User talk:FutureTrillionaire/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

RfC

Hi,

Would appreciate your comments here. Cheers --Muhammad(talk) 16:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Red lines in Battle of Aleppo map

Hello Future , I saw there are some red lines next to the old city and in southeastern Aleppo , could you please explain me what do they represent? --Amedjay (talk) 15:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, not much really. I drew them because I needed a border to color the areas around it. So it kinda means "non-road border". -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

National coalition map

I want make a light green color for the countries the recognize the coalition as the legitement representative of the syrian peopleAlhanuty (talk) 02:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You can't change the map now. It's been locked by an admin because of edit-warring. It will expire on 3 February 2013. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

All because of doenis Alhanuty (talk) 02:29, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps of syrian civil war

Why did you replace rif dimashq map with a new map that doesn't show territorial control,and why you did that in idling and Hama and Homs map,we need to show both sides territorial control ,and the location Alhanuty (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Lothar and I sorta discussed it here:[1]. We were concerned that the coloring of the Southern Syria map was an inaccurate portrayal of the situation on the ground. There simply isn't enough reliable sources to make an accurate map. Plus, the conflict is more asymmetrical, than conventional warfare. The Homs map was deleted from Commons because of copyright violations, so I made a replacement. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Why not just taking a map like Battle of Aleppo's one? --Amedjay (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Civil war strenths in the infobox

The Mujahideen, the foreigners and the Kurdish PYD fighters are all included in the 70,000-100,000 opposition figure because it talks about the overall number of opposition forces in the whole country. As for the governments side of the infobox, your 200,000 number was in fact just for the regular Syrian Armed Forces. Its that your source wrongly presented it. Read these multiple sources [2][3][4] that clearly state the 200,000 figure is for regular Army soldiers only. Some of them even more reliable than the one claiming that the militia are included in the 200,000. EkoGraf (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Propaganda section of the Syrian civil war

User FrenchMalawi keeps putting in opinion pieces and fringe sites to source a claim that "certain foreign governments" are using propaganda. He further uses 2 russia today sources and a daily star source which talk about Russian foreign minister Larov claiming that US fears over chemical weapons is propaganda. Thats fine to put in the section, but he keeps trying to use that to source different claims that have nothing to do with chemical weapons.

Please voice your opinion on this issue on the talkpage, or help correct the problem. Its just kind of annoying fixing the problem myself as the other user is so persistent.

Heres what the user keeps trying to do http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=532448519&oldid=532442234

Sopher99 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:California State University, Northridge

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:California State University, Northridge. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Mali map

Map is badly out of date.

Tuaregs are just controlling Tinzaouaten now, all the other northern cities are islamists held. And the malian army retook Konna this evening. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumina (talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No source for Konna yet. EkoGraf (talk) 22:48, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reuters, France 24, the interior minister of Mali.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grumina (talk • contribs) 22:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

 Done -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Futuretrillionaire, French Military started an intervention in Mali, I guess you know that. BFMTV (the equivalent of CNN or BBC) reporting more or less than 5000 soldiers in Africa ready to partipate the intervention but I couldn't find the internet source. --Amedjay (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Konna

Should we make an article titled Battle of Konna? EkoGraf (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems someone beet me to it. Lol. EkoGraf (talk) 23:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I moved part of the content on the Battle of Konna from the foreign intervention section in the main article on the war to the article on the battle. So, if you could, please summarize the foreign intervention section on the points of the battle since we have an article on it now. So it wouldn't be a fork. Thanks. EkoGraf (talk) 00:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I did some summarizing and tidying.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

I like your pictures but I don't see the point of three images of government soldiers training. I think you should pick just one and leave it and remove the other two. EkoGraf (talk) 03:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably excessive. I've removed one of them. I fear removing another one might disrupt the balance between govt and rebel photos too much.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Your tireless contributions to Minecraft has made it a Good Article. Good job! Horai 551 10:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Simple English proposal at the Pump

Hello,

As one of the participants in the original Village Pump discussion about getting the Simple Wiki to the top of the Languages, you are invited to participate in the reopened discussion of the same. Your feedback will be appreciated.

Cheers, TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, FutureTrillionaire. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals).
Message added 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TheOriginalSoni (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Northern Mali Conflict

Great editing on the Northern Mali conflict. Not much else to say but that your edits are doing amazing service in improving that page significantly. Keep it up. AbstractIllusions (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. --Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo map talk page

Hey FutureTrillionare, I've merged the comments in the commons talk page to File talk:Battle of Aleppo map.svg. I've also removed your comments in the "Centralizing discussion" section, if that's alright with you. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty good idea. Thanks.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 04:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To do list

I though you should know, ongoing events can't be promoted to GA. This include the Syrian civil war. By the way, your work on the article is admirable. Mohamed CJ (talk) 19:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that one is more of a long-term goal. I'm not expecting the conflict to end any time soon.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC review for an FAC review?

In an attempt to get more reviewers to review my article (and hopefully support), I'll review your FAC article, Oblivion, if you review God of War (video game) (review). I see that you're in college, as am I, so I don't expect you to dive right in (though the quicker the better). --JDC808 ♫ 19:07, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look at it.--Futuretrillionaire (talk) 00:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the book referencing and added the source to the Plot. --JDC808 ♫ 21:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed recent reference issue. --JDC808 ♫ 22:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. --JDC808 ♫ 22:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fixed last issue. --JDC808 ♫ 04:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Colombian conflict (1964–present) -> Colombian Marxist Insurgency

Hi Future. [5] I moved it back. You need to establish some kind of rationale to overturn the earlier talk page consensus on the article title. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:58, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't think anyone was interested in the page anymore and doubted I would get a response, so decided to be WP:bold and moved it. As for the rationale, the conflict does not have a clear beginning date, and "Marxist insurgency" is the term used by stratfor[6]. I don't mind having it reverted it, but I'm not sure if getting enough people involved in a discussion about this is feasible. So I suppose we can just keep the title as it is for now. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

You probably would not have gotten many responses but I'm watching the page, at least, and I'm sure Forich is as well. Even if there had been no response it would still have been advisable to post about the proposed move on the talk page first and leave it for about a week or so to establish if anyone was minded to comment. An article name move is a pretty large edit and, while being bold is sometimes advisable, unless you have a really good rationale it's better, I think, to take your time over such moves.

A consensus had been established on the current title a little more than a month ago and this had involved a fair degree of research and argument to settle on an acceptable solution. To overturn that would require more substantial evidence than the single use of the term "Colombian Marxist Insurgency" by a private intelligence company such as that which you link to above [7]. A single usage by a website does not provide the basis for an article move. If you put that title into Google Scholar it returns only two hits [8] (both to the same publication) and this does indicate that that title has not been widely adopted by reliable English language sources.

If you think that other editors are not particularly interested in a given article and are unlikely to provide comment prior to any action you're actually under a greater responsibility to research the topic yourself to ensure that what you're doing is correct. The next time you move a page or propose to move a page I'd suggest, at a minimum, that you do a Google Scholar search for the current and proposed article names (placed within quotation marks) and post the results on the talk page together with any other relevant source based evidence. The dating issue is complex but, again, post what evidence you think is relevant to the talk page. Even if no-one replies at the time it at least indicates to future editors who land on the page that there was a rationale behind the changes.

Anyhow, sorry for being so long-winded. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the advice.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Darayya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(November_2012–present)#Situation_in_Darayya your thoughts are welcomed Abdo45 (talk) 14:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Input needed at RfC

Hi. Input is needed on a an RfC. You were randomly selected from the WP:FRS list of editors willing to help with RfCs. If you have a moment, your help would be appreciated at the RfC about the Nobel Prize. Cheers. --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines for comments

"Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request." Some more bedtime reading on the topic: [9] FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. You're right. I'm sorry. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:06, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Syria death-toll pictures again

Hey, I figured it's about time to update the Syrian death-toll pictures again. Since I reminded you last time I felt kinda obligated to be the one to do it again. :) Philpill691 (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me, but don't I'm going to be pretty busy for a while. I'll try to get that done soon... maybe.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Herero and Namaqua Genocide

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Herero and Namaqua Genocide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

al-Safira battle

Seems its becoming clear now that in the last 3-4 days there was heavy fighting in al-Safira, with the rebels attempting to capture the military facility that until this summer housed the chemical weapons. SOHR is reporting that almost 120 rebels were killed and it seems now the attack has failed. Do you think we should create an article on this? EkoGraf (talk) 00:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I feel like this can be incorporated in the the Battle of Aleppo article, due to the town's proximity to the city. I would definitely support it if the rebels manage to get those chemical weapons.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It was decided months ago on the Aleppo talk page not to include battles/clashes that are not within the city limits of Aleppo city or at least on its outskirts. Also, the chemical weapons are not there anymore, they were moved to Alawite country on the coast back in August after Aleppo city came under attack. I was thinking of creating the article because this is the first instance where the rebels suffered such massive casualties in a short period of time (3 days) in one battle. Not including the Battle of Tremseh when 50 were killed. EkoGraf (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

EkoGraf actually Al Safira is in rebel hands , the army is sending multiple convoys to retake the city --Amedjay (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo map

Brigade 80 was taken by FSA today.

Tried finding sources, this was closest I could find. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=171766466 Sopher99 (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The source says they "captured large parts of the 'Brigade 80'". It doesn't say they captured the whole thing. Also, please post these update requests at File talk:Battle of Aleppo map.svg so others can think about this. I'm watching the page, so there's no need to post at my talk page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Inkscape stuff...

Hello FT , I need your help about inkscape , I updated to the last version and when I opened the Aleppo's map I couldn't find any coulours to fill areas anymore. Is that normal? Thanks --Amedjay (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If you want to change the color of an area, just click on the district and then click on one of the colors in the spectrum on the bottom. Did I answer your question?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:45, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Not really , I know how to change color of a district and actually I already did it a few times but the problem is there is no more a coulours palette down the map... --Amedjay (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I'm not sure about this. When I open up the latest map, I can see the color spectrum just fine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I hope it will be patched... --Amedjay (talk) 22:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes , I made it back to normal. --Amedjay (talk) 18:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN thread

A thread on the issues at Talk:Syrian civil war has been posted on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Syrian civil war".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC) FAC Hello sir, we would like your suggestions on the fac. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Priyanka Chopra/archive1. Please , review it and represent your thoughts. Thank You.Prashant  ✉  18:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC) Sock response I think so. I would add Direktor to the checkuser part and put down your explanation. Sopher99 (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Yo This is Ultimate from the Syrian articles, I wish to make my future contributions under this name from now on so if you ever want to ask me anything, do so on this account please I'll be busy for a while however, I got university to focus on, but I don't mind popping in every now and then, I'm still following the Syrian situation NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC) By the way, I started working on this months back, I plan to start from the seizure of Tal Abyad and the regime air strike on the petrol stations in Raqqa, let me know what you think NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:NightShadeAEB/Raqqa_offensive Most of the rebels participating in this operation are jihadists. --Amedjay (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Alright thanks for that info. In a sidenote, I think a "Battle of Daraa (2013)" article is due since as of last week, the rebels have taken over the southern third of Daraa called Daraa al Balad and captured barracks and checkpoints in it. A few days ago, they advanced into the city center of Daraa. Like in Raqqa and Deir ez-Zour, the rebel push into the city proper is going largely unnoticed here in Wikipedia. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC) http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/2/21/syria-live-coverage-multiple-bombings-in-damascus.html Yes ,multiple infos are reporting a rebel offensive in this region. They did already control parts of Daraa city though. --Amedjay (talk) 16:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Your revert on Jesus 1) "Discuss first" is not a reason for a revert. Please give a reason that can be considered and discussed, 2) The edit merely added a sourced fact that is relevant to readers. Humanpublic (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Syrian civil war Angry "everything is a western conspiracy" users are messing around with the mainpage again. Mind putting in your imput? Sopher99 (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Alcohol laws of New Jersey I noticed that you sometime review FAC articles. Would you be able to review alcohol laws of New Jersey, which is a current FAC candidate? DavidinNJ (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks for reviewing the article. I added citations to the liquor license tables. DavidinNJ (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Syria death-toll pictures It would be great if you could update these pictures again (sorry if I seem like a nag). Thanks! --Philpill691 (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2013 (UTC)  Done - No problem.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:58, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Raqqa to blue Title says it all. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21641113 Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)  Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC) But you turned Daraa to Green, despite rebel control of Daraa al Balaad, and rebel fighting in Daraa al Mahataa (together making up 80%-90% of the city). Sopher99 (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Opps. Not sure how that happened. Anyways, thanks for telling me. I've fixed it now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC) Dayr hafir to red Dayr Hafir is a small village which hardly makes any news. After a long search, the best reliable source I could find on the village's status was in a spiegel article from January, which says Al nusra causally occupies the village. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/shift-in-balance-of-power-for-rebels-in-wartorn-syria-a-875423-3.html Its in the second paragraph under "Islamist connections" Sopher99 (talk) 00:42, 7 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not entirely sure about this. It also mentions they met Nusra members in Aleppo and Dier ez Zor, which are still contested. It might be better to just remove small villages from the map.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Could you take a look at this Hey! An editor made an extremely controversial edit to the Libyan civil war article, and I reverted it and asked him to take it to the talk page in the edit summary. He reverted me again, so I repeated myself, this time on his talk page, he reverted me again, and now I can't revert him without risking a 3RR with the edit. Could you take a look at it and see if I am actually justified in reverting it, or am I just crazy? You can find the edit in question here. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 18:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC) Damascus to blue? Keeping Damascus green was already kind of pushing it, considering Yarmouk, Hajar al aswad, Tadamoun, and Jobar neighborhoods are part of Damascus proper are mostly rebels controlled, as well as fighting in barzeh. Not to mention they have the most dense population, perhaps making up half of Damascus's estimated 1.5 million. But today rebels captured Damascus's stadium, and are now west of Jobar, and so occupy the very eastern section of Damascus's commercial district. http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/2013/3/8/syria-live-coverage-opposition-leaders-cancel-trip-to-washin.html Sopher99 (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC) ITN Credit ThaddeusB (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2013 (UTC) A barnstar for you! The Barnstar of Diligence Thank you for helping to fix and improve Batman: Arkham City by locating referencing errors and helping to make it a Featured Article! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2013 (UTC) No problem! I'd like to thank you as well for reviewing my FAC. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC) FAC: Alcohol laws of New Jersey You commented on the FAC nomination for Alcohol laws of New Jersey. We believe that we have addressed your concerns and improved the article, can we now count on your support? --ColonelHenry (talk) 16:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC) Futuretrillionaire, Thank you for very much for supporting our article, and for the time you spent reviewing our article. It is greatly appreciated. DavidinNJ (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC) "In Albis" etymology for Easter I've started a thread about your recent edits to Easter and Names of Easter on the Easter talk page here: Talk:Easter#A new, dubious etymology for Easter: "In_Albis" -Ben (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC) IGN's owner Don't know if you saw my recent post on the FAC nomination page for Oblivion, but IGN is owned by J2 Global (when you look at the IGN article, or any website's Wikipedia article, the owner, aka publisher, is listed in the infobox). --JDC808 ♫ 05:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC) The way I interpret the "publisher" field of the template is that it is the same as the copyright holder listed at the bottom of the webpage (Copyright 1996-2013, IGN Entertainment, Inc.). I assume that the website IGN is owned and published by the company IGN Entertainment Inc.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC) That's true and I look there too when there is not a Wikipedia page for a website. The way I was told is that the owner is the publisher. If you notice when you wikilink IGN Entertainment, it redirects you to IGN. "IGN.com" is a sub of IGN Entertainment which is owned by J2 Global, if that makes sense. It used to be owned by News Corporation, but J2 Global acquired IGN just last month. I'm now going through the God of War articles and fixing that. --JDC808 ♫ 05:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if "publisher" means the direct institution that owns/operates the website, or the top owner. Anyways, I started a discussion at WT:VG#Publisher of IGN? to get some answers.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Oblivion FA The Video Game Barnstar Congrats on finally getting The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (that beast) to Featured status! It definitely deserves to be a top article. —Torchiest talkedits 17:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks! --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Dates I'll answer anyway: see the edit summary. Per MOS:DATEUNIFY, the only dates which should be in ISO format are those in tables where space is limited or sorting desired, and accessdates. There were several publish dates which were in ISO format, and the conversion of those was my intent. While ISO dates for publish dates are not forbidden, the guideline appears to strongly suggest against them in that role. --Izno (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC) RefImprove tag I understand your idea with using the tag on Belarus, but for an article of that size, and of the reference size of it, using that tag would not be the best idea. That is mostly for, lets say, big articles with no citations or a few. The regular citation needed would have worked, since there was only 2 citation issues in the article. Now if there was 20, that is a different story. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012 Thanks for the help on the images. I uploaded the Akin image on the Commons with the same name as a file here, so I had to do a move request before I used it. I was able to source the other two pictures off of the site for the Akin photo. Once the move request is granted, I will upload that file. Again, thanks for the help.Casprings (talk) 11:39, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Thanks Thanks for this [10]. I was about to do it myself but you beat me to it. Discussion Zeus has nothing to do with improving the article about Jesus.Jeppiz (talk) 14:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC) My stalker (Sjones) lied to you There's nothing in Wikipedia:Copyrights about either Facebook nor YouTube, and in Wikipedia:Verifiability it's only "This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates copyright" and "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as [5 points] This policy also applies to pages on social networking sites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook." Now please re-open Talk:Jill Valentine/GA2. --Niemti (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC) About what "quick-failing" actually is for Before conducting an extensive review, and after ensuring you are viewing an unvandalized version, check the article and its edit history for the following basic problems which are sometimes found in GA nominations. The article completely lacks reliable sources – see Wikipedia:Verifiability. The topic is treated in an obviously non-neutral way – see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. There are cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including {{cleanup}}, {{POV}}, {{unreferenced}} or large numbers of {{citation needed}}, {{clarify}}, or similar inline tags. (See also {{QF-tags}}.) The article is or has been the subject of ongoing or recent, unresolved edit wars. The article specifically concerns a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint. The article contains significant close paraphrasing or copyright violations Another thing to look for is that if the article has been nominated more than once, go back to the previous reviews and make sure suggestions from the other reviews have been addressed. If the article has any of the above problems, it may be premature to provide a detailed review, in which case you can "quickfail" the nomination in accordance with step two of the GAN guidelines, as long as you explain this clearly on the review page. They most commonly apply when the nominator is inexperienced or is not a regular editor of the article. If you "quick-fail" an article according to the above criteria, leave a short note explaining the major problems and inform the nominator. Even if an article can be "quick-failed" according to the above criteria, reviewers could also: Leave a short note explaining the major problems, but without officially closing the review until the editors at the article have had a few days to respond to your concerns. You may find that they are interested in significantly improving the article. Provide a detailed review, as more specific information will help future editors improve the article to meet all of the Good article criteria, but close the review as "not listed". Withdraw from the review, and let another reviewer decide how to handle it. Emphasis added by me. So please remember to always actually/carefully read any policies/guidelines before using them (and to not ask other users for opinions, because they might be completely misguided - just always find and read them yourself), like that (source). --Niemti (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Iraqi insurgents mortar.png A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Iraqi insurgents mortar.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Possibly unfree File:Armed insurgents in Iraq.png A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Armed insurgents in Iraq.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC) Situation in damascus city We need a map for damascus city , because there is battles occuring in the capital,especially that the FSA controls some neighborhoods in the capital . Abdo45 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC) What about making a map for damascus showing rebel and government controlled neighborhoods Abdo45 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Sorry. I've been busy lately. I don't really have the time to make such a map. Also, maps are often inaccurate and hard to update.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC) The damascus city map will be an accurate one and easy one to be done,due that we have a map showing the clashes in the first battle for the capital Abdo45 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2013 (UTC) Jowcol (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)Hello-- I'm quite interested in the maps you have been making, and the resources you have been using. I have been developing maps for reported deaths in a crowdsourcing effort called SyriaTracker-- you can access the shapefiles we've been generating at https://syriatracker.crowdmap.com/reports/view/2888. (Note, we have a new release coming out for with data through March 3). If you wish to collaborate further, please send an email to syriatracker@gmail.com, and it will get to me. There may be some ways to make it easier to collaborate and update maps. we already have the map of the battle of damascus 2012 done but it just need adjustments to represent the situation in the damascus offensive 2013 Abdo45 (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2013 (UTC) Syrian civil war You wrote on my talk page, "We've tried RfC and DRN with little outcome. The three editors who insist on adding Israel to the infobox have been trying to do this for months. Incidents similar to this one have happened before, but things usually cool down after a few days." I find this to be really problematic. The editors involved in this dispute should be working hard to gather consensus while the article is protected, so that we don't simply return to edit warring. Not only does your comment indicate that you aren't interested in further discussion, but it shows that you are content to simply "wait out" the editors on the other side of the dispute, and that you don't take their viewpoints seriously. In response to your report at EWN DIREKTOR accused you of stonewalling. It's not easy for an uninvolved admin to get a sense of editor's intensions in these kinds of situations, having not been a participant in them himself. But what you said makes me more inclined towards DIREKTOR's claims. I implore you to take a look at the manner in which you have been participating in this debate and to try and open yourself to what others have said, rather than simply waiting for things to "cool down." As a result of your edit warning, I am warning you that you may be subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of ARBPIA if you continue to edit in a manner inconsistent with expected standards of behavior. As you said, this situation has been going on for months. It ends now, and will not resume after the protection expires. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC) The stonewalling accusations are ridiculous. The majority of editors involved in the Israel discussion agree that Israel should not be added to the infobox. However, those who advocate for the inclusion are tenacious, and don't seem to want to give up. As for the sanctions, I think it might help.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2013 (UTC) Your attention is requested on my talk page. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 00:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC) How come you didn't got block on reverting and I did Alhanuty (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC) God of War FAC God of War is up for FAC again if you could voice your support again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/God of War (video game)/archive3 --JDC808 ♫ 04:51, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Revert war I reverted them again and made a comment on the edit war on the talk page. Even though like you I do not support those kinds of changes, I proposed that, if they are still insisting on their additions, some kind of compromise solution. EkoGraf (talk) 09:42, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Notification of user conduct discussion You may wish to comment on a user conduct discussion regarding Niemti, which can be found here. If you comment there you may wish to review the rules for user conduct comments first. You are receiving this notification because you were previously involved in dealing with this user. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Syria casualties Since SOHR has finally started distinguishing rebels from civilians I sorted the casualties article by specific sections, removed un-needed info and added a new section on the foreign jihadists that have been confirmed killed. EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2013 (UTC) The nominating of Timeline of the 2011 Egyptian revolution under Hosni Mubarak's rule I have replied to what you wrote. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC) need help there is a user that claims that government forces has retaken the eastern Ghouta,can you revert his vandalism because i used all my revert chances for today Alhanuty (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC) the article is the damascus offensive 2013 Feature Article Futuretrillionaire, alcohol laws of New Jersey was made a feature article. Thank you for your help. We are petitioning to have it placed on the main page for a day - Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests. DavidinNJ (talk) 13:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC) daraa campaign why did you emptied the article ,the events in daraa are no so significant,they are no longer clashes,it is a campaign to capture the governorate 24.0.209.65 (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC) We don't split articles unless the main article is too long. Also you didn't move the articles the right way. See WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC) I agree with Future. Everything that's happening is a continuation of previous operations and clashes that have been ongoing in Daraa for the last two years. EkoGraf (talk) 01:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man I have been thinking for some time that the article Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man should be broken up. Because the battle for the town itself ended a long time ago. What followed, after the rebels captured the town, has been the continuing siege of the Wadi Deif base. So I have been thinking of breaking up the article and creating something called Siege of Wadi Deif. However, I cant figure out at which point in time I should make the break so I wanted to ask you for help. Should the break point be - October 10/11, when the military made a counter-attack to recapture the town but failed, quickly followed up by the first rebel attacks on the base; October 12/13 - when the first reinforcements were being sent out to reinforce the base; October 25/26, when the military reinforcement column managed to link up with the base after 10 days of continuing fighting along the highway to reach it since October 13, leading to a stalemate phase of the siege; November 14, when the military had secured most villages along the highway south of Marrat al-Nu'man but had not managed to enter the town itself and at that point in fact had abandoned attempts to retake it? I cann't decide. EkoGraf (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC) The first rebel attack on the base would make the most sense to me. According to this Oct 24, 2012 Reuters report, "for two weeks [the rebels] have surrounded and attacked Wadi al-Deif, east of the town of Maarat al-Numan." This would mean that the rebel began the siege on the base at around Oct 10/11. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC) Agreed, I will create the article and make the break in the comming days. EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC) I agree with you Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I did it Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man and Siege of Wadi Deif. EkoGraf (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Al-Qusayr offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Syrian civil war ChronicalUsual's sockpuppets are wrecking the page as we speak. Can you deal with it? I can't edit the page until Friday due to edit warring. Sopher99 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Portals Hi! I saw this removal of the death portal. Usually if an article is eligible to be a part of a given Wikiproject, then the portal(s) corresponding to that Wikiproject should be posted in the See also (preferably) or External links section. This article is a part of the Death WikiProject, so therefore the Death portal should be posted in the article. If there are large numbers of portals (the French do this, and this practice should be done correspondingly on the English Wikipedia) then I can do a "portalbar" that puts them in a bar format. WhisperToMe (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Notice There is a thread on WP:AN/I regarding an issue you may have been involved in. Pass a Method talk 02:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC) 1+2 Hi, There is of course no issue at the moment, but I thought I would mention that given that you are fixing many references, and other editors are making other changes at the same time, you may inadvertently hit the 3RR line without even seeing their edits. So it may be a good idea just to keep a count of that. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for the advice. I'll try to be careful.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) By the way, one requirement for a GA nomination (requirement 5) is that no major debate. By the time someone gets to do the review the current debate may have ended, so hopefully it will be Ok and the debate will end soon. And thanks for all the effort in bringing the refs to a common format. History2007 (talk) 07:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC) Boston Marathon I see you've readded the Boston Marathon bombing to Domestic terrorism in the United States. Thanks for not adding names, and especially for not outright saying they did it, but don't you think calling this a domestic terrorist attack implies guilt on an American, despite nobody being convicted? And how do we differentiate terrorism from "mere" murder without knowing the motive (or at least having it laid out by prosecutors)? If you can see the BLP problems here, I'd appreciate it if you reverted yourself. Not telling you to. Just telling you why you might want to. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks for understanding. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:13, 24 April 2013 (UTC) WikiProject Christianity Newsletter (May 2013) Hi, I thought I would drop you a note to say that I mentioned in this month's issue of Ichthus. If you wish to receive the full content in future, please drop me a note on my talk page.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC) God of War FAC Notifying you that God of War (video game) is up for FAC again. --JDC808 ♫ 20:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC) Ping. --JDC808 ♫ 17:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC) See my response in regards to the canvassing issue. --JDC808 ♫ 17:38, 1 May 2013 (UTC) Chron Given the comment, I think you should take a look at, and perhaps keep an eye on, the Chronology article. It has a lot of details already, and if you want to expand the Newton item that may be the place to do it. In fact once one digs through the Newton paper it is pretty interesting, but I have a feeling most readers will not understand it. But the Chron article is in pretty good shape now, and has details of many of the other approaches if you want to look at those. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2013 (UTC) Syria Stalemate is a bit arbitrary term. A better term would be War of Attrition. Can you please change it to that. Sopher99 (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2013 (UTC) @Sopher99: Stalemate seems to be what many sources are calling this conflict. While it's true that the conflict has been called a stalemate before April 2013, Assad military advances were rare between October and April. I'm concerned that calling it a "War of Attrition" might be sensationalizing. Are there any other options? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:56, 3 May 2013 (UTC) I wouldn't call it a stalemate because both sides a making gains. War of Attrition is perfectly appropriate for Wikipedia. We even used it for the Aleppo page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012%E2%80%9313)#War_of_attrition Sources also call it a war of Attrition, like this one. [11] Sopher99 (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2013 (UTC) War of Attrition is the best option. I would change it myself, but I don't want to waste my 1 revert. Sopher99 (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 02:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Chemistry quote-fix In this edit you removed the unbalanced close-quote. But it appears that the preceding phrase is directly from the cited source. Could you double-check and see if the fix should instead be to insert the missing open-quote? DMacks (talk) Oops. Thanks for pointing that out. I've now added the quotation marks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Thank you for fixing! DMacks (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC) Harv ref The ref number 374, i.e. Ehrman|2011|p=252 does not show the quote, and Ehrman needs to be the first in the list of 3. Please take a look. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for telling me. I think I fixed it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC) A final request Please do me a favor and delay the FAC request on Jesus for a little while. I have good reasons for that. The GA went through because both reviewers just happened to have brains. A very different story on FAC where every imbecile with a modem will type something. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC) @History2007: Lol. Don't worry. I don't think this article is ready for FAC yet. There's a lot of ref and prose issues to fix. This might take a few weeks. I agree that the FAC review will definitely not be easy. To make the review less frustrating, I think we should request all the reviewers to read the FAQ before commenting.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC) That assumes that all those who comment can even read... Or are sober. I have seen people type after 12 beers. I actually have several FAQs to update in the next 3 weeks or so, for the historicity, historical, Josephus on Jesus, Tacitus on Christ etc. I don't think you have seen the edit wars (someone crossed the 11RR line on Josephus) etc. Looking through the archives will be eye opening. And a few users were banned and indeffed in that process, say here and here, among others. So the last topic ban and sockpupetting was mild compared to the previous ones. I will guarantee that people will argue about Josephus etc. as part of any FAC. So the other FAQs need to be there as backup. And if you are to go for it you need to read and know the pages on Historicity, Josephus and Tacitus. Should not attempt it without knowing the topic in detail. If you start it and are less than knowledgeable about the topic it will backfire for sure and set the GA itself in jeopardy. And the requests for changes on GA were mild. On FAC due to the highly emotional nature of this topic there will be so many conflicting suggestions that page quality may actually go down. History2007 (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC) @History2007: I see. I understand that we need to be very well-prepared if we choose to take the article to FAC. Do you think a successful FAC is even possible? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2013 (UTC) These crowd sourced processes are inherently haphazard and non-deterministic. Depending on who happens to look at it etc. it could take one of many, many directions. The only certain part is the very, very long discussions with many users, some intelligent, many brainless. And again remember that many people are emotionally opposed to the idea and will go out of their way (even subconsciously) to create obstacles. This is not an article about a boring bridge somewhere. It is an emotionally charged topic. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC) List of massacres I created a new article here List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. Check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Words and works RE: "not sure why a citation about parables is used here" it is about words and works, and the concept is that they relate. I have generally checked over 90% of those references carefully and you can double check them always, but I am pretty sure they are by and large accurate. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC) @History2007: I was confused why the Pentecost source, the page of which cited is about parables (no mention of miracles), is used to support a statement about Jesus's combined use of miracles and teachings, when there is already another source (Twelftree 95) that actually discusses Jesus's combined use of miracles and teachings. I wasn't concerned by the accuracy. I just don't see why the Pentecost source was necessary for that statement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC) I usually use two or three sources in case in the future users do not have access to one of them, and they can always check via one of the others - spare tire concept. And the fact that the book is called "words and works" shows the significance of the term. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC) FYI: Huon and myself checked the Christ page now, and nominated it for GA as well. So both pages should be in good shape. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC) Edit message It is pretty easy to change the edit message, just go to edit the page and you will see a small link on the top right. But only an admin can save it. So you need to contact your favorite admin to do it for you. And should be easy given that the RFC link is clear. I fixed the link to the RFC in the archive. Most questions like this are now linked in the FAQ in case people wonder about these. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Awesome. Thanks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC) Actually he changed it already. But I suggested adding a gray or beige background. History2007 (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2013 (UTC) By the way, regarding the "later Perean" etc. as I said the details are all in the articles that link too with Main. And the same was the case with the 33 vs 34 date for Newton - it is in the edit history. It is explained in more detail in the chron article. I think if you read those other articles, and put them on your watch list that will help. I will go away (away, away) next Monday, so if you need anything, please ask before then. But all the details are in the sub-articles. So it will be good if you watch the Historicity of Jesus page and Josephus on Jesus, Chronology etc. because they go to support this article. And they are very, very stable now. Also if you add your name here you will see discussions on those over the next months from June onwards. Anyway, if you read through the page and need anything please ask by then. Also note that I did a GAN on Christ, Huon improved it but is pending. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2013 (UTC) As you saw this just happened on the "April 23" typo issue. The longer chron article mentioned St. George's day, and could just answer it. So those articles cab be consulted for answers. History2007 (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC) Newsletter By the way, I noticed you are not on this list. From June 2013 there is a new "in focus... " format, book reviews, Christianity-DYK, etc. that refer to some articles of interest. Please just take a look at the June issue (should be released soon) and see. June focuses on this article which is a key supporting issue in some of the discussions we had, and would be great if you could watch it. To subscribe, you just need to add your name to the list here. They are also offering a 3 month money back guarantee deal next week. History2007 (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Cool. I've subscribed. I'll keep my eye on the articles focused.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Ok, great. They form two groups in fact: Historicity: [12] [13] and [14] Activities: [15], [16] [17] and [18] These form the base that supports the main article. There are also a couple of incidental/peripheral articles such as this which were however still missing key facts like this after 7 years and were yapping about other things. But they are mostly fixed now. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Jesus Hi. I'm about to put the {{GOCEinuse}} back on the page, but I see you've been working on the Existence section, and I've re-raiseed the chronology issue. If you like, for the rest of the day I'll edit only from the Archaeology section on, so if you want to continue on those higher up, you can, and we won't have edit conflicts. (I won't be doing much today, actually, but will do some now.) Cheers. --Stfg (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC) @Stfg: Don't worry about it. I did some reorganization of the existence section to make that section flow better. I'm done now, so you don't have to worry about edit conflicts.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC) OK, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC) (←) I've completed a first pass now, and removed the inuse banner. Thanks for working so nicely with me and for being so prompt with replies, suggestions, checks, and so on. It has been very enjoyable. I'm going to declare the GOCE request complete now, but will keep the article on my watchlist and will probably do a second quick pass in a few days to see if I missed anything. Kind regards, --Stfg (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks for all your help! Your contributions were invaluable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC) direcktor report his edit warring Alhanuty (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I did. I really hope that they will block him for a while. He needs to learn to stop this nonsense.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC) portal Just started it, will need much help - see portal:Syrian civil war.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2013 (UTC) Cool. Sure, I'll help out.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC) SOHR and "Facebook" Could use your help, please check out my talk page under the section SOHR and "Facebook" and this guy's page User talk:HCPUNXKID. He is trying to remove SOHR as a source at Damascus offensive (2013). At first his complaint was because its Facebook. I explained to him that it was agreed by consensus two years ago to use it because its the official English version page of SOHR and they were the only ones who were posting and their info was being used by reliable media. He did not want to acknowledge that. For sake of compromise I than replaced the Facebook SOHR source with the main SOHR site, which has nothing to do with Facebook. He than removed that as well without any explanation, and his personal attacks against me I really don't understand. He said that if Russia Today or Press TV were using it I wouldn't regard SOHR as reliable because I'm a hypocrit who regards those other news sites as unreliable. I explained to him that in my personal opinion those news sites should also be used for sake of neutrality but that the decision of the Wikipedia community is they are not reliable so I am sticking with that. He than said I was contradicting myself. Like I said, I really don't understand him. EkoGraf (talk) 13:07, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Your explanation is so astonishing, so SOHR (a partisan organization runned by...only one person living in the UK!!!) is a reliable source, but Press TV or Russia Today aint reliable. Are you serious? Im only trying to enforce Wikipedia policies, wich says crystal-clear that social media like Facebook or Twitter are NOT a reliable source, unless are used to illustrate something related to the owner of the FB page, wich is clearly not the case. I could accept it (not approve it, but accept it) if the source is a SOHR web, but not Facebook! Wich would be next, use Twitter as a source, perhaps?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:52, 30 May 2013 (UTC) @HCPUNXKID: If you're so adamant about this, take it to WP:RSN--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC) HCPUNXKID has now taken up the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. He is trying to exclude SOHR as a source from Wikipedia. A few of us are trying to argue with him but he is too conservative and has started accusing and insulting. EkoGraf (talk) 11:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC) WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre Hello! Now, some of you might be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers: Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with, the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available". Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497). Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 01:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC) Pass a Method Pass a Method has been attacking me to. He deletes referenced content and then he put me forward for blocking without a reason. He put me forward for blocking without even explaining why he wanted me blocking. He does cause a lot of disruption.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 19:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC) @Johnleeds1: Should we report him to ANI? He has made a number of personal attacks and has done other disruptive activities.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Record of Resurrection and Ascension in the Bible Hello, Is it possible to add the following in Jesus article?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongkim (talk • contribs) Matthew Mark Luke John Empty tomb 28:1–7 Empty tomb 16:1–7 Empty tomb 24:1–7 Empty tomb 20:1–10 Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene and the other Mary 28:9–10 Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene 16:9 Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene20:11–18 Jesus appeared to two disciples 16:12 Jesus appeared to two disciples 24:13–31 Jesus appeared to eleven disciples 28:16–20 Jesus appeared to eleven disciples 16:14–18 Jesus appeared to disciples 24:36–50 Jesus appeared to disciples 20:19–31; Jesus appeared again to disciples21:1–22 Jesus was taken up into heaven 16:19 Jesus was taken up into heaven 24:51 Acts Jesus appeared to apostles for forty days 1:3 Jesus stayed with them and said to them "you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit" 1:4–5 Jesus said to disciples that "you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses" 1:8 Jesus was taken up into heaven1:9 @Dongkim: The table, if improved can provide a good comparison of the events. However, I don't think this belongs in the main Jesus article per WP:summary style. You can add it to the resurrection article if you want. That being said, the table needs some improvements. For example, why isn't Acts in a 5th column.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Syrian civil war arbitration Hi, following our discussion with administrator Jake Wartenberg here, i'm now about to submit a request to Arbcom to create a 1RR Syrian civil war arbitration tool. I started the request template at my namespace [19], please check that the request is worded well enough, and it seems to me i'm missing what has to be filed in "case affected" and "clauses" fields. I shall later submit it. Thanks.Greyshark09 (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC) @Greyshark09: I'm concerned that the others might not be happy about this proposal. I've started a discussion at the Syrian civil war talk page to see if anyone opposes this idea.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:01, 9 June 2013 (UTC) @FutureTrillionaire: Yes, sure - that's the idea to make it an official procedure with others' involvement.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Hezbollah casualties Future, I do not think we should include the 1,000 claimed casualties by the Israeli minister for multiple reasons. First, the claim came from an Israeli government source, the Israeli defense minister, and considering the hostile nature between Israel and Syria I don't think he can be counted as a reliable source. Second, SOHR (which has been proven reliable in the past) has put out a figure which is for the most part consistent with the number of Hezbollah deaths documented by an Israeli non-government independent research group and with a claim that Hezbollah itself has stated on how many of their fighters have died. So we should stick to what has been verified/documented by reliable or semi-reliable and independent sources, and to what for now seems consistent. Third, up until now we have not included figures on potential wounded in the conflict and have included only figures on the number of confirmed or semi-confirmed killed. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Potential RFC/U I am interested in opening an WP:RFC/USER on the conduct of User:Baboon43 due to long running issues of incivility and edit warring. Back in March, you contacted the user in an attempt to resolve a dispute. Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance#Qualification, I would like to ask you to consider endorsing the RFC/U; you may view it at my sandbox. If you agree, you have my consent to make changes to my sandbox as needed so that this RFC/U can be filed properly. It is my hope that this community effort will encourage the user to reevaluate his approach. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC) The RFC/U has finally been opened at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Baboon43. I'm just letting you know since you did certify the dispute and might want to watch how it progresses. MezzoMezzo (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2013 (UTC) Bibleref2 Greetings Sibling in Christ. I appreciate your Christian witness on your Home Page. It certainly coordinates well with the very polite and sensitive nature of your Talk postings. Having been a professor most of my professional life, I greet you also as an acadème as well. Thank you for your careful and multitudinous edits to the "Jesus" article. You have made very significant contributions indeed. While I attempted to explain my rationale about Bibleref2 on the article's Talk page, I neglected to mention the fact that when a user clicks on any Bibleref2 reference, they have instant access to many translations, including display of parallel translations. The default is NIV, but ASV is an available choice. (You most likely already know that, but it is an important advantage IMHO.) Since I am out of the country on vacation, I have edits to the "Jesus" article on my to-do list. I have very limited access to the Internet, and would like to make best use of these leisure days. Therefore, I will proceed with the laborious replacements of the Bible citations, hoping that I do not offend you, for that is the farthest thing from my intent. My pledge to you is this: if you object to the replacements I make to the template calls (and I do ask that you share with me any objections to my changes), I will go back and undo them since I am proceeding without your consent. This is because time is somewhat of the essence with me for the reasons I outlined above. Out of personal interest, I am wondering what is your major and intended vocation. You write so well and certainly have a knack for research. Your additions to the Islamic belief section show an understanding and depth that frankly are amazing. Your brother in Him, Afaprof01 (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC) @Afaprof01: Okay. You can go ahead if you want. I'm trying to get this article to FAC hopefully within a month, and I'm concerned that someone at FAC might bring up copyright issues concerning the bible quotations. I guess let's just hope that won't happen. As for my academic studies, I'm a chemistry major, thinking about going to medical school after college. However, I'm interested in a wide variety of topics, including religion. And yes, I find it fascinating how other religious groups view Jesus. Thanks for asking :)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:05, 24 June 2013 (UTC) I moved the rest of the discussion to Talk:Jesus. Discussions about major changes to the article belongs there, so other editors can voice their opinion as well.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Pass a Method The user Pass a Method continues to cause me trouble for no reason too and deletes all the content. I noticed that he has been doing the same with you. What has be been doing with you --Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC) @Johnleeds1: I actually haven't encountered him in a while. If he keeps removing the contents you add, just undo his edits. Then, start a discussion at the article talk page. If that doesn't help, take the issue to WP:DRN.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC) Thanks--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC) ISBNs Hi. You might wanna check it out a bit carefully. Hyphen placement varies. I don't know the details, but country affects it for instance. Mr Stephen is rather expert at it, and may be right. --Stfg (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Okay, I've started a talk page discussion to get this sorted out.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Re: your change to the archiving at Talk:Tropical cyclone (With this edit). I guess I don't understand why threads without recent responses should be kept on the main talkpage. As it stands now, of the two posts extant on the main page, one thread is almost 7 months old. Of the threads that were archived in the Bot's last pass (which archived a large chunk of posts dating from 2009-2011), if 5 threads had been kept the three threads with the most recent posts were dated December 2012, November 2012 and August 2012...so no one had responded to those threads for 7 months, 8 months and almost a year. For people who come to Wikipedia with outdated browsers or older computers or accessing WP from mobile devices, long articles or talkpages can pose accessibility issues so I always think it's better not to keep everything on the main page. Your mileage may vary and that's cool, just wanted you to know why it had been set up the way it was. Shearonink (talk) 01:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I totally understand. Having a huge talk page is not ideal, but sometimes I encounter old, but unreplied threads (usually left an IP) that contain some useful suggestions. I changed the minimum threads from 2 to 5. Hopefully, that won't cause a huge difference in terms of bytes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC) For the record, my original archiving edit gave the minimum threads left as 5, but the Bot changed it to 2 (it probably looks at threads-age/'days old' first and it then changed the code accordingly). Shearonink (talk) 02:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Minecraft The nowiki was there before, i removed it accidentally. Best regards, Wschlitz 02:18, 9 July 2013 (UTC) @Wschlitz: No, you added it. Look at your changes carefully. Please don't use VisualEditor. It's very buggy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Yeah, I did notice that. Alright, back to old editor I suppose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Wschlitz (talk • contribs) God of War II FAC Hey, would you care to do a source review for God of War II? --JDC808 ♫ 06:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Sure. I'll take a look.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC) Responded. --JDC808 ♫ 18:11, 10 July 2013 (UTC) 1RR arbitration for Syrian civil war articles A request for Arbcom regarding creation of specific Syrian civil war 1RR arbitration tool is issued and if accepted will affect Syrian civil war page and other related pages. The issue was previously discussed and recommended by an administrator for Arbcom solution on the issue here. As an editor involved in previous discussion on this topic, your opinion is requested, thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 17:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Jesus I just wanted to send you a note to congratulate you for the work you have put into this so far, and to encourage you regarding the FAC. If there's anything I can do to help with it please let me know. Keep well and have a great weekend —Cliftonian (talk) 13:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Thank you for taking your time to review this article! I'll try to address your concerns quickly.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC) Motion proposed regarding the Syrian civil war clarification and amendment request This is a courtesy notice to inform you that an Arbitrator has proposed a motion regarding a clarification and amendment request in which you were named as a party. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC) Arbitration motion regarding Syrian civil war articles This is a courtesy notice to inform you that the Arbitration Committee has passed a motion with respect to a request for clarification and amendment, in which you were named as a party, regarding articles related to the Syrian civil war. Please see the link above for the full text of the motion. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Brunei Would you like to clean up some links on this article? Thanks SirAlexOreo (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) @SirAlexOreo: I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "clean up some links". Are there issues with the wikilinks. Are there dead links that needs to be fixed? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:57, 25 July 2013 (UTC) What I meant was to describe the link or reference, there's one reference for "English" that's categorised on "Also used for official purposes" on the info-box, and I want it to be neat and described like the other references. SirAlexOreo (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC) Hey, could you take a look at this article? I attempted to cut down the 2013 protests in Turkey article to a more reasonable size, however one of the editors raised an issue with me removing the info. I could really use a neutral eye to look over the article and propose some areas where it could be reduced in size. It is current at around 210k bytes (after my removals were readded to the article). Thanks in advance!! Jeancey (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Sure. I'll take a look.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:52, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks! :) Jeancey (talk) 22:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Request for amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles Dear user, as a participant of former discussions on amendment of sanctions on Syrian civil war articles, i would like to notify you on motion-resulting discussion at Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN), in order to determine whether there is consensus to continue the restrictions in effect as community-based restrictions, either as they currently exist or in a modified form. Meanwhile, and for a period of 30 days starting July 21, 1RR sanction shall continue to be applied with any notifications and sanctions to be logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/Log.Greyshark09 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC) barnstar The Chemistry Bond Star For your GARs that help improve all those elements articles. Your work is greatly appreciated! Double sharp (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Thanks!--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC) You know, if you would just GAR Alkali metal, you might just spur me to start working on it again... Double sharp (talk) 15:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC) DYK-Good Article Request for Comment Capitalized Thanks re: This Edit to the Jesus article, 13:04, 28 July 2013. with edit summary: "The Baptism of Jesus" is sometimes capitalized. If you're gonna decapitalized it, do it for the entire article! You made the capitalization of the word inconsistent. Thanks for your assistance finding other places needing change. When I was in the baptism and temptation section, I could not see the entire article. By the way, it is generally better to comment about edits, not editors, in the edit summary. Have a nice day. —Telpardec  TALK  04:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Batman: Arkham Asylum/archive1 As you were involved in the nomination of Arkham City, I am just making you aware of this current nomination if yo get a chance to comment. Thanks for reading. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC) I will take a look in a few days. Right now I'm a little busy.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC) Your removal of references from the Lead of Jesus I agree it's correct according to WP:Lead, I just hope it doesn't come back to haunt you from those who are now going to demand references for these claims. Editor2020 (talk) 17:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC) @Editor2020: I was reluctant to do it, but it was requested at the FAC page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)