User talk:Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 22

Welcome back

You missed a busy morning at Louis J. Posner, VoterMarch, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VoterMarch and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lawline! JohnInDC (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Just saw it. What a mess. The AfD is a slam-dunk though, so you probably needn't worry too much about whatever he does to the Voter March article in the interim. There's nothing the guy's going to be able to produce at this point to stop it. I honestly searched just about everything you can search, using extremely loose queries and looking through even the false positive hits manually just to make sure before I nominated. Dlohcierekim really put it well: "a well-crafted work product designed to give a greater-than-justified air of notability". I think, at best, the socks/meats are trying to cause the same issue that forced a no consensus at the Posner AfD: keep injecting commentary to stymie additional participants. But it's way too late for that. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You tell me - am I just starting to see ghosts, or hear noises where there are none? Special:Contributions/IHeartUM. JohnInDC (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

It's weird as hell, but that account !voted delete so... I'm not particularly worried. If it is a sock, it'll get picked up by the CU. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, the next SSI. Because this one involved only IPs (and clear behavioral matches) I didn't request one. It just strikes me as a bit weird, this account getting created in the middle of this morning's chaos, offering up an odd (yet familiarly formatted) user page, and then zeroing in on that AfD. I am thinking he's getting cute on us and making a sock that doesn't scream "Lawline". Or - not. I agree that there's nothing to be done right now, so I guess I'm just marking it for further attention. If it's him, he'll betray himself soon enough. JohnInDC (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this too - shortly on the heels of IHeartUM's (that's U Miami) contribution to the AfD, an IP geolocating to a Miami wireless account [[1]] commented as well. This info certainly doesn't fit what we've seen (NYC and Kinko's) but it's still squirrelly. Again I guess I'm just noting it to you in case you're ever connecting dots one day; here are some more. JohnInDC (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I'd forgotten that detail about SPI. Anyway, I noticed a couple of those. The new account could still be a meatpuppet, though it doesn't fit in with the prior socks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Having reviewed the new user's userpage, I think the odds are strongly against it being a sock. Sometimes weird stuff like that happens. As to the weird comment from the 166. IP, it could be from the same individual... which doesn't bode well for the editor with the account. Both comments are so spurious anyway that no closing admin would give them any weight, but it might be good for appearance's sake to tag both comments with {{subst:spa}}. As an aside, it's kind of telling that someone from Florida would comment that VM didn't matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm perfectly willing to accept this as coincidence. It's just that Lawline is so dogged, and so - all over the lot sometimes (notable, speedy delete, 'keep' in AfDs) - that at this point, just about any new account that takes a quick interest in these obscure subjects strikes me as suspect. Time will tell. In the meantime thanks for letting me bounce all this off you. JohnInDC (talk) 00:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I thought of a possibility, but due to WP:BEANS I'm not going to spell it out here. Suffice it to say that it's possible we'll see {{nab}} get used before the end of the week. Anyway, no prob on the bouncing ideas, glad I was able to help. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Scratch that, just realized the AfD got semi'd. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you know, incidentally, how to add a CU request to an existing SSI? We need one for Lawline but I don't know how to ask for it now. JohnInDC (talk) 12:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if you have to do anything more than changing {{SPI case status| }} to {{SPI case status|CUrequest}}. I think a bot handles the chart on the main SPI page. Maybe post a note saying that you changed to a CU request because of the number of accounts and the possibility of sleepers? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to have worked, thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Just looked. Holy crap. "Worked" is an understatement. What a haul of sleepers. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess it's easier to make a whole clump of them when you're at the Kinko's or the business center and then keep them in the freezer until you need them. Yes, that was quite a collection, phew! JohnInDC (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Now he's set to work over at Commons - see this report. JohnInDC (talk) 16:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Huh, I'd forgotten about the images. I just !voted over at the commons DR. I think there's a chance it'll get deleted, but not a particularly good one. Anyway, I'd advise you to kind of let stuff at Commons be once you've said your piece. DRs over there can take a very, very long time. There's the potential for it to take over a month. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I knew it was slow, but not that slow; wow! Yes, I can leave it easily enough. The threat of the wrong outcome doesn't trouble me as much when it comes to images, which are of inherently uncertain provenance, than it does to sourced facts, rendered in non-copy-vio text in WP articles. On top of which, most of the images relate to VoterMarch anyhow, which I think is destined for the redlink file here. Thanks for your comments there, and we'll see what happens. JohnInDC (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar DR involving a boatload of files that'd gotten scraped from a wiki with compatible licensing. I'm pretty sure that DR was open for at least six to eight months. So yeah... sometimes Commons DRs are fast, sometimes not so fast. Kind of like how the easier AfDs here hinge on notability, the easier DRs there hinge on figuring out if something's PD in the origin country. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, if he's not a sock, something else got Special:Contributions/IHeartUM pretty worked up! Goodness. -JohnInDC (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm still willing to think it's unfamiliarity with the project. It's not uncommon for a new user to take reverts personally, as strange as it may seem to us. The style of speech is just... it's not Lawline. I do, however, suspect the 166' IP's !vote at the VoterMarch AfD is the same person. Anyway I'm also replying over at your talk. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I pretty much agree with you about him but there's this part of me that's - just not quite sure. And when IHeartUM pops up at the same time that Tredgert is over at Commons complaining about my political motivation (yours too BTW!), I can't entirely cut the notion loose. But then, the CU didn't turn him up, and his tone is different, and the rest as you say. If he is a sock, he'll out himself sooner or later - he can't help himself. And if not, then perhaps we can steer him into become a decent editor, who knows! Thanks again. JohnInDC (talk) 21:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, damn. That new delete !vote over there is right. Earlier publication = OTRS needed, even if you affirmatively claim to be the original author. I struck my !vote and changed to delete: Эlcobbola's absolutely correct. Anyway, yeah, if it's a sock, it'll quack soon enough. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Four Lawline socks blocked at Commons, e.g. Commons:User_talk:Mantracat. JohnInDC (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you win this round. IHeartUM is not Lawline. JohnInDC (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I really get the feeling the only reason IHUM showed up at the VM AfD was because of one or more calls to arms Posner did. I know I only saw one such "call" out on the web (which had zero views), but it wouldn't surprise me if some UM student would be on a mailing list or similar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I was looking for inbound links to Posner and VM - stray promotional plugs, things to clean up - and came across this: User_talk:Knowsetfree#Bankruptcy_Pimp_tries_to_paint_himself_as_a_Holocaust_Survivor. That little trick wasn't a new one at all! We need a bet, an over/under maybe, on how long before he gets it in his head to recreate these pages yet again. (Oh, and, hey - thanks for the Barnstar!) JohnInDC (talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. I honestly figure we'll see it again by the end of 2015. Whether it'll still be subject to deletion at that point... lol. I figure at that time we'll see a claim that Voter March has become notable, but Posner still isn't. It's going to take some really creative press to achieve that though. I really don't think it would take much to push Posner over the hump for the delete !voters at the AfD. And re: the barnstar, you're welcome, you definitely earned it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

End of 2015 - okay. I'm marking my calendar. I'll be more aggressive and say it'll be by June of 2015, or just a bit more than year from now. The clock has started running! JohnInDC (talk) 15:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI

A proposal has been made to create a Live Feed to enhance the processing of Articles for Creation and Drafts. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC to create a 'Special:NewDraftsFeed' system. Your comments are welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For taking time to offer a good faithed comment in my RfA. First, I'd like to note that you are welcome to ask me any questions, either at the RfA page of here (with an WP:ECHO, if I may ask), and I'll gladly try to address any concerns you may have. Second, I'd like to invite you to read the recent comment by DGG, who does a great job addressing a number of issues, perhaps better than I ever could. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Trayan Marechkov

I deleted this following your PROD, but then saw linked articles such as 2013 Bulgarian self-immolations which gave me second thoughts, making it seem more significant than just a WP:1E case. So I have undeleted and de-PRODded. I think deleting this needs discussion: you are welcome to nominate it at WP:Articles for deletion. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks for the notification! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I actually just re-read WP:1E. The proper course of action is likely to redirect to 2013 Bulgarian self-immolations, which I've BOLDly done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

message

Hi, I answered your message on my talk page. Pomelotree (talk) 20:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Cop"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_15#Template:Cop about the second nomination of Template:Cop in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wprk"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_8#Template:wprk about the nomination of Template:wprk in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you very much! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

I am fresh out of wiki kittens; please accept this cake as a thank you for your thoughtful comments during my (now withdrawn) RfA. Constructive criticism is always appreciated. What doesn't kill us... Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:09, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Can you help me, please?

Good evening, sir or madam. I noticed that you changed the spelling of "American Theatre Hall of Fame" to "American Theater Hall of Fame." That's all well good, but there's a page called "American Theatre Hall of Fame inductees." that I've been populating with names of Theater Hall of Fame inductees. Can you please help me move that page and help me create one that says "American Theater Hall of Fame inductees?" Thanks for your understanding. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:01, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've tried arguing a bit about the category. I don't really get why there's opposition, but categorization isn't my usual deal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:42, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

My new essay

I'm glad I ran into you over at EAR because it reminded me that I wanted to point you to my new essay, especially since part of it — the longevity bit — was inspired by the interaction which I mentioned to you here and in which you were involved. I hope you enjoy it. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

LOL, well written and chock full of truth. I like it! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Message in my talk page

Please see further comments in my talk page, regarding your reverting.--Gciriani (talk) 22:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Demarcation, pseudoscience

You mentioned [2] the Arb case... those principles are also now at WP:FRINGE/PS, fyi. Cheers! --Middle 8 (leave me alone • talk to me • COI) 20:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that should save time. Thanks. I don't usually work in articles with fringe concerns, so I didn't look beyond the arb case linked at the OMM talk page in the discretionary sanctions notice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about "Template:Wpcm"

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25#Template:Wpcm about the nomination of Template:Wpcm in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for this notification. I'm very concerned about these nominations in light of the evidence that such templates are standard around here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Request further assistance with Jahi McMath article

Not sure if you get notified automatically when your name is mentioned there, but I just asked on the BLP noticeboard for further assistance with the Jahi McMath case article. Thanks in advance for any further guidance you can provide on resolving this dispute. Funcrunch (talk) 23:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I did get the ping. I'm going to take another look at the case in the next day or so. Thanks for the heads up! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc. You have new messages at Talk:Utube.
Message added 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Widefox; talk 23:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Renamed user e8LqRIqjJf2zlGDYPSu1aXoc. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_25.
Message added 14:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Jax 0677 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of Dial H-I-S-T-O-R-Y

Hello Mendaliv,

Is it not acceptable to put the trailer YouTube clips on a wiki page?

thanks Johannesdebruycker (talk) 08:52, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually hadn't realized that those were YouTube clips of the film. I think, hmm... my gut instinct is that there's something questionable about that many YouTube links presented in the way that they were. I would suggest asking at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard for how to present those links, if at all. The usual objection, that they're of copyrighted material, would seem to be a non-issue given it would seem the copyright holder (to the film) uploaded those clips. But as I said, my gut instinct is that they don't work as presented. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:24, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My signature

You told me to fix it, and I did. (You were right, signatures should not be inconsiderate). Want to see? ChromaNebula (talk) 22:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Reads fine to me! Sorry to nitpick on that since I immediately got and liked the concept of your prior sig. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For telling me to fix my signature! ChromaNebula (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:47, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Following me

Should I assume that you're following me? Bit of a funny coincidence to be pestered out of the blue, be reported for edit warring in an unrelated occurrence and in an area you never seem to have tread before, and now to comment in an AfD I've participated in such a short period of time when we've never met before. — Lfdder (talk) 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I routinely watchlist the user talk pages of individuals who show up at EAR for behavioral issues. If you consider this inappropriate, I suggest you seek the intervention of a third party, such as an administrator. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

When did I appear at this 'EAR'? — Lfdder (talk) 02:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:EAR#Problems with article and editor. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. Well, I think that's the most condescending thing I've been told in quite some time. Why exactly are you following people with 'behavioral issues', though? — Lfdder (talk) 02:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

In this particular instance, your user talk page was watchlisted automatically when I used Twinkle to warn you for violating 3RR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What is it that you hoped to achieve by reporting me nearly 12 hours after the edit war was over? — Lfdder (talk) 02:38, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Given you had been warned less than one week prior for a 3RR violation that should have resulted in a block, and you have been around for many years (and warned and blocked previously for edit warring), it seemed clear administrative action was needed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, why was it needed? What was it meant to achieve? — Lfdder (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To stop your persistent edit warring. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't talking to me have worked better? (And I mean talking -- not blasting me with warning templates.) It seems pretty obvious to me that people generally respond poorly to being pushed around and being made a lesson out of or whatnot. They're aggravated by how they've been treated and give little thought to their own actions. Similarly, labelling me a 'behavioural issue' is rather poor form. It shows lack of understanding (or lack of willingless to understand) -- say, much like when people edit war. — Lfdder (talk) 03:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

If you disagree with the use of user warning templates, you may wish to bring it up at WT:UW, or the village pump. You made it clear by your behavior that you were not going to cease edit warring in the future without administrator intervention. I believe I followed a reasonable course of action and stand by it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not interested in bringing it up anywhere. You don't seem to want to discuss it, so I won't go on. Cheerio then. — Lfdder (talk) 03:18, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_27 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it might be time for ANI on this bullshit. I don't have time to !vote in each and every one of those. Someone clearly wants a rule change, but can't be asked to propose it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that your AN/I-request turned out to be the contentious part of the discussion. It was a nice and pointy try anyway... The Banner talk 12:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It happens. Sometimes reasonable minds disagree. I'm not one to pursue something needlessly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review

Hi Mendaliv. I'd like to share this draft and hear your thoughts. Best,   — C M B J   13:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems like you modeled this on WP:GA? and WP:FA? to some extent. Interesting. I still don't know about the QPQ side of it though. If I didn't consider ER actually dead, I think enforcement of the "don't list until you've QPQ'd" rule would be the final nail in its coffin; I'm not sure if I can see people seeking an ER doing QPQ (effectively or not). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirects for discussion

There are several redirects for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_14 in which you may be interested. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

UE Boom

Please review the AfD, do not engage in edit warring; per BBB it is you who should initiate discussion on the article's talk page. Dmatteng (talk) 05:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no clue what you're talking about re: BBB nor what that has to do with the AfD. The article is a pile of... well... it's very clearly advertising copy, and this needs to be fixed. And not with blind reverts. I have restored the advert tag as you have not fixed that issue (slapping {{inuse}} on there does not fix the problem). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:10, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a consensus on the AfD that the article is not promotional. It was proposed to do some clean up and I'm working on it. Would you be able to login on wikipedia-en-help now? If yes, let me know your nickname. If not, please let me know why have you removed 'rugged' from the lead? Dmatteng (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There was no such consensus. The consensus was that the subject was notable per Wikipedia guidelines. I don't do IRC. "Rugged" is a peacock term. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote from peacock term:"Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." However: http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/best-rugged-bluetooth-speaker/ and other reliable sources mention that the speaker is rugged.

If you haven't used IRC, but would like to try please click on http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help and it will open IRC in your browser without any additional programs required (visit WP:IRC.) Dmatteng (talk) 05:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Adver tag

I have implemented various changes and did some clean up while adopting majority of your ideas and your edits on the article, especially regarding grammar and use of bold, removed words such as: "special". Please let me know if the adver tag can be removed now.

I have completed the editing up to "Critique" section. Will review the rest of the article later. Dmatteng (talk) 07:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the article still needs a lot more work, per the discussion ongoing at the talk page. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what I wanted to ask you. In the beginning you have performed a bold edit. Removed all the parts that you considered inappropriate and changed every sections. Full edit. And after that, you have slapped {advert} tag.

While prior to your edit there wasn't {advert} tag, it may appear as if your edit has introduced promotional tone? Unless of course you used the tag as a bad badge. Could you please explain? Dmatteng (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Minas Morgul

I have to say I am, to put it mildly, disappointed by the results of the AFD. We seem to be setting a precedent where, for instance, information in The Star Trek Encyclopedia could be used as a basis for establishing the notability of subjects of a plethora of Star Trek-related articles. DonIago (talk) 12:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure what to do about it though. It got closed as no consensus though, so it does default to keep. That's just how it is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I'm more concerned about the precedent being set than by the article itself...though I do think the article is lacking as well. I was looking at Deletion Review, but they seem to prefer it if a conversation is initiated with the AFD closer first. Do you feel that would be worth pursuing in this instance, or do you think a "let it go" attitude might be better? I'm willing to pursue this since it doesn't seem like it would be a huge time investment or such, but would like to know I have some support before I do so. DonIago (talk) 19:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd say let it go for now. Looking at the AfD, the closer was probably correct in assessing it as no consensus. I'll also note that such a close doesn't preclude a subsequent discussion (even one not at AfD) deciding to redirect the page elsewhere. AfDs aren't really precedent-setting anyway. You might be better served trying to start a discussion at the Village Pump on how articles about purely fictional things are treated. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll give some thought as to whether I want to do anything further with this. Thanks for your input. DonIago (talk) 19:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Good luck. Do ping me if you decide to kick off a policy discussion. I'd be more than happy to weigh in or help craft a proposal. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Can do! DonIago (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess I got bored sooner than I expected: WP:VPP#Notability of fictional items and tie-in sources. DonIago (talk) 13:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Neat. I'll try to take a look at it later today. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Fellow Domer

I saw your note and I figured I'd write back. I am a grad of NDLS - I hope your semester is ending well, and that your summer is either relaxing (if you're a first year) fruitful (if you're a second year) or effective (if you are studying for the Bar). Best of luck; --NDSteve10 (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm finishing up second year. It's been a real ride. Hope the industry is treating you well! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Your recent editing history at Williams Landing railway station shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

The case is not resolved yet, it's more appropriate to use Citation needed tag rather than completely remove it at this stage. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netmapper (talk • contribs) 06:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Apparently in response to this. Without merit. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Queensland Brigade

Please stop tagging this redirect. There is no possibility of this ever becoming a full article by itself as it is inherently not notable. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:REDCAT. Redirects should be categorized. I really don't understand your obsession with this topic. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

No they should not. It's optional only, and in this case it is not needed. There is no obsession, except by the person (not you) who keeps re-creating this article. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Who's recreating the article? It's a redirect. Adding a category to the redirect to aid redirect categorization doesn't change the fact that it's a redirect. And frankly, I don't understand the logic behind your argument: it's optional, therefore it should be removed? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Look at the history. You'll see a troublemaking 59.101 IP who keeps bringing it back when it's nowhere near notable. I mentioned "optional" because you were making out that it was compulsory, and it's not. It only applies to redirects that could be made into articles - and this one can't be. So for that reason your edit should be removed. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the entire purpose of redirect categorization. I'm restoring the redirects. Thanks for your explanation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

No I don't think you understand that what you are doing is insinuating that an article could be created from that part - and I'm telling you that is not possible. So the categorisation is not appropriate in that instance, and it's wrong anyway. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You are the one who is persisting without understanding you are misusing WP:REDCAT. The category you have given is wrong on top of everything else. "Member" does not apply, and categorising it insinuates that an article is possible - and it's not. Do you understand me? 124.180.170.151 (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

As a third opinion who has this page on a watchlist, I agree with Mendaliv. Categorising redirects says nothing about possible article notability, it's merely putting a redirect into a category. CMD (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. If that's the intent, then the wording of the re-direct category template needs work and badly. Besides, the category being applied here is wrong anyway. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

What is the problem with the wording at Template:R from member? I also see no reason why teams can not count as members of leagues. CMD (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The wording issue is from the other template that Mendaliv was trying to add. With this template "This is a redirect from a person who is a member of a group" (note the bolded part by me) is clearly and absolutely not appropriate. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv added the possibilities category once, and dropped it as soon as you noted your initial objection. As for person and members, companies can be legal persons, and only strict literalism would see that as inappropriate wording. CMD (talk) 16:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In Australia, community sporting clubs are not companies. This is a community sporting club. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

The semantic legalities are quite irrelevant to the spirit of the point. It's an identifiable body. CMD (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

How come

You are not an admin? Some of your posts have shown up on my watchlist lately, and I always have a good impression. EdJohnston (talk) 16:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Just never got around to it I guess? I've been thinking about it though. I might try sometime this summer. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticizer emboldened

FYI: Because of the outcome of the ANI discussion today, in which you participated, the person who criticized me on a policy talk page now apparently feels emboldened to continue engaging in such uncivil behavior. Please see User talk:In ictu oculi#Request per WP:NPA.

Suggestions/advice appreciated. Thanks. --В²C ☎ 00:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

use of the word 'defamatory'

If you read WP:NLT you can see this is not a good word to use. Just a word of caution. Dougweller (talk) 07:55, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I only used it here because the complaint was one about slander (a largely outmoded term that is in practice synonymous with defamation); because I felt that the comment was possibly defamatory (rather than definitely so, as the complaint alleged); and because, frankly, implications of such severity as having mental illness may rise to the level of defamation per se (provided no defenses apply, such as truth). In other words, call it my appeal to there being a WP:DOLT moment. Anyhow, I appreciate the reminder to take care with my wording. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I didn't think you were making a legal threat, but the atmosphere is so hot right now.... Dougweller (talk) 10:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. I do appreciate the reminder. Disputes like those are usually above my pay-grade. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:05, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Outdent

When using {{outdent}} or {{od}}, like you did at WP:ANI, please make sure to include a parameter with the number of colons that the previous post had. For example, if the previous post had four colons (::::), use {{outdent|::::}} or {{outdent|4}}. This makes sure that the line properly connects to the previous post. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 19:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, just putting {{od}}, and relying on the default, works perfectly 99% of the time. I don't intend to change how I use the template unless it's necessary. Thanks. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:17, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cannot see your message.

Mendaliv,

I had a notification that you left a message on my talk page however I cold not locate it. Should it concern the Administrators page, I have agreed to close the complaint. Otherwise I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leopardtail (talk • contribs) 00:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I had seen that LFarone's talkback template was mistargeted to point to your user talk page instead of RolandR's; the message notification you received was just that change. I apologize for any confusion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Ribbon International

I received four emails from you concerning three images on this page, pertaining to a copyright. The file File:The Ribbon Route.jpg was removed by Filedelinkerbot and has been deleted by Fastily in Commons. This file has no copyright attached to it. The map file was sent to me by the Executive Director of The Ribbon International, to be place on the page, as she had no idea at how to place it on the Wikipedia page. I had previously discussed the map in Wikipedia help with Howicus and Huon, informing them of the copyright status, the age of the map and how I obtained it. Both of them told me I could use the map and designate there was no copyright and to put the thirty years in the description.

The two other images File:Helicopter view Pentagon.jpg and File:Betty Bumpers.jpg. On April 12th, permission (via template format) was sent into Wikipedia by Nigel Noble, releasing the video, The Ribbon Starts Here. Sven_Manguard, an Admin in Commons happened to be in Wikipedia help that evening, he was able to locate the email release sent by Nigel. I discussed with him in the chat room about putting the copyright notice on the cuts (images) I was planning on using and he said that was permissible. I also communicated with Sven on his talk page numerous times, and then I informed him of uploading and placing the cuts on The Ribbon International Wikipedia page. Once, additional copy is added to lengthen the article, I plan on possibly adding additional cuts from Nigel's video.[[3]]

Hi Sven[edit] I uploaded the photos tonight 5/1/2014. Thank you for all your help. If you have any problems please feel free to contact me. Susan Macafee (talk) 04:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I would greatly appreciate having these tags removed for deletion, considering the proper release was sent to Wikipedia Commons by Nigel Noble and reviewed by a Commons Administrator. Since there is no copyright affiliated the map of The Ribbon Route, having the map image restored. Thank you Susan Macafee (talk) 03:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the map, I disagree. Regarding the other images, if you own the rights to those images, it is on your group to follow the instructions for donating copyrighted materials and providing evidence of permission. Follow the instructions in the deletion template. Thank you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:05, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency

Mendaliv, is your participation on the article UE Boom being done in a good faith? Since you have started editing the article you haven't introduced any new content. The article is currently being about 60:40 positive/negative, yet per reviews the cons are minor and few, mostly like 85:15. However I'm being more concerned that you are not being consistent with the image size, it makes impression as though you might be biased in a negative way towards the article. I understand that you are concerned that no promotion will take place. However, articles about products should be judged as any other articles. Our goal is to expand articles, not axe content.

Take a look at FA-Class Brands article PowerBook 100. In specifications section it lists all specs, major and minor. The design is thoughtfully introduced, up to discussion about specific keys.

I don't think you should capitalize on the fact that I'm not an experienced editor and not a native English speaker, and that I'm unable defend the article as I would like. Dmatteng (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Image size? I haven't made a single comment on that in weeks. I'm not sure where I'm being inconsistent, nor how FA-class articles on products that have substantial coverage should be expected to impact the coverage of articles like UE Boom, which is the subject of just barely enough coverage to pass our notability criteria. Just because something is notable does not mean that the subject merits, or ever will be, anything more than a stub. I'm not sure what to make of your non sequitur that Wikipedia editing is not about axing content. The fact is, Wikipedia editing is about producing something balanced, with due weight given to various viewpoints and aspects of a subject. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:45, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

You have commented on the image size previously and have said that you deem HTC ONE's (m7) image inappropriate, however you proceeded to change only the size on UE Boom. I have discussed the issue on WP:IRC and they have said that before they will advise how to proceed about it, I should get a clarification from you.

As I have said that I'm not a native English speaker, do you intentionally select unknown to me phrases such as 'non sequitur'?

Right, something balanced. We have coverage that introduces the speaker as very good, almost the best in it's class. However reading the article the impression is 60/40 because of undue weight to negative aspects relatively to the positive aspects.

Why are you saying that the coverage is lacking? Wired, Cnet, Ilounge, PC Mag, mainstream national The New Zeland Herald, Engagdet, ZDNET are all reliable sources. There are also sources such as http://www.techradar.com/news/portable-devices/portable-media/boom-logitech-is-bringing-its-ultra-portable-wireless-speaker-australia-1166742 and http://www.techradar.com/au/news/world-of-tech/roundup/splash-out-8-brilliant-poolside-gadgets-1171082 for example that haven't been used. Dmatteng (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I'm not interested in editing the HTC One article. I don't appreciate your putting words in my mouth by claiming I have some stance with regard to that article when I clearly do not. And what you claim to be significant coverage here is peanuts compared to what is necessary to bring an article to GA or FA class. What you've provided is pretty standard for a new product. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:13, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

"I'm not even sure if the image width in the HTC One article is appropriate." - Your post in size of the picture section. Are you basing your assessment on significant coverage on the number of sources that are currently on the article? Dmatteng (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

In what way am I declaring a stance with regard to the HTC One article or advocating a particular edit to be made over there? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:36, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the quote shows the way and the stance? Dmatteng (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

A reply please? Dmatteng (talk) 19:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. All I said is that I don't know whether the image width in the HTC One article is appropriate. It might be, it might not be; I'm not involved in the writing of that article and I haven't given it a hard enough look to say for sure whether that is correct for that article. And either way it has no real bearing on whether the same image width in the UE Boom article was appropriate. It is logically fallacious to assume, simply because the two articles are both about consumer electronics that the styling of one article can be applied in an apples-to-apples fashion to another article. In this case, just for starters, the image we were using had radically different dimensions from the HTC One image. But I'm not about to get into arguing specifics. The fact is that absent a broad community consensus on a particular aspect of a page style (usually articulated in a manual of style entry), while a practice in other articles can be instructive, a local consensus (as has been achieved at the UE Boom article) handily trumps that practice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Thai coup d'état

Its not "super" its supra.. which is the proper term [4]Lihaas (talk) 13:15, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're correct that supranational is the right term for statements by international intergovernmental organizations, but I'm not going to dispute it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for warning. :)Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem; the IP was supposed to give you a notice as part of starting the thread, and I noticed you hadn't gotten such a notice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:52, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

DS warnings

Hello Mendaliv. Re this notice. If you you use Ds/alert and if you verify that a tagged entry was left in the user's talk page history then you don't have to log it in the case. See User talk:AGK#Alert problem. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Gotcha. My first time doing that (I'd actually not been sure non-admins could even give DS warnings until I finally found and read WP:AC/DS). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

What should we do if LouisAragon is abusing multiple accounts? These diffs will probably be enough to prove it (focus mainly on the comments' overall style); LouisAragon's first edit ; Barakzai1919 ; Observerpashtun ; Feysalafghan [5]. Does it ring a bell or do I need to provide more evidence (such as his location etc). It appears that he's been creating and using these to insult editors. .. [6] referring to people of Pakistan as pakis, [7] He calls some editors Pakistani nationalists [8] and me Afghan nationalist. [9] All these names edit the same particular articles with the same style and everything (spreading Pan-Iranianism, POV pushing and edit-warring). [10] [11]Alien from Afghanistan (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, first, I'd advise you to take care making any accusations, particularly in this area. When you're in a dispute with somebody, it becomes easy to jump to conclusions on what, for Wikipedia purposes, is considered inconclusive evidence. Also, I would advise you to be extremely careful if by providing evidence you mean information that LouisAragon has not publicly shared on Wikipedia; things like physical location, real name, and many other pieces of information are generally protected under Wikipedia's outing policy. Please review it carefully. Additionally, most of that information is not likely to be relevant from the standpoint of moving to investigate whether there has been abusive use of multiple accounts: it's likely to be disallowed to reveal it per WP:OUTING in the first place, and once you provide enough information to get an investigation launched, it's totally unnecessary to connecting such accounts.

In looking at the diffs you provide, it strikes me that the POV Barakzai1919 holds seems incompatible with that LouisAragon seems to hold. In any case, even though Barakzai1919 and Observerpashtun might seem more compatible, that's an innocent enough coincidence. Feysalafghan also seems like a different person based on writing differences. The Setar/Sitar connection doesn't particularly impress me as unusual either. Part of the problem is, for better or worse, and for a number of reasons, there are a large number of people editing in West, South, and Central Asian topics who hold very, very strong beliefs about nationalities and ethnicities. And much as there have been problems related to the Balkans and Macedonia in the real world, a number of factors lead such real-world disputes to have effects on Wikipedians' behavior.

Insofar as the editing connections can be fairly innocently explained (at least based on the diffs you provided me—I haven't looked at others), I doubt a Checkuser will feel comfortable looking for a connection. If I can offer a bit of advice, I'd suggest you try to take a step back and relax for awhile, don't engage Louis if you can help it, and try to work on editing articles. Editors who engage in abuse have a tendency to continue doing so, publicly, and getting caught. It has been said that patience is a virtue, and I hope it does not come across as didactic to repeat that here. Letting yourself be drawn further into conflict more often than not just seems to harm in the long run. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Untitled thread from Kjangdom

Hello Medaliv, I wanted to let you know that I have posted a reply on the following page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_Proposal Was this the right place to let you know by the way, or better with a message? All the best, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. I had not seen your new post. By the way, @Kjangdom:, did you know that you can send other editors automated notifications that you want their attention by linking to their user page? You can do it by inserting {{ping|username}} in your comment. Not all users have these notifications enabled, but it can save you from having to post a talk page message. At any rate, I wrote a reply at the ANI thread. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Good to know. Thank you.Kjangdom (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Proper talk article's use

"Well, regardless, I'm considering whether to propose a merge to Ultimate Ears. Anyway, just know that this isn't your article, nor your talk page, so please stop repositioning, copying, etc. comments needlessly. It only serves to confuse people. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)"

This is yet another post of yours that majority of is not a discussion of the article content. In my opinion having off-topic long discussion that addresses different off-topic points is what making it difficult to follow. I think I'll not descent to that level as of saying to you along the line "it's not your...". I find it at the very least impolite. Dmatteng (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

A comment concerning a proposed merger is fine. It is also fine to remind editors of basic Wikipedia principles when it appears they may be losing sight of them (or perhaps never grasped them in the first place). Mendaliv's comment was fine. JohnInDC (talk) 11:52, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd reply to this, but John said everything I could hope to say, and much more concisely. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

People lurking for getting users get warnings etc

Hello Mendaliv,

I have a question; what is in your opinion the best way to deal with people who are constantly fishing for getting others blocked, warned, etc [[12]] solely because of WP:JDLI? It's a total joke and very annoying. I have nothing to do with any sockpuppets or whatsoever. It's just a waste of my time and tiresome, and I know it's because a certain user dragged me to the mod page for ad hominem (something totally unrelated to the sockpuppet topic for that matter, but anyway)

The users/IP's there who even bring up the so called evidence so far seem just not able to accept the reliable facts, and I know it's a big problem on Wikipedia, often related to things as nationalism, PoV, bias, and revenge acts. F.e, When I just read the first given example ~there [13] regarding me, and see that certain users just can't and don't want to understand and accept that between the 16th century and early 18th century is still a timespan before 1747 (wich is not early 18th century anymore), it seems I just can't do anything else than resting my case at WP:JDLI, and, leaving it at knowledgable mods and admins who see the real thing behind it that is going on. (bias, nationalism, PoV etc.)

I'd like to know what for me is the best to do in such situations according to you; should I just let it pass, warn a mod etc, or anything else? After being here more than a year and quite a few edits I've build up some decent experience regarding editing here, but there are still some things related to the scenes behind editing I'd like to hear more about.

Regards and thanks in advance,

LouisAragon (talk) 22:57, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Highly sensitive areas tend to get highly concerned editors. If you get called on behavioral things, even a mea culpa and attempt to work together with editors is not going to work well. Obviously, if something require sources, then sources should be provided. But simply reverting isn't exactly the right stance in these situations. A better approach might be to honestly try to verify whether the claim is incorrect, and when it comes time to revert, post your findings on the talk page, and refer the original poster to it. If they revert without comment, you need to be very, very careful if you're going to revert again. I don't think you need me to tell you that the region is an area with a lot of ongoing cultural and societal conflict; I don't mean this as a criticism of the peoples of the region, but an observation of what leads to fighting on Wikipedia. Editing with this in mind is not merely a good idea, it's a necessity. The kinds of stances and responses that would be absolutely acceptable in other subject areas, such as with people promoting a product or business, will only make things worse in areas of cultural conflict, whether it's India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Macedonia, Kosovo, Eastern Europe... you don't want to go down the road these cases classically have. Provided of course the SPI does not find wrongdoing, I am willing to assume good faith that you merely screwed up with your prior comments; that your intent is to edit in a professional, responsible manner rather than flinging insults. The community generally is quite willing to forgive prior bad acts... but what happened before cannot happen again. Not even once. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for your comment. I appreciate it. It's indeed so that certain parts of the world have a higher frequency of users who apply to WP:JDLI very well, whether based on simple bias, PoV, nationalism etc. Sadly, it's just how it is. I will remind your opinions and what to do's for the future when I'll find myself in those situations. Regards, LouisAragon (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Editor Reviews

Is there any way to contest it? --JustBerry (talk) 21:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the time to do so would have been over the last two months, when there were RfCs open, active, and listed on T:CENT. Of course if you disagree that there was consensus to close the process, you're welcome to start a new discussion, but frankly it was pretty conclusive that there was a consensus that what WP:ER did wasn't working. See WT:ER for the discussions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism Bar

Hello,

I've also noticed a vandalism bar on your talk page. Just wondering: do you have any idea how it works? I'm trying to see how the script figures out the amount of vandalism - is it just number of reverts? --JustBerry (talk) 21:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no script: It's updated manually by editors. See Template:Vandalism information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Closing this?

Hello,

No offense, but when are moderators finally going to step in here? [[14]] There has not yet been one user who posted anything valuable there. It's only purely based on WP:JDL, desperately and only purely lurking there to get sanctions for me. I'm not a sock of anyone, and I think any moderator should have been able to see it by now. Sorry, but it's getting quite a bit annoying by now. I mean, the only reason why people post anything there is because they have a PoV or bias that opposses certain of my approved edits and are therefore trying to bait me. Clear, 100% WP:JDL. Not even one thing they posted had to do with my so called relatedness or being a sockpuppet of any other users account. Oh, and it gets even more funny when IP's with a 20 edit history and already a clear vandalizing history even join this joke. [[15]].

I sincerely ask mods to close it. LouisAragon (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell you exactly when it's going to happen, but it should be soon. As it's been endorsed for Checkuser, it should happen soon. I know it's frustrating to not know what's going to happen for several days... just bear with it for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Not frustrating at all, just a nuisance as it's "trolling" by the same user from different IPs. Haha - LouisAragon (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello

Since you were involved with this situation in recent past, I am informing you of this notice: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Deletion_of_refs_and_Pushing_POV

Thank You! --103.10.197.146 (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Responded at ANI. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)