User talk:Novasource

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 1 of Novasource's talk page

Contents

[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:

  1. 100% contextually relevant,
  2. 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),
  3. does not duplicate other information already in the article, and
  4. 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:

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)

[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 {{Non-free fair use in|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 {{Non-free fair use in|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 {{Non-free fair use in|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)

[edit] License tagging for Image:IMG 3389 80mph i20 9 mi w of pecos 2007-01-11.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:IMG 3389 80mph i20 9 mi w of pecos 2007-01-11.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I care, bot-boy. Nova SS 16:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User metric-sucks userbox

1 liter of water weights 1 kilogram and freezes at 0°Celsius. 1 cubic metre is 1000 liters, has a mass of 1000 kg, or 1 tonne. How simple is that?

Now try with gallons, Fahrenheit, feet, tons and pounds... :) - Wikigi | talk to me | 20:28, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

If simplicity was the ultimate measure of good and bad, life would be boring. Nova SS 23:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accusations

Don't accuse me of censorship. Read WP:BLP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oniononion (talk • contribs) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Completely deleting referenced material and not even offering the courtesy of a discussion page debate before deletion is pure censorship. If you think my statement is biased, there are more appropriate ways to handle other than censorship. Nova SS (talk) 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

Hi. I reverted this edit. In this case, "Luminous efficacy" is the title of a Wikipedia article, referred to as such. Titles of articles are properly capitalized when explicitly referenced.--Srleffler (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] drupalmodules

Hi, the anonymous editor pushed the link to drupalmodules.com quite a bit, starting of with pushing it to a lot of wikis. That got the link blacklisted on meta for some time. I asked the editor to discuss with established editors and to discuss with a wikiproject, and to see if there is info on the site that is worth being a citation. He did that now, but I don't think this is the way indeed. You seem more knowledgeable about drupal than me, how would you classify the site drupalmodules.com? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, discussion: m:User:COIBot/XWiki/drupalmodules.com (his link additions were caught by my bot). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I see drupalmodules.com as nothing more than a lightly-trafficked fan site. http://drupalmodules.com/top-downloads seems especially flaky:
  • I don't believe for a second that Drupal Administration Menu is the most downloaded module.
  • Module download counts seem extremely low given Drupal's popularity.
Novasource (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Regarding the Lupe Valdez Page

I wanted to be sure you saw this:

This laundry list is NOT factual. It's a list of assertions with "citations" that often do not support the bullet point to which they are linked. The style does not fit with that of standard Wikipedia articles, which are written in the form of paragraphs, NOT laundry lists of attacks. You are allowing Wikipedia to be used to push propaganda. That entire section in question screams POV. Yes, it has "cites" but if you read the cites, the bullet points do not accurately reflect the content of linked articles, or take quotes out of the articles from the Sheriff's political opponents and assert them as "facts."

Please re-look at the content that I wrote. It was just as cited and supported as the content I replaced. Like any public figure, the Sheriff's record has its ups and its downs, but the article you restored does not reflect that in any way. I believe the structure I put in place -- a separate section for her term as Sheriff is not only more clearly organized and better written, it still provides an opportunity for valid criticisms to be placed in paragraph form with proper context.

Though sporadic, I have been a contributor to Wikipedia for years, mostly nitpick clean ups of vandalism. I do not want to see Wikipedia be used as a platform for propaganda, but right now this article is clearly anti-Lupe Valdez propaganda. Much of the content in question was almost certainly authored by a "gentleman" the Sheriff fired in 2005, as was the case with similar vandalism on this page last summer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireball1244 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I am not law enforcement and have never represented a sitting or past politician or candidate in any way. In fact, I have made several additions to speed limit and speed limits in the United States which are not exactly favorable of current law enforcement practices.
Your actions are censorship. If you have a problem with the lack of paragraphs, then rewrite the section or mark with appropriate tags WITHOUT deleting content or references. What is clearly going on with you is, per your own edit comments, you are a Democrat partisan or at least an anti-Republican and you don't like that your favored candidate has a lot of problems.
Novasource (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Novasource - I was asked to look into this in more depth in my role as one of the Wikimedia Foundation volunteers who deal with OTRS ticket requests. We received a ticket on the article, shortly after I had first reverted Fireball1244 on his large scale deletion. I and a WMF staffmember reviewed the article and have determined that the current version has significant problems with it. There is significant undue weight given to the criticisms section right now and I believe that Fireball1244's statements regarding inaccurate summarization of what cited sources say has some validity. I went out and read the whole list of cited articles and while they do depict legitimate community concerns, their impact and strength in the criticisms section is inappropriate.

There are significant concerns that this article as it stands is not compliant with the Biographies of Living Persons content policies on the English-language Wikipedia.

I spent some time yesterday in the review. I am leaving this message here now to make sure that you are aware of what the situation is and how seriously this is being taken. Further messages will be left on the article talk page, as I and possibly other administrators / senior editors review and work to bring the article into balance, compliant with the BLP policy and neutral accuracy.

I believe that your edits have been problematic in creating this situation and that you are showing some signs of acting like you own the article content, which is not ok. Nobody has seriously complained until recently. You aren't in trouble. But you have helped create a problem. It is going to be necessary going forwards that the article be brought into neutral point of view state and into compliance with the BLP policy. I would prefer that you cooperate and work constructively towards that.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

George: I feel that Fireball1244's and others' edit comments and actions show that they are whitewashing contrary views site through outright censorship. A more constructive way might be to amend the content to remove the alleged bias through rewording or more accurate portrayal of what the references supposedly state. Anything but summary deletions would be OK.
I am not an expert in BLP, but in general, I'd rather have referenced information, even if it has the appearance of bias, than no information. Bias is not the same as a lie; it is simply an argument that can still be fully factually accurate but is limited to one viewpoint. At least having the information there is a starting point to achieve a better site.
Novasource (talk) 01:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I do not appreciate the false accusations

Sorry you disagree with my edits, but your refusal to follow Wikipedia editing rules is not my problem. I will continue to revert any of your inappropriate and/or POV/OR edits without apology. I also will add for the record that accusing me of vandalism is pretty ironic. --Replysixty (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Buzz off, kiddo! Novasource (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)