Animalparty (talk | contribs) |
Animalparty (talk | contribs) →Random page moves: move complete |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
Just a heads up on the random page moves by user [[Special:Contributions/Jaspergeli|Jaspergeli]]. I'm not sure why he is doing it, but he moved [[Platy]] to [[Sdsdas]] (?!?!) and in the process also create such interesting redirects as [[Delete this please]] and [[Delete this please haha]] (?!?!). [[Special:Contributions/62.107.216.149|62.107.216.149]] ([[User talk:62.107.216.149|talk]]) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
Just a heads up on the random page moves by user [[Special:Contributions/Jaspergeli|Jaspergeli]]. I'm not sure why he is doing it, but he moved [[Platy]] to [[Sdsdas]] (?!?!) and in the process also create such interesting redirects as [[Delete this please]] and [[Delete this please haha]] (?!?!). [[Special:Contributions/62.107.216.149|62.107.216.149]] ([[User talk:62.107.216.149|talk]]) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:: An admin will be apparently needed to move [[Platy]] and restore the edit history, then speedily delete [[Sdsdas]] and the other moves. It almost looks like Jaspergeli is trying to cover their own tracks, although I'll assume good faith mistakes for a new editor. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
:: An admin will be apparently needed to move [[Platy]] and restore the edit history, then speedily delete [[Sdsdas]] and the other moves. It almost looks like Jaspergeli is trying to cover their own tracks, although I'll assume good faith mistakes for a new editor. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |
||
:::Move completed: Platy is now a disambig page again. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty!]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|talk]]) 00:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:33, 2 August 2015
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Heads up – potentially troublesome user
I have noticed some worrying behaviour on the part of at least one editor. Because it mostly relates to articles on fishes, I thought this would be a good place to make people aware of it. User:Planonasus has made a large number of edits to fish articles which, although generally constructive (I assume – I'm not sufficiently au fait with fish taxonomy to judge), he/she consistently removes parentheses from scientific authorities. These actions are very similar to those of User:109.29.22.222, and I would not be surprised if there were sock-puppetry involved. Please keep an eye out for undesirable changes. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe he just doesn't know he has a talk page and isn't seeing the warnings?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 21:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- This behavior is not new: see the discussion above, Removing references from articles. Planonasus does not respond to user talk notifications, nor apparently make any contributions to talk pages aside from creating them with project banners. More troubling (IMO) than the removal of parentheses from authorities is the copy/paste creation of new pages for synonyms, rather than properly moving pages. I see the user has currently been blocked, hopefully this will encourage a change in behavior. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- 109.29.22.222's block has expired and they are back to removing parentheses again. See this diff and this one. Plantdrew (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- This person seems to have no interest in stopping the mess (I've just reverted wrong use of brackets in one of his edits from yesterday and a fast check revealed many more in the last month). Currently Special:Contributions/109.29.22.222, mentioned in the previous post by Stemonitis. Indeed, in the edits where he doesn't mess up the brackets it's because he already did it before (Tatia, Trichomycterus, etc)! This editor has already caused havoc in a large number of articles and it will be a massive task to get it back in order. We're talking about several thousand edits and a large percentage involve the removal of brackets (as well as messing up synonyms, removing refs). He clearly has no interest in stopping or talking about the problem; the first warning on his talk page was almost a year ago! He basically continues as soon as blocks expire. Not sure about the block rules, but wouldn't it be possible with a longer one? 62.107.194.112 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The same goes for Planonasus who picked up where he left off as soon as his most recent block expired. diff. Neil916 (Talk) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- And he continues: The edit I just corrected (see my previous edit above) has already been reverted by him. 62.107.194.112 (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- I've just checked the edit marathon over the last few months by this user (Special:Contributions/109.29.22.222+Special:Contributions/Planonasus) and it is fairly obvious that this is a lost cause. When stumbling upon a few recent cases today I reverted and corrected them, but that was only until a fast review revealed that:
- 1) The user still has absolutely no interest in stopping the mess (or even discussing), despite repeated comments on his talk page(s) by several users.
- 2) The volume of edits by the user is now so great that I doubt it'll ever be corrected again.
- The fact that this user mixes bad edits with good edits doesn't make it any easier: if everything was bad I guess a bot could clear it up by auto-reverting everything (admittedly I'm starting to think that the gain would be greater than the loss even if everything was reverted). So, it appears to me that the only possible conclusion is that this user "won" by sheer persistence and edit flooding. 62.107.211.25 (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Has this been taken to ANI? --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 15:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I did see this report in August 2014. Not much came of it. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 15:50, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- I've just checked the edit marathon over the last few months by this user (Special:Contributions/109.29.22.222+Special:Contributions/Planonasus) and it is fairly obvious that this is a lost cause. When stumbling upon a few recent cases today I reverted and corrected them, but that was only until a fast review revealed that:
- And he continues: The edit I just corrected (see my previous edit above) has already been reverted by him. 62.107.194.112 (talk) 18:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- The same goes for Planonasus who picked up where he left off as soon as his most recent block expired. diff. Neil916 (Talk) 17:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
- This person seems to have no interest in stopping the mess (I've just reverted wrong use of brackets in one of his edits from yesterday and a fast check revealed many more in the last month). Currently Special:Contributions/109.29.22.222, mentioned in the previous post by Stemonitis. Indeed, in the edits where he doesn't mess up the brackets it's because he already did it before (Tatia, Trichomycterus, etc)! This editor has already caused havoc in a large number of articles and it will be a massive task to get it back in order. We're talking about several thousand edits and a large percentage involve the removal of brackets (as well as messing up synonyms, removing refs). He clearly has no interest in stopping or talking about the problem; the first warning on his talk page was almost a year ago! He basically continues as soon as blocks expire. Not sure about the block rules, but wouldn't it be possible with a longer one? 62.107.194.112 (talk) 17:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Common name usage vs binomial name in article title.
I have been working on an article on Ctenochaetus hawaiiensis and have been vehement about making the article's title the common name of the fish that I have always known, which is Chevron Tang. One person tried to revert the edit the other day, and a second person finally did today. They did it citing the IUCN red list website, which gives a list of common names (they are now cited in the article). If you were to simply enter the names in on google, the only results you would get would be the IUCN red list and some other fish that aren't even the same species. With that in mind, I wouldn't think that those other names are very common. Since those other names aren't common, I would think that the article should retain the name Chevron Tang--the project page agrees with me:
Use the common name for any species that satisfies at least one of the following criteria: 1(i) The species has a single common name that is widely used and never used for any other species. While the species in question may have additional common names, those names are rarely used
Should I revert the name back to Chevron Tang or let it be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZachofMS (talk • contribs) 06:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- It would not be unreasonable to rename the article Chevron Tang. There is little evidence that other names have any real circulation, and FishBase identifies Chevron Tang as the appropriate common name. But it's not worth getting into an edit war. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC).
Potentially problematic edits by user(s) Baitoeytnt, Babebu and Pi-gimjiRu
I don't have the time because of the large number of edits, but it may be worth checking user:Baitoeytnt, user:Babebu and user:Pi-gimjiRu. These three have near-identical edits and appear very much like WP:SOCKs, often even editing the exact same articles. Basically, the edits involve the addition of a thaibiodiversity.org link and WP:COPYANDPASTE its info (translated to English) to the wiki article, sometimes including the photo (several photos have already been deleted from wiki). So, we either have WP:COPYVIO, or (if the user is associated with thaibiodiversity.org) WP:COI adding WP:SPAM. The added info is also of questionable value, e.g. an entire subsection just saying "freshwater" or "The common name is xxx". Finally, there's the matter of messing up article format, notably moving info that would be suitable as a WP:Lead to the very end of the article. 62.107.221.251 (talk) 14:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi-gimjiRu: This editor, though apparently good faith, has created an unhelpful mess within the project, and it would be good if their edits can be rolled back by someone who uses tools that automate the job. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- And now there's another account doing these: Special:Contributions/Mikitoruz. Plantdrew (talk) 20:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Linkspamming_etc._by_Pi-gimjiRu for more background info. Also, it is worth noting the potential COI, however well-intentioned, mentioned on the user's Commons Talk page: see Commons:User_talk:Pi-gimjiRu#Copyrighted_photographs where the user states, in response to my concern about mass uploading of quality yet unlicensed image: "Thanks for the advice But we were the officer assigned by the agency. To disseminate that information to Wikipedia, please advise me what I should do to correct the model of Wikipedia". And, unsurprisingly, there are similar issues with Commons:User talk:Baitoeytnt. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- User:Pi-gimjiRu has now been blocked for sockpuppetry. I've nominated his unusable infobox-plus-linkspam stubs, and in the early ones that were usable stubs (or were improved by others), I've replaced the linkspam with a Fishbase ref. If the other sockpuppet(s) are blocked, I'll do the same there. Unfortunately this task doesn't lend itself well to automation, so I've simply gone ahead and ploughed through it manually. Dai Pritchard (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Featured Portal Review for Portal:Fish
Portal:Fish has been nominated for a featured portal review and may lose its status as a featured portal. Reviewers' concerns are set out here. Please leave your comments (which can include "keep" or "delist") and help the portal to be of featured quality. The instructions for the review process are here. Neil916 (Talk) 06:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Rabbitfish
In expanding the article on Siganus doliatus, I came across the abstract of a research study Pair formation in the herbivorous rabbitfish Siganus doliatus which mentions that pairs of fish have a novel feeding behaviour but does not mention what the behaviour is. Does anyone have access to the full length article? It seems silly to mention a novel behaviour in the Wikipedia article and not explain what it is. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- I don't, but you can post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request and I bet you'll get a pretty quick response. Neil916 (Talk) 06:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. I did not know that WikiProject existed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
New article - Cave-climbing catfish.
Chaetostoma microps, the newly discovered cave-climbing catfish has been created. Interested readers may kindly help develop it. Aim is to take it up to DYK. AshLin (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Random page moves
Just a heads up on the random page moves by user Jaspergeli. I'm not sure why he is doing it, but he moved Platy to Sdsdas (?!?!) and in the process also create such interesting redirects as Delete this please and Delete this please haha (?!?!). 62.107.216.149 (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- An admin will be apparently needed to move Platy and restore the edit history, then speedily delete Sdsdas and the other moves. It almost looks like Jaspergeli is trying to cover their own tracks, although I'll assume good faith mistakes for a new editor. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Move completed: Platy is now a disambig page again. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- An admin will be apparently needed to move Platy and restore the edit history, then speedily delete Sdsdas and the other moves. It almost looks like Jaspergeli is trying to cover their own tracks, although I'll assume good faith mistakes for a new editor. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)