User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Is this speedy deletion tag correct?

Hi.

I think I need a second opinion. Today, I ran into Windows Blue (created today) whose body prose is word-for-word a duplicate of Windows 9. I put a CSD A10 tag on it but I've received an email that says it is an inappropriate tag. (Actually, the email reads like a plea not to delete the article.) Is the tag the right one?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Almost. You are right that it is a duplicate article, but A10 only applies if the duplicate article is created at a title that would be an implausible redirect. Windows Blue is definitely something that people are likely to type into the search bar, so instead of deleting it I've redirected it to Windows 9. It's in the fine print at WP:A10, but it does take a while to get used to all those speedy deletion criteria. I recommend reading the essays at Template:Speedy deletion navbox (compiled by yours truly) if you want to get a better handle on those speedies. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I have added a note to the deletion discussion of Windows 9 article because the history of Windows Blue remain intact. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Macleod (footballer)

Could you explain why you didn't relist this AFD. Seems a premature close given valid points from both sides still developing and the fact that those against deletion were arguing for changing our inclusion guidelines which isn't a matter for an AFD. He eithier meets WP:NFOOTY or GNG he doesn't on both counts.Blethering Scot 11:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Blethering Scot. I didn't relist it as there was already a significant amount of discussion. From WP:RELIST: "If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." To be clear, when I closed the debate I didn't take into account the arguments that Rangers should be granted an exception to WP:NFOOTY. I didn't regard that as a valid reason for keeping the article, as WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says that policies and guidelines should always take precedence over arguments made in individual discussions. The aspect of the debate which I regarded as having no consensus was that of whether the sources presented satisfied WP:GNG or not. I saw enough disagreement on this point in the debate that I thought it should be closed as no consensus. If you think that I made a mistake in judging the consensus, though, you are welcome to list the discussion at deletion review, and seeing as this AfD discussion was relatively contentious I would support you doing so. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for page to be undeleted

Hi there, I've noticed that there's no page for the UK company Amigo Loans, but there was one, before it was deleted on the grounds of lacking notability (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amigo_Loans). Reading the deletion page, I see that the only argument for notability was that the company had television adverts, which clearly doesn't make them notable, but after a google search of the company's name, I found multiple articles referencing, quoting and presenting research carried out by the company. (see: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/city/4305275/No-profit-loans-provided-by-credit-unions-are-on-the-rise.html, http://www.shropshirestar.com/shropshire-business/money/uk-money/2012/09/04/one-in-five-give-up-on-dream-job/, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/borrowing/mortgages/9395294/Payday-loans-could-cost-you-a-mortgage.html etc - there are more but as far as I can see these ones establish their notability). I think this page should be reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.216.105.12 (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I've had a look through the sources you posted, and I don't think that by themselves they would be enough to support a new page. We require a certain depth of coverage in sources before companies can pass our notability guidelines, and these sources don't seem to have that depth. The Sun article only gives a few sentences to Amigo, and the other two articles give quotes by Amigo, rather than including material about the company itself. If you have any other reliable sources that cover Amigo in more depth, you are welcome to post them here, however, and I will take a look at them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:35, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, I didn't include the main article that I found which was the main point of my post: http://www.lovemoney.com/blogs/credit-cards-current-accounts-and-loans/loans/16885/guarantor-loans-an-alternative-to-payday-loans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I agree that the article you link to above has significant coverage of Amigo, but I'm not sure about their editorial processes and whether it could be considered as reliable per the guidelines on identifying reliable sources. It is also a specialist publication, which editors may consider as having less weight than a general publication when interpreting the "depth of coverage" section in the notability guidelines for companies. If you have any other sources then I can also take a look at them, or you can submit a new article using the articles for creation process if you think that article fixes the problems that were raised in the deletion discussion. Also, if you have a conflict of interest (COI) with respect to Amigo Loans, you need to read the guidelines on having a conflict of interest and declare your COI when you write the article. Let me know if you have any more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:27, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. I'm really unsure how the site being a specialist money publicist would make an impact on the depth of coverage side of things. It's one of the UK's largest finance sites, their journalists are mainly freelancers, most of them also writing for the finance sections of some of the UK's largest newspapers and the editor of the site (who also seems to have written this article) has worked for some of the UK's largest news corporations. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 14:33, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, deletion discussions can go either way if the sources are specialist sources like the one you linked. However, ultimately, it's not a matter for me to decide, but for the Wikipedia community. If you have an account, I can move the article to your userspace so that you can work on it there, or if not I might be able to send it to the article incubator. Once you think that the issues raised in the deletion discussion have been suitably addressed, you are welcome to move it back to the main article space. Be warned, however, that there is nothing to stop an editor from starting a new deletion discussion on the subject, so it would be wise to get good proof of notability before you try and submit it again. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:04, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. If you can, I think moving to the article incubator would be the best move. It can then be re-worked to include the article that I found which raises criticism of Amigo Loans, which should help balance the article, also I feel that article goes further than anything on the previous page to establish notability. I'll do some more digging for further sources over this week too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.104.104.8 (talk) 07:17, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I've just had another look at the sources, and at what's available online, and I'm sorry but I'm going to go back on my offer to incubate the article. This is because I think an article written with the sources that you have listed will almost certainly get deleted again, and I couldn't find any other sources online. So this is really to stop you from spinning your wheels and trying to get an article accepted when there is actually very little hope that it will be. Basically, it looks like Amigo Loans just aren't notable at the moment. You are perfectly free to disagree with my judgement, however; if you would like a review of my decision, you can start a new request at Wikipedia:Deletion review where other experienced editors will comment on it. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Fionnuala Collins Irish artist

Hi there,

This is Ciaron Davies, film maker and writer

I have been trying to write a wikepedia article for Fionnuala Collins the Irish artist but it has been declined and I am unsure what to do

I am a huge fan of her work. I think she is one of the freshest painters to come out of Ireland and deserves recognition for her talent. Recently, I even created a video of her 'Film Icons' collection free of charge. It can be found on youtube under "Film icons gallery You can find some of my fictional writing by searching for ciaron davies hubpages

the article for Wikepedia was written by my self and I set up the account for her. I'm doing it because I would like to see her on Wikepedia. She is an excellent artist, a very kind person and a very hard worker.

Do you have any advice on how I might get the article published? Or would you be interested in re-drafting it your self?

Hope that your day is great! Any help would be greatly appreciated,

Ciaron Davies

[----] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fionnualamarycollins (talk • contribs) 10:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ciaron. From what I can see it looks like you have got a lot of good advice from the reviewers at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fionnuala Collins. If there are any specific points you aren't sure of, then I can help you to understand what's going on. Any general advice I gave you now would just be repeating what the reviewers said. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 76.248.149.47 (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius, for your responses. Best, 76.248.149.47 (talk) 15:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome - I'm glad we got it all sorted out in the end! Feel free to let me know if there are any more problems at the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there

Hi! Sorry I'm fairly new to Wikipedia, so thanks for giving me advice. For InMobi I do believe the controversy section should be left as Internet board messages can be valid sources of references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongito (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dongito. Actually, Wikipedia doesn't allow Internet boards as references - if you are interested, the details on what is and what is not acceptable as a reference is outlined at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you have a disagreement with an editor about whether a particular source can be used or not, you can post at the reliable sources noticeboard to get outside opinions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, so is it possible to mention the existence of a Internet board message about this topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dongito (talk • contribs) 17:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Not unless it has been mentioned in a source that we accept, no. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:29, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flight of the Butterflies

Just to let you know... the film had its premiere at the Smithsonian on September 24, and is now beginning to screen world-wide. I did some work on the incubated article and the moved it back to mainspace. I do not think any could claim now that it misses on WP:NF or WP:GNG. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work! Thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 01:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Well... like I said at the AFD, I had the thing on watch. The nominator was well-intended, and I can understand his thinking... but when a film is completed so as to not meet NFF, and has coverage approaching the requirements of GNG and NF, and is that close to release, we usually do not send to AFD. See Exceptions. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:14, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Need "special" help with an image

Hi.

How do you do? Sorry to bother you but I am looking for help about a somewhat peculiar status of an image. I feel I am not wiki-experienced enough to understand. I know all sorts of venues of review, appeal, dispute resolution and such in Wikipedia but choosing one and then saying the right thing in them is the main concern. Besides, I do not want to cause unintended harm to anyone. So, I thought maybe you would care to help me assess the situation and understand it. I'd be grateful if you did. Do you have time? (If you don't, I understand.)

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Codename Lisa! Sure, I'd be happy to help you out. What seems to be your trouble? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I sometimes mark free files to be moved from Wikipedia to Commons. I am taking it slow and cautious for now but I am getting started. Today, I visited VirtualBox article, which is about a free and open-source product. I checked its logo and it still is on Wikipedia. But surprise: Not only it is tagged as non-free, but someone previously tried to move it to Commons and got rejected.

That pretty much concludes that matter but just out of curiosity, I decided to find out why. So, I looked up the history: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 February 14#File:Virtualbox logo.png and commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Virtualbox logo.png came up. Now, my problem is: None of these make sense. The former is frankly frightening. The latter is frightening and puzzling. Drama aspects aside, the only part of it that makes sense is "Steps to test if the image is freely licenced". (Why didn't they do it in the first place?) So, it seems they dissected the software license, decided that those part made by Oracle are GPLv2 (Commons compatible) and those parts developed by third parties are under other licenses (Commons-phobic). They started discussing whether the logo can actually belong to a third party not credited in EULA but at this point, the whole matter is abandoned. Six month later, an admin said delete. (Six month!?)

So, to sum it up, I make neither head nor tail out of all the discussions. I can tell that some people don't think this image is free and Commons-compatible but what exactly is the objection, I can't tell. I do not intend to poke the hornet's nest yet, but if I am to work in the field of images, perhaps there is probably no evading such issues.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Commons community is quite different from the English Wikipedia community, which is something that also surprised me when I first encountered it. From my limited experience there, it isn't unusual for a deletion discussion to be open for six months. Looking at the deletion debate, I see the salient points as follows: a) software licences don't usually cover software logos, b) no-one found any evidence that there was an exception to this convention in this particular case, and c) because there was no good evidence that the image was released under a free licence, it was deleted under the precautionary principle. If you have some good evidence that the logo is in fact released under a free licence, then I assume Commons will undelete it. I'm not sure exactly how you go about doing this, but leaving a message on the deleting admin's talk page is probably a good start. In fact, I'd also go to Denniss's talk page if you have any more specific questions about why he deleted it - his answers will probably be a lot better than mine. I hope this reply helps a little bit, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:45, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the kind description. It was clear enough although I am not exactly sure if (a) is supported by current practices (consensus and policy). For example, look at File:The GIMP icon - gnome.svg, File:Avidemux-logo.png or File:Official Linux Mint logo.svg. Please correct me if I am wrong but in these two cases, there are no official statements about the logo, so they are assumed to be under the same license that covers the whole package. On the other hand, File:Blender.svg is copyright protected because there is a statement about the logo. So, I was thinking: Isn't this the case about VirtualBox logo as well?

Now, there is also another thing. Let's assume that Commons is really different. Can't Wikipedia keep this image as free either?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia can keep the image as free, and if you haven't already come across it, there is Template:Keep local for users who don't want their files to go to Commons. However, I am thoroughly unqualified to make any judgements about whether software logos are automatically covered under the licences the software is released in, and so you're going to have to post somewhere else to get a good answer. In fact, this might well be the kind of issue that needs a community-wide RfC to settle. In any case, I recommend making a post at WP:MCQ and advertising your post at WT:PUF and any other suitable project pages you can think of (in line with WP:CANVAS). If there is significant disagreement about it then I community-side RfC looks like the next step. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:46, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Stradivarius. I appreciate your help. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry to bother you again but I thought asking you would be the last step of caution in the interest of Wikipedia before taking an action that might be potentially controversial. After all, you are more experienced and by the virtue of more experience can read between the lines.

In my MCQ post, Graeme Bartlett told me that "if the logo is included in with the software[,] the supplied copyright license applies". When I specifically asked why File:Virtualbox logo.png was held exempt from this rule, no one gave me an answer. Stefan2 (User:Stefan4 on Commons) just re-emphasized that logo must be included with the package. I tried inviting all interested parties but Magog the Ogre did not respond, and Fastily and FleetCommand are retired.

So, given all this, do you think it would be a wise move to go ahead and reinstate the GPL license tag on that file?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any clear consensus from that MCQ thread, and given the Commons deletion discussion, I wouldn't change the licence on the English Wikipedia version just yet. I think the next step would be to phone or email Oracle and see if you can get an answer about the copyright status of the logo directly from them. If they are releasing it under the GPL, then we could ask them to send an email to OTRS as specified in Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Alternatively we could ask them to include a specific note about the logo in their next release, if they are open to that, and then update the licence page when the next version comes out. How does that sound? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

p.s. Fastily is still active on Commons. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Mogog just responded. I should see what happens. But as for contacting Oracle, that is what I am in no capacity to do. Contacting them would a violation of my current NDA contract and believe me: Unlike Wikipedia, most organizations do not have WP:IAR. Still, if anyone is to contact Oracle, he or she must take care not to use the term "logo". It is our Wiki-mistake. "Computer icon of VirtualBox" is the correct term. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk)

Some help

Hello! I just sent you an email - I'd like to talk to you for an article I'm working on. If you could get back to me when you have a free moment, I'd much appreciate it :) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itinerantgirl (talk • contribs) 10:45, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

KingBernado invitation from Teahouse

Have you noticed this? Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 07:59, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw it, yes, but I didn't see any need to do anything about it. Do you think it needs removing? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:50, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. It seemed odd to me that their welcome appears to be non-selective. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 12:09, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the Teahouse people would have any way of knowing that it was a sockpuppet account, unless they were familiar with the history. And the invitation is delivered by a bot, after all. Now if we could make a bot that reliably detected sockpuppet accounts, that would be something to write home about. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:17, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Ha! Now that would be something. Glad to have met you. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones/GG-J's Talk 17:23, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

King Genovese

That was quick. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:12, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interface: a journal for and about social movements (2nd nomination)

Hi, thanks for closing this AfD. I would greatly appreciate, though, if you could expand your closing rationale a bit. As far as I can see, the arguments for deletion were all policy based, whereas the arguments for keeping the article were almost a version of "I like it". So I'm curious what made you go for "no consensus". Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 08:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I was treating the arguments for keeping the article as valid, following DGG's comment that "unusual journals need to be judged other than by our usual standards". Journals are somewhat of a grey area with respect to policy. On the one hand, WP:NJOURNAL is an essay, not an official guideline, but on the other hand following WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG would result in most of our journal articles being deleted. In this area there is precedence for keeping articles that fail the official guidelines, and when you couple this with the fact that the journal in question is of a type not anticipated by the people who drew up WP:NJOURNAL, I thought that editorial judgement should play a greater role than other areas where the notability criteria are more well-defined. Does this make things a little clearer? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to explain. Obviously, I don't agree, as I explained at length in the article. Note that NJournals did not make it to guideline because too many people thought that it was putting the bar too low. Admittedly, there were also some people who thought it was putting the bar too high... Personally, I'd be happy if we could just say that all academic journals, by definition, are notable. Unfortunately, the existence of trashy "predatory" journals makes that solution unworkable, as we obviously want to keep those out (unless they are so bad that they become notable for being notorious... :-) DGG and Piotrus' arguments are too subjective to my taste. Anyway, I'm not challenging your decision, I understand the reasoning behind it. I think it would be good, though, if you could copy the above rationale into the AfD closing statement. Thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Ok, done. I've linked here from the AfD discussion rather than copying my comment, though - I thought it would make most sense in the context of your question. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Excellent, thanks! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:13, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

It sounds a lot like your applying an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument to justify deleting the argument not because of any merits of this particular article which you appear to accept is not notable; but because you are thinking of the implications to other articles. Typically other journals that don't meet GNG often kept because they provide a blue link in references by WP:IAR. That doesn't apply in this case. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Sheez, will you guys stop pushing for deletion here? AfD has ended. Of course you don't agree with its outcome. Tough luck, EOT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

What the heck does "EOT" mean? (I don't speak "texting" :-). And just for the record, I was not pushing for anything, just asking for a clarification of the reasoning behind the closure, specifically stating that I am not challenging the decision (If I were, we wouldn't be here but at DRV). --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you please stop making things personal. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

IRWolfie - almost, but rather than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am speaking from experience of past AfD debates about journal articles. I agree that if there was no past precedent to keep journal articles that failed WP:BOOK and WP:GNG then the "keep" arguments in this discussion would have been pretty flimsy. However, in my experience, plenty of journal articles whose subjects fail these guidelines have been kept at AfD. I'm not sure of the numbers, though, so if anyone wants to do some research on the fate of journal articles at AfD that would be very useful. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Effectively this could have been the most non-notable journal with some of the strongest delete reasons around and you would have kept because of your personal experience. The journals that fail usually have other criteria that allows IAR to be put into play, but this was not demonstrated in this case. I've been at AfDs where IAR was used as a keep rationale, but it wasn't argued here. Rather here we had weak and contradictory claims to notability with an absence of independent sourcing. It sounds a lot like supervote territory. IRWolfie- (talk)

I intended the close as an honest judgement of consensus, and most definitely not as a supervote. If you disagree, though, you are welcome to take this to deletion review. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Autobiography of a Yogi image deleted from Commons

TatSat is edit warring on Autobiography of a Yogi page. The current cover was deleted by commons and Yworo said I should upload it through Wikipedia instead. TatSat has deleted it 3 times and I have written the explanation when I undid his edits. Also, he is vandalizing the article, even though Yworo gave clear guidance. See this page [1] and scroll to the bottom of the page -

"The most we are really going to be able to include would be something like the following:

Ananda Sangha has detailed editorial changes in the text made by the Self-Realization Fellowship starting with the 1956 7th edition,(cite) including a change made to Yogananda's signature in 1958, inserting an "a" to change "Paramhansa" to "Paramahansa".(cite) SRF responded to these observations in a letter dated such-and-such, stating that all changes were done based on the wishes of Yogananda himself.(cite) "

I think we might need to protect the page??? Red Rose 13 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Red Rose, as far as I can see, the image is copyrighted and uploaded to Commons by Tat Sat. I have proposed it for deletion. It could be uploaded directly to en:WP, which allows a fair use license, in contrast to Commons. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, a user called Guillaume has just removed the original cover of the book it took us months to correct. As you know, the curent image in (that was in) the infobox is not a copyrighted image. The book and its contents, including the cover, illustrations and photographs is in public domain. Red Rose will not allow the article to become neutral. We went through mediation and it took us months to insert the correct picture of the cover which was just removed. Who told Guillaume the image is copyrighted? Here we are again as we started. The only image in the page is the image of SRF´s version of the book. Besides Red Rose will not allow a neutral point of view. The page as it is advertises the version of the book published by Self-Realization Fellowship. I will tag the page as not neutral. If I keep being unable to edit the page with facts and the book history, we will have to ask mediation again. Mediation was just closed. Is that what Red Rose wants? Now the correct cover is marked for deletion. Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 15:43, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hello all. Guillaume2303 was quite right to nominate the image at Commons for deletion, as when Tat Sat tagged the image he claimed it was entirely his own work. Actually, it isn't just his work, but the work of three separate entities: Tat Sat, who scanned the photo; the Philosophical Library, who published the book; and the photographer who took the photograph that appears on the book's cover, whoever he or she was. I've outlined what I know about the image's copyright status in detail at the Commons deletion request. Please have a look there and comment if you have any new information. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 17:10, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, I read what you wrote. If a book is in public domain, it cover, its content (text, photographs and images), everything is in public domain. Since the reprint of the first edition is being published around the world for many years, the detainer of the copyright would have taken measures to stop the infringiment of rights. Nothing of the sort ever happened. So, the second point: nobody knows who took the cover picture nor most of the pictures of the book, since there is no credit in the book for them. So what should I write in the tag? I could upload the image again claiming fair use, as Red Rose did with the copyrighted cover by SRF, but this would be a lie, since the book is in public domain. I will be very grateful for your help. Best regards, Tat Sat (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  The best thing to do would be to leave a comment at the deletion request on Commons, and to wait for an administrator there to close the discussion. Just because the image is being discussed doesn't mean that it will actually be deleted. The tags will be sorted out after the deletion discussion is closed, so don't worry about them for now. Any discussion about copyright should go on the deletion discussion page, because the admins at Commons aren't going to check my talk page, so they won't take it into account. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

  Thank you. Tat Sat (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. Here are two inks - among many - to online facsimiles of the Autobiography of a Yogi. The publishers - who has not been prosecuted for copyright violation - state the book is in public domain and offer the book for free download (including the use of the original cover:

1. The publishers states the book is in public domain.
2. Free download by Holy Books.

I am sorry for the length text but please bear with me for this is important to clarify the issue about the photographs were published in Bold textSRF´s maganize as you can verify. There is no mention of the photos nor the cover of Autobiography of a Yogi which was already ruled to be in public domain without any doubt, since 1991. Please Self-Realization Fellowship versus Ananda this information, since you recommended not only the cover but photographs that are in the book should be deleted. I quote:

"29 - The final category of works in which SRF claims valid copyrights are not works by Yogananda but rather photographs of Yogananda and another religious leader, taken by various third parties and published in SRF's magazine under its blanket copyright. For four of the photographs, SRF can identify no known photographer as the author. A fifth was taken by a man identified only by his name, Arthur Say, while the remaining photographs were taken by SRF employees Clifford Frederick and Durga Mata. The district court rejected SRF's claims that the photographs were taken as works for hire or by a corporate body, and held that SRF had not introduced a triable issue regarding assignment." Thank you and forgive me again to post in your page, but this is relevant information. Tat Sat (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Contribution.

Hey, Mr. Stradivarius. Please help contribute to my WikiProject. This WikiProject is about different cultures. If you can take some time and help contribute to it, that would be very nice of you. I am starting this project this week and would like to finish by next week. Please help me with this project. Thank you very much. Please answer on my talk page because I might not be able to keep track of who is contributing and who is not. I would like you to also share your culture. If you can give me a little summary about your culture such as, foods, lifestlye, holidays, traditions, e.t.c, that would be extremely helpful. Thank you. Pleas reply on MY talk page. Happy edits! Have a great day! DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Trishneet Aror

Hello Dear

I want to know about Trishneet Arora — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.116.180 (talk) 10:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. If you mean Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trishneet Arora, the discussion should be closed by another admin on Sunday 14th or some time shortly after. I've relisted the discussion, so I won't close it myself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:02, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Re- Urolagnia

Please read the discussion on the talk page, and look at the edit history. Am not happy at being given a warning. Have been trying to counter act POV pushing by andy the grump - that it is a perversion, and should clearly be labled as such. I have also read BLP and see nothing that prohibits mentioning widely publisised allegations, and criminal charges, even if there was no conviction - could you please explain. I feel that i am being discriminated against as an IP editior.87.194.46.83 (talk) 11:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The part of the policy that is the most relevance is WP:BLPCRIME. I wouldn't try and claim that the person in question isn't well-known, of course, but putting him in a list of "notable urophiliacs" is obviously going to make people assume that he is a urophiliac. This is not directly supported by the sources you cited. (I didn't see anything about this on the talk page, either.) Your warning doesn't have anything to do with the debate about whether urolagnia is a perversion or not, by the way, so feel free to take that up on the talk page and to try and find a consensus. You might also want to create an account - there are lots of good reasons to do so. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi! That says "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law. For people who are relatively unknown, editors must give serious consideration to not including material in any article suggesting that the person has committed, or is accused of committing, a crime unless a conviction is secured.[5] If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory judgements that do not override each other,[6] refrain from using pithy descriptors or absolutes and instead use more explanatory information." - Since the musician in question is well known, I find this text hard to apply, and not black or white. The text I reinstated with sources not say that he was convicted, but that he was "famously accused", which was supported by the sources. It is not something I care deeply about adding to the article - someone else added it, and it was removed because of a lack of sources - so I added a source. Given the lack of any discussion on it, I do not understand why you support locking the page to stop me editing it,. so andy the grump cam push his paraphillia POV.85.179.140.200 (talk) 12:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Merging articles of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona

Hi sir,

I think many articles of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona should be merged with the main article of California State Polytechnic University, Pomona . Articles such as these

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Poly_Pomona_Department_of_Chemical_and_Materials_Engineering (should be merged with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cal_Poly_Pomona_College_of_Engineering)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cal_Poly_Pomona_presidents

Could you please check the main article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Polytechnic_University,_Pomona

thanks --Irani12 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Irani12. I recommend proposing the merges on Talk:California State Polytechnic University, Pomona and seeing whether the editors there agree with your idea. If you get a consensus to perform the merge, just follow the instructions at WP:MERGE. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Ruben Canelo's page

Dear Sir, I find completely unfair your decision. Professor Canelo is a well know Transplant and Hepatobiliary Surgeon worldwide. Why you do not support professionals to be on Wikipedia? Please revert this decision. With many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbncnl (talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello Rbncnl. Actually, we do support professionals to be on Wikipedia. The only condition is that they must satisfy our notability guidelines for biographies or the notability guidelines for academics. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruben Canelo the participants agreed that Canelo didn't satisfy these guidelines, and that is why I deleted the page. Let me know if you have any other questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:32, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Move Review Ends

As promised before I'm writing to tell you that the move review for the Tenedos article ended. Seems like the move review ended without creating anything constructive towards either way. I believe it was a major violation of administrator rights the way the closing admin closed it but that seems to be no longer relevant. Basically, the move review provided nothing for it to sink on anyone. So, what now? TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Drmies's close was endorsed, I think the best thing to do now would be to wait a few months. It can't be easy to find consensus over other aspects of the article if everyone is permanently engaged in heated move discussions. All that mediation would be able to do is to provide a structure for gathering evidence and for organising a community discussion; that community discussion would essentially be another requested move discussion. As there have been four move discussions for that article in the last 18 months, I think a nice long break is necessary before we consider mediation. How about letting it go for six months and then see how you feel about starting another move discussion? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that it has no real use. For example, you're talking to me at the moment. I could cool off for 6 months but that would be useless as I've never opened a move request nor intend to do so. The problem is move request opened by people who are not party to a discussion like this. The editor who opened the latest move request was an uninvolved editor. More like him is likely to come. The same will happen. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy

Hi Stradivarius. Please, could be possible, for courtesy, that these pages: 1, 2 and the others linked to it do not appear in search engines (Google, Bing, etc)? And could be possible it: 3 and it, too: 4? Thank you.--USAnne (talk) 08:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi USAnne. Deletion discussions haven't been indexed in search engines since 2006, so no worries on that front. I'm afraid that we don't blank or hide revisions from deletion discussions, though, as on Wikipedia we like the deletion process to be as transparent as possible. The deleted article should disappear from most search engines after they update their indexes. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:48, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, I ask, blank it. This is my argument: "Occasionally, completed deletion discussions (or other discussions) may be blanked for reasons of privacy or courtesy to individuals." 1. Thanks. --USAnne (talk) 09:16, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

It's true, the guideline does say that. I don't see a particular reason why the deletion discussion might be harmful to any individual, however. Could you give your reasons for wanting it to be blanked? If you don't want to reveal them publicly you can email them to me, using the link at the top of this page. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, check your email. --USAnne (talk) 09:36, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see no reason why the discussion should be blanked. There is nothing defamatory in it. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC).

The specific complaint was with this comment, and while perhaps it is a little off-colour, I agree that it is not actually defamatory. I blanked the discussion to err on the side of Wikipedia doing no harm, and also partially because of WP:BITE. However, if there is a consensus that blanking is not necessary I will restore it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Userfying an article?

Heya! I've had a request for help from User:Ananyaprasad with the Rashmi Singh (author) article that was recently deleted. I explained that I can't restore it, but that I could request for a copy to be put into their userspace to work on until it passes notability guidelines. I figure that wouldn't do much harm for them to have a copy to work on for the time being.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've userfied it to User:Ananyaprasad/Rashmi Singh. Good thinking. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Ryan Doyle article

Mr. S, would you kindly give a little justification if you're going to prune down something I insert. "More neutral wording" doesn't cover removing a fact entirely. If you thought my phrasing of Doyle's world tour was spun, you could have made it neutral without completely deleting it. At this point, if I insert something factual into the article, I'm not doing it on a whim. I could have written a two-paragraph blurb on the matter that you would have pruned down to half a sentence, so I took the lesson of your copy edit and simply started with the half-sentence. By removing even that, you're insulting me by supposing I haven't even been trying to pay attention to what you've tried to show me about brevity and proper summary. A world champion athlete's touring of the world wonders is perfectly encyclopedic enough to warrant a half-sentence insert. You don't want me littering the page with hippy youtube media references, so I gave a perfect epitome reference which documented both the win and the fact of his world tour, together. Obviously my exact wording is derived from a much bigger perspective. If you didn't trust the tone, fine, but removing the basic insertion entirely is uncalled for.

If you really think Doyle's recent world tour isn't encyclopedic enough to warrant a mention, or needs a particular level or type of reference strength to include, then please elaborate on this with something other than absolutely nothing. You can examine the footage yourself from his YouTube channel, it's the latest handful of uploaded videos. http://www.youtube.com/user/10055870 Squish7 (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Squish7! The reason I rephrased your sentence to start with was it's not really clear how parkour is "applicable" to the seven world wonders. You can do parkour at the seven world wonders, sure, but I don't think you can apply parkour to them. I agree with you that his world tour is perfectly worthy of inclusion, and the only reason I didn't put it back in was because I wasn't familiar with the references - I thought the world tour and Santorini might be connected somehow. By the way, if you really want to improve the article, you should put in all the information included in this New York Times article. There won't be any doubt about using that as a reference! Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Put it in? I practically wrote the thing verbatim here before you and Cindy tore it to shreds again and again calling me hostile and non-compliant. The parallels between it and what I kept trying to write here are so tight it would be comedic if it wasn't infuriating. Now I can suddenly put it all back now that a NY Times author agrees with me? Can I also get a retroactive cancellation of weeks of having my personal character attacked, e.g. as grossly disrespectful of authority/policy? I spent so much time quantifying the precise manner in which Doyle's media fits into Wikipedia policy as reliable sourcing material that I even crafted a careful disclaimer explaining the use to other editors, which Cindy said simply served as a confession of wrongdoing. Now a NY Times author has recognized not just the general scholastic value of Doyle's video media, but has quoted the same videos in the same manners. One line of the article quotes the same sentence, from the same video, for the same reason, as I did, in the version that was up before your copy edit deleting everything extra I was working on. It just plain vindicates everything I was trying to do with the Doyle article on all fronts, efforts so vigorously and thoroughly blacklisted from Wikipedia that I couldn't possibly start "putting it all back in" without diving into potential account suspension/deletion territory.

Here are two epitome examples of what I'm talking about, two key drafts of the article that in sum demonstrate about where I'd like the article to be at now. I would greatly appreciate your careful cross-referencing of these with the NY Times article you're praising so highly.

This draft presents/recognizes Doyle's tutorials as notable publications, sureally similarly to the way the NYT article does.

This draft is the furthest I got extending the article from its base form, getting into philosophy and so forth. Note it quotes the exact same sentence of Doyle's at one point as the NYT article.

Squish7 (talk) 08:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. The difference is that journalists are allowed (indeed, expected) to use primary sources to write their articles, but on Wikipedia we are generally not allowed to use primary sources. So yes, you are right - you can indeed "suddenly put it all back now that a NY Times author agrees with [you]". Please only put back in the things that are mentioned in the NY Times article, though. I know that you have been pointed to the no original research policy before, so let me try a different tack. Have you ever read what Jimbo said on the subject? If you have a read about the history of the core content policies it might make things easier to understand. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The GENERALLY not is why I spent eons tediously pouring over every policy and clause mindlessly dished out to me to digest that could possibly apply to the situation. It's why I spent the equivalent of a full-time work week quantifying and justifying the encyclopedic value and Wikipedia- appropriateness of what was already brain-dead obvious to me by instinct. You and Cindy use "generally" and "largely" as if they mean "absolutely" and "totally" and "fully" and "definitively". You can't bind yourselves to the intricacies and precisions of encyclopedic documentation and not be able to be precise in situations calling for precision. WHAT IS GENERALLY? When is something an exception, and when isn't it? Specifically? Policy particularly and explicitly states that there are NO BLANKET SOURCE BANS in regards to YouTube and the like, that everything must take into account a whole sea of balanced factors. The only course of action, then, in unique scenarios qualifying as potential exceptions to typical treatment, is to do extra work evaluating from the more core, general, governing, and basic foundations of what should and should not be included/allowed in Wikipedia.

Every single objection that was made against my writings was under the argument "this generally isn't done". That's a good and solid reason for FLAGGING something as POTENTIALLY out of synch with policy. It's not a definitive reasoning for making the final judgement. Nobody ever disagreed with me on particulars, they only disagreed based on vague general structural analysis without actually looking closely. There's an abysmal difference between "original research" that can't be verified, and reference work of which the verification just happens to be extra tricky/tedious. I wrote up lengthy explanations on the talk page for Cindy/others to examine if they wanted explanations of what I'd done after very, very carefully digesting all the clauses she kept throwing at me. To continue to state I wasn't even reading them when I did ridiculous work to quantify and justify as demanded, was practical insanity, as is this idea of yours that only now I can stick it all back up. No, these similarities between my work and the NYT article call for a biblical apology from her and her incessant public defamation of me, not some paradox that I was continuously out of line and yet magically just happened to be right at the same time from a freak lottery-winning chance. The entire incident should be audited as an example of where administrator behavior failed miserably. Squish7 (talk) 11:34, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Where would the most appropriate place(s) be to tactfully ask for an informal audit and analysis of the situation? I'm not settling for "Now that a NYT editor agrees with you, you're right". My original founding reasoning and research was infallible, tedious, elite, and respectful, and I think anyone intelligent that actually looked carefully at it would agree. Policy and habit have to come from somewhere, yes? This incident should be a landmark for revising administrator recognition of elite editing/editors. Squish7 (talk) 11:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

If you would like a review of the situation, may I suggest Wikipedia:Third opinion? As I understand it, this particular situation may be borderline in terms of their project scope, but we might be able to get someone to give us their opinion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:50, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Bigg Boss

Tell me how should i make nominations visible? they have already been shown. How to add? where to get the source? My source is TV. Cant place that on wiki sorry. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you want to cite a TV show, you can use {{cite episode}}. If you cite Bigg Boss episodes then that would make it a primary source, so make sure you follow the policy at WP:PRIMARY. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Tanka prose

Not "preachy" at all, and I am always happy to get advice. I suppose part of the problem was that it was pretty clear from the start that one of the users was simply not here to build an encyclopaedia. His contributions might not have constituted "vandalism" in the "traditional" sense but were, in my opinion, a form of "intellectual vandalism". His whole focus, unambiguously so, was to WP:PROMO his preferred niche style of a particular art-form. While everyone behaved and no-one "outed" anyone, it did became fairly clear that the editor involved was directly connected to the subject and had a fairly clear WP:COI. Did I overstate my case? Probably; I sometimes get carried away in "defence" of WP's "honour" and this was probably one of those times. More than happy to take your comments on board - always appreciated. Stalwart111 (talk) 00:07, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

C&CoCI

When you have time, please look at this list on the Talk page. Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi :)

I am thankful for your attempts to help me with the content dispute, but they have gone stale. What I (or we) can do about it? Lguipontes (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep, it looks like the discussion at the IPA help page has gone stale, as I thought it might. Why don't you try posting directly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics to find some other opinions from people who know what they're talking about? From what I read of the discussion Aeusoes1 seemed to have a sensible position, but his comment alone doesn't really make a consensus. If we could get some more outside opinion that would be best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

You already posted it there, with a link. I don't know if I will sufficiently condense my thoughts that it could attract more discussion, if someone is really present there. I could ask the other active editors with Help: IPA for Portuguese and the most active Linguistics editor... Well, wish me good luck, I'm somewhat timid. Do you think it would be a good idea? Lguipontes (talk) 12:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit of an obscure subject area by Wikipedia standards, so that probably can't be helped. I wouldn't be too scared about being shy though - most Wikipedians are nice, but too busy to join every single discussion that they see. It can pay off to be a little bit persistent at times like this, although you don't want to annoy anyone too much. :) I think you should post on WikiProject Linguistics directly first, just to ask people what they think about it. There's something about a direct post to the project that makes people want to comment more than a link does. If that fails, then we could try asking the most active linguistics editors directly on their talk pages. You can tell them that I sent you there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any idea of what to post there (how can I explain that Portuguese unstressed vowels really need a novel way of transcribing because we don't have a standard dialect and Brazil is pluricentric about in a few lines, for people that are not new to IPA though probably are in the subject?), and even though I'm lazy, I don't really think copy-paste is a good option (those texts of mine are pretty long). Lguipontes (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I think you just did it in one line... that would be enough for me. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Should I add that to your section? Lguipontes (talk) 13:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, why not. That would be a good start. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't resist and it went long. But I think I addressed it more clearly even though covering all important parts. Lguipontes (talk) 15:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello

I'm just so annoyed by the fact that users have really started to target me. Like seriously. User:Dharmadhyaksha has removed the averages from a page i created claiming it to be meaningless Mathematics. I have no problem with that. I, in turn, asked him to remove the same useless math from the US versions too. Why be biased towards the indian version? just cause i created that page? Look at the msg i posted on his talkpage.[2] What m i doing wrong? It's either he's too pussy too get involved with more editors on this change or he just hates me. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 06:25, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Hope Mr. Stradivarius will guide you properly on how to log complaints in proper forums against me. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

OMG you came here too?? LEAVE.ME.ALONE. LEAVE.ME.ALONE. LEAVE.ME.ALONE. LEAVE.ME.ALONE. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 06:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Since we can ask advices/help of admins...

I'll annoy you some more (just kidding!). :) Do you think I am pushing a POV or being rude here? I don't see it that way, in my opinion I just made the wording more neutral, tried to explain my reasons, and soon people got all accusative, concerned and hurting. No one knows a 17-year-old with 1600 edits does silly things sometimes (even if I think my view is not silly at all)? Oh, these guys... Lguipontes (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko

Thank you so much! It’s amazing how fast you responded. It’s really frustrating when someone is deleting reliable references simply because it’s not how they would like it to be, and it’s really nice to know that now you will keep an eye on this! The most annoying thing is that the stuff this guy was deleting are stuff which were discussed on the talk page.

It was already established that though Belarusians weren’t called Belarusians, they still existed as an ethnic groups, they were just referred to as Litvins or Ruthenians, and the definition was basically descendants from the Rus’ people living on the territory of the Great Duchy of Lithuania (they spoke the same language, they had the same origin, which is the definition on an ethnic group, and even if someone was polonized, it doesn’t change from what ethnic group their ancestors came from).

The name Belarusians was actualy started by the Russians in order to disconnect those people from their history and loyalty to the Great Duchy of Lithuania. Belarusians were a majority in the Great Duchy, their language was the official language and they were even called Litvins after the Duchy, so the Russian government found it worrying and as it was doing then decided to “play” with identities and names.

So anyway, this issue was discussed, and it was established that the Belarusians existed but under a different name and using reliable sources it was shown that Kościuszko’s family was of Belarusian origin, though polonized (I was actualy the one who found the link that his family was polonized), so it’s highly frustrating when you see a guy first deleting the information saying that the links are not in English (which is not a good enough argument), then deleting them saying Belarusians didn’t exist then (which is not true and it was discussed on the talk page), then deleting it saying that his family was polonized (which is true, but it was discussed on the talk page and it was agreed that national identity and ethnic origin are not the same thing and though polonized Kościuszko’s origin ethnically was still Belarusian/Litvin/Ruthenian). Important to note, this guy didn’t write on the Talk page even once and I doubt if he read it.

I myself an half Polish and half Belarusian, and unlike what this guy says I don’t try to “steal” a Polish hero, he obviously is a Polish hero, he spoke Polish, he fought for Poland and he dedicated his life to Poland, but I don’t see how being from a different ethnic origin can contrast being loyal to your country, and when people like him try to hide an ethnic origin of a person because in their eyes it will make this person less of a hero (I don’t see any other explanation)… I find it dangerous because it comes from an assumption that a minority can’t be loyal and can’t be patriotic, which for me as a Pole/Belarusian who lives in the UK is very scary and I would even say hate-spreading.

Anyway, sorry for writing so much, just wanted to show what I see is happening. Thank you so much for protecting the page and for keeping an eye on it! It’s good to know someone is taking care of the issue! Danton's Jacobin (talk) 10:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter - closing up!

Hey all :).

We're (very shortly) closing down this development cycle for Page Curation. It's genuinely been a pleasure to talk with you all and build software that is so close to my own heart, and also so effective. The current backlog is 9 days, and I've never seen it that low before.

However! Closing up shop does not mean not making any improvements. First-off, this is your last chance to give us a poke about unresolved bugs or report new ones on the talkpage. If something's going wrong, we want to know about it :). Second, we'll hopefully be taking another pass over the software next year. If you've got ideas for features Page Curation doesn't currently have, stick them here.

Again, it's been an honour. Thanks :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The ONE Study_article deleted

Dear Administrator,

we do not agree with the deletion of the page of the article The ONE Study. We would really appreciate comments and explanation on the reason of the deletion. It would allow a fruitful discussion that could lead to a satisfactory solution. Our commitment is very high and we would collaborate in order to produce a publishable article of global interest, as we think that the page would be very interesting for the society, without any promotional scope and intent. The clinical study is lead by a German public Institution and the research project is funded by a public Institution, the European Commission (EC). The project is listed in the link of the EC:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/health/biotechnology/new-therapies/projects-fp7_en.html

Hope to have a positive and helpful feedback from you. Regards Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 13:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I deleted the article because there was a consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The ONE Study that it didn't meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. To meet the guideline there need to be multiple independent secondary sources that have significant coverage of the ONE study. For a better idea of what this means, have a look at this simple guide to notability on Wikipedia. If you are aware of any such sources, then we may be able to have an article on the ONE Study, but if no sources exist then I'm afraid the study simply cannot be covered on Wikipedia. Let me know if you have any more questions after reading these links. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:59, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Stradivarius,

we will not have problem to add independent secondary sources for stressing the notability of The ONE Study. We can meet this request. How should we proceed? What is the better way to work: should be fine if we submit the references of secondary source in this discussion? Or: should we send them to you? If yes, how to do it? Please send us your instructions. Thanks for your support. We hope to success. Best regards.Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again. If you have any appropriate sources please post links to them here on my talk page, and I will take a look at them. If I think they prove the notability of the ONE study then we might be able to look into undeleting the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Stadivarius, Very notably, 2 of the acknowledgments to The ONE Study are in a "Science" article and a "Nature Reviews Immunology" article; these are peer reviewed journals obviously of the highest impact in the field. The first two papers are not on open access journals. "Immunology. Regulatory T cells get their chance to shine." Leslie M.; 2011 May 27;332(6033):1020-1. "Regulatory immune cells in transplantation." Wood KJ, Bushell A, Hester J.; Nat Rev Immunol. 2012 May 25;12(6):417-30. doi: 0.1038/nri3227.

Below the reference of open access papers published on peer reviewed journals on The ONE Study. http://www.transplantationresearch.com/content/1/1/11 Editorial "The ONE Study compares cell therapy products in organ transplantation: introduction to a review series on suppressive monocyte-derived cells" Geissler EK.; Transplantation Research 2012, 1:11 doi:10.1186/2047-1440-1-11

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3422982/ "Translating tolerogenic therapies to the clinic - where do we stand?" Issa F, Wood KJ. Front Immunol. 2012;3:254. Epub 2012 Aug 20.PMID: 22934094 [PubMed]

These two papers are open access thus you can check them without problems.

In addition, it is worth mentioning that The ONE Study was highlighted in a special Sunrise Symposium session by request of The Transplantation Society 2012 meeting this year in Berlin (the largest international organ transplantation meeting held every 2 years). Moreover, the project coordinator, Prof. E. K. Geissler, gave a presentation on The ONE Study as the keynote speaker at a joint meeting of the American Society of Transplantation and the European Society of Transplantation held in Nice, France (Oct 12-14, 2012; www.esot.org/meetings/publicplatform/MeetingPlatform.aspx?MeetingPlatformUI=15 We hope to have properly addressed your requests and met the criteria.

Best regards Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 09:29, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for finding those sources. Here is my assessment of how they relate to Wikipedia's general notability guideline:

• [3][4] These two sources are in very prestigious journals, as you say, and there is no question that they are valuable pieces of research. I could not access their full contents, so this is partly speculation, but from the titles and abstracts I think that it is likely they don't meet the "significant coverage" clause of the notability guidelines. They are primarily about the role of immune cells in organ transplantation; however to meet the "significant coverage" clause they need to be about the ONE study itself. I'd expect to see coverage of the ONE study's history, it's aims, what universities and companies are involved, etc. I suppose this information could be in the body of the articles, but given the usual practices when writing abstracts this seems unlikely. I am assuming that these articles are part of the ONE study, rather than being about it. In this case, they would also fail the "independent" clause of the notability guidelines due having a financial connection with the study.
• [5] This article has the significant coverage of the ONE study necessary to pass the notability guideline, but unfortunately it fails the "independent" clause; Geissler, the author, is the project coordinator of the ONE study. (From your username, it looks like this is you; welcome to Wikipedia, Professor Geissler!)
• [6] This study has contains a brief summary of the ONE study, although I think that most editors would say that this summary was too short to consist of the "significant coverage" the notability guideline asks for. However, this is moot, as it fails the "independent" clause; the authors received funding from the ONE project, which unfortunately means that it can't count towards notability.
• Regarding the Sunrise Symposium and the meeting of the American Society of Transplantation and the European Society of Transplantation; these are unquestionably great academic achievements, but unfortunately the notability guidelines require sources to have been published somewhere. Conference proceedings are usually not admitted as references, although this can depend on the field of study. Conference papers would also be very likely to fail the "independent" clause.

To sum up, while the ONE study is obviously a very worthy academic project and could have a great positive impact on the state of human knowledge, it doesn't yet have the level of notice from reliable, independent sources that would warrant a stand-alone Wikipedia article. (Note, however, that it may be possible to mention the ONE study in other already-existing articles, if it is relevent; see WP:NNC for more details.) As the study gets underway it might well start to be picked up in academic review articles or in the mainstream press; my advice to you is to wait six months or so, and then see if any new sources have been released which would satisfy my criticisms above. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:44, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok. We will follow your suggestion. Thanks for that. The last tentative from our side is to copy the texts of the articles of Science and Frontiers in Immunology regarding The ONE Study.

Science, Author MITCH LESLIE: Six European institutions are collaborating on the ONE Study, a 5-year project to test whether T regs can prevent rejection of idney transplants. “There’s a huge need to improve immunosuppression in [organ] transplants,” says Andrew Bushell, a transplant immunologist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom. The ONE Study and Bluestone’s type 1 diabetes trial will dose patients with polyclonal T regs, which turn down immune responses relatively broadly. The alternative is so-called antigen-specifi c T regs, which block attacks by other T cells that target a particular antigen, such as a characteristic protein on the cells in a transplanted organ. In theory, antigen-specific T regs shouldn’t provoke general immune suppression that might undermine antipathogen defenses and even lead to cancer. “We really believe that antigen specificity is the future of any successful T reg therapy,” says transplant immunologist and ONE Study collaborator Giovanna Lombardi of King’s College London. Bluestone says that future diabetes trials will also probably switch to antigen-specifi c T cells.

Frontiers in Immunology, Review, Authors Issa and Wood: The European Union is currently funding the first study for the valuation of immunomodulatory cellular therapy in SOT (www.onestudy.org). The ONE Study, a multi center Phase I/II clinical trial, will evaluate the safety and feasibility of various types of cell therapy including expanded nTreg, Tr1 cells, Mregs,and tolerogenic DCs in living-donor kidney transplantation. All centers will utilize a common adjunctive immunosuppressive protocol in order to provide a true comparison of the various cellular therapies. Control patients will be transplanted in 2013 and cell therapy groups in 2014, providing a follow up period of 12 months.

Regarding the open access paper on Transplantation Research, I would like to underline that it is a peer reviewed journal thus before the publication, the paper was evaluated, revised and approved by a committee of experts ij the field. Prof Geissler is not the owner of the journal, neither of the reserach or the clinical trial done in The ONE Study. He is the project coordinator of The ONE Study and he wrote a scientific paper on this work. After that, a group of expert evaluated his paper, reviwed it and accepted it for publication as valiad, reliable and notable. For this reason and thanks to the process behind every single publication on peer reviewed journals, we can stongly confirm that the paper is completely reliable and notable, otherwise it would not have been accepted for publication.

We will be delighted if you can do your further, may be last, evaluation based on the text of the papers that you were not able to read and on our last comment. I hope that you will appreciate our efforts focused in something that we think can be of broad interest for the common people to which wikipedia offers its contents.

Thank you very much for your kindness and avalilability. Regards Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr Stardivarius, we are available to send you the *.pdf of the mentioned articles, but we need your instructions for this. Regards Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Dear Administrator,

actually we have completed a web-page where you can find 11 papers related to The ONE Study that can be considered as secondary sources. Below the link: http://www.openaire.eu/en/component/openaire/project_info/default/625?id=260687&confirm=ddd41314b6ec3c5d06fbe8773fd76c6888cfe799

Most of these papers are open access thus you cam simply access to the papers. All these papers are published on peer revied journals with a high impact factor, which are COMPLETELY independent from the project and from the project coordinator. Some of the papers mention The ONE Study as a very important and unique project in its field and other report the results that the consortium The ONE Study is generating within this collaborative project. For this reason there are the acknowledgement to the project and to the European Commission.

We are looking forward to have your final impression and evaluation. Best regards Surgery-ukr-geissler (talk) 12:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, and sorry for the delay in replying. I've had a look at all of those references, and it looks like they are all part of the ONE study itself. Unfortunately, this means that they fail the test of being independent from the subject. We need to see sources that have no connection with the ONE study that cover the ONE study in a reasonable depth. No matter how good the sources are, if they aren't independent of the ONE study then we can't use them to prove notability. If you disagree with my assessment, then you are welcome to seek third-party review of my decision at deletion review; however, I think it is very likely that other editors will repeat my advice that sources need to be independent of the subject, as this is a fundamental part of the concept of notability on Wikipedia. If you have more questions though, you are still welcome to ask, of course. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:41, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Tej Gyan Foundation

Hi there, Just a quick question really. I came across this article in September and planned on making a number of changes to it, as it was written pretty much like an advertisement. I noticed however it was recently deleted via Afd, and you were the closing editor. In your opinion is this an article that could be re-created if the article wasn't written like an advertisement? From what I can see its borderline notable, it's simply been created on two occasions by average editors JP22Wiki (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That depends on whether it passes the notability guidelines for organizations. I recommend that you read that, and this simple guide to notability, and see if you can find any suitable sources. If you do, you can link to them here and I'll take a look at them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:00, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 6

How can Bigg Boss 6 be merged when many editors have voted on keep. All the copyright has been removed. I have rewritten the summaries in my own words. It is the biggest reality show in India. Dont do this. All international versions have separate pages for every season. Check it out, everything on Bigg Boss 6 is original now. Please reconsider. Please. -- I'm Titanium  ^chat 18:16, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

AfD isn't a vote, so sometimes the outcome is not the same as the highest number of "votes". The important thing is whether the arguments in the discussion are made in accordance with the deletion policy. Also, it's not my decision to reconsider, but MBisanz's. If you disagree with the close you should ask him on his talk page why he closed it that way. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 07:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Rashmi Singh (author) Afd

Hello. How I am to work? As I start my work- put up anything anywhere or ask, 2-3 people (admin) start stalking me and reply in a demeaning way. Is this Wikipedia? You just have to see my contributions and see what is happening! I have just started work and they are trying to pick up a nonsense conversation. Please help. Ananyaprasad (talk) 11:28, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ananyaprasad. Could you let me know specifically what you are talking about? I can't really tell from the post above. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just when you thought it was safe to look at the Verifiability policy again...

Hi, I'd like to ask a favor of you, in your role as an uninvolved administrator who is also well trusted by editors at WP:V. Please take a look at WT:V#Summing up and the discussion that follows it, and determine the consensus and close the RfC there. Unlike the lead discussion, I'm pretty sure this one is non-controversial and the consensus will be easy to see, but I think it's best to have a by-the-book closure process. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be glad to. I'm feeling a bit wiki-zonked at the moment, and I might not be able to get round to it until tomorrow evening, but I'll do it. If you find someone else to do it in the meantime, I won't mind at all. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 05:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

That would be fine. It isn't urgent. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it looks like I won't be getting round to it today either... — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:00, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tryptofish. I've pretty much got over my WikiFunk now, and I just had a look at the RfC you linked to above to see the state of things. The conversation still seems to be going strong, and there's only another six days to go until the usual 30-day limit, so I think it would be best left until then before anyone closes it. I've read the conversation over a few times already, so the one who closes it may as well be me, but I shall wait until the 15th before I do so unless there is a sudden outbreak of silence. Ta muchly — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds fine. I apologize for bugging you at a difficult time, and I know from my own experience what that can feel like. As it happens, I'll be on a WikiBreak when you do make the close, but I'm sure that whatever happens will be fine. Some of us in that discussion had discussed closing after two weeks, but I see your point about letting it go for 30 days now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I've been away for a while and just got back, and I see that the bot has removed the RfC tag and the discussion seems to have quieted down, so I suspect that you might as well wrap it up at your next convenience. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, closed. Sorry for the delay! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! No worries – your help is much appreciated! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Please protect page Astra Taylor

I noticed you protected the Jeff Mangum page recently due to the Anne Frank vandalism. If you could do the same for Astra Taylor, that'd be awesome. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LethargicParasite (talk • contribs) 07:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, done. For next time, you'll probably get the quickest response by making a request at WP:RFPP. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage! Have a nice day! Cheers! Mediran talk|contribs 09:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

You're most welcome, and thank you for the beer! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

(Barnstar archived)

Thank you very much! I'm still learning the ropes there, but I'm glad that my efforts are appreciated. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

RFPP archive bot

FYI - I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection#Bot archiving that you might be interested in contributing to. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Block

You blocked the List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council. Blocking is fine. The problem is the sequence you have frozen this article in, leaves the sanitized, whitewashed, one-sided POV version Arzel has been disruptively trying to have presented. As you already observed, the dissenting opinion was well documented with reliable sources. That's the wikipedia way. Arzel presents no sources, just his word; "no it isn't." I think my version properly deserves to be the state this article is frozen in. TruthtellernoBS (talk) 02:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Truthtell. Normally administrators protect the current version of an article in the case of edit warring, unless the current version contains a clear violation of site policies. I didn't see any clear violations when I reviewed the article, so I protected the current version. Please see WP:PREFER for the details. (Note that administrators are also allowed to revert to a version predating the edit war, if such a version exists, but in this case there is no difference between that version and the current version.) If you can find a consensus for a revised lead section, then I can add it to the page, or perhaps lift the protection early, but I'm afraid that I can't change the version that the page is protected on. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 06:09, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Shubha Phutela

Hi,

I am Shubha Phutela's cousin sister. I am glad that you increased the protection of her page. I wanted to clarify reason of her death and have submitted an edit request for the page. Kindly look into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gita1602 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is her family. I am not sure how to cite that but I am her cousin and I have been in touch with her parents, relatives. Gita1602 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm afraid that we can't accept the family as a source, because we have no way of reliably checking the information. We need a source that has a reputation for fact-checking, like a newspaper or news website. If the family has some kind of official website that we can verify, then we may be able to use that for some information (per our policy on using primary sources), but that is a grey area and it is up to the editors of the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:17, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, let me know if you have any more questions about this, and I'll be glad to answer them. I'm sure that this whole matter must be very distressing for you and for the family. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Greetings,

I am that editor who made most of recent changes there! So, you can blame me! But, all the references are saying she died after prolonged kidney problem. While rewriting, I have clearly mentioned the names of Newspapers too in death section, see Shubha_Phutela#Death, generally we don't write like that, I think and you can go ahead and delete the names of newspapers because same references can be found in ref section! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The above "review if we should mention the names of newspaper at article body" is @ Mr. Stradivarius, I have been looking for a second opinion here! Regards! --Tito Dutta (talk) 14:36, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, that seems reasonable considering the circumstances. The sources just say that she was suffering from kidney problems, but not that it was that specifically which led to her death, and that seems to be reasonably well-reflected by the article. Considering the amount of misinformation out there at the moment, I think that mentioning the names of the newspapers is a good move. The best thing would be to find sources that mention the cause of death specifically, of course, but it doesn't look like they are available yet. They will probably appear in a few days, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bengaluru

I've given the section a copy edit. I have one question, though - why did you say "Bengaluru" instead of "Bangalore"? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the name of Bangalore was officially changed, I can see support here, here. I am not sure why in Wikipedia we are using the old name still or I am missing something! --Tito Dutta (talk)

I see, that makes sense. :) Wikipedia will probably take a long time to change, though, as we put a heavy emphasis on the name most frequently used in reliable English-language sources. Just to be safe you should probably stick with using "Bangalore" on Wikipedia until the title of the city article gets changed. The relevant guideline is at WP:PLACE if you are feeling curious. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, in Wikipedia we work very fast. I can remember the marriage of Kareena Kapoor. We wrote in Wikipedia (in past tense)- "She married on... " before few hours of her marriage. About Bengaluru's name I have found this and this move request Talk:Bangalore/Archive_4#Move_Request and this too Talk:Bangalore/Archive_3#Requested_move_.28back_to_.22Bangalore.22.29. We can see the latest newspaper and Government sites coverages and start an RM if necessary. --Tito Dutta (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and file a requested move. I don't really mind, though. I just thought it was odd because you were using a different name than the name of the city article, and because I'd never heard of it called "Bengaluru" before. Now that I know the name has officially changed it makes a lot more sense. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have 8-9 open request moves and 4 draft RMs (yes, sometimes I need preparation before move). For example Talk:Warish#Requested_move, it took me 4 months+ to decide. BTW, can you please help to solve my confusion there? It is not canvassing, I am the article creator and only contributor there. And a puzzle for you: If you support the move you are supporting my requested article spelling and if you oppose the move, you are supporting the current spelling which I decided at first. So, whatever you do support or oppose, no problem for me! I just can not decide the article title there. About Bengaluru, after finishing these RMs I'll search in recent Government docs and Newspapers and if I find the name Bengaluru is being used in many places, I'll go for RM. --Tito Dutta (talk) 16:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Frank L. VanderSloot

I am not sure what "(Adding {{pp-dispute}}" means on the above page. I can't see any difference in the versions. Thank you. 13:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgeLouis (talk • contribs)

That's the protection template that generates the little gold lock icon in the top-right-hand corner. Believe it or not, the icons don't get added automatically by the MediaWiki software, but have to be done by hand or by bot. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Then the Edit Summary should say all that. Shouldn't be too hard to put into the Template. In-house abbreviations are the bane of Wikipedia. Thank you for responding. GeorgeLouis (talk) 20:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

RFC Feedback

Looking for more feedback from uninvolved parties for an RFC I posted at the page ALCAT test. The discussion is here: Talk:ALCAT test#RFC:Neutrality and reliable sources. Many thanks. Plot Spoiler (talk) 19:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment

A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Frank_L._VanderSloot, where all discussion should take place.

The questions are:

1. Based on the claim of Synthesis, should the original version or the revised version of the LGBT Section be used in the article from henceforth—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
2. Because the original "LGBT issues" Section adversely comments on a Living Person, should that section be immediately replaced with the revised section—of course with the ability to edit it as necessary?
3. Should the Sources identified as faulty or not germane be eliminated from the list of References?
   GeorgeLouis (talk) 00:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:RFPP

Hi there Stradivarius, long time no see. Just had a quick note, I was taking a look at the RFPP log (good job keeping it clear by the way) when I edit conflicted you with List of Barbie's friends and family. I was about to decline it based on sparse negative activity and went ahead and soft-blocked the troublemaker IP address. I noticed that user is the only one in over a week who has improperly edited, and in fact all other anonymous users were editing constructively (since October 16). I'm not sure if you had another reason for protecting the page for two weeks, but it seems to me it's fairly safe to leave unprotected; perhaps if you're worried about vandalism extending the block on the user might be a better idea. Of course, I'm not really familiar with RFPP practices these days so if I'm being a bit archaic please let me know. =) Nice running into you, cheers. · Andonic ^contact 01:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Andonic, and thanks for the note. I'm still pretty new to RFPP, and I'm very much still learning. Looking at the history again, you have a point - aside from that IP, none of the edits look too egregious. I'll unprotect and extend the block if necessary, and keep the page on my watchlist. It will be a good education for me to see the edits made to the page that I would have prevented with the page protection. Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nepal Internet Exchange

Hello. It has been shown at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MountWassen that this Afd you closed today includes a !vote by a confirmed sockpuppet (SirAppleby). Although the user did note make any other statements in the discussion under different names you might still want to consider your closure given the number of "reliable" participants in the discussion. De728631 (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've changed the outcome from "keep" to "no consensus" with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The article probably needs to go through AfD again, and a "keep" close would get in the way of that, so I agree that it needed to be changed. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Shatrughan Sinha

Hi Stradivarius, Could you please consider blocking this IP: 115.241.251.112. The IP has recieved all many warnings (see history) but keeps blanking the page. Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:28, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the autoblock system dealt with them, so no block necessary. However, there was a new IP, so I've blocked that one; I've also protected Shatrughan Sinha for a week, just to be on the safe side. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:13, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Torreslfchero (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Pics from the internet

Are downloading pics from the internet permissible on wikipedia? if you want to contribute a pic to an article and you can list the contributing editer, is that allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldWell (talk • contribs) 16:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello OldWell! The short answer to your question is no, unless certain special conditions apply. It is ok to use an image if it is in the public domain, or if it has been released under a licence compatible with Wikipedia. If neither of these apply, it may also be possible to use an image under our non-free content criteria, but be aware that these are very strict. If you want more info, you can find it at the image use policy and the copyright FAQ. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 04:39, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Relief map coding on Infobox Museum and Infobox NRHP

I'm pretty sure you don't want me messing with the sandboxes on either of these infoboxes. I have no idea what to do about that, but do appreciate you're keeping an eye on what is requested. It was done by Plastikspork on the Template:Infobox settlement. That's the only clue I can give you about how this is supposed to be done. — Maile (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Article on Urdu

Hi Stradivarius, I request you to plz refer to User_talk:Kwamikagami#False_Accusation. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC).

I see you've started a dialogue - that's good. You need to talk it out at Talk:Urdu, though, rather than Kwami's talk page. I think that Kwami has a point that the wording of your version isn't neutral at the moment. If you work to make it neutral and base it on reliable sources, though, then I think Kwami will be much more likely to accept it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I've just posted on the article talk page. Hindustanilanguage (talk) 06:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC).

Frank Vandersloot

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi Mr Stradivarius. You placed a page protect on Frank Vandersloot[7] last week and I'm afraid that as soon as it expired today, one of the editors involved in the previous dispute went right back to edit warring[8][9][10] and making arbitrary changes without having resolved the issues or getting consensus. In fact, the loose consensus on the the issue was that the previous version was appropriate and that the proposed changes being made by this editor are unwarranted.[11] Thus, the latest changes seem to clearly be WP:TE. Can you renew the page protect for another week to prevent edit earring until the issues are resolved, or should I file a request on the page protection request board? Thanks in advance. Rhode Island Red (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC) RIR has made three reverts in under an hour and been warned by me that this is not acceptable at all. He had been blocked with the past six months for edit war on another article, and warned multiple times now on the vanderSloot article. He does seem not to understand why DRN reached the conclusion it did about this article and the FDA, but edit war even on a different edit remains edit war. Collect (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2012 (UTC) You originally raised your editorial issue at the OR noticeboard and failed to get support for your proposed changes.[12] Nonetheless, the instant that page protection expired, you went ahead and did whatever you felt like, consensus be damned, and then acted as though you had license to edit war over it. That's WP:TE. In addition, I was not blocked for edit warring in the last 6 months -- you are hiding your own disruptive behavior behind a false and irrelevant accusation. I apologize to Mr Stradivarius in advance for this needless stirring of the pot being carried over to his Talk page. Rhode Island Red (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC) Could you plese identify the edits I made after protection was lifted? Your attack that I did whatever I felt like, "consensus be damned" is a horrid example of attacking a person whom you damn well know made no such edits. Does it occur to you that making false claims is not the way to win friends and influence people on Wikipedia? (For lurkers: I have made ZERO edits after protection ended, and a total of ten edits ever on the article. ) Collect (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC) It was actually four reverts. [13] GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I can appreciate that tensions are running high here, but my talk page isn't really the right place to have an argument about this. If you want to talk about the edit warring, I think the AN3 thread would be the most productive place. The best place to talk about the content, of course, is the article's talk page. I don't want to pre-empt the results of the AN3 thread by protecting the page again, but you are welcome to file another request at WP:RFPP if you want. Please mention the AN3 thread in it if you do, though. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius

THought you might appreciate knowing about this page (you'll need your admin tools to see it, but trust me, it's hardly worth bothering). I've blocked the user in question; given the article he's been posting (which I deleted too, it turns out) there's no question that he's NOTHERE. Cheers, Yunshui 雲‍水 14:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Same user as your hockey interrogator ↓, as it happens. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for the heads-up! Actually, I had seen it already after checking the editor's user talk page. I can understand it as a reaction in a heated moment, and I'd be supportive of an unblock request if it looks like they will start contributing constructively. Their reaction is partly my fault, after all, as I didn't explain the deletion properly. Of course, we can't just let editors go around blanking pages and creating attack pages, so I agree that the block was an unfortunate necessity in the circumstances. I'll be watching their talk page for further developments. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't just the attack page I blocked them for - if you look over the Ashford 4XI Hockey page again you'll see that we were both over-generous in deleting it under A7 - there's a ton of blatant hoaxes, sly attacks against living people and general vandalism in there. Looks like a bunch of kids messing about, certainly not an attempt to improve the encyclopedia. If it pops up again in the same form, it's a definite candidate for G3. Yunshui 雲‍水 14:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I can't fault your reasoning there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ashford 4th XI Hockey

Why? Why? Why? Ashford 4XI Hockey was perfectly harmless and didn't ever do anything to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Houstonj07 (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Question which included most of page-blanking restored by --Shirt58 (talk) 14:44, 2 November 2012 (UTC)>

Just a heads up, but it seems to have been recreated under Ashford Hockey 4th XI. Seems to be a pretty much exact recreation of the page you deleted earlier. Nothing notable has been added so I have marked it for deletion under the relevant criteria. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 15:02, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Deleted, block-evading account sockblocked, sockmaster tagged. Yunshui 雲‍水 15:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Peterffy

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for your comment on my talk page regarding Thomas Peterffy; hopefully you can help me with this issue.

I attempted to add a simple factual comment to the Peterffy page, but apparently I'm having a problem finding the balance between acceptable unreferenced (but factual) comment, and comment that is subject to sufficient uncertainty that it requires reference to an unbiased source. I have researched the subject, and rewritten the addition, with appropriate footnotes. Please look at it and let me know if it requires any amendments.

On another tack, it seems that editing of this subject (Peterffy) has been subject to a higher than normal demand for sourcing and referencing, even some ideas that seem to me rather non-controversial. And when a demand for sourcing is made, the entire edit is thrown out, not just whatever specific passage is deemed questionable.

I wonder if there isn't more going on here than simply a quest for proper citing of references? Perhaps a political agenda? I haven't had this much difficulty, ever, editing a page, and my suspicions were particularly heightened by an earlier an edit reversion that mentioned "...far left-wing rants". In that particular case, the objectionable edit was indeed a rant - but would it have been acceptable to that particular redactor if it had been a "right-wing rant?"

Anyway, thanks for any assistance. Cordially, Kenwg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenwg (talk • contribs) 03:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kenwg. I've left you a message on Talk:Thomas Peterffy. I can't comment about any possible political motivations of other editors, but the main problem you are having here is that the central claim you are trying to make is not backed up by any sources. However good the other sources in the section are, if the central point that you're trying to make can't be found in a reliable source, then it becomes a point that you yourself are trying to make. Once it becomes a point that you yourself are making, it counts as original research, which is banned on Wikipedia. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:02, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Matt Bomer Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Your opinion is requested in this discussion.

If you're in an area that was affected by Hurricane Sandy, and are unable to reply, I hope that you have not suffered too greatly, and my best wishes go out to you. Nightscream (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for Your Quick Action

Just wanted to say thank you for your quick action to my request regarding the ongoing vandalism of the MGM-52 Lance Article by that IP User (talk). I wasn't really sure if I had posted that on the right noticeboard and I didn't really know what, if any, action should have been taken. Just wanted to say thanks. Cheers, Mate. King of Nothing (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 23:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

page protection

excuse me but can I know how did you protect the page of Pope Theodoros II .. Al Ahly SC page is attacked by IP vandalism almost everyday and I have to fix everything manually .. I added a protection section in the talk page but apparently I don't know how to request a page protection or doing it myself .. can you help me ?? --Zo3a (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Zo3a! Only admins can protect pages, so you can't do it yourself. You need to request page protection from an admin at WP:RFPP. (I would investigate it myself but I'm on my alternative account at the moment.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 23:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Beatles closure discussion

Hey Strad, do you know, does NYB intend to discuss his closure with the parties to the mediation prior to the 13 November deadline? Cheers! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea - we haven't discussed it. Did you ask him on his talk page? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 23:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at his talk page now. Let's wait and see what his response is, and we can decide what to do after that. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 00:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Strad! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:56, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a newsletter

This is just a tribute.

Anyway. You're getting this note because you've participated in discussion and/or asked for updates to either the Article Feedback Tool or Page Curation. This isn't about either of those things, I'm afraid ;p. We've recently started working on yet another project: Echo, a notifications system to augment the watchlist. There's not much information at the moment, because we're still working out the scope and the concepts, but if you're interested in further updates you can sign up here.

In addition, we'll be holding an office hours session at 21:00 UTC on Wednesday, 14 November in #wikimedia-office - hope to see you all there :). I appreciate it's an annoying time for non-Europeans: if you're interested in chatting about the project but can't make it, give me a shout and I can set up another session if there's enough interest in one particular timezone or a skype call if there isn't. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Manning AKOUSTIK

There are more reviews stored/re-directedon on my own site (and around the net now) for this album Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 08:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Could you post me a link to your site, or to some of the more likely-looking sources? I'll have a look and see if they are enough to pass the notability guidelines. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 08:31, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.guymanning.com - use the Press tab for all reviews etc. (Authors and sites are cited) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talk • contribs) 16:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Guy. This is just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this - I had a look into it a couple of days ago, and I thought that this might be a borderline case of notability. My thought was that I need to open this up to another AfD discussion, to see if other contributors think this passes WP:NALBUM. I'll set up the discussion when I get back home later on today. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 01:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: oopsy oops, that's what happens when you have such a stylish signature on Talk:Language_pedagogy and go on about being a language teacher, and then have such a stylish userpage, with a rainbow, too, and something too small and floppy at top right to quite make out; I don't know what might come if it. I wish we had some of your style at Teflpedia (and you're quite welcome to advise us or contribute to our wiki and way you might). I've been trying to sort a navigational system over there and came over here to see what we call "Methodology" here. What, "Language pedagogy"? Ouch. I'm sticking with "Methodology" for now in the "Contents" page I'm working on. Time to toss the trout back into the river. Cheers! --Rogerhc (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! Right in the kisser, as well. ;) You mean to say that there's actually someone else on Wikipedia who is interested in writing articles about language education? I'm actually rather shocked - I've been contributing to Wikipedia for two years and all of the language education and SLA articles have stayed pretty much the same apart from my edits. I've been meaning to get around to making the language teaching methodology/pedagogy/methods/whatever article up to scratch, but it's never quite happened. I take it that your preferred title would be "language teaching methodology"? I wouldn't mind changing it again, actually. Oh, and while you're here, how about joining the Applied Linguistics Task Force? I promise to have a look at the TEFL wiki if you do. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, added the userbox and floated it right. This is my first userbox and I already want one of those unobtainium star thingies and the floor plan of The Great Library of Alecyclopedias with its ancient access keys.

I like "Language teaching methodology" better than "language pedagogy" because for some reason I don't like the word "pedagogy". Despite my distaste for the word, I was willing to poke fun at it when I named my experimental TEFL wiki Wikigogy.org (founded 2006) but only because it made me laugh. For some reason that never gathered a lasting crowd of more than one, my lonely myself. So I CLOSED it and have been helping out at Teflpedia.com (founded 2008 by Bob M, in Spain) instead. Wiki's are about helping each other and that just didn't feel like it was happening all by myself. Happily I have been able to help Bob with webhosting and upgrading of MediaWiki. Now I'm trying to help him create a sieve for the numerous Teflpedia pages so that folks can find stuff fast. I might end up creating a Sieve Extension (I'd have to learn some PHP and I'm not good with code, but so be it, and I've a hunch PHP is in the shallow end of the pool, so maybe I wont drown). But one thing at a time. Today, I'm extremely pleased to meet you and THANKS for saying hi over on Teflpedia! If you ever feel the urge to share more of what you are learning about teaching English than fits properly into Wikipedia, favorite teaching activity outlines, etc., feel free to do it at Teflpedia. Its aim is to dig deep _{Shhhh... unobtainium} into the topic of English language teaching, rather than widely and thinly cover everything in the universe. And I also successfully persuaded Bob to license Teflpedia CC-BY-SA, so it is entirely compatible with Wikimedia Foundation projects. Yea! (I didn't bother him about changing it to a .org but I did hound him till he bought the .org, just in case.) Cheers! --Rogerhc (talk) 22:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Very pleased to meet you too! If I ever have the urge to add something that doesn't belong on Wikipedia, I'll be sure to post it over at teflpedia instead. In fact, there is one article which I wrote early in my wiki-career that was deleted for being out of project scope, so I can put that up straight away. (Or at least, when I get back home.) I had a search on Google Books to see which of "language pedagogy" and "language teaching methodology" are used more often in the sources, and it seems a pretty even split, with a different one coming out on top depending on which search you do. I do like the ring of "methodology", so I might change it later and see if it sticks. Talk to you soon! — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 00:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

How's this for soon! :-) I wanted to telll someone this, and who better than you?--I deleted the stand alone full stop from my WikiProject Applied Linguistics user box! See for yourself--it is your userbox, too, although you have so many I'm not sure you would notice or care. My rational, which I am sure is quite sound, is that periods don't belong on stand alone sentences in signage, which a user box is. I wonder if this could be a hot button issue such as "The" or "the" (Beatles). Probably not. My next move will be to remove stand alone sentence periods from the Service Badge user boxs! Will anyone but you and I even know this has happened? I will wait a day before trying it. Who knows, maybe you will beat me to it? (Which would be fine with me)

How could I have forgotten to mention this: Yes! Please do post any and all your original TEFL-ideas and activity-outlines at Teflpedia, when you get home. We will get lonely if you don't! :-) --Rogerhc (talk) 17:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Changing the userboxes is fine by me. Probably no-one else is watching the Applied Linguistics one, but I bet someone out there has the service award userboxes on their watchlist. Whether they'll actually notice it is a good question. When you change them, make sure to cite MOS:PERIOD! Stuff that's in the Manual of Style tends to have the most clout when fine-tuning punctuation here. You would be amazed at the capacity of Wikipedians to argue over punctuation though - see Talk:Second-language acquisition#Hyphen or no hyphen? for one that I got caught up in. Coincidentally, when it comes to second(-)language acquisition, are you a hyphen man or a non(-)hyphen man? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Aha, here you are! I removed single sentence periods from a couple Service Badges but a certain User:PartTimeGnome has put them back and cited "MOS:Formatting of captions". I feel something is not right there so I posted on that MOS's talk page, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Formatting of captions. I may be wrong about captions, and don't mind if I am, but I have my opinions. About hyphens, I don't like them unless they are doing something useful. So like commas I leave them out if I don't need them. Second language learning is just fine with me. What does second-language learning have that second language learning doesn't. Can anyone who is not trying to be confused actually be confused by second language learning. I don't like prescriptive grammar. Language is a wild thing that cannot be happily caged.

HOwever, I did recently change all instances of role play to role-play on Teflpedia the other day. I honestly can't remember why I felt it necessary but at the time I did. Oh yes, I was refactoring the Teflpedia categories and wanted to unify Teflpedia's usage of "roleplay, role play, role-play" to one form that matched category Role-plays. I check Google and found that "roleplay" was the common form among roleplaying gamers and that "role-play" was slightly more common than "role play" elsewhere. So I cleaved to role-play. But a few years ago it was picky me who had edited all Teflpedia pages to the "role play" unhyphened form. I also went through a flip flop regarding plural or singular category names, one day changing all category names to singular form to match our page naming format and three days later learned how to use a bot so that I could changed them all to plural form again, which most of them were before I got started. Teflpedia has only some hundreds of pages. So it is quite manageable. But the experience leaves me room to doubt myself.

I wish we had a MediaWiki extension that would make page names and section heading names case-insensitive so that we could use proper Title Case without incurring the inconvenience of losing pages over differences in Title Case usage and also easily link to pages without matching case precisely. However, I don't have much aptitude for programing. So this will probably never get done by me. Don't work too hard! :-) --Rogerhc (talk) 01:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making changes toTemplate:Infobox Country!

Just a quick note to say thanks. Gnosygnu (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully I didn't break anything too badly. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 01:17, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kościuszko

Well done for protecting the article! Is it a temporary one or permanent? I just don't see why the information which is being reverted is an issue. The talk pages was not touched for ages, though I'm sure that would be the best way to resolve the issue. Danton's Jacobin (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep, that's the idea behind the protection, to force the IPs to the talk page. If I remember correctly, it's a temporary protection for one month. (It should say the length of the protection in the page history.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 01:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

the same page from last month is removing sourced material at the metalcore page.

this person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Omair00 thanks in advance for your help. CombatMarshmallow (talk) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

at metalcore — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 01:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. You should make a request at WP:RFPP or WP:AN3, as I'm on my alternative account now and I won't be back home for a few hours. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 01:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your help. I am in the hurricane decimated area. Im not sure I currently posses the capacity to fill out that report correctly as I am running out of gas for the day. Ill come back and see if you left any other ideas on how to rectify this.CombatMarshmallow (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like it's been dealt with already - Materialscientist has blocked Omair00 for 24 hours for edit warring. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 03:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

• Green Mountain College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I apologize for the "cut the crap" remark on the Talk page for Green Mountain College. However, I do not think we need dispute resolution as you suggested. Throughout the course of the day, this issue has been discussed ad nauseum with at least three other editors and one admin and none have sided with PE2011. In this case, the majority opinion has been stated, yet PE2011 refuses to accept it.Kingsrow1975 (talk) 09:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

If you think PE2011 is guilty of disruptive editing you can always file a post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents to request that they be blocked, but in my experience such requests are usually denied if dispute resolution hasn't been tried first. And if you get a fresh pair of eyes to look at the situation, you may be able to find a consensus on the issue. In the end it's up to you how you want to go about resolving this, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:30, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, folks! Mr. Stradivarius, thank you for freezing the Green Mountain College entry. I'm considering either requesting 3O or submitting an RfC. If I request a 3O, should we start a new thread and cogently explain each proposal for the benefit of the 3O, or do we just direct them to the bear of a thread that's going on now? Also, to what category do you suppose this falls under if I were to submit an RfC? It seems that the arguments have become more about Wiki Policy and what or who constitutes a Majority Viewpoint, made difficult by the fact that the subsection in question is a story still unraveling. The closest categories I can consider is Politics/Government/Law, Religion/Philosophy, or Society/Sports/Culture, but they're so danged broad. Thank you for any advice you can give on this matter.Vt catamount (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The 3O request will probably be rejected because it's usually only for disputes involving two people. An RfC can be a free-for-all or a highly-structured affair, depending on how you set it up. But I don't think this is quite at the RfC stage yet. I strongly recommend filing a request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, as it is set up perfectly to handle this kind of dispute. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Research Paper

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I am doing a research paper on the Truth of Wikipedia, specifically focusing on the controversial topic of Marie Antoinette. By exploring this page I am learning more about the validity of Wikipedia. While perusing the talk and history pages, I noticed that you have been very invested in this page. I am just wondering if you could tell me why you choose to edit the Marie Antoinette page, and why you have not been focusing on the content, but rather the editing? Why did you find this page in particular? I see that you are focused on language, but I don't necessarily see the connection to Marie Antoinette.. Finally, why did you choose to start participating on Wikipedia? What drives you to do so? It would be great if you could get back to me soon about these questions, I really appreciate your help! The link to the talk page: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marie_Antoinette> MarieAntoinetteResearchPaper (talk) 06:19, 12 November 2012 (UTC)An Interested Student

I don't really remember exactly how I found the article at first, but I remember roughly what happened. I chanced upon when I was browsing Wikipedia, probably as part of some other editing task I was doing. (Perhaps during recent changes patrolling?) When I saw it, the first thing that I noticed was that it was using plain text citations, rather than links to the relevant books. You can see the linked style I am talking about at Template:Citation. I love fixing technical things - I do a lot of work with templates - and I thought that I would give them a hand with the technical side of the article. I wasn't really interested in the writing side of things, because it isn't my subject area. If I'm going to choose something to write about it will probably be something to do with second-language acquisition or language education. Hope this answers your question. (By the way, have you seen WP:TRUTH? It might make for interesting reading.) Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at my contributions at the time and it appears that I did indeed find the Marie Antoinette page through recent changes patrol. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for getting back to me! I really appreciate you answers, and the Truth article will indeed be a great thing to add in! :) MarieAntoinetteResearchPaper (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Student