User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 4

< Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5 >

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  7 -  8 -  9 -  10 -  ... (up to 100)

See here for related revision history

topic Ban

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DHeyward (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notification

I mentioned your name here in relation to your participation in a recent edit war at the 9/11 article. --John (talk) 17:15, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

Hi. When you recently edited Sosie Bacon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Duff (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I have a question

Though not unheard of, I was wondering why you created this account in March of 2007, yet did not use to to make any edits until July of 2007. Most of the time, when someone creates a username, they start making edits immediately or soon after they create their username.--MONGO 15:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Huh, I actually don't remember. That was five years ago so I really don't know why I created the account at that time. Sometimes at a site I start an account because I think of doing something, but then don't. There are a few places online where I have created accounts but have done nothing with them. Some personal issues may have left me pre-occupied, but I really can't remember.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

That's understandable...I think I may have done that myself like when I registered for a blog and decided to not comment...I think I did that with a newspaper once.--MONGO 16:36, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: RfC response

I think you know well and good. DHeyward, The Hand That Feeds You, and Toa Nidhiki05 have laid it out for you. If you choose to ignore what they say that's on you, but I oppose. --Tarage (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There was a discussion about whether there should be a warnings section, and that was distracting from discussing improvements to the section itself. So, I started a new discussion focusing on the question of whether such a section should be included. Since there was already a significant amount of opposition and it is an article of some significance, it seemed an RfC was the logical tool. I fail to see the abuse.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

If you continue to ignore what they have said then I can't help you. --Tarage (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

All I get them saying is that I should suggest detailed changes, but that is not really appropriate for an RfC. Brief messages on a specific point are the norm, not detailed proposals. There was also a claim that I am trying to lock in my edits, but that is a ridiculous argument as the RfC is not about my edits at all. Anyone would still be free to rewrite the section. It is simply a question of whether such a section should exist.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:05, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at The Blade of the Northern Lights's talk page.
Message added 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but....

Thank you for notifying me that you nominated The Big Gay Musical for deletion. While certainly further improvable through regular editing, the topic has enough soucing available to meet WP:GNG and WP:NF. And, as these were easily found, I request you consider withdrawing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch

I raised a question at Talk:Krista Branch. Also, you need to look out for WP:3RR; if you continue to revert you will likely be blocked. --John (talk) 22:09, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Dheyward has been engaged in persistent harassment of me over the past few weeks and I am not about to let him bring his personal vendetta against me to an article I put a lot of work into as he is doing now.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

If there are concerns with another user's editing it would be best to raise them in the proper place than to edit war and get yourself blocked. --John (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I am in the process of doing just that.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've replied to a comment you made on the article talk page. When you get a chance, I look forward to hearing what you think. Thanks, Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

NWO article

I've undone your edits because the content (that has had consensus for years) you have reworded without realizing why it was worded that way. The article is meant to distinguish how the term “New World Order” is used in conspiracy theory (New World Order (conspiracy theory)) from it is used in the international politics (New world order (politics)). However, there are some edits that you have done that are good (when it comes to diminishing timeline-style look) so I've kept them. --Loremaster (talk) 02:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I simply disagree that the caption is too long. However, if you find an official Wikipedia that demands it be shorter, it will be my pleasure to shorten it myself. --Loremaster (talk) 03:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Gay Musical (2nd nomination)

While appreciating your withdarawal, can you share just which "non-review" source you found that addressed your concerns? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to add it in myself later.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As I am working on expanding the article, I'd be happy to do so myself. But if you'd prefer to do so yourself, that'd be super. Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this edit.. a very nice source indeed. Unfortunately, an anonymous IP came along and reverted you without offering a reason. I gave your contribution a few tweaks and put it right back. Good looking out. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:02, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination), a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deletion (2nd nomination) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 04:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

9/11 Conspiracies Topic Ban

This is to notify you that you are topic banned from all articles, discussions, and other content related to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, broadly construed across all namespaces for six months per this AE report. As you are aware from your prior topic ban violations are subject to blocking and appeals can be made at WP:AE or to the ARBCOM mailing list. --WGFinley (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wgfinley: Did you mean to topic ban TDA for only 9/11 conspiracy theories? I thought the topic ban being discussed was for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, not just 9/11 conspiracy theories. TDA is having issues over the entire topic space, not just conspiracy theories. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The case, and the power to sanction, comes from WP:ARB911 which only concerns 9/11 conspiracy theories. However, it is "broadly construed" so while it's not an out and out ban from 9/11 related topics it would be pushing the boundaries of the ban to wade into them. --WGFinley (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Wgfinley: I'm sorry, but I believe that you are mistaken. The standard discretionary sanctions apply to "Articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted",[1] not just 9/11 conspiracy theories. This is consistent with the previous sanction against TDA which applied to all articles related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.[2] It's also consistent with other AE admins said about the sanctions.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the appropriate place for this discussion and you are splitting hairs. It's "broadly construed", TDA is well aware of what that means. --WGFinley (talk) 13:03, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

AQFK is right that ARB911 technically applies to all 9/11-related articles, but they are also "discretionary" sanctions so if your discretion is that there should only be a ban from edits relating to 9/11 conspiracy theories then that is obviously free for you to decide.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

As you wish, all 9/11 articles, broadly construed. --WGFinley (talk) 14:57, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello The Devil's Advocate. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 12:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Revelation GAR

Wow, thanks for coming in and reviewing it - its been up there for quite a few months now. I believe I have addressed the issues, so please check it when you can. Thanks again. :) Toa Nidhiki05 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the input - I've never had an FA on my resume, so glad to see it is close to that status. As for my outstanding GA nominations, I'm not really surprised - based on my past GAs, it takes at least several months before someone is willing to review it. Clearing out the music article backlog is a good idea, so thanks for that advice. Toa Nidhiki05 20:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Truth

Dear Sir,

While browsing through pages on Wikipedia, I stumbled upon your userpage. I came to realise that there is more to you than your userpage suggests.

It's fascinating, how you value truth over credibility, unlike Wikipedia's general policy. Wikipedia has always been a restricting and unreliable source of truth for me. I have the impression that you may be able to help me in my pursuit of truth, given the fact that you "want this project to be a great service to all truth-seekers in the world".

I would like to get to know you a little bit better. You may prove to be an invaluable contact.

My contactinformation

MSN/E-Mail: nawid_norouzi@hotmail.com

Skype: PC-Reviver

I am most often available on MSN.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,

PC-Reviver (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You do understand that once you continue the conversation on my talk page, it's supposed to stick there? Go check it out. PC-Reviver (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Finder

Could you please leave my post up on the finder page for a while regarding the various petitions etc on the web about the finder. I totally agree that it seems redundant, because likely nothing will come of it, but it does seem to be generating some buzz.

After a few weeks, you can certainly remove any hint of me having been here. I havn't broken any rules that I am aware of, and I have not posted links or specific sites.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratchett (talk • contribs) 16:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess that there's no point in trying to ask that the tiny little info I added be left for a bit, it seems that Wikipedia belongs to only certain peple and their opinions. I guess I'll re-think next year when it's donation time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratchett (talk • contribs) 21:16, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom appeal statement

I hope you'll find this explanation acceptable,[4] and if you do, can you please strike through or remove your statement? Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

the finder

I understand all that, I really do, and I don't usually even bother with it, because frankly, we both know nothing will come of it, except the money they are raising for American Cancer Society in "Walter Sherman's" name. It is contributing to society at large, even if the show would or would not be saved. It is a valiant effort by many people, and IS worth a mention, and can be verified. People have come to know Wikipedia as a great free source of info, and I know when I am looking for something, I come here. People looking for info on the Save the Finder' would start here. I also donate each year when it's time because I like the site. As do so many others. What is happening with the finder is quite large, and is benefiting Cancer research.

Worth a mention......... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cratchett (talk • contribs) 16:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Look up WP:UNDUE. Unless this is covered as a notable aspect of the series you would be giving too much weight to an opinion on the subject. If even just one major news source covers it in detail this would be reasonable to include in the article, though not at the top of the page.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Quick note

I moved the first paragraph of your evidence to the workshop, where I think its more appropriate.

Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 23:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see your point, though I removed the first sentence since that would not really be consistent with a proposed principle.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Looks good. -- Lord Roem (talk) 00:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban

Hey The Devil's Advocate. Thanks for bringing the topic ban discussion to my attention, I hadn't noticed that. I've been thinking about how best to proceed for most of the day. On the one hand, you were by far and away the most vociferous on the RfC and there was clearly a push to have you removed from the topic. On the other, topic bans are generally reviewable after 6 months (and that discussion was 4 months ago), the RfC has been closed by someone with no horse in the race. The fact remains that there now has been an RfC, it's clear how the community feels about ARS - the project is not regarded as a problem by most. I wonder therefore about the topic ban. Either, you can accept the outcome of the RfC, in which case the topic ban is unneeded, but also does no harm, or you cannot - in which case it is preventative and needed. Having read over the ANI thread, I think it is worth leaving some sort of topic ban in place, which you can take to the community to review should you not agree with it.

So, per Collect's wording - You may not initiate anything on any page in projectspace directly or indirectly referring to the Article Rescue Squad. - I hope you find this acceptable, but if not please feel free to discuss the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 15:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

"Initiate" in "projectspace directly or indirectly referring" is overly broad wording. Many who supported the ban were under the impression that it was meant to apply only to initiating noticeboard listings and deletion discussions and that is what I said I would find acceptable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not from my reading, no. This specifically stops you initiating further threads, at notice boards, deletion discussions and other areas, such as the village pump. I can't think of any area where this is too broad, but do feel free to enlighten me on the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 08:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

It is the "other areas" that I am concerned about. Projectspace means anything prefaced with Wikipedia while "initiate anything" that is "indirectly referring" to the group seems to be talking about more than just pushing for administrative action against the group, which is ultimately what the threads I started were about. "Initiate anything" could just as easily be taken as referring to non-discussion edits on pages in projectspace such as changes to essays or policy and guideline pages and if those pages deal with deletion/inclusion or canvassing it could be taken as "indirectly referring" to the group. Furthermore, if I were interested in working with the group to try and address my concerns it would seemingly prevent me from doing anything to achieve that on the related Wikiproject pages.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:54, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable argument. Given that I don't really see the need for the topic ban, as the RfC result should have superseded it, there was no strong consensus at the ANI, you haven't been recently causing issues, I'm happy to relax things a bit.

You may not initiate any threads at noticeboards, including Village Pump and nominations for deletion, on the Article Rescue Squadron as a group".

I will also say that you will be under close scrutiny on this, I'm sure. If you do refuse to accept the outcome of the RfC and carry on in a non-productive manner, it will likely be picked up quickly, and the consequences will be severe. I will also point out that Arbcom should be an avenue open to you on this matter - though I expect it would not be a useful one, given the RfC. I hope that clarifies things. In case it doesn't, I've got the page watchlisted, I don't need the whisperback. Worm^TT(talk) 16:31, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

CCI Infringement

Having just returned from helping to organize a Wikipedia meetup, I was disturbed to see your recent actions taken against me. I think you were far too careless in your contributor copyright investigation nomination. You have correctly identified a few sentences which were in fact copyright infringement, and which I have corrected. I disagree with your other claims. And in any event, the matters could've been handled by notifying me so that they could be cleaned up, and an encouragement to be more diligent in the future. Let's work to clean up and correct the mistakes you've identified instead of engaging in needless and time-wasting full throttle investigations that will only serve to dampen the Wikipedia community.--YHoshua (talk) 22:27, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyright infringement occurs even if you substitute a few synonyms and shuffle the order around. To suggest that said changes are enough to avoid infringement is not understanding the law. It's the Vanilla Ice defense.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Brooks & Dunn

Kinda hard to get a GA review done when the servers keep b0rking, isn't it? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, well I haven't had too much trouble doing it in spite of that, but I was also off Wikipedia for a few hours there.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed most of your issues. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I expanded the intro further and added a couple more pictures. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:I Am America EP.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:I Am America EP.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

"It is the artist's first EP and contains the two songs she is most known for..." neither of these things are anything to do with the cover. "... and the source for the caption in the article is a review of the EP"- OK, that's fine, but, again, this doesn't demonstrate that the cover has any particular significance. It's up to you to demonstrate why the cover art itself is significant, as, unless it is so, its use is not going to be justified under NFCC#8. No matter how relevant the release is to the article, that does not magically make the cover significant, and does not mean that seeing the cover automatically increases reader understanding. As a parallel, a biography of person A may make significant reference to person B, but, unless the appearance of person B is in some way significant, a non-free image of person B is probably not going to be justified. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Dude, that is not what the guideline says nor is it the intended meaning of the guideline. It says: "In other cases such as cover art / product packaging, a non-free work is needed to discuss a related subject." Note that it says "related", as in, not the cover art itself. Non-iconic images of people are very different as they would conceivably be replaceable with a free image. There really is no free equivalent when it comes to a modern musical work and when noting that an album is an artist's first EP there are really no ways to identify it other than with an image of the cover.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If you disagree with my interpretation of the non-free content guidelines, please, feel free to ask on the relevant talk page as to how they should be interpreted. However, I doubt you'll find many who share your views. To reiterate, unless the album cover itself is in some way significant, it does not belong on the article about the artist. I think you'll struggle to find another article on which a cover is used that way, nevermind a decent (such as a featured) one. J Milburn (talk) 02:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking over past discussions was far more informative. It strikes me that no clear consensus has existed for or against such usage in any of the discussions on the issue, though it seems you have sought to enforce your own personal interpretation of the guideline in the past despite opposition. The guideline clearly says that covers can be used to discuss a "related subject", i.e. the content to which the cover belongs, and that is how it is being used in this case. Unless you can explain why that part of the guideline is invalid here I see no reason why your argument for deletion should be accepted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

NFCC#8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I cannot see how this is the case. However, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". These are both quotes from the policy page, and are unambiguous. The onus is on you to demonstrate, in this particular case, why the cover is significant, and what it is adding to the article. J Milburn (talk) 08:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Visual identification for the purpose of critical commentary is included under that criteria, though I suppose its use in the article had not been adequate as no commentary was provided on the EP itself. Now there is so it meets the standard.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on the EP's all well and good, but that doesn't magically make the cover significant. To again use the portrait example, I could provide a long discussion of the actions of a particular person (to bypass the replaceability issue, let us say that this is a dead person) on an article about a different person; unless their appearance happened to be significant, then a non-free image would clearly not be necessary. Again, I implore you to take a look at some of the stronger articles on musicians on Wikipedia; short of cover designs being particularly notable, you will never see album covers. J Milburn (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, the real problem with your example is that you could have ten non-free images of a person that could all conceivably be used for the same purpose without any of them being relevant to the material. Here we have only one possible image that would be inherently relevant to the material. You can't "take a picture" of a song and taking a picture of a disc, if it is even on a physical medium, with all the labels and packaging obscured would be useless. Audio clips won't work either because they do not identify the album itself. The only way you can visually identify an album that is being discussed in an article is to put up an image of the cover. Being the only identifying imagery makes it significant. In this case it actually has an even stronger argument as the EP has the same name as one of her singles so it would allow readers to recognize the EP.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not denying that the cover is the "only way you can visually identify an album"- I most certainly do not agree with your unsaid assumption that the album needs to be "visually identified". J Milburn (talk) 20:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

The Branch article is extremely well written, and I think she might be inclined to donate something to enhance the article further. You should ask her if she could contribute any media. It's good publicity for her. If nothing else, some low resolution stuff. That's what happened with that cutie Lila Rose. You never know... – Lionel ^(talk) 08:04, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Revelation

Thanks for the paraphrasing on the article - I couldn't figure out how to get that part paraphrased. Toa Nidhiki05 21:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: arbitration request

You correctly identified the notice. Unfortunately, I can't understand your second sentence; would you please rephrase it? Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I am saying the editor who notified you of the current case received the same user talk notice from that sock and Mathsci also removed that comment.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I find this RFAR capricious.PumpkinSky talk 02:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, so this is a good faith request. Thanks for the pointer! Nyttend (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong word. Let me be explicit. I meant in the meaning of errant. Especially in naming you. The filer just came off a one month block and files the RFAR, obviously he's pissed and I think he's reaching in retaliation. I find little merit in it and no merit in naming you.PumpkinSky talk 02:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin, perhaps you didn't see my comment at the RFAR? I thought this was potentially a bad-faith request by a sockpuppet of one of the banned users in question. I too am confused about being named, but at least the account itself is being operated in good faith, regardless of the merits of the case, so I'll participate to the extent necessary. Nyttend (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I find little merit in the filing.PumpkinSky talk 02:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

While I agree this is partly driven out of frustration, it is not without merit. MastCell is a regular in the general topic area of fringe theories, which would include R&I, and a review of his interactions with Mathsci suggests a distinct possibility that he may not be impartial when it comes to disputes where Mathsci specifically is a party. From what I can tell, one of the issues is that after Jclemens raised a concern about Mathsci maintaining a prohibited list of editor conduct issues in the userspace of an alternate account, MastCell deleted the list at Math's request. Seems to me Nyttend is only mentioned incidentally because of the dispute over that talk page notice and the fact Mathsci went and accused him of impropriety on AN with regards to Echigo mole.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Has the filing editor also been involved in fringe theories a lot? I too am disturbed by the user's talk page being protected to prevent him from including text that's not prohibited by policy, but it's not something that needs to go to Arbcom. Nyttend (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The filing editor has been involved in the R&I topic area specifically, though he was subjected to a topic ban and interaction ban due to meatpuppetry i.e. proxy-editing, seemingly because this editor knows a banned editor Ferahgo and they have discussed Wikipedia off-wiki. It is nowhere near as serious as the private mailing list cabals that pop up in a lot of these contentious topic areas. His involvement appears to have been relatively minor and sporadic, a few dozen contributions from October 2010 to January 2012, and his interactions with the editors there limited only to discussions on their conduct in the topic area as far as I can tell. Another editor who was given a similar ban in that case doesn't seem to have been involved in the topic since May of 2011, a full year before this topic ban was enacted. Not seeing anywhere that they had any interactions with these users outside the topic area as that would seem to be the only reason to have an interaction ban on top of the topic ban. I certainly don't see the reason for wording that essentially implied they were both under a one-way ban on discussing the conduct of any editor who has ever been involved in the R&I topic area. Basically, Math was free to edit this editor's userspace repeatedly and against his express wishes, without that editor being able to complain about such conduct. Those sorts of one-way interaction bans only seem to make a site ban inevitable.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Please direct your attention to my post here. The committee actually did not rule I was proxying for anyone, and a few arbitrators (Roger Davies and SilkTork) commented specifically that they weren't ruling that. But the other editor who was topic banned expressed fear that if the claim that ArbCom ruled I was proxying got repeated enough, everyone might eventually forget the committee didn't rule that. That seems to be happening now.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll agree there is concern on the protected talk page issue.PumpkinSky talk 10:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

TDA, you seem to understand the issues here, and that they deserve attention even if arbitration is not the right place for them. Can you give any advice about what I should do about these problems? You suggested an RFCU, but if I start one it would probably be viewed as a violation of my topic ban.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My suggestion is that you request an amendment to the terms of the restriction. The limitation that you cannot mention Mathsci's conduct, even while Mathsci is allowed to go to your userpage and behave in a disruptive manner that practically begs you to comment about his conduct seems to be a pretty good reason to request that the restriction be modified to be only an R&I topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm very hesitant about that suggestion. From MBisanz's comments at AE, I think he's going to block me if I make another effort to pursue a resolution with ArbCom. Either way I'll probably also get accused of making the request in bad faith, as happened when I made the arbitration request.

Throughout this issue, you've helped me a lot by explaining things about the issue that I'm not allowed to explain. I appreciate that. Whatever you think the best solution is, would you be willing to request it yourself? I'm sorry to have to ask for that, but it seems I'm not allowed to discuss how my restriction affects me.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Randi

Sorry. I am not familiar with the template there, and stuffed up the Terzian/Carl Sagan ref, which I hope you can fix. Randi is the author of the article and the other two the editors of the book in which it appears. Bit busy here.Nishidani (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Krista Branch

Hey TDA, I did a little spamming for your GAN. We'll see what happens. I'd do it myself--but I not detailed oriented enough. – Lionel ^(talk) 07:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That was fast [5]. Good luck! – Lionel ^(talk) 20:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Having more images would improve the article. I checked Google images & Flickr but nothing came up. I may have a solution. A requirement of Fair Use is criticism. If you create sections specifically on "I Am America" and/or "Remember Who We Are" you will be able to add FU images for identification. Structure it like an abbreviated version of one of our song articles. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:58, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you check the recent history of the article you will see I did something very much like that, but the image got speedy deleted, wrongly I believe, as the NFCC perfectly allows such usage.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

People don't realize how much POV pushing goes on with images. I've had an image deleted by an editor who used the same rationale to keep another image! Anyway if you create a dedicated section of a couple paragraphs devoted to one of the songs that should be enough critical commentary to pass NFCC#8 and use an image of the song for identification purposes per WP:NFCI #1. You can double check at WP:CQ.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:55, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey TDA check this out: Revelation_(Third_Day_album)#Composition. A great example of using an audio clip in conjunction with critical commentary. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you approve of my revision of the lede? --ColonelHenry (talk) 02:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page.

Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page. two new comments, re: your reply to above WB --ColonelHenry (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA renomination of Krista Branch without any further revisions to address the reasons for its first nomination's failure has been reported for review. Obligatory notice placed below. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thanks

Thanks for your offer to take up my situation with ArbCom. I really appreciate it. Would it be all right if I sent you e-mail first with some additional details about the situation? There are a few details I think it would be helpful for you to know, but I might not be allowed to talk about them in public.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't object to you sending them the e-mail, if you think that's best.--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Krista Branch/GA2

I've discussed the matter with ColonelHenry, and he's OK with me taking over the GAN. I'll take a look over the next few days and leave comments. I don't want to get too far into it at the moment, however, as I'm not sure which version to review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 21:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This user helped promote Krista Branch to good article status.

Well done. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:02, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yay! Thanks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.

Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-office ^connect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.

Regards, User:Szhang (WMF) (talk) 07:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Friendly notification regarding this week's Signpost

Hello. This is an automated message to tell you that, as it stands, you are set to be mentioned in this week's Arbitration Report (link). The report aims to inform readers of The Signpost about the proceedings of the Arbitration Committee in a non-partisan manner. Please review the draft article, and, if you have any concerns, feel free to leave them on the talkpage (transcluded in the Comments section directly below the main body of text), where they will be read by a member of the editorial team. Please only edit the article yourself in the case of grievous factual errors (making sure to note such changes in the comments section). Thank you. On behalf of The Signpost's editorial team, LivingBot (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

AE comment

I don't want to take up even more space at the WP:AE request, so let me offer some articulation here, in regard to this comment of yours.

As I already said, I did not ask MyMoloboaccount to make any edits or to come to any article. Skapperod also has not provided an even iota of evidence in that regard, but just a whole slew of baseless insinuations and poisoning the well.

MyMoloboaccount is not under any sanction and can damn well edit any article he chooses. He has traditionally edited articles related to Polish-German topics, as has Skapperod - and that's what the article on Konigsberg is. One thing that does happen pretty often is that if MyMoloboaccount starts editing an article, Skapperod soon shows up and starts a dispute. And of course vice versa. It's pretty clear the two of them share an almost identical watchlist (which is probably a subset of my way tooo long watchlist). So there's nothing surprising here - they've been editing the same articles since time immemorial. And yes, my sense of it is that sometimes Skapperod tries to provoke MMA by making unnecessarily over the top POV edits.

And even look at this supposed "tag-teaming". MMA has made talk page comments which I don't even agree with (moving Konigsberg to Kaliningrad) or which I don't particularly care about (moving Battle of Tczew to Battle of Dirschau). He made one comment about the fact that there used to be lots of Poles in Konigsbergs at one point which can be read as being "in support" of me. And that's this super evil tag teaming Skapperod is freaking out about? Seriously?

On the other hand you've got Skapperod, User:HerkusMonte, User:M.K and User:Estlandia who have a very very very long history of tag teaming with each other and supporting each other actually EDIT WARRING to support each other. And mutually trying to shout down discussion on the talk page. And playing little disruptive games, where Herkus will add a citation needed tag, I will spend my valuable time finding a source and adding it in, only for M.K or Skapperod to come along and just completely remove the text.

Look at the situation again please.VolunteerMarek 06:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I find that whole section of the article to be rather tendentious. Not sure why there needs to be a subsection specifically about Poles in the culture and people section. You aren't exactly behaving in the most civil and constructive manner there either.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if your opinion is accurate, then that's a content dispute, which is supposed to be rsolved on the talk page or other means of dispute resolution (RfC, which I suggested, or 3O or whatever). It is NOT suppose to be solved by Skapp running to AE every time he doesn't get his way 100% on an article.

I don't know if I'm being "civil" - I try to be honest and say what I think rather than hide behind mealy mouthed hypocrisy or passive aggressive game playing. And YOU try dealing with these people, and see how long your temper will hold.

I was particularly frustrated because of this game of these editors adding tags, me spending many hours looking up sources and adding them in, only to have the same editors simply remove the text anyway, after the source was provided. That's not just disruptive, it's done with the purpose of wasting somebody's time and frustrating them.VolunteerMarek 06:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Please read WP:CANVASS and reread this diff. Arcandam (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Prioryman should have notified them if he was going to notify the admins who had blocked YRC. I am simply doing what he should have done and would prefer to otherwise stay out of the dispute.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If he did something wrong that is no excuse to make that same mistake, right? You broke the rules, my advice would be to revert yourself before someone else notices (especially if you want to stay out of the dispute). That guideline says: "Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions" is !vote-stacking. Arcandam (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Had Prioryman actually named all those admins and only notified the blocking ones, I would not be violating the guideline by stepping in to correct his mistake should he refuse to do so himself.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hypothetical situations are not really relevant imho. In this case you are violating the guideline. You are obviously a goodfaithed editor. If I can convince you to follow the guideline we may be able to avoid some drama. Arcandam (talk) 00:15, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

My actions are supported by both the letter and spirit of policy. I am not going to enable an editor's gaming of the canvassing guideline by reversing those actions.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand, I am not a native speaker. Why do you say your actions are supported by the letter of the guideline? I don't see a "if someone you disagree with has canvassed you can canvass too"-clause in that guideline. And why do you claim that the spirit of the guideline (not a policy) is supporting your actions? This guideline makes it perfectly clear that what you were doing is not allowed. Arcandam (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The unblocking admins were clearly mentioned in the case as well as their conduct, so the letter of the guideline means they should be notified. As to the spirit of the guideline, do you really think the guideline would require that I leave a second notification at the talk page of the blocking admins? There would be no point in it.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No, actually, the guideline makes it clear that what you did is canvassing. Would you please be so kind to quote the sentence(s) that you think are supporting your claim? Are you referring to the following quote?

On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behavior).

On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it.

That part of the text does not help you, because the guideline makes it clear you need to send appropriate notifications, look at that table, and you did not.

To answer your question: no, but that guideline explicitly disallows what you have done, so you should probably revert yourself. Arcandam (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Seriously dude, the effect of my notifications is that both blocking and unblocking admins have received neutral notices of the case. You are taking the policy far too literally. I am not going to remove my notices and I am not going to discuss this any further.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand. And I understand that your intentions are good. You just confused me a bit by claiming the letter and spirit of the guideline support your actions, because they clearly do not. If you see someone break the speedlimit that does not give you the right to do the same thing, even if you think it is "fair". Arcandam (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked into this too closely, but if Prioryman violated WP:CANVASS, The Devil's Advocate was attempting to notify that admins that should have been notified by Prioryman. IOW, I don't see anything improper in what TDA did. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note

Since I don't care to continue this dispute with Arcandam, I would like to notify you that I replied to a comment you left here. Ryan Vesey 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep on trolling, the chances you'll become an admin will decrease even more. And we all know that is all you are here for. Arcandam (talk) 03:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Your topic ban

Your current topic ban on 9/11 articles expires in 2 months, so you'll be able to edit there again in early October. Maybe these two months will allow you the time to reflect on why you have been topic banned twice so that you can avoid a probable indefinite ban in the future.--MONGO 16:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk page etiket

Hi I deleted your post = please do not continue to post comments after I close down discussion on my talk page - regards - Youreallycan 00:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

In fact - as I found your whole positi0on a bit attacking - please don#t post again on my talkpage = thanks and goodbye - Youreallycan 00:57, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if you took it as an attack. I am just trying to help de-escalate matters by offering some friendly advice.--The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 01:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

You added your opinionated content comment to a talkpage thread after I had archived it - how doing that is in any way, "I am just trying to help de-escalate matters by offering some friendly advice" is incomparable with your edits - anyway - discussion is over - regards - Youreallycan 01:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Youreallycan, these kinds of comments are not helpful. Having reviewed the comments made by The Devil's Advocate, I can find nothing resembling an "attacking" position. As you have been repeatedly reminded, criticism is not an attack. The fact of the matter is, there is general community consensus that you are misinterpreting BLP while at the same time claiming to read the minds of the BLP parties you are claiming to defend. If I were to make a personal attack, I would say that this kind of behavior appears to be delusional, however, I will asssume good faith and merely observe that you have a problem listening to other editors and taking their criticism under advisement. As a result, I don't think you are compatible with Wikipedia and its collaborative environment. Viriditas (talk) 02:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

My comments after the discussion were not really article-related. I just think that what you said could offend people and be a source of conflict given the attention your current situation has received. Not trying to be mean, I am really just trying to keep you from providing your opponents with ammunition to use against you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)