any editors level 3+ warning or giving them a report to the admin. Let me know :) thanks--TerryAlex (talk) 05:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Mdann52 I am still unsure about the "at least two appropriate reports to AIV"; however, I have reverted some vandalism and completed the questions for Task 2. Please review it for me. Thanks so much.--TerryAlex (talk) 04:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
@TerryAlex: Sorry, only just spotted this... If the user has received a level 2 warning, feel free to give a level 3 (and so on). If they have received a level 4 or 4im warning, feel free to report to AIV. Looking through your reverts, you seem to have very good judgement, so feel free to issue whichever warning you feel is most appropriate (admins at AIV will review the user anyway, so no good faith users will be blocked in the unlikely event you report them by accident. --Mdann52talk to me!13:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@Mdann52: Though I did not report to the AIV directly, but there were 2 occasions where I reported to an admin "Materialscientist". You can check it out on his/her talk page. First one for persistent vandalism at Magic Bullet Records by various editors. The second one for persistent vandalism by IP address 150.207.145.65. Does this count?. Thanks so much--TerryAlex (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Mdann52 We would like to know why you flagged our page for deletion; it is purely informational and does not contain any promotional material. Can you please remove the tag, or let us know which items you feel are problematic?
Thank you!
Kaufman12 (talk) 12:11, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not seeing any edit warring there. I would also note that Dan56 has been editing the article since last year at least. However, may I suggest you two take a voluntary WP:IBAN to prevent future issues coming up? --Mdann52talk to me!06:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm curious though, because you seem to imply that Dan56 cannot be said it hound anyone at any article that he edited first. I'm not sure this is logical, because anyone who wanted to hound new users away from pages on their watchlist could do so without reproach. Is this the intention of WP:OWN? Because this strikes me as territorial. Harmelodix (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The reason you said that is that you seem to be indicating he is looking through your contributions to find edits to revert. The easiest solution will either be a volentary IBAN or 1RR restriction. However, this will require both parties to comply. Otherwise, WP:DR may be able to help, although I doubt ANI will achieve much; Informal meditation may help however. --Mdann52talk to me!16:42, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Will you please ask Dan56 to agree to an IBAN or 1RR? If he agrees I will also, as all I want is to be able to contribute to Wikipedia without him confronting my work everywhere I go. He's now reverted me at no less than 15 pages in three weeks, and most if not all of the reverts are questionable, as Mendaliv pointed out at ANI. Harmelodix (talk) 16:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Regarding, "but he's already been editing there": Another thing to consider here is that, prior to confronting my work at Master of Reality on June 25, Dan56 had made a total of 9 edits over the course of 18 months to that article and only 5 in the last year. After confronting me there today he has made 6 edits doing that. So, of his 14 total edits to the article 6 are confronting my work and 4 others are reverts of other editors. I.e., all he does is stop progress there, he is not expanding or improving the article, where he has added nothing. Harmelodix (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Optimus Prime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Sherman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
This looks like a non-compliant mirror. I see that you sent a letter in the case of readtiger, can you check into this one? Should I learn how to do this?--S Philbrick(Talk)15:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf11) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 26. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on July 1, and to all Wikipedias on July 3 (calendar).
VisualEditor news
Context menus in VisualEditor will no longer flicker and disappear when you insert a new reference, formula, image, etc. [6][7]
A bug that prevented relocating items due to cache was fixed last week. [8][9]
VisualEditor will no longer scroll to the bottom of the page when you try to edit section 0. When you try to add a formula, VisualEditor will no longer scroll to the top of the page. [10][11][12][13]
Links to category pages or file pages added with VisualEditor will now work correctly. [14][15]
Future software changes
You will no longer be able to upload files on wikis that do not have any copyright tags. [16][17]
Toolserver tools will be stopped on June 30. Please make sure to change gadgets that link to the Toolserver to point to Tool Labs instead.
CirrusSearch will be enabled on June 30 as the primary search method on 34 new wikis, including the Czech (cs), Danish (da), Finnish (fi) and Hebrew (he) Wikipedias. [18]
All Wikimedia wikis will be using a security method called perfect forward secrecy starting on July 1. If you see a problem, please report it. [19][20]
Starting on July 1, it will be possible to globally rename global (SUL) users. [21]
You will soon see block information when you visit the contributions page or try to edit the user page or user talk page of a user who is affected by an IP range block. [22][23]
You will soon be able to use {{!}} as a magic word to produce the pipe character, for instance for use in tables. [24]
what kind of reliable source do you expect in changing the pronounciation of mustafa kemal atatürk?
the name is kemal, kemal is pronounced kemal as in english
the name Cemal is a different name, see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cemal_Gürsel here the right ipa is given
its pronounced DJEMAL, because C is pronounced DJ [dʒeˈmaɫ ɟyɾˈsel];
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Thelen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Doo. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Tech News updates
We are looking for contributors to help write a new issue every week. If you would like to help, please contact us.
Recent software changes
The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf12) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on July 3. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on July 8, and to all Wikipedias on July 10 (calendar).
CirrusSearch was enabled on July 1 as the primary search method on 36 new wikis, including the Norwegian (no), Portuguese (pt) and Ukrainian (uk) Wikipedias. [25]
It is now possible to create Atom or RSS feeds for Word of the Day, Word of the Week and similar entries on Wiktionary wikis. [26][27]
Saving an edit with VisualEditor will now be much faster. [30][31]
You can now add a caption when you add a file to a page with VisualEditor. You can also change the file to a different one and keep the existing caption. [32][33][34]
When you switch to the Edit source tab, you are now asked to keep your changes. You no longer need to find the option in the menus. [35][36][37]
The reference tool that adds empty <ref></ref> tags is now at the bottom of the Cite menu, below references that use templates like {{Cite web}}. [38]
Context menus will no longer be shown over items that you can edit directly, for example formulæ. [39][40][41]
Future software changes
Starting on July 9, it will be possible to globally rename global (SUL) users. The feature was first scheduled for July 1, but was delayed due to bugs.
A plan to enable CirrusSearch as the primary search method on the 11 largest Wikimedia wikis has now been prepared. [42]
If you use references on a page, you will soon always see them at the bottom of the page, even if you forget to add the <references /> tag (or a template). [43][44]
Black-and-white XCF images will soon display correctly. [45][46]
Description pages of SVG files will soon always show download links for multiple resolutions (example). The links were previously shown only for SVG files in large original resolutions. [47][48]
Problems
Between July 2-3, there were problems with loading pages on multiple wikis due to a configuration issue. [49][50]
For a few hours on July 1, there were problems with uploading new files on Wikimedia Commons due to a configuration error. [51][52]
I found a bunch of beauty pageant articles that I believe are being erroneously tagged "{{Pageant-bio-stub}}". The pages (for example Miss Dominican Republic 1963) are not about the winner, but all the contestants for that year, so I think should not be tagged as a bio. (perhaps "pageant-stub" instead). Some also have obsolete persondata (I don't know if that's due to this bot or not?).
@Msmarmalade: hence why I have stopped the bot. It appears the code line I set up was too sensitive, but I'll fix this before I restart the bot. I will also run through with AWB later and fix the errors. --Mdann52talk to me!11:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
That is a standard template, which I can not change that particular section of. Additionally, Special:Contributions/Mdann52_bot shows it stopped editing shortly after you brought this to my attention, and has not resumed editing since. I manually stopped the bot at 1PM, which was when I noticed your message. For future reference, if you edit the bot's talk page, it will stop straight away, as is described on the user page. --Mdann52talk to me!12:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: I fail to comprehend how this is a BLP issue. The entry is sourced, and per WP:DOB, as it is covered in multiple sources, inclusion shouldn't be an issue. The benefit of directing them through WP:OTRS is that it is easy to verify identity, simpler than finding the relevant on-wiki venues, and reverting is a blockable offence, so prevents edit wars such as this. I am always sceptical in cases where the user in question does not email us on request, as it (IMO) can suggest someone is impersonating them, or just messing us around pretending to be someone they aren't. Additionally, at the time of the revert, there was consensus (per WP:BRD and comments made at ANI) to include the material.
It appears that I'm not the only person to see this as a BLP. Look at the remarks made on closing the ANI section. There is no harm to Wikipedia by assuming that the editor is Henderson and thus removing the date. They have been told to take it to OTRS. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper?21:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless your skepticism has a concrete justification or if getting it wrong has actual adverse consequences for the person or the article, the site-wide AGF guideline says what to do in when in doubt. Can removing the DOB harm the subject? Farfetched. What is the encyclopedic value of the DOB? Not much--the article is fine without it. There was certainly not consensus at ANI to include the DOB, as a numerical majority (maybe not enough for consensus) of commenters supported removal or appeared to be ok with it. OTRS has enough workload with real problems to have to be bothered about stuff like this. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 22:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I am a bit confused
Firstly, I beg your pardon, I didn't understand what you tried to say. And secondly, I am not the creator or the photographer of this image, so for that reason it's copyrighted, so...I am realy confused! :/ --Tamravidhir (talk) 14:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Tamravidhir: Unfortunately, you have hit a usual minefield in reguards to non-free content here. As all the people portrayed in the photo are (probably) living people, it fails WP:NFCC#1, as it is (in theory) possible to get all the cast together and take another photo, licenced under a CC licence. Unfortunately, as long as all the cast are still alive, there is no way to get around this restriction (unless the copyright holder is willing to release the file under a free licence). --Mdann52talk to me!14:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
So does that mean that I cannot upload the photo as a free content until and unless the person who has taken the photo alows me to do so? And-yes, it may sound foolish-I didn't understand that "living cast..." thing. --Tamravidhir (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
You wrote "decline BLPPROD; subject appears to be dead. Nominating per A7, as Notability is not inherited". I don't think that's a valid reason to speedy. A claim to be associated with a notable organisation is enough to clear A7, and often the best course of action is to redirect. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)14:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Ah, okey. I prefer to see a source to at least verify this sort of thing (I feel that unsourced articles almost always meet A7, but that's just my reading of policy!). I will bear this in mind in the future. --Mdann52talk to me!15:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Unless it's also a G10 or G12 (either of which harm Wikipedia by simply existing), it generally doesn't hurt to do a bit of triage and quickly search for sources. For example, in about 20 seconds I found Benjamin's obituary in the New York Times, which to me spells instant "not an A7". Conversely, if the top four hits are Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Blogspot, A7 is probably correct. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Strange. I just tried it and the NYT piece (which was on page 2) seems to have gone. However, I see hits from Google Newspapers, the Overseas Press Club, the Washington Post, PBS ... for a speedy, all you're looking for is a complete and total absence of coverage like this. AfD's then the place to work out whether the coverage is sufficient. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)15:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Werieth ANI closure
I kind of wish you hadn't closed that--there were still some pending issues and it's best to keep the discussion in one place. I may at some point ask for it to be reopened or transferred to a sub-page; let me know if you have any objections. Thanks. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
I closed it to prevent too much of the WP:DUCK evidence becomming public knowlegde, as it is best to retain some. In terms of the CU, that is being dealt with over at Meta, so it is kinda out of our hands now. If you wish for that section to be reopened, I will happily move it to WP:AN, as I feel it is no longer an "incident" and more of a proposal. --Mdann52talk to me!07:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, there were some other pending issues besides the CU, but I figured that the CU discussion was keeping the thread open so I could get around to writing up the other stuff before sigmabot archived the thread. I agree with you that if people find new quacking they shouldn't post it, but are you saying there's an issue with the existing published stuff becoming more widely known? I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the idea hadn't occurred to me and I still don't see it, so you may have thought of something I haven't.
You're right that it's no longer an "incident" but I felt discussion should still be open since the community should still be taking stock of what happened. If you're willing to reopen at AN then I might take you up on it. Another idea is to make an ANI sub-page and link it from WP:AN/B. The final destination (whatever it turns out to be) should be linked from AN/B in any case. Any thoughts? (One issue on my side is it may take me a while to write anything substantial, due to both real life and being tired of the subject). 173.228.123.145 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hatting
I changed one of your hats to an archive. Generally we only hat stuff that is trolling, socking, canvassing or is trying to get attention for the wrong reasons. Cluelessness we go ahead and just archive, same with run of the mill disruptiveness, POINTy, belligerence, mildly embarrassing behavior, and so forth. This makes searches easier, and reading the archive easier, and just the whole open thing. No biggie, but I wanted to explain why I changed it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:01, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Dennis Brown: no problem; I generally hat stuff a lot more librally than others, but I have no issues with people changing the templates I use. Looking back, I see it is not as bad as I first thought (I first thought I spotted several PA, but must just be the coffee I had earlier :P). --Mdann52talk to me!14:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that when doing things in an administrative role, we have to default to openness, even if it is ugly. Really, socks and such don't even have to be hatted, as WP:DENY and WP:RBI are just essays, although I think the wisdom in them speaks for itself and I support hatting those. Even then, if someone reverts a hatting I've done on a sock, I have no policy based rationale to support re-reverting. Again, not a big thing, I just noticed you doing a fair amount of closings and doing them well, and wanted to offer a tip. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER14:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
You wrote: "Appears it may have been first published in 1990's, so may not be eligible for US PD"
Why do you think so? In India, the copyright expires 60 years after publication. If this was first published in the 1990s, then the copyright expires in India 60 years after the 1990s. The Indian term is always 60 years from publication, with perpetual copyright for unpublished photographs taken after 1908 or so.
In the United States, this expires 120 years after creation, or possibly 70 years after the death of the photographer, but in no situation before 2048, if it was first published in the 1990s. Also, if it was first published in the 1990s, then the copyright term in the United States doesn't have any relation to the copyright term in India at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
@Stefan2: I'm not sure... The only date they have there is in the 1990's, so on that evidence, the licence "may" be invalid, so I will rectify that when I get off mobile later. --Mdann52talk to me!06:29, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MH-1A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PWR. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=watch){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}