User talk:Novasource
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 of Novasource's talk page
[edit] Serial POV vandal from 70.134.*.*
Several Wikipedians and I have been on patrol for a serial vandal from 70.143.*.*. This person injects information just to cheerlead a POV on fuel efficiency, the (defunct) federal 55 mph speed limit, and other energy conservation topics.
The problem is not the factual relevancy of his additions; the may or may not be right. The problem is the author has proven himself non-credible through blatant, persistent campaigning for specific polcies through abuses like the ones detailed below.
[edit] Example Abuses
- Adding barely relevant links to many articles related to or that happen to mention petrochemicals. For example, peak oil or fuel efficiency are often added regardless of whether they are directly relevant to the article.
- Repeatedly adds information to National Maximum Speed Law about modern research on fuel efficiency. That information is irrelevant to an article about a federal policy that was enacted in 1973, 33 years ago, and ended in 1995, 11 years ago. (It would be a different matter if he found studies from the era of the policy that could have influenced the policy.)
- Adding text to various articles that serves no purpose but to campaign for a 55 mph national speed limit.
- Changing valid links from Hubbert peak theory to peak oil (the latter just redirects to the former), presumably to sell the concept with a prettier term.
- Adding links to 55 mph national speed limit to promote this specific number (55) as a limit. The correct article is named National Maximum Speed Law, and it allowed 55 and 65 mph limits.
- Adding duplicate links to See Also sections, presumably to promote his favorite topics.
- Promotes sites with strong POV bias like www.commondreams.org or www.dieoff.org by using them as references.
- Refusal to use a Wikipedia account or engage in any kind of debate. Instead, just persistently engages in edit wars.
- Labeling data he does not agree with as "controversial" or "mixed."
(I give all users permission to modify the above list to add additional abuses.)
It should be noted that some of this vandal's additions are subtle and on their own do not cause much grief. It is the totality of his edits that is beyond obnoxious.
[edit] Why revert his edits?
This guy's campaigning renders him utterly non-credible, and his persistence makes him a vandal, so I recommend instant reversion of all his edits unless they are:
- 100% contextually relevant,
- backed up by credible references that you have checked (www.commondreams.org or www.dieoff.org are not credible references, and his credibility problems should require him to be held to a higher bar than using generic marketing documents as the source),
- does not duplicate other information already in the article, and
- is information that you personally know is credible (i.e., don't simply trust his veracity).
This is a suggested edit summary for reversions:
rv non-credible, serial POV vandal 70.134.*.* ([[User_talk:Novasource#Serial_POV_vandal_from_70.134..2A..2A|more info]])
[edit] IP addresses
Here is a list of his contributions:
- 70.134.64.69
- 70.134.71.34
- 70.134.71.120
- 70.134.76.23
- 70.134.76.46
- 70.134.82.127
- 70.134.88.126
- 70.134.97.128
- 70.134.98.241
- 70.134.99.77
- 70.134.100.151
- 70.134.101.220
- 70.134.111.247
- 70.134.121.231
- 70.134.123.170
- 70.134.124.175
- 70.134.128.75
- 70.134.128.195
- 70.134.134.221
- 70.134.134.233
- 70.134.135.18
- 70.134.140.119
- 70.134.142.4
- 70.134.144.155
Note that this guy appears to be using SWBell.net. He also has many more IPs than this; this is only a list of his relatively recent IPs.
(I give all users permission to modify the above list to add additional addresses this guy has used.)
[edit] 3RR Notice
Notice to all admins: given this guy's problematic nature and given the fact that he is under investigation, I am using the spirit of WP:IGNORE to interpret the guy's edits as vandalism, thereby exempting his edits from 3RR per the vandalism exception. (This notice is posted on 8/22, after Arthur Rubin's 8/18 notice below which was reported before the user was under investigation.)
- Hey, I am documenting this 55 mph vandal on my talk page.
- Yeah, I've been reading it. Thanks for your efforts. Also, I thank you for revising your comments. I think that will be helpful in building a stronger case against 70.134.___.___. I hope this guy gives up soon, but if not, you can count on me to help in reverting. Thanks. Ufwuct 14:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WP:3RR warning.
Although I agree with your position on his edits, please don't revert the same article more than three times in 24 hours. Invite friends. I don't think there's yet been a finding that his edits are vandalism, so WP:3RR still applies. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- How do we establish this finding? Nova SS 18:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Try WP:AN/I (Administrator's Noticeboard/Incidents). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it's WP:RFI (Request for Investigation), according to the headers. Complex vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I reported him. Nova SS 20:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blog
Heh. I fixed the majority of the apostrophes, but I was reverted by an anti-vandal bot and reverted to the wrong version. Whoops and ty! Computerjoe's talk 20:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- No problem. I just noticed the vandalism and all the broken links it caused, so I simply reverted to your prior good version. Nova SS 20:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "For some reason improper capitalization makes a red link."
Yep. Wikipedia titles are case-sensitive. The search bar on the left will find case-different matches, but links and redirects will not. Fan-1967 03:49, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, the search bar on the left is incapable of doing case-different matches. A search on st. augustine grass turned up no results (!), but searching on St. Augustine grass found the exact page. Nova SS 14:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The interesting thing there is that the "Search" button doesn't work, but the "Go" button (that you would think would require an exact match) does work. The Go button seems to only be case-sensitive where there are multiple entries with different capitalization. Fan-1967 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia bug? Nova SS 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Having spent over 25 years in IT, I'll remind you that there are no such things as bugs. Only "undocumented features". Fan-1967 18:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- The
undocumented feature in this case is that the first character of a page name is always treated as a capital letter, so that sentences like "[[Carbon dioxide]] contains [[carbon]]." work without extra effort.--Stephan Schulz 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- The
- Having spent over 25 years in IT, I'll remind you that there are no such things as bugs. Only "undocumented features". Fan-1967 18:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia bug? Nova SS 19:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- The interesting thing there is that the "Search" button doesn't work, but the "Go" button (that you would think would require an exact match) does work. The Go button seems to only be case-sensitive where there are multiple entries with different capitalization. Fan-1967 19:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Lake Park Estates
I uploaded a new version of Image:Dallas, Texas map - Lake Park Estates.svg. Did I fix it correctly? drumguy8800 C T 21:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Closer, but the bottom right corner (eastmost corner) is also not part of the neighborhood. It's actually a separate shopping center. You may want to refer to dallascad.org to decipher where the houses end and the businesses start. Nova SS 19:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Now? I think I got it. Are you familiar with the neighborhood..? That is, would it be possible for you to get a picture of it and/or a picture of any sort of neighborhood identification sign (I think the neighborhood uses identification signs on top of signposts)? drumguy8800 C T 06:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Regency_Bridge_Side_View.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Regency_Bridge_Side_View.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you have a better use of your time than to police my own images? Had you bothered to look in the image description, you would have seen the name of the author (me) and the copyright release. Nova SS 14:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:100_4572.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:100_4572.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you have a better use of your time than to police my own images? Had you bothered to look in the image description, you would have seen the name of the author (me) and the copyright release. Nova SS 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Regency_Bridge_Load_Restriction.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Regency_Bridge_Load_Restriction.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.
As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Don't you have a better use of your time than to police my own images? Had you bothered to look in the image description, you would have seen the name of the author (me) and the copyright release. Nova SS 14:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Kansas Turnpike 80 MPH speed limit.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Kansas Turnpike 80 MPH speed limit.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 21:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)