User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

3rd Opinion Refresh

Dear Mr. Stradivarius,

Please review your opinion with the latest discussion, with the link conveniently provided: Camberwell Grammar - EL Cliff, Portal Many thanks! Leechyeah (talk) 11:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability (1)

Hey Mr. Stradivarius! Just wanted to let you know about this active RfC on: verifiability just in case you don't see it yet... I don't know if it's within the scope of your MedCab case regarding verifiability. If it is, might conflict the progress of the MedCab case. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 18:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I've got the page watchlisted, so I saw it, yeah. The mediation is dealing pretty much only with the lede, so I don't see it being a problem, whatever people decide. I suppose it could impact the case if people start wanting to put stuff about accessibility in the lede, but that hasn't been the case so far. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

talk

I wanna delete my user talk page--123.202.64.17 10:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.202.64.17 (talk)

Hi there. I'm afraid that you're not allowed to delete your talk page - have a look at our guidelines on deleting user pages for the details. You are free to just blank it, though. Feel free to remove my welcome and the other contents of the page. (However, note that there are some kinds of messages that you are not allowed to remove.) Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll blank the page myself, as there hasn't been any response for a few hours. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories

Thanks for keeping me informed of the issues with the Sandbox page I created. There appears to be a flare-up in Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories regarding the present condition of one of the article's sections, so I was attempting to make a place for editors to work on it before reinserting it. (See here.) To avoid the appearance of ownership, is there a "common area" off of my userspace that would be better for this? Thanks! Location (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sure. You can just move it to the talk namespace in that case, i.e. Talk:John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories/sandbox. Once you've moved it you can zap the redirect with WP:CSD#U1 (though you probably knew that already). Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That's all very helpful! Thanks again! Location (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Yes, I had copied it. I didn't know to state the name of the article, though I actually usually do that. Thanks! Ncboy2010 (talk) 16:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Protonism

I appreciate your good faith, but have a look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Festes if you haven't already... Drmies (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite a mess, I know. The theory behind that was that if someone explained the criteria to the SPAs rationally, then they might start making rational arguments. (We can but hope.) Of course, sending them to SPI works as well... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think they're all one. Look at the arguments they make and the edit histories, but also at typography and paragraphing. Still, I appreciate your efforts! BTW, I wasn't joking--critical theory is my business, and this isn't part of the merchandise. Look at the opening sentence of Protonism: it argues, really, that the sky is blue. More seriously, it says "if you can't say anything good about a book, don't say anything at all--and disregard all valid criticism", based on the proposition that criticism is really by definition negative. Anyway, that's my rant about the American educational system for the day. Have a great weekend, Drmies (talk) 23:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving forward with DRP

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. With all this talk about streamlining the process and some ideas that I can up with in my userspace, do you think it'll be possible if you could continue and complete the how-to guide and crash course that you already started, when you have some spare time? Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 22:12, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah, free time, I remember having some of that. ;) I'm afraid finishing the how-to guide isn't very high on my priority list right now, but I might have a look at it when I have a moment. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the guide is something we can work on as a collective. We really should do it that way I think. Steven Zhang ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't mean to just dump it on you, Strad. I hope you had the time to look at my proposal. Um, maybe like adoption on Wikipedia, we could have a crash course for newbies and just a short how-to guide for the DR process. In addition, I was hoping that we could implement an outreach program - have newsletters, so-called "ads" project wide, in conjugation with the crash course. Regards, Whenaxis (contribs) ^{DR goes to Wikimania!} 00:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Marinaj

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, I received via email the article on Marinaj from the Dallas Morning News. The latest issue of the American Arts Quarterly has something on him as well; I saw the issue on their website but couldn't open it: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=295073703894974&set=a.126152620787084.23329.126152294120450&type=1&theater Some of the other articles on him are in PDF format. I was unable to find Baylor Progress. My email address is my first name and last name all together @yahoo.com as in (williamshakespeare@yahoo.com). You can send me an email if you wish, and I will send you the attachments. Best, Tony Zaknic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.93.201 (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Lars Pålsson Syll

I've moved this discussion to Talk:Lars Pålsson Syll#Notability and BLP PROD tag. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bot

Your automatic update bot hasn't been active for 2 days. Special:Contributions/MedcabBot Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's normal. It only edits when there are edits needing to be done, if you see what I mean. It's updated the listing now, by the way. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh OK. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 02:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Diet in Sikhism

Can you please tell me what changes where incorrect in the diet of sikhism section please? You cant have a one sided argument on a faith can you?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.127.2.23 (talk) 17:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Extended content

DUBIOUS REFERENCES IN DIET IN SIKHISM REF ONE - sikh forum website which i used, why was it taken off? REF SEVEN - website unconfirmed\ REF EIGHT - sikh online scriptures which i used why was it taken off? REF TWELVE - sikh online scripture REF FOURTEEN - sikh singh sabha website REF SIXTEEN - SIKH WEBSITE, same one i used REF 32 - sikh advocacy group promoting meat eating REF 42 - SIKH SCRIPTURES. __________ Are ONLY REFERENCES WITH ISBN NUMBERS included in Wikipedia as a whole? If ONLY ISBN numbers are used as references points, then the above references do not fit in such terms. IF ISBN numbered references are not the only ones allowed. Then please CAN you tell me what references, i can use to input data which the sikh community has lived by for many years. The information being presented is one argument. Wikipedia has a duty to be impartial.How is finding the truth based on a one sided argument? Other than ISBM numbered books, what references can be used? Also in the conditions it states anyone can write a book and get it published. thanks. I would like to give an example of how ARTICLES have very little ISBN numbers, with an overwhelming number of unsourced references, yet are accepted! I went through every reference and checked them. There were several problems with them: They were 'Wiki's' or blogs Issues with WP:Reliable Everything stated in the article just seemed to be regurgetated again in a long winded way. The Anon IP seems to have a history of aggresive editing for which he/she has been warned. Thanks SH 17:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC) ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Muhammad (c. 26 April 570 – 8 June 632;[2] also transliterated as Mohammad, Mohammed, or Muhammed; Arabic: محمد‎), full name: Muhammad Ibn `Abd Allāh Ibn `Abd al-Muttalib (Arabic: محمد بن عبدالله بن عبد المطلب‎) was the founder of the religion of Islam.[3][n 1] He is considered by Muslims and Bahá'ís to be a messenger and prophet of God, and by Muslims the last law-bearer in a series of Islamic prophets. Most Muslims consider him to be the last prophet of God as taught by the Quran.[4][n 2] Muslims thus consider him the restorer of an uncorrupted original monotheistic faith (islām) of Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and other prophets.[5][6][7] Born in 570 CE in the Arabian city of Mecca,[8][9] he was orphaned at an early age and brought up under the care of his uncle Abu Talib. He later worked mostly as a merchant, as well as a shepherd, and was first married by age 25.[10] Discontented with life in Mecca, he retreated to a cave in the surrounding mountains for meditation and reflection. According to Islamic beliefs it was here, at age 40,[8][11] in the month of Ramadan, where he received his first revelation from God. Three years after this event Muhammad started preaching these revelations publicly, proclaiming that "God is One", that complete "surrender" to Him (lit. islām) is the only way (dīn)[n 3] acceptable to God, and that he himself was a prophet and messenger of God, in the same vein as other Islamic prophets.[7][12][13] __________________________ The first 30 references from the above article have no link to anywhere else!. ^ "Why send durood on prophet(saws)". Retrieved 13 March 2012. ^ Elizabeth Goldman (1995), p. 63 ^ Rodinson (2002) ^ Quran 33:40 ^ Esposito (1998), p. 12. ^ Esposito (2002b), pp. 4–5. ^ a b F. E. Peters (2003), p. 9. ^ a b Encyclopedia of World History (1998), p. 452 ^ a b c d e f g An Introduction to the Quran (1895), p. 182 ^ a b An Introduction to the Quran (1895), p. 184 ^ Esposito (1998), p. 12; (1999) p. 25; (2002) pp. 4–5 ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap Alford Welch, Muhammad, Encyclopedia of Islam ^ An Introduction to the Quran (1895), p.184–185 ^ a b c d e f g h An Introduction to the Quran (1895), p. 185 ^ a b c d e f g h An Introduction to the Quran (1895), p. 187 ^ Sahih-Bukhari, Book 43, #658 ^ Sahih Bukhari Book 59, #641 ^ Hisham Ibn Al-Kalbi - The Book of Idols. Translated by Nabih Amin Faris. Princeton University Press, pg. 21-22 ^ "Muhammad," Encyclopedia of Islam and the Muslim world ^ a b See: Holt (1977a), p.57 Lapidus (2002), pp 0.31 and 32 ^ a b Ann Goldman, Richard Hain, Stephen Liben (2006), p. 212 ^ Watt (1974) p. 231 ______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ In the above article almost all references lead to nowhere, their are no links to check the information out. So i dont UNDERSTAND, what the terms are, that an article on Mohammed which is a major article, has so many inconsistencies yet is accepted, but the article i produce with the same sikh scripture links as with koranic links, are not accepted, and its a minor article. Their are over 30 references to Islamic websites, that refer to HADITHS and the KORAN, which is the EXACT same method i used when referring to Sikh scriptures online, what is the difference? Wikipedia has a duty to be impartial. Thanks stradivaruius. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ONEDHARMA (talk • contribs) 18:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. It sounds like you need to post this at the dispute resolution noticeboard. User talk pages aren't really the proper place to bring content disputes. Let me know if you need any help with posting there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

hey

hello I am new to Wikipedia...anthough i usse wikianswers at www.answers.com/profile/kstewartlover

feel free to look at my other profile and talk to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstewartlover (talk • contribs) 18:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

More Festes sock puppets

It seems these two users should be added to Festes sock puppetes on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Festes/Archive:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Empathictrust

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/65.248.93.201

Most definately these two accounts belong to Gjeke Marinaj, world-famous poet and father of Protonism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.236.90.110 (talk) 23:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks

Kstewartlover (talk) 13:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!

I don't know how this happened!; definitely an erroneous click! Purely unintentional! Dreadstar ☥ 19:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops! Don't worry about it. I've done the old "fat-fingered revert" a couple of times myself. As long as it got fixed, that's the main thing. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Lars Pålsson Syll

Patience is a virtue.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Um, hello there. Did I do something wrong? I'm not good at figuring out cryptic clues, sorry... — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaimiloa

Hi, Mr. Stradivarius! I took the occasion of your deletion of my misplaced Cinco de Mayo page as a chance to do an Esperanto stub on Kaimiloa. マハロヌイ! --Haruo (talk) 14:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! It's nice to know that my translation has been useful. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto IV Characters

Oh lol, Sorry.. Didnt notice. Would it be alright to do the Crime Familys? — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 10:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Remember, they have to have significant coverage in a reliable source - so no wikis, blogs, fansites, game guides, etc. Have a look at WP:42 for the short explanation and Wikipedia:Notability for the long one. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

GTA characters

Thanks - I couldn't see a specific person to link the Hillside Posse to. NtheP (talk) 11:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dmitry Pinchuk

Dear Mr. Stradivarius,

I have submitted a page for review "Dmitry pinchuk" and in the talk I have that you moved page Dmitry pinchuk to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Dmitry pinchuk (Moving misplaced AfC submission to project space for review).

Unfortunately, I am new to wikipedia and I cannot understand the resin for it and what I have wrong?

Thank you very much in advance,

Kindest regards, Aliyakh (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC) Aliyakh

Hello there Aliyakh. What happened was that you submitted the Dmitry Pinchuk article using our "Articles for Creation" process, but put it in the main Wikipedia article space by mistake. I have moved it back to the "Articles for Creation" space, where you are free to work on it before you submit it for review. I have set the article as "review waiting" now, but if you would like some more time to work on it, just undo my edit. (Or just ask me and I will do it for you.) If it is kept as "review waiting", then a reviewer should come along before too long and either accept or decline the submission. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, Thank you very much. It is very kind of you. I am very happy to keep it in "review waiting". Thank you for your help! Kindest regards, Aliyakh (talk) 12:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)aliyakh

Really?

Disruptive? You dont know what your on about.. I've made pages for Grand Theft Auto Gangs, They arent already listed or made so why is it disruptive? — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 14:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is that none of the fictional gangs or characters that you have made pages about are notable. Subjects need to pass Wikipedia's notability test before they can have an article, and articles written about subjects that aren't notable are generally merged, redirected, or deleted. It is perfectly understandable for a newcomer like yourself to make articles about non-notable subjects if you were not aware of the notability requirement. These pages do require people's time to patrol though, and it takes effort to do the merging, redirecting and deleting. So what I was getting at with my message on your talk page was that I know you have good intentions, but it is disruptive to continue writing articles about non-notable things when you have already been told that it is against Wikipedia's rules. There are still a lot of things out there that are notable that are in great need of attention by editors - how about contributing to some of those articles while you get a feel for Wikipedia and the way it works? I recommend WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography as good places to start finding articles to contribute to. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Girn

Respected Sir, I have added Notable Girn Sainis personalities in this article. I will add more notable personalities in this article. This proves that Girn is notable caste. Please remove article deletion tag. Thank YouEasttowestcoach (talk) 09:17, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello there Easttowestcoach. I'm afraid that just listing famous Girns isn't the kind of evidence that we need to see to keep the article. You need to show the Girn sub-caste itself has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means you need to find coverage in major newspapers, respectable books, or academic journals. Let me know if you have any questions about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:34, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Rupen

I replied there on the TP. Thanks for being vigilant and I m searching another ref (this time myself) Yasht101 09:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Im aware I can delete the notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 17:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Crime articles

I provide the Crime on Wikipedia. I try to add more Crime Figures for people to Enjoy and learn some info about it. Im sorry that I have copy-edited. I havent done that since a week after I joined Wikipedia, I sometimes think I can get away with no references because the main plot is good.

Crime is a part of History, I like expanding Wikipedia's knowledge of Crime. No single person has done more than 10 threads of popular Crime figures apart from me, They either cant get the Information or dont know enough Crime figures. Now if you would stop moaning at me like a dog, Im expanding WIKI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by King Genovese (talk • contribs) 17:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello again, and thanks for the comment. You should probably give your side of the story over at the thread at ANI, as that will be where the admins will look when deciding what to do in this case. If you can convince the editors at ANI that you agree to abide by Wikipedia's policies, particularly those of notability and copyright, then you may be able to avoid sanctions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Technical problem at Group four project page

Hi. I encountered a technical problem while adding Draft 9. See Technical problem on the project page. --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I got an explanation and fix at Village Pump.[1]

The fix is: change {{reflist}} to {{reflist|1}}. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:42, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed that you were probably aware of this technical point when you started the page because you had put in {{reflist|2}} to avoid the problem that I introduced in the drafts that I submitted with the error {{reflist}}. However, I'm now using {{reflist|1}} because that format of "1" instead of "2" is consistent with the format at WP:V and seems to work best, unless I'm still missing something. : ) --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Turn your head a little..............

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.

Because the page you contested for speedy deletion, got deleted under A7. And also wanted to interact with you. I hope that this made you smile a little :) Yasht101 14:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! Haha, I was waiting for my first trout! :) Well, I still don't think it was an A7, but I don't think the group are notable yet either. So I guess we'll call it a day here. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Performance calligraphy DYK

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

I have nominated the article Performance calligraphy for at Wikipedia:DYK. The article's nomination can be found here. Thanks for creating the article! Also, if possible, can you help with the nomination. Happy editing.--Lionratz (talk) 13:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You beat me to it. I like the idea you had on the talk page of doing a joint DYK nomination with Shodo Girls. I'll try and think of a hook. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, but I forgot to tell you that I separated the two articles' DYKs. I feel that Shodo Girls's article is not matured enough for a DYK yet, so I am still holding it. However, my aim is still to nominate it at DYK before Friday (4/1/12).

And as to the matter of the competition, I don't think there is any confusion. The traditional calligraphy competition you mentioned is called Sho no Kōshien, while the performance calligraphy one is named "Shodō Performance Kōshien" or "Shodo Girls Koshien"--Lionratz (talk) 06:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Fahed Boodai page

Dear Mr. Stradivarius. I have made what I feel is a critical adjustment to the Fahed Boodai bio, by responding to your observation that the ArabianBusiness article only cited Fahed tangentially. I was able to quickly find and replace that source with a different ArabianBusiness article that profiled Mr. Boodai centrally. It would be great to reach a resolution soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saidkassem (talk • contribs) 12:50, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. There's still the fact that the source is a special interest publication, not a general source, so I'm not going to withdraw my nomination with the sources that we have currently. I recommend hanging on until the AfD discussion is reviewed, which should happen on Saturday 5th. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:39, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry!

I did not know about these copyright issues. Will be careful hereafter! :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktp.kti (talk • contribs) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I recommend starting again, and making a draft of the article at articles for creation. That way you'll have time to work on the article without worrying about it being tagged for deletion. Let me know if you have any questions, and I'll be glad to help. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:25, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Re;Ra.One Economics

You need have no worries; I am the major contributor of the original article Ra.One. I didn't actually, copy, I cut it out, and I am now in the process of summarizing the new article for the original. But thanks a lot for telling me about the copyright bit; I'll note that later on. Cheers :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

New Pages update

Hey Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 7 :). A quick update on how things are going with the New Page Triage/New Pages Feed project. As the enwiki page notes, the project is divided into two chunks: the "list view" (essentially an updated version of Special:NewPages) and the "article view", a view you'll be presented with when you open up individual articles that contains a toolbar with lots of options to interact with the page - patrolling it, adding maintenance tags, nominating it for deletion, so on.

On the list view front, we're pretty much done! We tried deploying it to enwiki, in line with our Engagement Strategy on Wednesday, but ran into bugs and had to reschedule - the same happened on Thursday :(. We've queued a new deployment for Monday PST, and hopefully that one will go better. If it does, the software will be ready to play around with and test by the following week! :).

On the article view front, the developers are doing some fantastic work designing the toolbar, which we're calling the "curation bar"; you can see a mockup here. A stripped-down version of this should be ready to deploy fairly soon after the list view is; I'm afraid I don't have precise dates yet. When I have more info, or can unleash everyone to test the list view, I'll let you know :). As always, any questions to the talkpage for the project or mine. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Final vote on which image to use

There's a final vote on which image to use a WikiProject Japan. It's about to close. As you voted in the original poll, you might be interested in having your final say. CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 06:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Motto of the day

There are very few remaining participants in the Motto of the Day project, in which I noticed that you are no longer very active. Even if you may be very busy right now, this message is to tell you to take a look at the nominations that are currently in review and help out in MOTD once again. Thank you, Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 20:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My library

Many thanks for that. I have the equivalent in es.wiki but this time I forgot to put it as a user page. It is quite useful for me when using any of these works to reference an article. Regards, --Maragm (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage prototype released

Hey Mr. Stradivarius! We've finally finished the NPT prototype and deployed it on enwiki. We'll be holding an office hours session on the 16th at 21:00 in #wikimedia-office to show it off, get feedback and plot future developments - hope to see you there! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Artist Sertan Saltan

Hi Mr. Stradivarius

I disagree with the peacock tag, if the article sounds like promoting the subject, that doesn't mean it actually is. Because there are a lot of articles out there talking about great artists and they really sound like a press release. I actively have taken place preparing the article. Every statement is cited and mentioned in government or gallery sites. I will kindly undo your last edit. There are sentences that are based on the artists own statement which are pure facts and that's why we put references so people look and see according to who. I have also checked other BP artists articles that are way way worse and the whole citations are based on some urls. Turkish is my native language and there are articles written in Turkish in high circulation news papers mentioning about him as the best young artist. That's the only thing i can see you thought as promoting. Article may sound very subjective but you know your tagging may be very bias as well. There is no right or wrong. Article is based on the independent sources not some friends internet site. Thank you for your understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.4.154 (talk) 12:59, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello there! Did you read the comment I made over at Talk:Sertan Saltan? I know that the sentences are cited - what I'm worrying about is the fact that the assertions are not attributed, and that the sources are largely press releases. Have a look at my talk page post at Talk:Sertan Saltan for more details. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:35, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Works of Caroline Townshend

Note your comments on my listing of Townshend and Howson's works.

I would be grateful to know what "Kludgy" means.

Also please advise what I need do to get your "suggestions" removed. Please give me a couple of examples of actions needed.

I have put in a fair amount of research here so do not want to see the listing removed.

Weglinde (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Weglinde! Sorry if I distressed you at all with the tags I left on the page. The "kludgy" comment was referring to my inability to format the long image, formerly at the top of the page, in a way that looked nice. I wasn't talking about any of the content of the article, just chiding myself for not being able to think of an elegant way of doing things. Now, about the article itself, I have some good news, and some bad news. Let's go with the bad news first. The article as it stands violates Wikipedia's policies, and it is very likely that it will have to be substantially reduced. I can see that you have done a lot of research for it, but I'm afraid that is exactly the problem - it is a long-standing policy on Wikipedia that original research is not allowed. The policy page (Wikipedia:No original research) explains the reasoning behind it much better than I can, so I invite you to read it and carefully consider the implications for the article here. You will probably also want to read the related policy, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and also our page Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.

The specific concern that I have about the article is that most of its claims are not cited to reliable sources, and so we have no way of knowing if they are original research or not. If any of those claims can be directly sourced to reliable sources, then all you have to do is cite them and they can stay in the article. If no reliable sources exist that can back up the claims, though, they should be removed. About the church websites currently cited in the article - I think these can reasonably be used as references per the advice on using primary sources (part of the "no original research" policy), but we should be careful not to source any opinions from them, only facts, and only things that we could reasonably expect them to get right. (In particular, we could use them for descriptions of the windows themselves and for the building process, but not for any evaluation of Townshend's work, and not for things not directly related to the churches.)

Now for the good news. I have had another look through the sources available online, (for example the results listed in this Google Books search) and it looks like Townshend passes our notability guidelines for biographies, although just barely. This means that we can keep the article, with the caveats outlined above. I think it would be best if we converted the article to one about Townshend herself, though, as it seems strange to have an article on her works when there isn't one on her. Would you mind me renaming the article? Of course, this doesn't change the fact that anything which we can't source will have to be removed, so you might want to look into alternative places to post your work if you would like to keep the full version around. There are some suggestions available at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets - see if there are any that you like the look of. I know this is a bit much to take in all at once, so if you have any more questions just let me know, and I'll be happy to help you out. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I have no objections to your renaming the article but would ask that I am given a few days warning if the article is to be removed.

This article/listing is one of a series that I have written this year on wikipedia.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Whall
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_by_Edward_Woore
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Christopher_Whall
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_Louis_Davis
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_of_Karl_Parsons
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Marjorie_Kemp
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_by_Margaret_Chilton
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_works_of_Veronica_Whall

My intention is to finish off with a listing on Arnold Robinson and Paul Woodroffe. No objections have been made by wikipedia on any of these. In fact the suggestion that I should make a listing came from a senior wikipedia editor (I hope I will not live to regret drawing your attention to the other work!!!)

I am now in a quandry and to be frank feel totally deflated.

I am not sure whether there is someway that you can pass this to another of your collegues for a second opinion.

What I really hope is that the article/listing can be left as it is, as well as the other and that I can finish Arnold Robinson and Paul Woodroffe in the same manner.

There the matter will end as I have no intention of submitting further work to wikipedia.

My ultimate intention was to produce a work of reference that would help anyone researching Whall and his group.

Again I ask that I am given notice of any intention to withdraw the articles as I would like time to make copies.

Weglinde (talk) 10:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news - I can see that this must be distressing after you have written so many articles. First of all, don't worry about losing the work you have done. My instinct is that most of these pages will pass the notability guidelines, although I haven't actually checked for sources myself. That means that even if the articles get reduced in size, you will always be able to find the original version in the article history. If any of them do get nominated for deletion, then they will be deleted via either proposed deletion or articles for deletion. Both these processes last for 7 days, so there will be time for you to comment in the discussion and make a copy for yourself. In the case of proposed deletion, you can simply remove the deletion tag yourself. Also, even in the unlikely event that any of them do get deleted, you can still get them back. Administrators can view deleted articles, and you can always ask one to give you a copy. Most will be happy to oblige.

About the other articles that you have written - don't worry, I won't go through them right now. Instead, I humbly suggest that you go back and bring the old articles more into line with Wikipedia policy. After all, even if I don't look through them now, someone will come along at some point and see that they don't conform with the site policies. It might be next month, or it might be five years' time, but it will probably happen. From my point of view, it would be much better to improve the articles so that no-one will want to change anything, than to spend the whole time worrying about what some reviewer might do to them. If you're interested, why not try and promote one of the articles to Good Article status? Good Articles are well-respected on Wikipedia, and if your articles get promoted then editors will certainly think twice about trying to revise them. Let me know what you think about this. Also, I am going to list this discussion at Wikipedia:Third opinion to get an impartial opinion on this per your request. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

• Note to third opinion provider: the original poster's mention of my "suggestions" is referring to the {{notability}} and {{primary sources}} tags that I placed at the top of the Works of Caroline Townshend article. The "kludgy" comment was made in an edit summary there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:11, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I am going away for a few days and will return to the subject when I get back. Meanwhile there is just one thing you can advise me on. I have been looking at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets and quite like the look of wikibooks. I could transfer all the work I have done to a new "book" with a title along the lines of "Christopher Whall and his followers: Arts and Crafts Stained Glass". If I did this would I be able to use all the images already in wikicommons and would it be a simple matter of transferring the text? I would appreciate your advice. This way I would not lose any of my work, not would I have to go through each one reviewing sources. I assume that if I went for this option then anyone googling "Whall" would be given the wikibooks work as one of the "finds"? Frankly I would not mind moving the whole project from wikipedia to wikibooks as the information would be there for anyone researching Whall or one of his pupils. I look forward to hearing your views. My priority is really to "save" the work I have done that it is not lost to researchers so any suggestions as to where I could post the work would be welcome.

At first I was shocked by all of this as I had assumed that the format of my articles was fine; some had been around for several months, but if there is a real possibility that now or at any time in the future, the articles would be endangered then I prefer to tackle that now and my preference would be to post the work somewhere else where it would be acceptable in its present form as long as it could be accessed by researchers or anyone interested in the subject matter.

I sense from the way you write that you will totally fair and that you will help me avoid seeing any of the work lost. I am not, I hope, being pretensious, but I am rather chuffed with the work I have done over the last six months, think it of a reasonable quality, and would like to keep it.

I look forward to your comments on the above ideas/questions. Weglinde (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't really help you with Wikibooks, as I've never contributed anything there, and I'm not sure about their policies or inclusion criteria. I imagine that if you go over to the Wikibooks site and ask for help over there you will get a much better response. I know that Wikibooks will probably be ranked lower in search results than Wikipedia, but I can't say how much lower. If you do decide to transfer things over, you would have to make sure you provide attribution for the Wikipedia text, and that you format things in line with Wikibooks' guidelines, but otherwise it will be a straightforward copying process. You should ask at Wikibooks for more details.

If you decide to go the route of sourcing the claims in the Wikipedia articles, then the book you included in the comment you removed sounds like a good source for our purposes. The normal practice for this is to source every sentence or so, and to include page numbers so that it is easy for others to find the information should they choose. By the way, I removed the request I made for a second opinion, as the page guidelines require that the conversation has become "stuck", which doesn't seem the case here. If you would still like a second opinion then there are still a number of other ways of doing that, so just let me know and I'll set it up for you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 02:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just have time to make a quick response before I go away for a couple of days. Note your comments on wikibooks. Meanwhile I have been thinking this over and I think I will probably decide to try sourcing the claims in the wikipedia articles. Taking the Townshend article as an example when I start the project I go to my local library and go through all the Pevsner books in "The Buildings of England" series and note all the works which are attributed to Townshend. That then is my starting point as Pevsner is universally regarded as reliable. I would then normally approach the church involved for further information on the window(s) or look at other ways of adding to Pevsner's description. If therefore I revisited the Townshend article and included the Pevsner reference would this solve our problem? On, for example, the entry for St Chad in Bensham I would insert . I could add the page(s)number and ISBN number. I would set about this exercise immediately and in a few weeks all the wikipedia articles/listings I have written on stained glass would follow this pattern. They might be some exceptions where my source was other than Pevsner but I will deal with these on a case by case basis. Fingers crossed then that you feel this would solve the sourcing/research issue! Look forward to your comment. Weglinde (talk) 07:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. The reference would read "The Buildings of England- Northumberland" by Nikolaus Pevsner and Ian Richmond.

Weglinde (talk) 07:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if you got the information from the Pevsner source, then all you have to do is cite the page in it that you got the information from, for each claim in each article. If you did research directly at the churches involved, then you may not be able to keep those claims in the articles. Remember that sources must be published for us to be able to use them - if you have used anything that isn't already published, then it qualifies as original research. You can, however, use primary sources related to the churches if they have been published, and if you are careful to follow the guidelines on primary sources I outlined above. I recommend using shortened footnotes if you will be citing many pages from one book. I like the {{sfn}} template myself, but you are free to use whatever style you choose. Other than that, I think you are good to go. Let me know if you have any more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

All understood and many thanks. Over the coming weeks I shall address each article accordingly and should anything crop up that is slightly different I will contact you. I would like to thank you for your intervention which has been most useful.

Weglinde (talk) 13:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Am I a correct party for drafting a Mediation Cabal case?

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

I have asked at the talk page for WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability if the page editors are willing to engage in mediation with Mediation Cabal. One person pointed out that he would if someone else drafted it.

First, would Mediation Cabal consider taking a case regarding that topic?

Second, would I be someone who is eligible to draft a request for Mediation Cabal to take the case even though I have not been editing that talk page until asking who is willing to try mediation there? If I am eligible, how does one draft a request?

Thank you,

Factseducado (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Factseducado! Thanks for your message. Anyone can file a request for mediation by the mediation cabal - it doesn't matter if they are involved or not. The important part is whether all of the involved parties agree to participate in the mediation, and whether a mediator is willing to mediate it. Before you go and file a request, though, I'd like to hear a little more about what the mediation would be about. What would you see as being the final goal? I am guessing that you want to reach an agreement about the contents of the MMA notability essay, but I want to make sure that we are on the same page before I give you my opinion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, You guessed correctly. I would like to see agreement reached (or at least mediation attempted) on the subject of the contents of the MMA notability essay. At least one involved party does not agree at the moment. I am hoping that will change. If it does change do you think the situation is eligible and that a mediator might be willing to take the potential case? Thank you, Factseducado (talk) 13:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I see - thanks for clarifying this. There's one important point that I think you are missing, though. Disputes about policy pages such as notability guidelines are different from disputes over article content, in that many pages will be affected by the change. Because of this, there needs to be a consensus among the wider Wikipedia editing community that the guidelines are in line with the project's aims - just finding a compromise among users who are interested in MMA is not going to be enough. I recommend starting an RfC and advertising it at WP:VPR and the centralised discussion page. You might also be able to get a watchlist notice if you're lucky. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:49, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you break this down into an even simpler form, please? I see that you have explained this needs an RfC at the Village Pump (proposals) and at Centralized Discussion and that it could be beneficial if it ends up at Watchlist notices (the function of which I can't even speculate on but I'm sure it's helpful). I do understand that a lot of MMA pages will be affected by change and this is policy not an article. I wonder if it will potentially affect non-MMA pages. I understand that the broad WP editing consensus would need to agree that the guidelines are in line with WP's overall aims. Question 1: By the guidelines do we both mean the same thing: the guidelines on MMANOT that might come from a mediated agreement? Question 2: Would an RfC sound something like: "Please vote yes or no: Do you think that mediation is a good idea to resolve the MMANOT issue which is a policy issue?" Question 3: Do you already understand that among the individuals discussing MMANOT currently there are people who are not MMA fans? These people would like more deletion of MMA articles. I'm not saying that's positive or negative. Thanks for explaining these things to me. Factseducado (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

There would just be one RfC, and it would take place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. The reason that I suggested posting messages at the village pump, centralised discussion, and getting a watchlist notice was just because that would let as many uninvolved editors know about the discussion as possible. The essay will indirectly affect things outside of MMA, yes - by determining what articles are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia, it will affect the credibility of Wikipedia as a whole. I think DGG summed this up very well at his comment on the talk page of Agent00f's RfC/U. As to your questions:

1. No, I meant an RfC on the guidelines as they stand right now.
2. An RfC might be as simple as asking for general comments on the guideline, or as specific as asking whether people support or oppose what it says. There are many possible RfC styles in between these extremes, and I'd be happy to try and work out something acceptable with you.
3. Yes, I was aware that not everybody participating there was an MMA fan. ("Users who are interested in MMA" was a careless turn of phrase on my part, sorry.) Still, the point stands - there are only a few users who have participated in that discussion, and I think it needs to be opened up to a much wider audience.

Does this clear things up at all? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 18:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

PMFJI, I am also favoring this going to Medcab but I don't know how much assistance I can give as an involved outside party. The question is not MMANOT, as an RFC already in progress there is resulting in no consensus between two (to me) very ambiguous text proposals. Dispute over MMANOT arose because it was believed an N clarification would fruitfully end the prior disagreement. There is also little argument over content per se, it is mostly argument about organization, because there is rarely a case where content is actually not WP:PRESERVEd. I also have an alternate proposal with some promise and nascent consensus from some, but have not pressed it hard because of heated environment. One editor is being reviewed at RFC/U, and I happen to be in the minority there with my POV that this is not the only editor with conduct problems. Sorry, even all that may not be clear.

In short, I think a Medcab mediator with experience similar to your own should collect interested editors willing to come to resolution of the question of what MMA content generally should appear on WP and how it should be organized. The fact that this is raised as a notability question has complicated matters and we should do our best to postpone N questions until we have POVs about what the content should look like laid out and compared. The user-conduct issues have lessened on the part of the new editor previously 72-blocked and now under RFC/U, though they have not on the part of other editors, so the mediator will need to be sharp about that as well. Since the RFC (see the talk of WP:MMANOT, as well as the medcab discussion) is showing itself a failure, I heartily recommend Medcab. JJB 19:19, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This does help me a lot. I think I might still be confused for some of the reasons JJB has given below. Are you willing to read and respond to what JJB wrote below? I'm pretty sure an RfC or maybe more than one has gone on at the MMANOT talk page. My opinion as someone who was an outsider perhaps three days ago is that there is not a meeting of the minds on any topic. I am hoping you will read what JJB wrote below and provide feedback because he is much better at describing this than I am. Factseducado (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC) I swapped this and JJB's comment round to preserve the order of discussion. So JJB's post "below" is now actually JJB's post above. Sorry for any confusion. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I totally didn't notice that there was already an RfC going on at WT:MMANOT. (Not quite sure how I managed to miss that, actually.) In that case, the very first thing we need to do is let that RfC run its course. We don't want to assume anything about the possible result, but rather defer that decision to an experienced closer. Once we have the result of the RfC, we can decide what to do next, if indeed anything else is necessary. If you are right, and the outcome is one of no consensus, then my points above still stand - I think we need a process that engages the whole community rather than the small group of editors who have been involved up to now. My recommendation would be to have another RfC, but this time one that has a tighter discussion structure and that is advertised more widely than the present one has been. I could possibly assist in drafting such an RfC, but I don't know if mediation is really necessary in this case. It would probably be enough to hash out the RfC on the MMANOT talk page. Again, though, I think it would be best to wait until the present RfC is closed before we discuss any details of this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Nice first article

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

Thanks. (: It's nice to see someone like my first article.

I think I solved the problems that you mentioned, although if you spotted more, feel free to highlight them. Any advice from a more experienced person is divine blessing.

Oh, and by the way, nice talk page. Scares me a bit but its nice.

Cheers,
Codename Lisa (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

New Page Triage/New Pages Feed

Hey all :). A notification that the prototype for the New Pages Feed is now live on enwiki! We had to briefly take it down after an unfortunate bug started showing up, but it's now live and we will continue developing it on-site.

The page can be found at Special:NewPagesFeed. Please, please, please test it and tell us what you think! Note that as a prototype it will inevitably have bugs - if you find one not already mentioned at the talkpage, bring it up and I'm happy to carry it through to the devs. The same is true of any additions you can think of to the software, or any questions you might have - let me know and I'll respond.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)