User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Restricted-use media list

I was just made aware by Platonides that, while the code is in place to fix the bug, it must still be merged and deployed before it can be used on "live Wikipedia". Platonides expects that to happen before the RfC ends. I just wanted you to be abreast of it (no pun intended). – PAINE ELLSWORTH ^CLIMAX! 14:09, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I don't think there's any hurry. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:13, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Smile mask syndrome

It's been about two weeks since you made some additions to the underlying article for this DYK nomination, with the edit summary "more to come". Are you planning to get back to it soon? Or should this be remanded to Piotrus for him to work on? One way or another, the nomination needs to be making progress, so it doesn't get closed for inaction. Please respond on the nomination form. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I've been neglecting this. I will have some time later on today, though, so I'll do it then. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thank you for replying so quickly. When it's ready, please drop a note on the template page, so we can get a new reviewer. Thanks again! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Piotrus and I have sorted it all out now, and I've left a message on the template page as you suggested. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Datatune

Hi! If you give me 1-2 weeks, I'll locate objective and reliable sources which will backup the information about this product. The time is needed because this is an historical page, as this product is no longer commercial. Thanks for your understanding. Michael Haephrati (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. The deletion discussion will remain open for one week, and if the consensus isn't clear after that, it will be relisted. The minimum amount of time you have is one week, and the maximum is probably three. If you find appropriate sources, I'd be happy for the article to be kept, but as I said, I couldn't find any online. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Hey, Mr. Stradivarius, thanks for rejecting the tag. I know A7 doesn't apply to software, but I mistakenly thought it was web code, which would be covered under A7. I should have looked at the screenshots and would have seen that it's standalone software. Thanks also for your follow-up in prodding and AfD'ing the article. Sorry for the bother.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:36, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

No worries. After this, you only have four points left on your rouge admin quota for this month though. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:05, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Society Barnstar

(barnstar archived)

Thank you! I'm flattered. I know that there are many more Wikipedians doing much more than I am to improve knowledge of non-Western societies, but I'm glad that I've been able to help in some small way. For your part, that was probably the most pleasant content dispute that I've ever been in. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

It's a good one; all the best end up on improved article and new wiki friends :) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Update

FYI, please see this question and answer about the Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes article. Keahapana (talk) 23:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the update. Sounds like a sensible course of action to me. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:07, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Need your help

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, my english is poor. If I give you a little article, could you correct it? Kind regards. Selucreh1 (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Selucreh! Maybe - what's the article? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:22, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you for your answer. Here is the article: the Policical Regime of Turkey. The french version: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A9gime_politique_de_la_Turquie Kind regards. Selucreh1 (talk) 9:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Article text

===Political regime=== This article presents various informations on the political regime of Turkey.</br> According to United Nations, « the majority of States in the world today describe themselves as democratic. However, democracy is a dynamic social and political system whose ideal functioning is never fully “achieved”. Democratization, furthermore, is neither linear nor irreversible and thus both state institutions and citizens must monitor and maintain oversight of this process. Accordingly, all countries, as well as the international community itself, could benefit from continued strengthening of, and support to, their democratic processes. » <ref>http://www.un.org/democracyfund/Docs/UNSG%20Guidance%20Note%20on%20Democracy.pdf</ref> Evaluate the political regime of a country is not obvious, insofar as, up to now, no international agency whose judgment is not questioned enter into the spirit of the game. But we have some indicators emanating from the public and private sector and from the associations. These indicators give rise to many debates, at least they have the merit of existing.</br> The purpose of this section is not to impose a point of view by anoncing that "the political regime of Turkey is “... ".</br> The aim is to present objectively to the readers all known assessments, leaving them: *the choice to check the reliability of the analysis; *the freedom to form their own ideas; *the freedom to add other indicators, especially if they are contradictory. ====Assessments by local actors or organizations of which Turkey is a member==== =====Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)===== Turkey is a founding member of the OSCE (1973). According to the OSCE, in 2012, the number of jailed journalists in Turkey has almost doubled (95 from 57<ref>http://www.osce.org/fom/89371</ref>: world record). </br> The main points raised by the OSCE in this note are: *most journalists are in prison based on the following laws: **The Anti-Terror Law of Turkey (also known as Terörle Mücadele Yasasi, TMY), Articles 5 and 7 relating to articles of the Criminal Code on terrorist offences and organizations or assisting members of or making propaganda in connection with such organizations, as well as the lengthening of sentences; **The Criminal Code of Turkey (also known as Türk Ceza Kanunu, TCK), Article 314 on establishing, commanding or becoming member of an armed organization with the aim of committing certain offences. *Courts often impose exceptionally long imprisonment sentences. The longest conviction is 166 years and the longest jail sentence sought for a journalist is 3,000 years. Many journalists face double life sentences if convicted, some without possibility for parole.<ref>http://www.osce.org/fom/89371</ref> *Courts do not tend to grant pre-trial release of defendants. There is concern that arrests and long pre-trial detentions without conviction are used as a form of intimidation.<ref>http://www.osce.org/fom/89371</ref> *Pre-trial detentions remain very long. In some cases journalists held in prison for up to three years are still awaiting trial. Some journalists have been imprisoned for more than five years while their trial is ongoing.<ref>http://www.osce.org/fom/89371</ref> *Journalists often face several trials and are often convicted for several offences. There is one journalist who faces 150 court cases.<ref>http://www.osce.org/fom/89371</ref> *Media outlets reporting about sensitive issues (including terrorism or anti-government activities) are often regarded by the authorities as the publishing organs of illegal organizations. Courts often consider reporting about such issues as equal to supporting them.<ref>http://www.osce.org/fom/89371</ref> *The reform of related laws has not occured, despite statements made by the authorities about the necessity for such reforms. Not only do the laws need to be reformed, but their implementation as well. Court practices interpreting laws remain widely varied throughout the country.<ref>http://www.osce.org/fom/89371</ref> ====Foreign assessments==== =====The Economist Group===== [[File:Evolution of Turkey's Democraty Index.png|thumb|Evolution of Turkey's Democraty Index - Source : The Economist Group]] The [[Economist Group]] is conducting research to rank countries according to their political regime. Four types of political regime are defined: *advanced democracies *imperfect democracies *hybrid regimes *authoritarian regimes In 2011, according to The [[Economist Group]], the Democracy Index of Turkey is 5.73<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref>. At the global level, Turkey is ranked 88th<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref> and belongs to the group of countries with a "hybrid" political system. The democratic performence of Turkey is lower than Norway (9.8 points), France (7.7 points), Poland (7.12 points), Indonesia (6.53 points), Mali (6.36 points), Namibia (6.24 points), Zambia (6.19 points), Ghana (6.02 points), Bangladesh (5.86 points) and Malawi (5.84 point ).</br> This overall score is the average of 5 ratings: *the"electoral process and pluralism." The criteria taken into account in this section are free elections and free formation of political parties. Turkey score is relatively high (7.92 points) and is ranked 70th in the world behind Denmark (10 points), Portugal (9.58 points), France and Romania (9.58 points), Bulgaria (9.17 points), South Africa (8.75 points), Ghana (8.33 points) and Mali (8.25 points). *the "functioning of government." The criteria taken into account in this section are the degree of government transparency, the degree of government sovereignty (whether or not military or religious pressure) and the degree of corruption. Turkey score is relatively high (7.14 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref>) and is ranked 36th in the world behind Norway (9.64 points), South Africa (8.21 points), equal to France (7.14 points) and ahead of Italy (6.43 points), Romania (6.07 points) and Greece (5.71 points). *"political culture." The criteria taken into account in this section are the degree of democratic and political culture, the perception of leadership (authoritarian or democratic), perceptions of the role of the army, the perception of the role of technocrats, the perception of democracy and public order, the perception of the relationship between democracy and economic performance, the degree of separation between the temporal power (political) and timeless power (religious). Turkey gets an average score (5 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref>) and is ranked 84th in the world behind Sweden (9.38 points), Ireland (8.13 points), Botswana (6.88 points), Tunisia (6.25 points), Syria, Algeria and Senegal (5.63 points). *the "civil liberties." The criteria taken into account in this part are the degree of media freedom, the degree of expression and protest freedom, the degree of censorship, the freedom to form professional organisations and trade unions, the possibility of seizure of government by petition, the use of torture by the state , the degree of justice independence, the religious tolerance and the religious expression freedom, the degree to which citizens are treated equally under the law, the perception of security measures, the perception of individual freedoms and human rights, the existence or absence of racial or religious discrimination, the use of the theme of insecurity to reduce individual freedoms. Turkey gets a bad score (4.71 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref>) and is ranked 110th in the world behind Ireland (10 points), Chile (9.41 points), Brazil (9.12 points), Zambia (7.35 points), Mali and Bangladesh (7.06 points), Liberia (6.18 points), Pakistan (5.29 points) and Mauritania (5 points). *the "political participation." The criteria taken into account in this section are the abstention rate, the autonomy degree of religious and ethnic minorities, the women share in parliament and the citizens participation in political life. Turkey gets a bad score (3.89 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref>) and is ranked 102th in the world behind Netherlands (8.89 points), Palestine (7.78 points), Iraq and Lebanon (7.22 points), Tunisia (6.67 points), Mozambique (5.56 points), Egypt (5 points), Senegal and Yemen (4.44 points). Between 2008 and 2011, Turkey's overall score increased slightly (0.04 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref><ref>http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf</ref>) from 5.69 to 5.73 points. In terms of "government operations" advances are net (1.07 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref><ref>http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf</ref>). In terms of "electoral process & pluralism" and "political culture" no significant progress is observed (stabilization). However, Turkey is declining in terms of "political participation" (-0.55 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref><ref>http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf</ref>) and "civil liberties" (-0.29 points<ref>http://www.sida.se/Global/About%20Sida/S%C3%A5%20arbetar%20vi/EIU_Democracy_Index_Dec2011.pdf</ref><ref>http://graphics.eiu.com/PDF/Democracy%20Index%202008.pdf</ref>). Over this period, [[The Economist Group]], observes a deterioration of the media freedom and a deterioration the freedom of expression and encourage Turkish politicians in their efforts to drafting a new democratic and civil constitution. ====Freedom House==== [[Image:2010 Freedom House world map.svg|thumb|330px|Map reflecting the findings of Freedom House's 2010 survey, concerning the state of world freedom in 2009, which correlates highly with other measures of [[democracy]].<ref name="Casper">http://www.personal.psu.edu/ggc3/caspertufisPAweb.pdf</ref> {{legend|#179C86|Free (89)}} {{legend|#F6DD4F|Partly Free (62)}} {{legend|#706EA4|Not Free (42)}}]] Freedom House produces an annual global survey that assesses the state of global freedom as experienced by individuals. The survey measures freedom (freedom as the opportunity to act spontaneously in a variety of fields outside the control of the government and other potential domination centers) according to two broad categories: *political rights: they allow citizens to participate freely in the political process, including the right to vote freely for distinct alternatives in elections, to compete for public office in political parties and organizations, and to elect representatives who have a decisive impact on public policies and are accountable to their electorate *civil liberties: they include freedom of expression and belief, freedom of association and organization, rule of law, and personal autonomy without interference from the state. The survey does not rate governments or their performance, but rather the human rights in the real world and freedoms enjoyed by individuals. In 2012, Freedom House describes Turkey as a "partially democratic"<ref>http://www.freedomhouse.org/country/turkey</ref> country, as well as Morocco, Pakistan, Colombia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Mozambique, Madagascar, Tanzania, Bangladesh, Senegal and Uganda. The report worries about the authoritarian tendencies of political power through the indictment of politicians and journalistes<ref>http://www.freedomhouse.org/article/freedom-world-2012-arab-uprisings-and-their-global-repercussions</ref>.

I've replied over at User talk:Selucreh1. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mr. Stradivarius.

• I agree to merge this part to existing article Politics of Turkey
• Mr. Stradivarius, it is interesting to note that serious organization as European Commission and OSCE worried about the situation in Turkey. I didn't find any assessments with only positive or negative aspects. However, there is both positive and negative aspects :
  • positive aspects :
    • European Commission :
      • »Work on a new constitution started via a relatively democratic and participatory process »
      • »debates continue on topics perceived as sensitive, such as the Armenian issue or the role of the military «
      • »positive steps have been taken in terms of participative work on a new Constitution «
      • »the 2009 democratic opening «
    • The Economist Group
      • the"electoral process and pluralism." « Turkey score is relatively high «
      • "political culture." « Turkey score is relatively high «
      • Between 2008 and 2011, Turkey's overall score increased slightly (0.04 points) from 5.69 to 5.73 points. In terms of "government operations" advances are net

Actually, Mr. Stradivarius, after reading all this reports it seems to be a real lack of democracy in Turkey. I love this country and it is abnormal to see that people goes in jail due to their belives.

• I removed "The aim is to present objectively to the readers all known assessments" : i pasted this sentence to show people the neutrality of the text »

Mr. Stradivarius, Is it a correct English? I ask you that beceause i pasted this article but someone told me it is a bad english. So if there is english mistakes, could you correct them?

The modification are at User:Selucreh1/sandbox

Thank you for your point of view

Waiting for your recommendations

Kind regards

Selucreh1 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'm an idiot. Help? Yunshui 雲‍水 14:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Heading offline now. Please feel free to implement any fixes you think are required, whether it means reversing my actions or not; I've got complete faith in your ability to not screw it up as capably as me... And thanks, incidentally, for catching me in the act of incompetence before I did any further damage. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it took me a few tries to really learn how to do history merges too. It's pretty late here, but I might be able to have a look tomorrow. There's no rush, though - the process will be the same even if others edit the article in the meantime. What we really need to do, of course, is rewrite WP:HISTMERGE, as it's thoroughly confusing. Especially those images - I still don't really get them after having done several histmerges. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear; if I understood it properly (which I demonstrably do not) I'd be over at WP:HISTMERGE with a red pen right now. And yes, the images are the most confusing part! Yunshui 雲‍水 22:31, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

FOOM

FOOM indeed! I was trying to speedy delete that other page, but somehow thought I was on that page when I tagged it. Quite embarrassing! Michitaro (talk) 15:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Easy enough to do, don't worry, and I've done my fair share of misclicks in my time. Look on the bright side, at least neither of us have managed to delete the main page... By the way, if the barnstar is too explosive for you, you're free to remove it or to replace the image with a slightly less explosive one. (File:Bacon Explosion.jpg?) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I will keep it as a reminder of one of my sillier moments. Michitaro (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Moving free media tag

Much appreciated if you could look over over license tags used with {{Photo of art}} and carefully apply similar changes.

Thanks in advance. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid you'll have to do that bit by yourself - I do have WikiBusiness of my own that I'd like to get on with, after all. :) I'll be happy to answer any other protected edit requests you might make, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

OK , But watch for the protected edit requests Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hah, Never check your own code.... I've found a glitch in the coding of the parser function namely there shouldn't be a | between the <noiwki>#ifeq:</nowiki> and the first param. It's wrong in all the updated templates :( Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, joy. :P Let me have a look - just a sec. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I ended up making a complete mess of it too, but it looks as if things are finally sorted out. Obviously not one of my better days... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh no... I've just seen your request at Template talk:License migration complete, which will mean I'll have to redo all of those edits. I'm obviously not going to do a good job of this today, so I'll look at it again tomorrow. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW The reason that I'd added the dw param to the license migration call in GFDL(and related templates) is because otherwise the daughter templates invoked, don't know about the suppression. I.E The suppression occurs on the GFDL portion of the tag, but would not occur with the Creative Commons portion. A daughter template can't read params supplied to a parent template unless that parent explicitly passes them down to it. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I get that, and if the daughter template was providing some function other than just adding {{free media}}, I would agree that the parameter needed to be passed through. As it is, though, it wouldn't make any functional difference, so I don't think it's necessary. In my view, it would be increasing the code complexity for no real reason. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Whitespace bug

That's a good catch, thanks. There could be some templates where parameters consisting only of whitespace are meaningful (they would have to be nameless parameters, since named parameters are trimmed by MediaWiki), but I'm sure that's a rare case.

BTW, there was another issue that came up with my boilerplate code at Template talk:Navbox, in that it affects the order in which parameters are parsed, which can break things if the parameters contain any references and a <references> tag. So I'm thinking of trying a different approach.. instead of copying all the non-empty values into a new args table, returning an object with a metatable __index function that checks each argument value only at the time that it is read. I'll let you know when I have code. Toohool (talk) 18:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:2.123.20.148 requesting unblock

• 2.123.20.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Sheffno1gunner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello Mr. Strad. I was browsing through CAT:RFUB and I saw this. Would you consider taking a look at this user's unblock request? His explanation makes sense. He doesn't have any obvious similarity to the person he is thought to be a sock of. The only connection I can see is that both he and Sheffno1gunner have commented at Talk:UK Independence Party. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Reopened Confucius Institute DRN

Hi Mr Stradivarius, I have reopened the previous DRN case on Confucius Institute here [1], is everything fine to proceed?--PCPP (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't think of any reason why it wouldn't be. Let's wait and see what the other parties to the dispute say. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

DRN ping

Please read this when you can. FWIW, I would really like it if you'd come back to DRN once in a while. And, you know, send me an email to say hi again. It's been too long :) Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing the article kolkata

Why cannot i add photos even from wikimedia commons.the article has a very few photographs and details as compared to other major city articles like Mumbai, Delhi etc..This article will leave a bad effect on a person who will use this article to take information because it contains old images approx. 3-5 years old. photos or images are one of the source of information.Anitek bhattacharya (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitek bhattacharya (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

sir i think whenever I add photos either from wikimedia commons the photo is deleted by a user named 'Amartyabag'.I don't know wether he is doing partiality or not but help me how can i protect my photos from deletetion.Anitek bhattacharya (talk) 05:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitek bhattacharya (talk • contribs) 05:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello Anitek. :) What you need to do is to discuss the removals with Amartybag at Talk:Kolkata and to try and come to a consensus on what should be included. If you don't manage to come to a consensus through discussion, then you can try filing a new case at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Let me know if you have any problems doing this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Nightcore page

So I'm an ordinary person who hears about 'Nightcore' and wants to know what it is. I go to wikipedia and get this train wreck of a page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nightcore

Considering all the absolute shite on wikipedia, I have to ask: how is (was) this page "not notable"? For SIX YEARS some person or persons has been creating the page, and wikipedia volunteers reply with "links to YouTube videos and posts on discussion boards are not verifiable".

What?

The world lives on youtube and facebook nowadays. Wikipedia pretends youtube doesn't exist? References to books that are not online are OK, but links to live web pages are not?

I like wikipedia, I really do. I defend it against many doubters, I make corrective edits sometimes.

This term, 'nightcore', obviously means something, but I guess wikipedia doesn't want to actually keep pages on topics that are beneath a certain level of "intellectual purity". Or what? I don't know. All I know is that I still don't know anything about 'nightcore', can find no way to view the deleted page (shouldn't their be a history somewhere?) and basically, wikipedia fail.

Also: I can't send you an email, because I'm "not in group users". When did wikipedia get elitist? What is email for then, if not for people to contact you? How are you going to reply to me? Here, a signature: 24.215.110.18 (talk) 00:54, 4 April 2013 (UTC) fat lot of good it will do you since I never subscribed to the idea that I should create a wikipedia account.

Yes, I've had a bad day. I turn to wikipedia for sanity and peer-reviewed information. I don't expect to see censorship. Disappointed.

Hi there. One issue is that the page "nightcore" was created about a few different subjects, not just the same subject each time. The one that I deleted was about "a techno band that is made up of two boys from Alta, Norway". The previous one was about "a genre of music that originated on YouTube between 2005–2010". There was also one that was a redirect to Nightcore VII, a band "run by an american Artist/DJ named Chris". The other issue is that none of the versions created seemed to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. (See WP:42 for the quick explanation.) You're not the first person to disagree with the notability guidelines: we have an encyclopaedia article about it, and there have also been several essays written on the topic, for example Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability and Wikipedia:Two prongs of notability. You're free to go to Wikipedia talk:Notability and to make your case for having the guidelines changed, but there probably won't be any substantial changes to it any time soon, as to change it would require a consensus of a large number of Wikipedia editors. Hopefully this explains the general background for you, but let me know if you have any other questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

And as for having to register an account to send email, we have had problems with email flooding, phishing, spam, harassment, etc., so this is for the protection of users. To be honest, that system is creaking at the seams as well, and many contributors have disabled their email function because of abuse. In any case, if you plan to contribute at all to Wikipedia it's a good idea to get an account, as there are several benefits to doing so apart from the ability to send email. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Back to Jerusalem

You may want to keep an eye on this section of the RfC discussion page. Also, when are we moving on? -- tariqabjotu 13:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to that discussion section - I've been distracted by my Lua programming, and I haven't been giving the RfC discussion the attention it deserves. As for when we are moving on, I was hoping to get source statements from more participants, but as it is we have probably spent too much time on this stage already. I should have plenty of time to devote to the discussion tomorrow, so I'll start the next stage then, barring an emergency. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:24, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, could you just leave the current section open for one more day? I'm going to have a look through the sources to see if I can add something useful. Also I think there is an important discussion to be resolved over WP:OR both in terms of source selection and the kinds of discussions that are appropriate at the RFC. If the RfC is just going to be a debate about the relative merits of the original research of different editors it will be a dead loss in my opinion. Dlv999 (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

By "the current section", do you mean Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Comment by Sean.hoyland or do you mean Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step three: source summary statements? I'm a bit leery of opening the former back up, but I can certainly leave you a little more time to gather sources if you want to leave a source summary statement. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The latter. But I am also interested to know if there will there be an opportunity to fully discuss the issues raised in comment by SH. Dlv999 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there will be, after we have moved on from the statement-gathering stage. The collapsing is not meant to stop discussion of the issues, it's meant to allow editors to be free to post sources that they feel would be useful, without being worried about criticism from other editors. (Of course, for this to work properly I should really have collapsed the section back on the 5th... mea cupla.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 18:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sheffno1gunner sock block

Hi. I wasn't certain where to raise this issue... You previously blocked User:Sheffno1gunner for 2 months and various IP addresses for 1 month for sockpuppetry (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sheffno1gunner/Archive#06_March_2013). An editor using several IP addresses is now active at Talk:UK Independence Party identifying as the (an?) affected IP editor but protesting innocence: [2], [3], [4]. Do these posts constitute a block evasion or warrant some other action being taken? Bondegezou (talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this, and I've blocked one of the IPs and semi-protected the talk page for a day. Despite admitting to be the same IP editor that I blocked, the IPs have been coming from completely different ranges, and they keep changing, so it might not be practical to block all of them. I'll probably have to start making judicious use of semi-protection as well as blocks. If there are any other new IPs you suspect to be Sheffno1gunner, add them to the SPI page and I'll take a look. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join WikiProject Admin Nominators

Hello. You are invited to join WikiProject Admin Nominators, a project which aims to support editors interested in nominating at Requests for Adminship. We hope that you will join and help to shape the new project. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Adminship and requesting to be one

From:'Vladmir Purasky' Hi,Im wandering if you can nominate me for adminship im good at patroling pages and also editing them.I also know a vast line of knowledge about Medical,Military,Myths,Games,Computers,and the internet pages.Im also am a expert at editing pages even though I just started wikipedia a month ago.So im I qualified to be an administrator and if so could yoy nominate me??.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladmir Purasky (talk • contribs) 22:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Vladmir! Sorry, but you don't have enough experience at Wikipedia to be an administrator yet. Take a look at Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship to see the basic requirements, and let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 22:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

DRN organisers

Hello. I am just letting you know that I've made a proposal to create a rotating DRN organiser-style role that would help with the day-to-day running of DRN. As you are a listed volunteer at DRN, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this, and the other open proposals at DRN. You can read more about it here. Thanks! Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:20, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

RFA Nomination

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius!

I would like to be nominated to become an administrator by you! I've started doing new page patrol, and also I have been researching the Greater Antillean Grackle in depth on my Caribbean travels. I have helped contribute to Wikipedia in many ways, but I'm looking to do more. I plan on more new page patrol and vandalism reversion, as nonsense pages and vandalism are two of the biggest causes of Wikipedia's "non-credible" connotation. Also, blocking vandals is one of my priorities. Don't fear; Wikipedia will be more credible and reliable, with GuinanDrib555 here! GuinanDrib555 (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Hi! Thanks for your enthusiasm, but you only have 71 edits; you'll need a few thousand before applying for adminship, but rest assured, there are lots of areas you can help in that don't require admin rights. Happy editing! Go Phightins! 01:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

  Go Phightins has it right - in 2012 and 2013, the average edit count (at time of nomination) for editors this year who had a successful request for adminship is over 10,000. The lowest one was just over 5,000. So just from this, it should be obvious that you need a lot more experience of editing before you will be able to succeed in becoming an administrator. But I should also stress that it's not really about edit count at all - the quality of your edits is much more important. Have a read of the guide to RFA and let me know if you have any more questions after that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Accusatory comment?

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

How do you do? I hope I am not bothering but I had a question about this comment. Well, it hurts. I don't know why, but it badly hurts. Is it allowed in Wikipedia? And is there anything I can do about it? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, kid. I checked your contrib log to see how you reacted and found you here. It is natural that the more you contribute to Wikipedia, the more you grow vulnerable to personal attacks. But that is just the minor reason. The major contributing factor is that it is not the first time you are personally attacked in that discussion. User:A Quest For Knowledge did quite a complete job of it. (Not just in the AfD page.) Now, admin are given the duty of removing such comments, warn the committing party and block him for repeat offenses. But let me tell you a piece of fact: It is not gonna happen... Although, since your message reads like a request for advice, I think you know it. So, here is the advice: Take a day off or unwatch the page. These articles never have many readers if you don't AfD them and eventually end up deleted. Fleet Command (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa, and sorry for the delay in my reply (I've been away). As for what you can do, that is explained in better words than I can muster at WP:NPA. As to this specific case, I agree with Fleet Command that no administrative action is necessary here, but the comment was certainly not a helpful one. I'll leave a note on Krawunsel's talk page, and hopefully that will be all that is necessary to avoid any similar comments in the future. Let me know if there are any other issues you would like help with, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, maybe I said a few things I shouldn't have said given the sensitivity of some people. But what goes totally missing is that in the very same discussion a person accused me to be Hitler-like, and that way, way tops what I said. But it looks like everyone who comments on this has missed that part. It's interesting how people see the small things but miss the real big ones. Thus, I couldn't help noticing that the discussion got somewhat lopsided. The user, Ahunt, has so far failed to apologize. --Krawunsel (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that does look pretty bad, I agree. I don't think Fleet Command intended to compare you to Hitler, though. It seems to me that they were trying to compare your comment to the behaviour outlined in our essay WP:Hitler, which isn't really about Hitler at all. (It only has the label because of the reference to Godwin's law at the end.) I've left a message on their talk page, though, so hopefully you can get the story from the horse's mouth rather than relying on my guesswork. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius

Hi I have read your message, i also agree that i have been warned for uploading copyrighted materials in Wikipedia. But as you know that i am new to Wikipedia (i joined 3-4 months before as an editor) so i don't know anything on posting torrent links is an offense. OK thanks for your message.

Another thing, what you are doing in User:Codename Lisa talk page ??? Do you know her ???

Please reply  Himanis Das   talk  16:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I know that there is a lot to learn about Wikipedia at first, so don't worry if you don't get everything right first time. It's just that copyright violations can have legal implications for the Wikimedia Foundation, so we tend to be strict in deleting copyright violations. As for Codename Lisa, I welcomed her to Wikipedia and I've helped her out a couple of times, but that's as much as I know her. It's a wiki-friendship, I suppose. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Need advice on frequent reverting editor

I'm rather troubled by the behavior of a certain editor - to keep this post from being an accusation, I shall refer to him as Editor A. A day ago, I found some vandalism on an article. Checking the history, I found that the vandalism had been placed there a few weeks before by two editors, reverted some days later by an IP address editor - and then immediately reinstated by Editor A, with an edit summary which labeled the IP editor's work as "vandalism". Assuming good faith, I reverted Editor A's edit and left him a note on his talk page explaining that his edit had reinstated vandalism, and advising him to be more careful with his reverts and vandalism accusations in the future. Editor A made a very snippish reply along the lines of "So what, I made one mistake in my life", utterly missing the idea that reverting someone's edit without even a rudimentary check on the contents of that edit is against WP's basic principles, as is accusing someone of vandalism without cause.

Since it was clear that I couldn't make any progress with Editor A even if I were good at keeping my temper, I dropped the matter. However, I still feel worried, and today I took a look at his contributions to see if careless reverts like this are anything like a habit for him. I found he's made over 50 edits in the last half hour alone - nearly all of them either reverts of IP address editors or warning notes placed on those editors' talk pages. I appreciate that reverting bad edits is almost as important as making good ones, but the incredible prolificacy of Editor A's reverts (to say nothing of his obvious preference for reverting IP address editors) suggests to me that he's taking no more care with them than with the one I reverted. Is there something I should be doing to help see that Editor A's behavior is corrected, or would it be best if I just let it go?--NukeofEarl (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi NukeofEarl. I had a look at the exchange in question (it was pretty easy to find it from your contribution history), and I think I could easily have made the same mistake. It's obvious if you know the subject matter, but for me I couldn't have known the IP vandalism reversion from the original IP vandalism without looking it up in the sources. It's true that it is important to be careful and not to rush while using semi-automated editing tools like Huggle, and that Wikipedia policies and guidelines apply just as much to people using these tools as to editors using the normal site. But it's also important to cut users some slack and realise that a mistake might just be a mistake.

You say that you were assuming good faith in your message, but that isn't completely true, because you assumed that the other editor was habitually careless, whereas to me it seemed much more likely to have been an honest mistake. I would have said something like, "Hi, I noticed [http:www.example.com this] revert that you made with Huggle, but it wasn't actually vandalism. The original vandalism was actually added in [http:www.example.com this] edit by another IP. I can see how it would be an easy mistake to make though, so no worries." You should always assume the best possible motive that fits the evidence that you have - that allows the other person to save face, and has the best possible chance of getting them to learn from the experience. If your message makes the other person annoyed, it's pretty unlikely that they'll learn anything from the experience, and much more likely that they'll just think you told them off unnecessarily.

As for the rapid rate of edits, this is very easy to do with tools such as Huggle, and 50 edits in 30 minutes is not at all unusual. This is how users like Koavf can make one million edits. The editing rate isn't a problem unless there is also a high error rate. As for the reversions mostly being of IPs, that is because 80% of vandalism is caused by IPs (according to Wikipedia:IPs are human too). So if there are four vandalism reverts of IPs for every vandalism revert of a registered user, that accords perfectly with our vandalism statistics and doesn't merit any special attention. There is also the fact (from the same essay) that over 80% of IP edits are not vandalism, but this isn't going to show up when someone is doing recent changes patrol, because the edits by those 80% of IPs are left untouched. I don't think there's anything to be worried about, personally, but if you are still concerned feel free to email me with diffs, and I'll see if any I think any more action is warranted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the reply; you've definitely eased my mind. I still don't like the practice of reverting edits once every 30 seconds, as it seems to me that if you're unfamiliar with the subject matter, a bit of fact-checking should go into an edit before deciding to revert, particularly as we already have editing bots making such snap decisions. But I am aware of such editing tools, and if you believe that alone would explain what I've seen of Editor A's actions, I can accept that as an answer. While I could review his contributions one-by-one to determine how high his error rate is, to be frank, I have better ways to use my WP editing time. Just one clarification, though: I don't know where you got the idea that I was assuming Editor A was being habitually careless, but I definitely wasn't thinking that at the time. It was his response, and particularly the fact that his concern was solely for his pride rather than for the consequences of his actions, which made me suspect it might be habitual.

Anyways, thanks again, and I'll keep what you've told me in mind for the future.--NukeofEarl (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

My mistake about the "habitually careless" remark - sorry about that. And I'm glad you're feeling more at ease now. And by the way, if you want to check out the guidelines about using tools like Huggle, you can have a look at WP:RCP if you haven't read it already. I'd even recommend getting involved in some anti-vandalism work yourself, as that's really the best way to see what's involved in it. (And another by the way - Editor A is actually of the female persuasion, which might explain at least some of her reaction.) Let me know if you have any questions about any of this, and I'll be glad to follow up. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC step three comments

Hi. I'll have not much time to type anything very much on WP for the next few days, but I'm just posting to let you know I've seen your comment on my talkpage and yes, it was not at all great of me to have made the response you highlight. I'd already realised that, after reflection.

The discussion does seem to be going a little awry. I don't know what to suggest overall in terms of a way forward, but I guess if nothing else I can probably help by keeping my cool in future. Thanks. Formerip (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

question

hi. I wanted to ask you, is there a way finalize the discussion, and get the rfc set up for the jerusalem article? feel free to let me know. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

What I'm thinking of doing next is going through the source summary questions and closing the discussions where appropriate. Hopefully from that we should be able to make a working draft of the source summary statements, although I may need to ask a couple of follow-up questions if there are any points that still remain unclear. I'm planning on doing this in the next day or so, and if I ask any follow-up questions I'll probably leave the discussion open for about a week. Hopefully this should prevent things from taking too long, although I know the process isn't super-quick. In the meantime, it would be a big help if you could leave a drafts statement, which only two editors have submitted so far. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. I appreciate it, but I am in agreement with what the other editors have submitted. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

How to handle this article, dispute resolution style

BP will never be fixed using discussion on it's talk page. Too many people want to push a specific POV and it needs some major POV. I really think the best thing to do is to start from scratch and lose all previous discussion to make it easier for neutral observers to take part in some sort of huge mediation project dealing with the entire article. The problem is, I don't know what the best forum for that is, or how to get it started. Do you know the best way to handle this? Ryan Vesey 02:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, the first thing I'd say, without looking at the article at all, is that mediation doesn't work too well with open-ended questions. It's much better at solving specific, well-defined problems. This helps keep mediations on track, and defines a clear end point. Without a clear focus and a clear end point, discussions can go round in circles, and such mediations often end in failure. In any case, the first order of the day for dispute resolution on big, protracted disputes is to identify the specific issues that need resolving. The more specific each point is, the better chance of finding a resolution for them. It is also a good idea to look for any possible underlying conduct issues, as those may be better dealt with using conduct dispute resolution, although that is a judgement call, of course. Also, it's possible to make a clean start on an article, but it isn't possible to lose the previous discussion, just as it isn't possible to "un-see" something. :) Having said that, undergoing mediation can give a fresh perspective on the dispute, which can make resolving it easier. This reply has been a bit vague, but hopefully it can be of some use to you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Information about STiki, including: Using STiki and its hotkeys Comparison to other tools Information about vandalism on Wikipedia Here are some pages which are a little more fun: The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users! Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes! We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and TheStrikeΣagle 05:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Visual perception

Sup, Mr. Stradivarius. I noticed you reversed my input on page regarding Visual perception. That's pretty much okay, considering how my edit was utter vandalism. Thank you for not giving me a warning. Have a nice day.

Peace by Internet Protocol something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.114.173.155 (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm? I did give you a warning. It's here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

76.120.62.132 blocking

Hey, thanks for reverting the edits on Akon discography! 76.120.62.132 has been vandalizing the page since April of 2012 and I have given the IP many warnings about blocking them from editing on the site. It would be better if the IP was blocked now before they makes another false edit. I also posted a section on their talk page about the release date a few days ago and they have yet to reply. Every time I ask them about their edits, nothing is elaborated on. I also replied to your post on their talk page too! Hopefully we can fix this. Have a great day! Contactman7 (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's best to wait and see if they respond to the warning first. I don't want to block them if a warning will stop the behaviour. Also, you really need to be careful yourself - rather than just reverting you should ask for page protection at WP:RFPP or request a block at WP:AN3. If you just keep reverting then some might see it as edit warring, and there's a chance you could be blocked yourself. Let me know if there are any more suspect edits from the IP though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up! But I have already requested for page protection and I was denied since the page was only being vandalized by one IP. Contactman7 (talk) 02:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Guess who :-)

Clue number 1: I'm not Sheffno1gunner (Redacted). Clue number 2: I don't like (Redacted) Emeraude but he's upset/offended a lot of people. Clue number 3: I have an unlimited supply of IP addresses so I can show up wherever I want whenever I want.

The question is do you want to play fair? Im not the only IP who has had run ins with [Emeraude and others]! I know of atleast 2others... oh and thats not including sheffno1 (Redacted). You'll never find me ;-) Sooooo do you give up and are you going to allow wikipedia to be a fair place or is wikipedia going to remain a purple free zone dominated by angry (Redacted) LibDems? Ciao 130.88.114.39 (talk) 21:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

No, the question is if you want to play fair (i.e. in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines), and if your answer is "no" then my answer will be semi-protection. If you have any questions about how Wikipedia policy should be applied, though, I'll always be willing to help you out. If there are real issues with the articles you want to edit then you will almost always be able to sort them out without having to resort to IP-hopping, sockpuppetry or personal attacks. Indeed, it will be much more effective if you try and sort them out without doing these things. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Pending release of Notifications

Hey Mr. Stradivarius :). I'm dropping you a note because you have signed up for the Notifications, or Echo, newsletter.

If all goes according to plan, we should be launching Echo on en-wiki either tomorrow, or next Tuesday - I'll drop a followup tomorrow when we know what's happening. Should the launch succeed, we'll begin the process of triaging bugs and gathering feedback on what features work, what cause problems, and what we should do next; I hope you'll help us out on these fronts by leaving any comments you might have on the talkpage.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

note

hey, glad that we could try to work towards some consensus in some of the areas at that rfc. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:07, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

by the way, one option might be for us to declare that we were unable to reach a consensus on this. I'm just offering that as one option. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my reply. Work has been keeping me busy for the last couple of days. You have a good point - we could just declare some parts of the current discussion to not have consensus and not include those parts in the RfC. For most of it, though, I think we will be able to draw a reasonable consensus. Also, sorry for the length of time it's taken me to close the latest discussion stage. I'm feeling embarrassed about promising a close in "the next couple of days", one week ago. I'm in the middle of writing it up now, but this is the most complicated and contentious part of what we have done so far, and as I said, I've been busy. But I'm on the case. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

hi there. thanks for your reply. however, sorry, but at this point, my own personal opinions is that things has moved on to a different status. I would really suggest that maybe this process should be discontinued. I feel it has sort of gone off the rails now. i really do appreciate all of your hard work and effort. i don't think it's your fault at all that things have gone this way. however, i really do not see how any RFC we set up now could possibly be workable, considering that several months have now elapsed in this case. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 01:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

What's going on with this? -- tariqabjotu 07:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the process of summarising the consensus from the latest discussions. Sorry that it has been taking me so long. I'm expecting to be able to move on to the next stage of step three some time today or tomorrow. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC

A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:19, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't Let It Die

When I said 'on top' of what was there, I had meant that the two histories were merged. Still, thanks anyway.--Launchballer 10:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

It would be pretty easy to merge the histories now - it's just a matter of undeleting the two revisions that were in the page history before the move. However, there's not really much point, as they were just redirects to another article, so I think they may as well stay deleted. We only usually do history merges if the history of the same article is split across multiple pages due to a cut and paste move. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Portal images

Hello, you appear to be actively enaged with the Template:Portal page. I maintain these two portals and I am looking to update the portal images for P:Food and P:Wine with some easier to see images, but the two pages are protected. Could you either unlock them for me or update them for me?

Food → Foodlogo2.svg

Wine → WINE-logo.png

Thank you very much --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 16:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I've changed the food one, but I think it's a bit cheap to use the logo from Wine (software) for our wine portal. I know it's a free image, but it feels like plagiarism to me. Is there a different logo we can use instead? Also, for next time you can use the {{edit requested}} template for things like this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey, how about the one you have on your userpage, File:Glass of wine.png? I think that would work quite well. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

That image would work. Thanks for the help! --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 17:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Uncle Grandpa

Good call on the Wikia license. Thanks for your time czar · · 08:02, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Mark Lundy

Hi. You have previously contributed to discussion about Mark Lundy. There is a discussion going on about changing the name of the article from Murders of Christine and Amber Lundy to Mark Lundy. You might like to participate and even vote on that. See the Talk page for full details.Offender9000 (talk) 19:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Loose citations strengthened, need to remove the message at top of page now

Please note that I cleaned up the citations on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stovepiping#Stovepiping_Pre_and_Post-9.2F11

so how to remove the warning at top of page please?

Thank you, John D. Elliott Vice-Consul U.S. Consulate General Rio de Janeiro Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaiagenesis (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

The werewolf

I actually redirected the page to Werewolf; I figure it could be a search term, and redirects are cheap. If you want to re-tag it, though, I won't argue. Cheers! Ignatzmice•talk 04:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it doesn't really matter either way, but I figured that it's not a good precedent to start creating redirects to all our pages of "the + title". I'll re-tag it and let another admin make the actual decision. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Ignatzmice•talk 04:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Aha, Metropolitan90 came up with the best solution - a redirect to Werewolf (disambiguation). Now why didn't I think of that? :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:29, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Pradyoth H.Shandilya

Sir, I belive Pradyoth Shandilya is in fact a very important child for India. If people read this article, it might inspire them. The next generation is the children of this generation. To make this world a happy place to live, I request you to allow the generation to read this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pradyothshandilya (talk • contribs) 04:30, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Pradyoth. The reason I deleted your page is that it doesn't pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines - and indeed, the content of the article made it clear that the subject wasn't notable, so it qualified for speedy deletion. I suggest you read the easy guide to notability on Wikipedia and the full guide at Wikipedia:Notability, and let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Notifications box replacement prototypes released

Hey Mr. Stradivarius; Kaldari has finished scripting a set of potential replacements available to test and give feedback on. Please go to this thread for more detail on how to enable them. Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply to edit request for the Assange's page

Hello! Thank you very much!

--Clelia albano (talk) 10:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome, but it wasn't actually me that reduced the protection. The full protection expired of its own accord, and then User:Bishonen reinstated semi-protection. Bishonen made a post about it at Talk:Julian Assange#Now semiprotected, which I suggest you read if you want to avoid more full protection in the future... Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Username after a ...

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius.

How do you do?

I need a second opinion, but before I begin, I'd like to stress that, as before, this is not a request for blocking someone or intervening in any dispute or anything of the kind. (Now, I like you a lot but spending a round of conversation clarifying this in our past discussions has not exactly lead to productivity. In fact, I'd be very grateful if all my subsequent messages are treated like this unless I explicitly state otherwise with significant emphasis.)

So here is the question: Having Wikipedia user naming policy in mind, is it okay to choose username that is an alteration of the name of a car? For example, "Lord Focus ST" which is obviously a mod of "Ford Focus ST"? Or, not just cars; for instance, is "Flint Westwood" okay as a username?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi CL. :) Well, at WP:CORPNAME you can see that "[u]sernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product" are not allowed on Wikipedia. If the name is unambiguously a product name and the user has been making promotional edits, then you should report it at WP:UAA. If they haven't been making problematic edits, or the username violation is less clear-cut, then you should leave a note on their talk page to try and get them to change the name themselves. You can use {{uw-username}} for this purpose, which I recommend because it also puts the page in a category for administrator review, so it will be followed up on after a few days. If the username is not a clear-cut violation of the username policy, but the user is spamming or vandalising, then it's probably more efficient to just warn them about those behaviours instead, and only get onto the username issue if the other things are sorted out first. The username policy is a must-read here, and I also recommend looking over Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions to see how admins review things. Does this answer your question? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tony

as in Antonio Stradivarius --Ravpapa (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got that part. It would still feel weird, though. "Antonio" would be a little less jarring. Or maybe just "maestro"? ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure of Question 8

I'm a bit surprised you've decided to close Question 8. It seems like a couple things there warrant a response, namely my lengthy comment to you and Hertz's suggestion. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that your comment warranted a response, but the discussion also seemed to be getting more antagonistic, and I didn't want a repeat of the previous time where I had to go round and issue warnings, etc. I've worked around this by responding to you in the closing comments. Not ideal, I know, but hopefully it should clear things up a little. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

(barnstar archived)

Thank you very much! That's really kind of you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

gfdgdf

why did you delete Erik Michael Tristan?

24.190.192.139 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

The page was created by a user who had been blocked from editing under the Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry rules and thus the page qualified for G5 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Does that explain the notice left? MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - ^{(Chocolate Cakes)} 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you

24.190.192.139 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's the reason I deleted it. A large part of the reason King Genovese got blocked in the first place was because he created many articles of dubious notability with substandard sources. This one is a good example, as there are two or three claims of criminal activity that aren't backed up by a citation, a pretty strong fail of WP:BLP. It would have probably been deleted anyway even if G5 didn't apply. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gold standard

I have responded to your post at gold standard talk page.71.174.140.32 (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left a reply there. Hopefully we can get some involvement from the other editors there too. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, how are you doing? It's great to see you back again in WP:RPP. Tolly4bolly 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well, thanks. I see you got yourself a new username! I like it. :) (And I have to admit, I could never remember how to spell your old one...) I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to spend at RPP, but I'll help out here and there when I have a chance. Hope things are good with you too. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I changed my username since I hate the older one. I changed to this since I want the username which describes my work here. Thanks for liking my username and also fixing my userpage (I tried that earlier but always bring those categories on the page). I'm doing great, thanks. Tolly4bolly 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh yes, I meant to mention the category edit. That little trick works for images too - see Help:Colon trick. Glad to hear you're doing well! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the greetings, I am pretty busy with an upcoming book at the moment then working on a new kind of spelling APP...so I am not really able to commit myself to your offer. I am prepared to make some contributions at times..a welcome change. So maybe at a later stage.

All the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanguageCoach (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the page for us. Well, it wasn't my intention to make that change in the top page there. I didn't even know I've caused something ugly there. Im sorry.

Thanks --Nkansahrexford (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. These things happen. And you're welcome. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

University Philosophical Society

Firstly thank you for ending the Editting War with regard this to page. Secondly thank you for placing the page under protection, although it seems that from 21 May 2013 the war may continue.

Unfortunately the page as it currently stands does not give an accurate historical representation. It should read a versions by myself, Adamseline and Murpha57 as it had done since 2006 until it was attacked. I understand however that saying that will sound very bias, however if you read the Dublin Philosophical Society page (although I wrote it, check the references), then talk:University Philosophical Society page you may be able to see things for our prospective.

There is at the moment a Request for Comments on talk:University Philosophical Society page, your comments, and external perspective would no doubt resolve the matter.

Lastly, I would ask that perhaps you keep watch on the Dublin Philosophical Society page, as no doubt it will soon come under attack from 46.7.236.155 also.

Thanks, KountKurly (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not attack the page. I added referenced information to it. How can it possibly "read a versions by myself, Adamseline and Murpha57 as it had done since 2006," given that your account is only a month old? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Share the Cookies

	Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
	Hi Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 14, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Nom nom nom. Thanks! :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rangers edits

Hi Stradivarius the sources being used by Captain are from July 2012 when no-one knew what was going on with the club. Since then official and third party sources maintain it is the same club. The Rangers FC page alone has many appropriate sources to show this hence why consensus was achieved on it being deemed as the same club. I mentioned this to Captain but he maintained he was correct going by his outdated sources. BadSynergy (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

'Random' IP making similar edits

Just after blocking Captain an IP user has just reverted again. I think we can deduce who it is but I'm not too familiar with reporting such behavior. BadSynergy (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you're unsure where to report it, because we have three venues: for the most obvious disruptive WP:DUCK sockpuppets you can use WP:AIV, if there are multiple IP socks you should use WP:RFPP, and if it's more complicated you should use WP:SPI. Also, be careful not to call edits like CaptainCorrecto's "vandalism", because we have a narrow definition of vandalism at Wikipedia, and misusing the term is generally frowned upon. (You can see the definition at Wikipedia:Vandalism.) Also, if we're getting into niggling details, a ban is different from a block as well. (The former is a socially imposed restriction, and the latter is a technically imposed one.) But yes, hopefully CaptainCorrecto will be more open to discussion after they return from their block. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ach, I tried to mediate here. I happen to agree with this block, but for Bad Synergy to state that I am aiding vandalism is beyond the pale. A contentious issue no doubt, and one where consensus would seem unlikely to reached. I only formatted the sources provided as they looked a bit untidy, in order that they be judged fairly on their own merits. Clearly Correcto isn't the sort of guy who likes to back down (and I'm 90% sure I know who the user is), that doesn't make is sources incorrect, they looked relevant to me. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize Hillbilly I keep forgetting not every single editor is aware of what goes in every article. BadSynergy (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, the "aiding vandalism" remarks were definitely over the top, but I'm glad we have everything sorted out now. Hillbilly, if you think this is more of a long-term sockpuppet situation, could you file a case at WP:SPI? 90% certain is more than enough to justify opening a new case. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

(I've removed some posts here because of WP:OUTING concerns.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Stradivarius, I was trying to tightrope walk that one, and obviously fell off.. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

(barnstar archived)

Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. page protection

I think you were played by TriiipleThreat. He reverted twice and then asked for page protection less than 15 seconds after his/her second revert, presumably to lock in their version for (as you have) for an entire month. This seems like an excessive period of time to lock a single version in place, especially when dissenting views are able to back up their edits with sources. I have no dog in this fight, but think that Triiiple acted quite cynically and without a lot of good faith here. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better to start a requested move discussion straight away, yes. But two reverts over two days doesn't really reach the level of disruptive editing. As for the length of the protection, this can be reduced if a consensus is found, or extended if one is not found. The best thing to do is to just start the move discussion and then take things from there. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I understand that retroactively fixing things like this is like trying to stuff toothpaste back in the tube. I think the article would have been better served if the requester's edits on the page they were requesting protection for had been given a closer look. Theirs is the edit in place for a month, not the two different people he reverted. I'm just saying that the PP made it less likely that actual discussion will take place. Users will see the interplay followed by a month protection (read: preference) of one user's edit and think, 'why bother?' - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it's always going to be The Wrong Version for somebody... Given the choice of letting a move war continue and making someone annoyed, I'll choose making someone annoyed. Having the wrong title for a week while the name gets discussed doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, and if you're aware of anyone who's reluctant to start a requested move discussion because of the protection, let me know and I'll leave them a note to let them know how the process works. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course it's going to be the Wrong Version for someone in a RfPP, Stradivarius; no one is arguing that. What I am saying is that if one of the active warriors makes the request, its usually smarter (and a lot more conducive to discussion) move to protect the version that isn't the requestors. This prevents more experienced users from gaming the system. Most new users and inexperienced users are easily put off by seeing someone revert a specific change in and then ask that the page be locked into that version for a month. In Wiki turnover, a month is practically a lifetime; we often remove tagged uncited information after only a week or two. Knowing that they are arguing uphill for over a month against someone who gets to have what they wanted for at least a month is depressing, since the person whose version is in place doesn't even have to comment, except to say the other guy is wrong. PP when there is clear dissent creates the false impression that the article is stable; so false, in fact, that when protection ends without resolution in talk, that any undoing of the formerly protected version is seen as 'disruptive' or 'edit-warring'.

More thought needs to go into these protection decisions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that Jack Sebastian believes I played you and believes that you did not put enough thought behind your descision. Maybe the whole thing could have been handled better but I think all parties here acted in good faith, even those with opposing views. I simply asked for protection to prevent a third unrequested move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, guys. If the version the requestor wished to be protected wasn't the one they wanted, then perhaps I wouldn't be thinking that. It is exactly these sorts of situations which make the Assumption of Good Faith a great deal harder to assume. What adds to that is that Triiiple doesn't have to defend his two reverts (and has not as of yet defended his position) on the matter - a situation frequently seen when RfPP is invoked to protect one user's preferred version of the article. It's unfortunate that Triiiple hit the jackpot with a month's worth of protection. That would be enough to have most users give up and move on, as to them, with one version locked into place, there seems little room for dissent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

JS, please just drop this. Unless TriiipleThreat has made a habit of doing this kind of thing, there's nothing actionable here, and your suggestion that I revert again before protecting is a non-starter. I want to stop the move war, not join in with it. And your suggestion that "there seems little room for dissent" is very wide of the mark. There is absolutely room for dissent - by starting a requested move discussion. Instead of continuing this thread, it would be much more productive for you to go and start a one a move discussion over at the article talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Beginner

1. How to get username ? if you specify procedure , i can exactly go through it .

2. looking into article that you have suggested .. and i'll definitely follow it Thanks.

Parag Sudame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prg.sdme (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. If you want to change your username, you can find instructions at Wikipedia:Changing username. I don't remember suggesting an article to you, but I'm glad that whatever I did was helpful. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For protecting 00 Agent per my request. - Fantr (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Module:UnitTests

Hi!

I don't understand it. tick is declared as a local variable, but has no value. cross is also a local variable, without a value. You say, they ara frame variables. How so? --Pepo41 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Searching for function UnitTester:run(frame_arg) at Module:UnitTests shows that frame, tick, and cross are all given appropriate values. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. You are right--Pepo41 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, your edit introduced the code:

local frame, tick = '{{done}}'

This assigns '{{done}}' to the frame variable, and a nil value to the tick variable. Have a look at this tutorial to see why. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the feedback. Appreciate the constructive tone Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad it came across that way - those messages can seem pretty terse, because they also have to fit inside the edit summary. If you want to see some more examples of what does and does not constitute G11, I heartily recommend looking through the list of G11s that were overturned at DRV. I certainly found it useful, anyway. Also recommended are the essays listed at Template:Speedy deletion navbox. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC notifications

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, would it be possible to include me on the notices you place on people's user talk pages regarding the progress of the RFC? Just so I can keep the Arbitrators apprised of the progress. I'm asking as an editor (to make it easier so I don't need to keep checking) not as a clerk - no is a perfectly reasonable answer. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I might be sending one out quite soon as well, as only a few editors have participated since I closed the previous discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok thank you. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

Reading this and as a contributor who follows closely the evolution of the RfC (I was among the contributors who complainted to the ArbCom that appointed you) I wanted to tell you that I think you and the other contributors do a fair good job on this page. Given the difficulty of this topic and the time since which there are problems on this, the is an exceptionnal result !

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your words of encouragement - they mean a lot! I can totally understand the criticisms of the process, but hopefully things will work out in the end. For now, all I can do is to try not to concentrate too much on past mistakes, and to do my best to make the RfC work. Wish me luck. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Good luck then ! Pluto2012 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Strad. Due to certain circumstances, I have been away too long from closely following the discussion. I would like to be involved again, but am a bit confused about where we stand in the overall process. In the next step, will I have the opportunity to comment on the quality and validity of the numbered drafts, or am I too late to do that? Would such comments belong on the main talk page or on the new sub-page? Can those drafts still be tweaked and clarified? Will they ultimately be presented together with background information (giving, e.g., pros, cons, and context)? Hertz1888 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. You do still have the opportunity to comment on the drafts, but you won't after we move to step four. As you can see from the talk page message I sent out, I've set a deadline of the end of today for this (Wednesday 8th May), so there's no time to delay. If it turns out that there needs to be more discussion to find a consensus on the content of the drafts, then I can always extend the deadline, but you have to understand that the process has already come under criticism for being too long and drawn-out, so I won't take such a decision lightly. I recommend that you set your thoughts down on the drafts now, under the relevant section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion, and see what other participants think about them in the remaining time before the deadline expires. Decisions about whether to present the drafts with background will be made as part of step four, however, so that is not so urgent. Hope this answers your question. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, alas, illness has interfered, and I will be unable to participate in step four as I had hoped. I want to thank you for your reassurance that my proposed draft in step three can yet be included. I also want to thank you for your patient, fairhanded and skillful management of the entire process. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Not engaged in an edit war

Hi :-) To cut a long story short, I started a discussion which established a consensus. The other side didn't respect the consensus, and when I started a despite resolution discussion they didn't show up. I am not the one engaged in an edit war and if you look at the talk page you'll see I'm actually the one who started 2 discussions trying to resolve the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. A consensus that "the other side didn't respect" doesn't sound all that much like a consensus to me. But anyway, does it really matter that much who is in the infobox for the remaining two weeks of the discussion? I think it would be much better to just let the discussion take its course and then update the infobox after it has been closed. Would you be willing to try this? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Fair point, but "the other side" is 2 people while the side that reached consensus is a heavy group. That's the point, the discussion finished. I left the info box untouched until the discussion finished, and was shocked to see the other guy continue it (I tried despute resolution and few people came to support me, but the other side, the 2 people, didn't turn up): [5]

I started another discussion: [6] Even though the previous consensus resolved it, the other side pretends it didn't so I started that one. After that discussion I can assure you no one will revert anyone because it will be too obvious. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Gospel of success

I do not want to edit war, only prevent removal of material germane to the article's deletion discussion. Don't you think special measures are needed to preserve such material? If so, isn't some sort of protection warranted? Attleboro (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Kovács

Hi! This my opinion. It was strange and very sad. I gave a reliable source and the result you protected the previous version. It is not good direction. - Csurla (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've replied over there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think...

I know that I am not quite ready for adminship, but what should I do to become one. I mean, I read all the guides and such, but what does a request of adminship come down to? I hope you can help my confused mind, Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. To get the best idea you should take a look at a few of the previous successful and unsuccessful RfAs that we've had, and also you can have a look at the guide to RfA. Let me know if you have any questions after that. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, the minimum number of edits a successful candidate had in the last year was about 5000, and you now only have 418, so you are right that you will need to get a bit more experience before running... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting someone to close a discussion

Hello.

I was wondering if by any chance there is a way of requesting a neutral party to close a discussion in this vast Wikipedia? I'd like to ask someone neutral to close this. I prefer a neutral person with power to rename articles, like an admin or a pagemover (if such a right exists).

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Now that's an easy one. All you need to do is start a new section at WP:ANRFC. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC

Do you contest the importance to the RFC of, or the truthness of, the statement that "No news agency, or at least none that could be found after an extensive search, with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel."?

Do you understand why it is improper on wikipedia to refer to a single source as "many sources"?

Do you understand why mentioning only how pro-Israeli sources treat the capital of Israel outside of prose and not mentioning how neutral sources treat the C of I outside of prose is unbalanced and would introduce bias?

And also, why did you let all those personal attacks by Tariq go without notice for the last three months? Sepsis II (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about whether I contest the statement or not, but whether there is a consensus for its inclusion. There was no consensus for it in step three, and none has developed for it since, hence it can't be included. As for the statement only being backed up by one citation, I know that this isn't ideal, but it's what we've got. I seem to remember other participants saying that there were other sources that we could use to back the statement up, but we never got around to actually including them. If you are concerned about this statement introducing bias into the RfC, I suggest that you post about it on the RfC page, in the discussion section. You are more than welcome to do that, but it can't go in the source summary itself unless it has a consensus. And I'm not going to comment about Tariqabjotu's alleged personal attacks now - I think that debate would best be left for another day. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC close criteria

Hi Mr Stradivarius,

Once again, congratulations to your management of these discussions that are not easy.

That may have been discussed but if so I missed it and I apologize. I wonder on what bases the final draft will be chosen ?

Kind Regards, Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

About time :P (I thought you'd died or something). We miss you at DRN buddy. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 11:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Haha, well I did drop off the radar for a little while, 'tis true. But there's life in the old dog yet. :) I think I'll be taking a short break from dispute resolution after all of this is over, but DRN remains in my thoughts - I may well revisit it sooner or later. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

@Pluto - the closers will close the discussion based on the arguments presented and their relevance to policy. The participants at the moderated discussion opted for quite an open format, so it is likely that a lot will be left to the closers' discretion. On the other hand, it could be an easy close if a clear consensus develops - only time will tell on that one. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

You're welcome! And I was just starting to feel peckish, as well. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC advertisements

The RfC has not yet been advertised at the places mentioned here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, give a moderator a break, will you? I'm on it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for tolerating my nonstop pestering and for moderating such a difficult discussion. I just wonder when you have time to sleep. :-) Ypnypn (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, no problems. :) (And the answer is, I should probably get some more sleep...) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Scott Brown AFD

I think the point about using the Royal Navy source for notability of Scott Brown, as discussed at the AfD is that notability is coming through WP:SOLDIER's presumption that people who've reached certain ranks in the armed forces are notable. As such, we just need a reliable source that says he had that rank and the Royal Navy is assumed authoritative on that kind of information about itself. (On the other hand, there is the slight concern of point 5 of WP:SELFSOURCE: "the article is not based primarily on such sources".) Dricherby (talk) 09:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Seralini affair

HI Mr Stradivarius: I think you may be misunderstanding who is responsible for which aspects of the Seralini affair page. You say, "Also, a great deal of this version consists of detailed criticism of the study". Yet my edits are an attempt to redress the detailed criticism of the study, which was the main thrust of the article before I got to it. Please read the article as it stood before I arrived and started editing. It is a demolition job on the Seralini study and without doubt defamatory to Prof Seralini and his team. My edits put the other side of the story. Can you respond to this please before I address the other points, as clearly I cannot get any further while this fundametnal misunderstanding persists. Please also note that the Users bobrayner and runjonrun have been deleting my edits to a very substantial degree, whereas my edits to their work have been minimal and well explained. 99% of my edits have consisted of adding balancing material to a n unbalanced, unfair and libellous article. Please have a look at the edit history and let me know your response. The one edit I concede is fair is that wiki does not allow 'original research', so I can find a citation for the fact that GM foods are not labelled in the US. Unless I and other concerned wiki users receive something like fair treatment over this issue, I shall be pressing for removal of the page as defamatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dusha100 (talk • contribs) 10:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, I'll nominally state that I am interested in running, but would you mind giving me a few days to think it over and do some reading up on the nomination process? And thanks of course for considering me! Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. :) The best way to get a feel for the process, in my opinion, is to have a look at the past several successful and unsuccessful RfAs. It's also a good idea to do RfA at a time when you are not overly busy, because you'll need to respond to any questions that might come up. I'd say allow for one hour of wiki-time every day, just to be on the safe side. Ping me when you're ready and I'll set everything up for you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for waiting, I'd be happy for you to start the nomination now. One concern I have is regarding the issue that prevailed during my previous nomination, which was that I falsely claimed copyright on a number of images. It's certainly not an issue that I want to avoid, as it's something I've long learned from and have since become highly active over at Wikimedia Commons, where I've uploaded a sizeable number of properly licenced images. None of the three opening questions are particularly appropriate, so would it be best to wait for it to be asked about in one of the follow-up questions? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Is it correct that I ask users for a co-nomination statement? Just want to be sure I don't inadvertently breach WP:CANVASS. And would you say there's an appropriate number of co-nominators to seek? Looking through the past RFAs it seems to range from none to two. Hopefully I'll have accepted the nomination and answered the opening questions sometime today or tomorrow. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 16:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Jerusalem

I'd like to add a few more sources to be included in [Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Jerusalem#Source_summary this list]. How should I go about doing that? Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, but you can't update the source summary now - we have arrived at the current version after much hard-fought debate, and adding new sources would be controversial. However, you are more than welcome to add new sources to the general discussion section. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius. thank you for formatting my references. I just thought I would point out, the first two references do not pertain to my comments. They were cited in the previous discussion (14) in reference to Nashidiani's draft. In fact I might remove the the cite quotes altogether and just link to my userpage where I have documented the sources. As it stands there is a huge wall of text, nearly all of it consisting of citations/references. Dlv999 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ok, thanks for letting me know. Looks like I missed those two. I'll go and fix it now, but feel free to fix it yourself the next time. If you use the incantation {{reflist|close}} for all the reference lists it will add only the references that appear below the previous appearance of {{reflist|close}}, if any. There's more info at HELP:MULTIREF if you want. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

And if you're worried about the refs taking up too much space on the page, you can always collapse the reflist by using {{cot}} and {{cob}}. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I see you got there before me. I was just about to make the exact same edit. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Single-purpose account?

Hi

I'm curious to know your definition of a single-purpose account. Even without knowledge of my previous IP, calling me single-purpose account for the Jerusalem issue seems questionable as only one other edit of my current IP can in any way be construed as related to that conflict. My current IP could possibly be seen as a single-purpose "sports at ITN" account (however, "[a]n editor can be an SPA within a given subject, but if they make edits on an unrelated page, the tag should not be used for these edits"), but there I also used my previous IP which had a more varied background. Single-purpose account for "sports" seems to wide to be useful.

Thank you for considering 85.167.109.26 (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Your edit to the Jerusalem RfC was edit number 15 from this IP, with the first of those edits being 23 May 2013. That seems to fall under the definition of "few or no other edits outside this topic" pretty easily. Sorry, but we can't take into account edits from other IPs when determining SPA status, as we have no way of knowing if they are from the same person or not. Why not create an account? This would sidestep all of these problems. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 21:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

If you would be so kind as to consider my arguments against the tagging set out below I would be most grateful.
Firstly, I believe that a previous IP with a similar edit pattern and no date overlap would be taken into account if the question was a block or similar sanction, hence I assumed it would be relevant in a positive direction as well.
Secondly, to me "few or no edits outside this topic" seems to imply at least a plurality within the suspected target area; whereas by your count I was at 93.33 % edits in other subject areas (I realise the sample size is small).
Thirdly, the essay says that in "communal decision-making, single-purpose accounts suspected of astroturfing or vote stacking will sometimes have a tag added after their name, as an aid to those discussing or closing the debate" (my emphasis). It seems that more than being new is required. Furthermore, the template documentation advises against its use except where "there are multiple new accounts or IPs voicing the same opinion".
Finally, a simple search of the RFA let me find the other "taggees". Disregarding the other editor who objected to the tag, the edit histories of the other tagged editors seem more clear (especially the two first), and I fail to see a fair comparison of my edit history and theirs leading to the same conclusion.
Thank you for the suggestion of getting an account. I won't, as I simply dislike registering online. (I am aware that an IP is less anonymous so that's not the issue.)
Hope you'll consider my arguments, if not it's no biggie; but I have no problem admitting that I do find the tagging slightly upsetting. 85.167.109.26 (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I have noted my disagreement in a superscript linking to the previous version of this section. Wish you all the best 85.167.109.26 (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem - clarification of statements

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I understand I should not get involved in any discussion before closing. However, browsing the contributions so far I spotted several comments that are ungrammatical, misspelled, have words missing, do not seem to be in the right (support / oppose) section, etc, to a degree that I would be unable to determine whether the argument is policy-based or not.

How do you suggest we should handle that? Will you, at some time, ask editors for clarification? Or should I outline what rationales I (from a language/grammar point of view, of course) don't understand? To you, or to the editor in question? On the RFC page or the editor's talk page? Or do I just discount what I don't understand? --- Sorry, you have a lot of questions to answer these days and weeks, but I had to add mine. Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 15:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd say it's best to let me ask editors to clarify their statements. We don't want anyone to be able to claim that you were involved with the debate before the close. In that vein, it's probably best that you don't ask me about any individual statements that you would like to see clarified, as that could be seen as getting yourself involved by proxy (although that claim would be rather tenuous, in my opinion). You should be on safer ground if you outline some general characteristics of posts that you would like to see clarified, and I can then keep an eye out for them when they crop up. Your description above is a bit too general, though, and I can't really tell to what comments they might apply. Could you give me a little more detail?

Having said that, there is no requirement that commenters clarify their comments if they don't make sense or don't follow policy. You are free to simply ignore such comments in your close. It is also not a problem to treat a comment as if it was in the wrong section if that is how it seems from its content. In the end it is your interpretation of the comments and how they conform to policy that counts, not what the editors intended when they made them. Of course it would be ideal if these two things matched up, and asking for clarification is definitely a good thing. However, it isn't strictly necessary for our purposes. Hope this answer helps. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mr. Stradivarius, I thought along the same lines. As for the individual statements, I thought it would be best to wait another week or two, as editors still amend their points of view. --Pgallert (talk) 08:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I do observe a rather widespread misunderstanding in the !voting on the drafts (alternatively, I have misunderstood this and would be happy to be enlightened): The introductory remark the drafts may not be intended to be the first sentence of the lead has not been considered by many, and the relevant intention has not been made explicit in any of the drafts.

• The more complete drafts that show the place of the contentious statements within the lead are discussed in a way as if it was guaranteed that the the article Jerusalem would actually start that way.
• Some shorter drafts receive opposition for making too prominent the political dispute, again as if Jerusalem would actually begin with these phrases.
• Some drafts receive opposition for lacking information about where in the lead they would be placed. Yet, the introductory paragraph at Drafts at a glance explicitly allows such drafts. It thus seems as if such opposition is aimed at the RfC aim and structure, rather than at the draft itself.

I'd be happy to know what you think about this. Cheers and happy weekend, Pgallert (talk) 07:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This was a point that I brought up with the participants in the moderated discussion, as I was worried that we may get comments that opposed drafts for the reasons that you mention. There was never any consensus to make all the drafts equivalent, though, hence we have this situation. I think I will need to go through the RfC and remind people that the drafts are not all equivalent, and possibly invite people back to revisit the discussion in light of this. Hopefully that will make things a little clearer, although, again, you are free to interpret these comments as you think best when you close the discussion. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the help at Tea Party movement

In this section you edited in for us, [7] there are two words, "applications for," that have been accidentally boldfaced. This is some of that tweaking you mentioned. When I first threw together that first draft a couple of weeks ago, I was in a hurry and "tax-exempt status" was actually a fact error. It was pointed out for me, so I added the two words to correct the error and boldfaced them to draw other editors' attention to them: "applications for tax-exempt status." Never intended for the boldface to make it all the way into the article mainspace. Please correct that. Thanks .... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed. Hm, I probably should have noticed that. Thanks for pointing it out. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Hi! Thanks for the congratulations and the virtual t-shirt. If I knew that there wa a shirt involved I would have run years ago. :) - Bilby (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey, what can I say, it's kind of a tradition. :) Wear it with pride! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Infobox

This edit would fix the immediate problem but you may have a neater way to do it. All the other data fields would need something similar as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I see, but I don't have time to look into it properly tonight. One drawback - that edit broke half of the other test cases... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I've now moved the \n to a different place & the testcases now work again. -- WOSlinker (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's looking much better. Still not quite the same in this test case though. If you have a solution for that, great - otherwise I'll look into it tomorrow. Thanks for the help! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)