This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Given that an Arb is currently investigating allegations of abuse by this account, there does seem to be a need to "keep this around". Would you consider undeleting please so us plebs can see the revision history? Courtesy blanking would be fine of course, if that was your intent. Thanks. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 15:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

( edit conflict)There really isn't much to see, but I have restored the revision history as requested. PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I see that you are a bureaucrat on test.wikipedia.org, and thus I have a big favour to ask you. I'm trying to unify my global account and the user "Javert" on that wikipedia does not belong to me. However, he has made no contributions there. I was wondering if you could rename him so that "Javert" will be free so that I can add it to my SUL. Thanks, →javért ^stargaze 08:48, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Done; you should now be able to migrate the Javert account via SUL. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 12:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Splendid. Thanks so much for your help. Best, →javért ^stargaze 19:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the Enemymakes2 investigation was closed without action? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The sock was blocked indefinitely, and the master received a three day block. Since a checkuser wasn't requested, that is all that is necessary to do. NW ( Talk) 01:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I was wondering whether you could help me here. The tiyle to this page should read just Nawab Kapur Singh (as that was his title), and the link from Nawab Kapur Singh Virk should come to Nawab Kapur Singh. The link however, goes from Nawab Kapur Singh to Nawab Kapur Singh Virk. What of it you think? The issue is, that this person was known as "Nawab Kapur Singh" and not "Nawab Kapur Singh Virk". On top of that I am having difficulty finding reliable sources that confirm his surname was Virk, so if you could change the title to "Nawab Kapur Singh" I would be grateful. Thanks -- Sikh-History 10:56, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I've had a look and I can't find much either. Given the non-urgency of the page title in this instance, my best advice would be to file a requested move, and let more people weigh in. I'm reluctant to move it immediately because there may be something I don't know about. Let me know how it goes. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

... It's been a while, how you doing these days? Do you still watchlist articles on request? I created an article about a local (to me) event, but have pretty much bowed out for a couple days until the "fuss" dies down. Right now it's at 2009 LA Fitness shooting, but it's been moved around a lot in the last day or so. For now, I'm just more concerned about keeping unreferenced material and spam out of it. If it survives (I could imagine an AfD being proposed for recentism), then I'll clean up the prose and refs in a week or so. If you still do those kinds of things (watchlisting), I'd appreciate it. Cheers, ... and hope all is well on your end. ;) — Ched :  ?  09:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, done. I'm very well thank you. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

...the stuff you reverted here had nothing to do with the vandal. :) I'll be sure to notify the people at WR. Recognizance ( talk) 23:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, duh. Thanks. :P PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. I will work on it some more and invite you to check it when it's ready. Jade2009 ( talk) 01:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. :) Good luck. PeterSymonds ( talk) 12:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I have had a very unpleasant experience with this, user. He appears to be gaming the the system, and seems to be Assuming Ownership of article Khokhar. He appears to be deleting every other refrences and accused me of vandalism and breaking the WP:3RR, before I had a chnace to report him. The funny thing is he has deleted my refrences and reverted my changes. How odd. I have reported him here -- Sikh-History 17:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter; you just declined an unblock on this user. Clearly correctly, but your response appears to be templated, and I do not know the template. I am fully aware that I could search and find it, but to save me time could you tell me what it is? Thank you. -- Anthony.bradbury ^"talk" 20:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it took me ages to realise it too. In the unblock template, you have {{subst:Decline reason here}}, which actually transcludes that template when left in. It only took me ... four months to work that out. :) Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:52, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter. I have a difficulty in resolving a dispute over here. I have discussed here with other editors and made my point that the sources that cite Ataturk as mason actually do not give any reference, they are only raising rumors that Ataturk was a Freemason. On the other hand I have provided some resources, a very famous Ataturk documentarist and a Turkish ex-Grand Master who explicitly say that there is no record of Ataturk. I have noticed in discussions there that some names were removed from the list due to lack of records, but an editor of the article User:Blueboar refuses to remove Ataturk's name from the list, and thinks that including a Debated tag with a reference I have shown in discussions would solve the problem. I am confused, he explicitly says that it does not matter whether Ataturk was a mason or not since there are sources saying he was so. He does not appear to refuse there is no record of Ataturk. In my opinion, since the article is List of Freemasons, those names with no records in masonic lodges also the affiliation with mason lodges highly doubted should be excluded from this list. I would understand that it would be fair to give all the perspectives under the article of Ataturk but not under this list. Therefore, I think keeping Ataturk's name on the list violates WP:NPOV because it would look like Ataturk was a Freemason but there are some skepticals about it. Can you give your own opinion or advice? Am I misinterpreting WP:NPOV?-- Aadagger ( talk) 08:50, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Peter, you are more than welcome to come in and informally mediate this issue. If you do, please read the introductary paragraphs at the top of the article, which outline the criteria for inclusion. Blueboar ( talk) 16:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I replied the other day, but I apparently missed it. Looking over the page, I'm afraid I can't give you the best advice here. As such, I'd rather stay out of it. Good luck, PeterSymonds ( talk) 14:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Please can you explain why you just protected {{ Infobox lake}}, to which my (non-admin) recent edits are apparently disputed? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It was an RFPP request. The template was already fully protected at one stage but the requesting admin made a temporary unprotection in February. I'm not aware of any dispute. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Please look at its recent edit history, talk page and the WP Lakes talk page; I'm sure you'll then see this as abuse of process (but let me know if you'd like any clarification). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:55, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Action noted; thank you. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:20, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Following an edorsement of your block of User:PassionoftheDamon for edit warring, i recommend that in the interests of fairness you warn the other user, User:Wknight94, as he too has been edit warring albeit has tried to come to compromised version. Seddσn ^talk| ^WikimediaUK 00:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done. PeterSymonds ( talk) 00:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

That article has been under attack by gossip-mongers and POV-pushers for quite awhile now, of which PotD is only the latest. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Even if that's the case, I was just emphasising the awareness that one can get into an edit war very easily. From an outsider's point of view, it looked like a blockable edit war. Care should always be taken when reverting, especially when the reverter is the author of the article. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This is kind of similar to the Rick Reilly situation, only not quite as bad. In the case of the Lupica article, you've got editor(s?) trying to coatrack Jason Whitlock's gripes about Lupica and ESPN into a major deal, when in fact it's a mere blip and is referenced only by questionable sources. I think Wknight94 has shown remarkable restraint, all things considered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 11:36, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, okay. I'm not familiar with any history here, after all, so you may well be right. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs certainly is not right, as he is completely ignorant of the the substance of the edit dispute between Wknight94, which had next to nothing to do with "Whitlock's gripes about Lupica." Rather, the initial disagreement (involving the July 30-31 edits) centered on Wknight94's insistence on excluding information, sourced to a mainstream publication in The New York Post [1], about Lupica's role in colleague Lisa Olson's departure from the New York Daily News. Wknight94 was vehement that this should be whitewashed from the article and took to mischaracterizing the writer as "biased" (without ever providing or even alleging any actual proof of bias) and an "advice" columnist (when in fact he is a business columnist), and continually (intentionally?) mislabeling the source as a "blog" when in fact it is a column appearing in the regular newspaper. Regardless, I could see Wknight94 was intransigent on the matter and I had no desire to get into an edit war with an administrator, so I decided to let the matter be and refrained from editing the article for 10 days, not wanting to reopen the issue.

In the intervening time, Wknight94 made several verbiage edits to other areas of the "Criticism" section involving colleagues criticizing what they viewed as Lupica's hypocritical position on the issue of steroids and Whitlock's allegations about Lupica's involvement in his firing from the Sports Reporters program. It is important to note that Wknight94, unlike the misrepresentations made above by BB, did not contest the inclusion of this material and simply made edits to the wording. After reading these edits, I did not think they were of good quality from a stylistic viewpoint, as they read rather awkwardly, and I reverted them, sans the contested material on Lisa Olson. I also made sure to rephrase wording that Wknight94 had previously objected to (e.g., replacing "morally indignant" attitude toward steroid use with "tough stance"; taking pains to say that Whitlock's claims were "accusations" and not fact, etc.). This wasn't enough for Wknight94, who seemed to feel only he could edit the article. He reverted back and I, concluding from both our prior dealings and his current reverts that he was simply trying to assert ownership of the article and eliminate any good faith edits I made, reverted again — and was then reverted myself by BB and blocked by you.

I think that if you'd take a look at the article's talk page, you'd see that my claims that Wknight94 — and BB — are trying to assert ownership over the article have merit. These two editors have a long history, documented on the talk page, of censoring any type of criticism of Lupica from the article. They have been involved in multiple disputes with multiple editors, each time trying to impose their version by brute tandem force. Regardless of whether the contested criticism is cited to a reliable mainstream source ( The New York Times, ESPN.com, The New York Post, and YahooSports.com have all been employed), they will always invent some bogus pretext for why it shouldn't be included and revert anyone who thinks otherwise. The arrogant edit summary Wknight94 gave for his response to your message on his talk page is indicative of that ownership attitude: "here's a deal" [2] — a conditional acceptance of your relatively gentle admonishment that "[he] should be more careful when reverting in the future." He simply doesn't think the rules apply to him, especially within the context of the Lupica article. You accused me of POV-pushing, but I think if you looked at the matter more closely you'd see that Wknight94 and BB are far more guilty of that charge than I am.- PassionoftheDamon ( talk) 21:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I made an edit with rollback that another editor (the same one who complained about it a year ago, actually) thinks was inappropriate. I rollbacked an edit in which an IP editor deleted a reference with no comment. Could you weigh in on whether this was ok or not? [3] Mc JEFF ^(talk) 04:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, I'm not actually sure about that one, but I'm erring to a good faith removal. Undo should probably have been used there. Given that this is the article that caused issues before, may I suggest you use undo in all cases, except for obvious vandalism? Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. There's a combo situation at ANI, suspected copyright infringer with maybe some socking (and maybe not). I'm working on the copyright side of things, since that's where I hang out with my mop, but I have done practically nothing with socks. As it develops, though, it's looking more likely to me.

I'm trying to find an experienced sock admin to help out, as it's been listed for a few days and hasn't attracted much response. I'm afraid it's quite likely to be a TLDR. (In fact, what first caught my eye about it was the sheer size of the edit. It's huge!) It's here, and the person who opened the section is not an English Wiki regular, but evidently hangs out at the Armenian WP.

I asked User:Luk to take a look on its first day out, and his response is here. Basically, it's plausible but check-user can't confirm.

Since then, the original complainant has added some additional behavioral evidence.

Would it be possible for you to lend a hand there? Somebody needs to look into the sock puppetry investigations, and I'm not sure if we should courtesy-list the matter at SPI for our Armenian Wiki visitor or handle it where it sits.

The copyright allegation, imo, is quite a serious one, since if it is true it means a user has deliberately committed copyright fraud by registering in the username of a photographer to help him steal that photographer's images. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be happy to look into it. PeterSymonds ( talk) 11:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm strongly of the opinion that Neftchi ( talk · contribs) = RetlawSnellac ( talk · contribs). The fact that both users edit from the same country, albeit different locations, is telling. Both users display obvious behavioural similarities. Here, Retlaw moves a page with the summary "correction in name", the same summary used by Neftchi here. There are general edit summary similarities, which are in no way conclusive, but are curious nonetheless. Here (Retlaw) uses the summary "see talk", used by Neftchi on a number of occasions. Both Retlaw and Neftchi use the summary "rv" quite similarly, for example here (Neftchi) and here (Retlaw). They generally use no caps for summaries except for proper nouns, for example here and here. Other behavioural evidence presented at the ANI thread is also interesting, and while checkuser can't technically rule one way or the other, I'm convinced that their behaviour suggests one person. Is that helpful to you? Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 12:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) But if you can help further, what would you suggest be done now? Should I make a summary of this at SPI? I'm currently investigating copyright concerns with Neftchi and seeing some evidence of intentional copyright fraud going back some time. However, as with the sock question, it's not yet conclusive. I'm planning to list my findings at WP:PUF. -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

An SPI documenting this might be helpful, but it's up to you. As for the two users, I'd perhaps suggest an indefinite block for RetlawSnellac, and a shorter block for Neftchi (maybe a week or two weeks, given past history). Of course, if the image concerns become conclusively in favour of deception and possible fraud, an indefinite block should be considered for both users. A PUF discussion specifically focused on the images might be helpful in that regard. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 13:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Once I wrap my image investigation, it may be a bit clearer. Needle in the haystack stuff! -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course. You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds ( talk) 13:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a commons admin too. If you need something done there, explain what, who and why on my commons talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

←Just wanted to thank you again for your help with this (and your extremely thorough review). I see that you've closed out the sock portion of things, and it seems like the image issue will shortly follow (barring, of course, a surprise communication to OTRS). -- Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool. You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Real user keep creating this page to get deleted. He is a noteworthy person in the state of IL.-- Loudes13 ( talk) 18:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It was deleted per consensus at an articles for deletion discussion. If you dispute the legitimacy of my close, please discuss it at deletion review. I will not, at present, recreate this article. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I had much relavant content and links to my work on Wikipedia on this page. Thank you. Deepmath ( talk) 18:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

FYI: the page was restored by Deepmath himself. Maybe you would like to comment on MfD. Sjö ( talk) 04:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You blocked 217.44.213.76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for block evasion per WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Changstafolife, and it's back editing the same articles as soon as the block expired.— Kww( talk) 02:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Re-blocked for 2 weeks. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 13:59, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya. I`m kind of new to this. I updated my Wikipedia page, but then it got changed back. The details there currently are not true. I`m not sure who even made this page.Anyway,i`d like the information to be accurate. Thanks. ----Ryan Vella —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomstrongs ( talk • contribs) 04:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry you are finding inaccuracies; I'll try and assist. You currently have to options: One option would be to post the inaccuracies on the talk page, and they might be updated quickly (or not, depending on who's watching the page). The second (and better) option would be to email the details to info-enwikimedia.org for a fast response. Of course, you can always post inaccuracies here, and I'll rectify them promptly, but it's up to you. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 14:03, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi- I see that you confirmed the OTRS permission on this image. Could you add the right license tag? One isn't on the image right now, but I'm assuming the E-mail mentions one. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 15:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I completely forgot. Done. Thanks, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Great, thank you. – Drilnoth ( T •  C •  L) 15:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please delete Alan Goulden as a redirect to a page you just deleted. Don't forget to always check what links to the page you are deleting. Thanks :D - Kingpin ¹³ ( talk) 15:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you notice this twitter feed which linked to the AfD and seems to have been posted by the nominator? I'm sure this isn't allowed and it certainly isn't in the spirit of AfD. Smartse ( talk) 15:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

@Kingpin, done. :) I thought a flagged adminbot came round to delete broken redirects so we didn't have to. Might have been deflagged though...

@Smartse, no I didn't see that, but all those voting delete are established members of the community; many active in DYK. As such, I doubt that twitter post had any influence on the discussion. But even so, yes, that is certainly not allowed. Do feel free to report any suspicious AfDs at WP:AN for review. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee has posted about this at WP:ANI - can you now delete Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Search_for_Alan_Goulden which is where we found out that it had been said in the first place. I couldn't find a suitable CSD category for it. Thanks Smartse ( talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

oops, no need - didn't realise that it was posted on the talk page! Smartse ( talk) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

In case you think I'm a loon, I never noticed this section before I made the postings below. MickMacNee ( talk)

I'm thinking of taking this to DRV, would you care to elaborate your closure, particularly, how this article is in any way a routine news item, as there was significant opposition to the delete opinions that it was. Yes, news reports do not confer notability alone, however, despite contrary opinions, this event, and subsequent investigation, is not a routine occurance in the UK and has had long term consequences for police procedures, and no evidence otherwise was given that it was simply an everyday thing. Opinions that articles need to stand the 'ten year test' just should not be encouraged at Afd, as they have no grounding in any policy - I've just seen news reports of a memorial of a bus crash that happened 40 years ago, I have no doubt that would not have an article. It certainly is not trivia, a memorial, or a criminal act, in any conceivable way, so I can't see any other reason for your closure than agreeing with this over-reaching of NOT#NEWS in what many others would quite easily close as no consensus. And when one opinator even cites IAR as a deletion rationale, I have serious pause. MickMacNee ( talk) 17:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, I'm going to have to endorse Peter's decision here. Going by numbers, consensus was on the side of deletion; an examination of the various arguments advanced during the discussion confirms this. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 17:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

For the numbers game, see below. And it is generally helpful, if you point to strength of argument as a factor, to point out which ones and why, because some are relevant, and some are totally bogus. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One keep vote asserts that abnormality equates to notability; this is untrue, and is not supported by policy. Another addresses some of the concerns raised by the nominator, but does not explain why the article should be kept. On the other hand, the editors arguing for deletion cited established policies such as WP:NOT#NEWS. Taking these factors into consideration, it is all but clear that consensus was to delete. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 18:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One delete vote cited NOT#NEWS on the basis that they 'see no abnormality', so if you're going to apply policy, do it equally. Which also means discounting the delete votes that cite totally irrelevant policies. Anyway, can we keep this to the opinion of the closer for now? MickMacNee ( talk) 18:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

And I've just noticed the Afd talk page, where an IP seems to claim innappropriate canvassing took place by Dalejenkins ( talk · contribs) here, if the twitter account anemoneproject is AnemoneProjectors ( talk · contribs). Infact, I'll be raising that separately at WP:ANI, as AnemoneProjectors seems to be an admin. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

( edit conflict)x2 - The general consensus was that this article had secondary sources but was not worthy of an article. It is correct that many articles have sources as a result of a certain incident, but that does not necessarily make them "notable". The arguments for delete generally focused on that point, and reading the article, I didn't see a particular reason to ignore the consensus that was emerging. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:04, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, this is just vagueness. Please give some specific examples of who succesfully argued that this is not notable and how, and why the significant rebuttals do not count toward a no consensus result. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite your rebuttals, nobody changed their opinion. Some comments from the deletes:

• "Someone entirely unnotable dies. A group of equally unnotable people search for him and don't find him. They get disciplined. So what? The entire event is still totally unremarkable."
• "..coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, but that's only because it's a news event, and all news events have significant coverage due to the number of news websites."
• "I see no indication of anything that makes this particular missing person case sufficiently different from the commonplace to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia."
• "Newsworthy, but not notable."
• "This is the event about a non-notable individual who doesn't warrant a page of their own. Sorry, but I feel this article fails BLP requirements for inclusion."

From the keep comments, I see:

• "I think that this is notable due to the unusual case of the police spending weeks looking for someone and them then being found so close." (A valid point, but the argument is weak...I didn't see it as a particularly strong argument in favour of inclusion.)

Both Kingpin and yourself made valid points, but consensus was against you. Your rebuttals failed to persuade those voting delete. The rebuttals to Orlady were also rebutted – one rebuttal was only a by-the-by, and did not comment on his main argument. Orlady finished by replying: ""Reading this article, I see no indication of anything that makes this particular missing person case sufficiently different from the commonplace to make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia." That is still the case." There was no reason to doubt the accuracy of those voting delete, and therefore I judged consensus to be in favour of deletion. PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You should doubt the accuracy of those who were unconvinced, because quite clearly they were not commenting on the whole contents of the article, or the reasons why sources considered it notable. This is simply not good enough. If we are not to use the notability standard to judge what is and is not a 'run of the mill' missing person case, then what are we to use? Not that the main point of the article is a missing person case, or a BLP, or anything else it was wrongly described as to claim it then did not meet irrelevant standards - it is (was) about third party coverage of how the Police handled it, and the consequences of their handling of it, namely a third party force investigation (which is not a routine or run of the mill event in the UK), and permanent changes to procedures. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, most of this is your opinion; the opinions of those in favour of deletion would obviously differ. If you want to gather further opinions, I suggest starting a DRV. I judged the consensus of the comments, and in your opinion those comments were inaccurate, and you are entitled to that opinion. Consensus was against you though. PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the main reasons I am pissed off about this closure, is I didn't even bother to go looking for more sources to improve the article, because I honestly thought any closer would see through the various innaccuracies in the Afd, such as describing it as a BLP etc, or describing it as a simple run of the mill news report about 7 officers being disciplined. I wish I had now. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

[EC] Comment: If the article had indicated that the incident "had long term consequences for police procedures" (which MickMacNee now says it had) and had told about those consequences, I might have offered a different opinion. However, the article contained nothing of the sort. -- Orlady ( talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

One of the sources said it clear as day. If it wasn't in the article, maybe that's my oversight for not noticing, but you should not be assuming I am making things up and thus ignoring my points, because as we see, it is apparently the inneffectiveness of these rebuttals that has led to deletion. MickMacNee ( talk) 18:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• A report into the force's handling of the case has now been made public....it was compiled by senior officers from the Strathclyde force....It made five recommendations which it said should be implemented in order to minimise the chance of anything similar happening in the future. As I can no longer see the article, PS can you please confirm whether this source, or text to this effect, was in the article, and if it was, whether your belief in the accuracy of delete opinions is correct, and thus any failure on my part to convince them they were wrong should not be given undue weight in the closure, in the same way as any opinion quoting irrelevant policies or no policies would also be discounted. MickMacNee ( talk) 19:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for following up, Mick. That BBC news story was cited in the article. Regarding police actions in the aftermath of the search, the deleted article said:

"After the body was found, police formally disciplined warned four officers, and three others received counselling. Police also issued a public report on the force's handling of the case. The report uncovered several shortcomings, and mistakes made by the team leaders, including improper searching of the area around his house on more than one occasion, and poor recording. As well as disciplining 7 officers, the police made a full apology to the Goulden family."

The deleted article did not mention the "five recommendations." However, the BBC story does not say anything about what those recommendations were, and I don't think that the existence of 5 recommendations would have caused me to conclude that the incident was sufficiently important to be included in Wikipedia. -- Orlady ( talk) 20:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It was in the article, and is a valid source; but that was not enough to persuade those in favour of deletion that the topic merited an article. Let me just make something clear: I never said "the inneffectiveness of these rebuttals" was the reason for deletion. I merely commented that your rebuttals failed to change the tide of consensus. AfD is about judging consensus, and the consensus was in favour of deletion. I don't know what else I can say on the issue. The source was there for all to see; it was not added just before the close, or before the delete comments came through. People made their judgement by reading the same article that is currently deleted. PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I do not know you personally but I am disappointed that you would take it upon your self to ban me based on one user's dubious opinion and unverifiable information I have never seen. Especially without ever contacting me.

To the claims:

1. I am not aware of any locations I have in other countries. I have a dymanic IP address and ATT would not be routing my calls throught the IPs you based your decision on. Besides, my account has never logged in from anywhere but my office.

2. I am not aware that having opinions similare to others means I am to be banned.

I need my account restored and would appreciate you notifying me of any issues about it in the future before taking action.

Steve aka trotline —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.216.241 ( talk) 20:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the name sounds familiar, but I can't find anything in my deletion log that matches that name. Could you possibly refresh my memory by giving the exact name of the page I deleted? Much appreciated. Thank you. PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking CarlosJohnstone, he was getting on my nerves :) -- Scythre ^Talk _Contribs 22:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You blocked User:Marktreut for edit warring for his actions at Lupin III and The Fox and the Hound, as well as his sockpuppeting. He is back from his block and is once again trying to restore his bad edits to these same two articles despite the block and there being no consensus for those edits. He is also appearing to either be sockpuppeting again, or helping Bambifan101. From his own remarks, it seems like he didn't care that he was blocked at all and intends to continue acting like this in the future. [4]-- Collectonian ( talk · contribs) 01:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Very civil considering you just closed it down! What a suprise you got your own day!!! It's like me saying to you don't be to disheartened it isn't my fault even though I admitted to closing down your account!

With compliments.

DAFMM ( talk), 15th August 2009.

You're welcome. PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination, I will do my best to live up to what you said about me.. MBisanz ^talk 18:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You're most welcome. A well-deserved result. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, just a heads-up: you blocked this user for sockpuppetry the other day (72hrs from 10 August). It turns out he continued to sock right during that block time ( Rugovani ( talk · contribs) on 13 August, continuing the same edits on Battle of Aračinovo as those of the earlier sock Rugovan ( talk · contribs)), and now that the block is formally expired he again continues disruptive edit-warring through IPs ( 93.217.191.163 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) and finally again with his main account. The whole thing is coupled with some pretty blatant ethnic POV-editing and sterile revert-warring. Time for a longer block? Incidentally, one might also question whether it's a legitimate user name, since the UÇK is a rather controversial organisation after all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the request at Talk:Sneakernight (song) because you might know more about the background to this article and the AfD. Thanks — Martin ( MSGJ ·  talk) 08:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As it was over a year ago, I've gone ahead and removed the protection. The redirect was continually being created as an article, so I "salted" the redirect per the AfD consensus. This probably doesn't matter now. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Jake will become an admin, but rather than just pile on, I'm trying to do my homework. I ran across something unrelated to Jake, but I'll ask because I'm puzzled. I reviewed Jake's AFD results, intending to look at some of the close calls, to see how he contributed. I looked at AfD worst songs. Jake voted "delete" and the decision in your table says "delete", but I checked and the article is still there. I came back to the discussion, and see Julian's conclusion is "keep". So I'm puzzled about the disparity between the table summary and the apparent actual result.

Similarly, for afd Consulate blah blah, the table says "keep" but the AFD page says "delete". In fact, it was redirected.

I see the tool is beta, and if it just isn't quite fully tweaked, I'm fine with that, but I am puzzled to see the difference between the indicated result on the table, and reality.-- SPhilbrick T 15:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some enquiries, and I'm told on good authority that the tool is apparently buggy. Apologies for the inconvenience; I didn't actually notice that the results were listed. It was intended to be a list of AfDs for convenience. I'm sure Betacommand ( talk · contribs) (the tool's developer) will be able to provide further insight into the problem. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"buggy" is a perfectly acceptable answer - I was worried I was missing something, now I feel I wasn't. However, I will try a drop a note with the developer. Thanks -- SPhilbrick T 16:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It got so bad yesterday that an editor apparently thought I was solely responsible for handling requests on that page, and wanted to know why I wasn't responding to his requests. Enigma ^msg 16:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem. I used to be quite active there; other duties requiring more time took me away. I'll try and get active again as much as I can. :) Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for protecting the Degrassi: The Next Generation (season 9). I am aware of the regularity of complaints about "protecting the wrong version", however, I made it clear that this is not a content dispute. This is vandalism by addition of false information and now you have protected this vandalism. Had it simply been a case of a content dispute I would not have requested protection. This is a page I encountered while on vandal patrol.

Please, don't take my word for it, take the time to read what is being added and consider whether this uncited drivel is a likely future plot line in a teen tv drama.

• Johnny rapes Jenna for telling and then Sav gets a machete and slices Johnny's head off.
• Holly J gives Blue a hand job in the art room.
• Derek finally gets some... up the butt
• Jane likes sucking on Spinner's disco stick.
• Emma and Kelly play strip poker with Spinner, Manny and Jay. All 5 of them have a night they will never forget

Thanks. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I undid the edit. I can't really understand why this was protected as a content dispute in the first place. Strange. Okay, I'll make a change to the template. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt action. I think the original protection was added by an admin who was mislead by the variety of editors (sockpuppets I suspect) involved. -- Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I see...oh well. Thanks for notifying me. PeterSymonds ( talk) 16:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I did click the wrong option in the dropdown menu by accident, I just figured there's no point messing in the protect log. I also suspect some sock puppetry, but since all the accounts were just a day old, I semi'ed hoping that in two days they would get bored. Now it's pretty much clear that they all belong to User:Boycottthecaf who has a history of screwing with the Degrassi pages and adding his own fansite (at least, until the url was Blacklisted). Matthewedwards :  Chat  22:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Could you at least explain to Noloop that the comments are unnacceptable. He/she will not listen to me. Abce2| Aww nuts! Wribbit!(Sign here) 18:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be best just to drop it for now. They've been blocked. I'll keep an eye on the situation though. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 18:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I notice that you also mediate at WP:RPP and would appreciate your opinion here, as I feel that the initial reviewer did not read the nomination correctly. Thanks, DJ 18:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia has been testing out uploading by URL for admins. This would really help DYK admins because there's no more need for a download to your computer. Do you know if this is activated on Commons or here? (I notice you're a test.wiki admin; it should be activated there) Shubinator ( talk) 22:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not activated on general Wikimedia projects yet, as far as I know. If you want to test it out on testwiki, let me know and you can have the sysop bit. PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can help testing out. Shubinator ( talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Shubinator ( talk) 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

NW recommended that I ask you for help on the puzzling copyright issue associated with this image file, which I reference in my article under construction at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Music43lover/Giorgi_Latsabidze. Giorgi would like this picture to be released to the public domain and placed on Commons, and he and I believe that he is the copyright owner. (But we are not attourneys.) This picture was taken by a bystander at the request of Giorgi Latsabidze using Giorgi's camera. The identity of the picture taker is unknown. The permissions reviewer denied the request to accept this as a free image, stating that the true copyright holder is the unknown picture taker, even though this individual was simply acting at the request of Latsabidze and provided no artistic input or any other input that could not have been provided by using the automatic timed shutter release on the camera, had noone volunteered to snap the picture. If this unknown individual is indeed the rightful copyright holder, even though he has never possessed or even seen the picture, how is it possible to obtain a licence from them to use the picture? The message from permissions suggested that we substitute some other free image if we cannot obtain a licence. However, this image documents a unique historical occasion in Latsabidze's life and career, and a suitable substitute image is impossible. Please let me know if there is still a way to have this image released to commons as a free image under the present circumstances, or failing that, how I might tag it as an acceptable non-free image for use in my article. Music43lover ( talk) 22:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm what was discussed in the OTRS ticket. Unfortunately, as the image currently stands, it will not be possible to release this image under a free license. The copyright still belongs to the copyright holder. Take, for example, the British Royal Family. They commission photographers to take the photographs, but at the end of the day, the copyright holder is still the photographer. Unless the rights are relinquished, the copyright will belong to the photographer. As for fair-use, I'm afraid this will fail the non-free content criterion #1, which states that, if the person is living, the photograph is replaceable by a free image. Sorry I cannot be of assistance here. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That was a premature snow delete, and thanks for your reversal btw. Snowing it after only 6.5 hours gives very little room for discussion, it's only because I happen to stay up late that I was able to comment. Power.corrupts ( talk) 22:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I reversed out of courtesy, but a potentially problematic BLP with so many deletes generally results in a quick deletion. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 22:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you just blocked User:Kraft. as a sockpuppet of User:TownDown. Would it be possible for you to unblock this user? His contributions are quite different from TownDown (Kraft. focusses on pop music while User:TownDown's edits mostly deal with geography and Mexican heraldry.) Also, their writing styles are different and so I do not believe that Kraft. is a puppet of TownDown. Spacepotato ( talk) 01:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

 Already done. Thanks, PeterSymonds ( talk) 01:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you remain interested in the Janet Allison article. In case you are I suggested this {{ afd}} should have been allowed to run its full course on the (2nd) closing administrator's talk page.

Cheers! Geo Swan ( talk) 12:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused over the block placed on Flygongengar and his IP, as a result of the investigation Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Flygongengar/Archive. The report was originally filed attempting to connect the IP with Sweetfornow ( talk · contribs); that connection was ruled to be "unlikely" by the checkuser handling the case. Flygongengar had previously been blocked for sockpuppetry over unrelated issues a few months ago. I looked at the IP's edits and Flygongengar's, and what I found did not look to be of any concern: they both edited Hercules (disambiguation) but not in an edit war, and it's clear that Flygongengar mainly does remember to log in. There was one personal attack in the evidence but that wouldn't justify such long blocks on its own. Sweetfornow, at least, was edit warring, but I don't see that Flygongengar was. Am I missing something? Because from my point of view, it looks like you got confused and blocked Flygongengar and his IP over Sweetfornow's behavior, and did not block Sweetfornow for it. Mango juice ^talk 15:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

That case was incredibly confusing; there was some confusion over the checkuser, and that resulted in an additional block for both, then an unblock, and then a reblock of the original account. It was originally considered that all those users were the same. The case was then moved over from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JasonFrankTed, where the IP was originally involved in sockpuppetry to avoid scrutiny. It looked to me like the IP was once again doing that once again for an unrelated incident (personal attacks, blanking talk pages), and then another checkuser result was posted (on-wiki) as "unlikely", I undid my blocks, but did not unblock the IPs or the user. I'll do so now. PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Aargh, then I replaced the block for Sweetfornow onto Flygongengar. Sigh. Oh well, hopefully this sort of confusion won't reoccur. PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, a very confusing situation. :) Mango juice ^talk 15:50, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

User Talk:81.36.174.39 decided to blank this blocked suspected sockpuppets User:SHEIKH GOUS UDDIN AHMED userpage so if you would like to keep an eye on it I thought I would inform you seen as you were the blocking admin. Corruptcopper ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll take a look. PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the IP was originally blocked as per the first SHEIKH GOUS UDDIN AHMED case in June. I have reblocked it for block evasion. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Had an edit conflict their was just about to say I had cross checked it with that IP that reverted it and looked the same Corruptcopper ( talk) 15:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Peter,

Just noticed the block. If I may some words on his/her behalf: Admittedly, Historicist has somewhat of an edit warring problem, but s/he has made innumerable contributions to WP, has created a significant number of articles, including a bunch of DYK's. It's within your discretion to block the parent sock, so I beseech you to check his overall contributions and see whether his shortcomings clearly outweigh his positive contributions. Sincerely, -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Peter! New correct historical map is on line, maybe is clever to put it on the sites of Ukraine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kiev_Rus_Kyiv_Rus%27_Ukraine_land_1220_1240_copy.png Original map source: http://izbornyk.org.ua/litop/map_1240.htm

Thanks and best regards! -- SeikoEn ( talk) 07:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking into it. :) Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Peter, hope you're doing well. Hey, would you want to keep an eye on Ben Roethlisberger for a couple days? It's had some vandalism lately, but prolly not enough to protect yet. I know it's an "American sports" BLP, but he is a pretty high-profile player here in the US. I'm trying to watch it too, but I've been spotty here on WP the last few days. That, and my watchlist has gotten too big lately .... lol. I trimmed out a couple hundred yesterday, but need to get it back down to maybe 4-5 hundred again (it's up around 800 now I think). I really need to set up a couple "watchlist" pages, and clean out my list. I know I owe you a few "keep an eye on this" things too - so anytime you want me to add one to mine, just let me know. Cheers and best ;) — Ched :  ?  09:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you're in the UK, you owe me a pint. Added. PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed and acceptable ... :) — Ched :  ?  00:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been getting into patrolling new images today, and I've come across a tricky case. File:LAU-seal.png and File:LAU-new-Logo.jpg both look like logos of Lebanese American University. Both are tagged with cc-by-sa-3.0. LUA-seal is used in the article, and is the right file format for a logo, so I was thinking of tagging LAU-new-logo as a duplicate and updating the tags on LAU-seal to reflect that it's a copyrighted logo. However, LAU-seal is not low-resolution by any standards. Advice? Shubinator ( talk) 23:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that needs a verified permission. Best thing is to tag the images with {{ npd}}, in case the LAU is really releasing these images under that license. That gives a chance for the person to email OTRS. Chances are those are copyright violations though. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. Shubinator ( talk) 23:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like Ladgy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked twice for the same infraction. He was blocked by EyeSerene for a blatant case of socking. That block expired. I opened an SPI report on him based on the suspected relationship between him and Mjp2515. When a checkuser was run on him for WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Mjp2515, the only socks the checkuser came up with were those from the previous problem. You then proceeded to indef block him, despite the fact that he hasn't socked since his original block expired.— Kww( talk) 03:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's probably as a result of an error I made, due to my inexperience with the tool, when looking at the CU data. (later pointed out to me, and corrected) Basically, yell at me, not him. Regards. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Not yelling at anyone. It's an easy enough mistake, because there doesn't seem to have been a sockpuppet report opened on the original case. I just would like someone with the bit to unblock Ladgy, because he served his time and hasn't repeated.— Kww( talk) 04:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for the clarification. PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Satanoid aka User:Morbid Fairy has returned as this user. I think you have blocked him a number of times already. Thanks -- Sikh-History 14:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, it seems that you semi-protected Bigfoot a year ago (almost exactly) and it has never been unprotected. Also there is no indication on the page that it is still protected - I was really confused about why there was no edit tab. Do you think you could un-protect it? I see a lot of small things that I would love to fix. Surfer83 ( talk) 22:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! The semi-protection means that autoconfirmed users can edit it, but IPs and new users can't. You seem to have met the amount of edits required to be autoconfirmed, but you just have to wait 3 more days until you'll automatically get the autoconfirmed status. I'd suggest you just wait a few days until you edit it. I just added a protection template to the page (it shows as a lock in the top right). Peter might unprotect it, though. I'll leave it up to him ;-) Killiondude ( talk) 22:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the further info and for clarifying the page. I don't know all the background but it seems like having a page protected for an entire year might not be necessary. Surfer83 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC).

Hi there. An arbitration case has recently been opened involving User:Noloop, and he was listed at this sockpuppet investigation page. I looked at the block log for User:Free Hans, and noticed your comments there. Could you help shed any light on this? The arbitration case evidence page is here. Thanks. Carcharoth ( talk) 19:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done as requested. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:47, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The Helping Hand Barnstar

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		OK, I admit it, this is WAY overdue. I really do appreciate all the help you've given me Peter, and I'm sorry I've been so lax in saying so. You're tops in my books buddy! — Ched :  ?  03:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Haha, you're welcome as always. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

Could you please unprotect the "Championship Manager Online" article? It should (probably) redirect to the "CM-Online" article, which has had plenty of relevant content added since this article was initially removed.

The CM-Online article is also linked to from the "Championship Manager series" article.

Thank you in advance, Kristofer

Esset09 ( talk) 21:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know. PeterSymonds ( talk) 21:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

217.44.213.76 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) popped right back up after his block expired. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Changstafolife may refresh your memory of this particular editor.— Kww( talk) 01:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I've issued a longer (three month) block. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 01:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Logged in today and the rollback feature no longer works for me, also the request for speedy deletion, the warnings etc. Has something been revoked (I have no notice of this on my talk page) or is it some kind of error? Cheers Flappychappy ( talk) 15:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC) Flappychappy

It was never given to you, apparently. Maybe you had it through Twinkle or something. Anyway, I've switched the right on "officially" as it were. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 15:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

What's this block about? -- jpgordon ^{::==( o )} 17:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

That IP range was involved in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Wtcsurvivor. All the accounts were blocked. Early August, a complaint of returned harassment from this user. Knowing from the case that he frequently hops IPs, I blocked the range for a month. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 17:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, Neoge can't edit due to this block. Should I soften the block, or give him an IPBE? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I've softened it. There seemed no pressing reason why it shouldn't have been anon-only, so that was probably a mistake on my part. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 10:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for having unblocked my IP. User talk:Neoge, 1 September 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 13:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC).

This page is an archive of past discussions. 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.