User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 6

< Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7 >

All Pages:

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

See here for related revision history

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sally Season. Viriditas (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comments there would definitely be useful. If you no longer consider it problematic, then I'll go along with it. If you do consider it problematic, your input would be good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Redirect tip

If your creating a redirect or turning a page into a redirect, and you just want to say something like "create redirect", you don't need to leave an edit summery. Leave the edit summery blank and an wp:Automatic edit summary will be created saying what the page was redirected to. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 00:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I did not know this.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Devil's Advocate - I wanted to let you know I really appreciate your spending your precious free time in posting clear detailed historic detail with diffs as you did here - your contribution to the discussion was really beneficial to the positive outcome for me. Thank you very much. Youreallycan 20:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention it. :) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to express my thanks, but on a different matter. I appreciated your more recent words at the deletion discussion about my user page. Your deletion vote remains, which puzzles me, but may be inconsequential after all. When we last talked on my page, you were pressing me for more detailed explanation of my notepad, and I offered to give more explanation if you would answer my question to you about whether our previous discussion was resolved or not. Recall that? Well our talk got derailed at that point by other editors. I just wanted to let you know that if you had simply answered "yes, it is resolved", then I would have quickly removed your name from my notepad and said, "There is your more detailed explanation as to why your name was there; simply because our discussion was still left up in the air. No other reason." I'm going to go remove your name now :-}

I hope our future interactions are on better terms. Sincerely,Sally Season (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I felt Drmies had addressed the matter satisfactorily and that the current state of the article also left the OPSEC matter resolved. The reason I did not answer before is because I believe a conduct concern should not be premised on addressing a concern about content. When someone expresses a concern about conduct, I expect any editor to leave a sincere and complete response as soon as possible. As to why I left the delete vote, I probably should have altered my vote, but essentially I left it because I still think it shouldn't be on your main user page and that you should make some changes avoid further confusion over the contents. You can create a separate page in your userspace to include the notes.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree about conduct concerns being addressed, but hopefully you can see my perspective at that moment. An editor had just shelved a content discussion in order to file a frivolous sock report where B. Bugs chimed in. You also shelved a content discussion to file an ANI report, then started pressing me on my notes (and there was B. Bugs again). I felt like, as other editors also observed, that noticeboards were being used to chill the discussion. That's why I was so short with you at that time, it didn't feel like an honest situation. Sorry, I should have handled it differently.Sally Season (talk) 23:10, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

:-)

Don't worry about my old talk page. Winning is the best revenge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Props

Just saw you quoted A Little Less Conversation on RFARB. Most excellent. Are you an Elvis fan, or a Mac Davis fan? KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of Mac Davis. :p As for Elvis, most people love a little Elvis in my experience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mac Davis wrote a lot of Elvis' hits, including this one. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, learn something new every day. :) --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's good to be on Wikipedia. :-D KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Follow up

Re [1]: If I recall correctly, when I closed the discussion unbanning Tom, since consensus at AN was pretty clear so I mostly read over the past few archives of the main article talk page. That's nice, but if I am going to sanction an editor at AE, I would generally like to put in the effort and read the talk pages of the main participants as well as any corollary article talk pages. I hadn't done that. NW (Talk) 06:02, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Which article do you mean and what did you read that convinced you of a problem?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:September 11 attacks as well as a bit of Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories. It was your general attitude to the topic area that I saw to be tendentious and indicative of someone trying to push their own point of view rather than someone trying to build an article based on the best available sources. NW (Talk) 20:22, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If those alleged uncivil acts you mentioned on the question page are referring to me then I think you should say here where you believe I have done these things and back it up with diffs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

List of pedophiles

• UGh, I meant to add a comment via undo, not rollback. I don't see how it qualifies for G10, its not intended to be an attack page. I certainly understand why it might go to AfD.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure if you are aware of this, but labeling people as pedophiles can be considered quite disparaging and that list is intended solely to be used for ascribing that disparaging label to people, living people in particular.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the article got deleted anyway. But whether a list of notable convicted pedophiles could exist on wikipedia is a fair question. I wouldn't want a speedy deletion to be seen like we're over run by redditors or something.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Robert Madgwick

Thank you for the helpful edits to that article. Cla68 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No prob.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the schwag nomination! Cla68 (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent profile

I really enjoyed reading it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeCRygas (talk • contribs) 19:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

That was much needed. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Charlie Engle (infielder)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Information

I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 10:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Amendment request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Race_and_intelligence and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, -~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SightWatcher (talk • contribs) 01:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi DA, thanks. I saw that template but it's been so long that I don't even know how to fill in forms like that anymore (just tried again in my sandbox and made a mess of it). I think all the info is in there, though. And it's a pretty simple appeal. I'm in the process of writing about my experiences at Wikipedia and it occurred to me that I should try one last time to make a contribution before I conclude that my particular contribution can't really be made. In any case, that Aug 20 thing (and your subsequent intervention on the talk page) says a great deal about what Wikipedia has become (and in a sense was always in the process of becoming) ... at least on this topic ... and I think it's worth writing about.--Thomas B (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reformatting it. My appeal seems already to have had the positive effect of putting a "see also" link in the WTC collapse article.--Thomas B (talk) 05:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bai Yansong, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sina (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge Chili burger to Chili con carne

I am letting you know that I have proposed a merge of Chili burger to Chili con carne. Being that you participated in the AfD, I'd be interested in your thoughts. The discussion is at Talk:Chili con carne#Merger proposal.

It was suggested that Hamburger might be a better target, and I was implored to allow that as a possibility. Therefore, I've moved the discussion to Talk:Chili burger#Merger proposal to allow for this. Please accept my apologies if it seemed that I was advocating for one solution over another. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 16:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

did you vote?

hi there, your vote in ArbCom elections triggered a spoof CSRF alarm. Would you be so kind as to please confirm that you actually voted? :) Apologies for the inconvenience. Pundit|utter 07:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I dun voted.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Bai Yansong

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

	Happy Holidays!
	From the frozen wasteland of Nebraska, USA! MONGO 12:15, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy holiday season! Cla68 (talk) 23:10, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

3O dispute at Renewable energy

Sidelight12 hasn't edited the article or expressed an opinion on the dispute, just having asked questions and stated correct observations tangential to the dispute. Also, I can not see any instructions saying that 3O requests should not be announced. Unless I am in error on either of those points, would you mind replacing the 3O request please? JS Uralia (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not remove it on the basis of your announcement, but instructions to "Take care (as much as possible) to make it seem as though the request is being added by both participants" would include stating on the talk page that you are seeking 3O. My removal was premised entirely on Sidelight's participation. Sidelight appeared to be weighing in on the question of whether to characterize these fuels as synthetic or carbon neutral. Comments such as "I see what you're saying" in response to a statement you made on that dispute and the suggestion for an alternative approach to resolving the dispute by asking about distinguishing types of synthetic fuels clearly indicates that editor is involved in the dispute and has already made an effort to resolve it. You can ask Sidelight for further comment on the discussion or pursue another dispute resolution mechanism, but 3O is not intended for a dispute where a third party has already interceded.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I see; thanks. I asked Sidelight for further comment. JS Uralia (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Swiss Guard

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Swiss Guard. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I have been following user:66.142.142.196 and was just about to revert the Hunger Games page, but you beat me to the punch. They are making disruptive edits all over the place.Pizzamancer (talk) 11:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse (3rd nomination)

Hi, I'm the creator of Death of Deriek Wayne Crouse, and I'd like to remind you that it's common procedure to notify the creator of any article when it's put up for deletion, as well as anybody who has heavily contributed to it. All the best, Buggie111 (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It is common procedure to notify the creator, if said editor is still active, but notifying every significant contributor is not common procedure at all. The creator of the article was notified and that was Tiptoety.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:34, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Wait? I'm not the creator? My life just lost a whole lot of meaning :). FWIW, you still should have seen a bunch of edits attributed to "Buggie111" if you went through and clicked on "oldest 50". But that's no biggie, as you say. Buggie111 (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry

I am so sorry, I inadvertently touched the screen and caused your message to AGK to be reverted and marked as vandalism. This was a total accident on my part - I have immediately reverted it. Please accept my sincere apologies. SagaciousPhil - Chat 21:12, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Twitter and notability

Today you wrote Twitter profile shouldn't be added unless relevant to notability in an edit summary on Alexandra Daddario. I was unaware of this consensus or guideline. Could you point me to a link for it, please? Elizium23 (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELOFFICIAL states:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:

1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

Just because an actor has a profile on some social networking site does not mean that it is ok to include.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Revdel

OK done. On AIV you say that you have emailed an oversight request for these edits. Is that done?—I don't want to send a duplicate request.—Jeremy (talk) 18:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I sent an e-mail already.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 14, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, (X! · talk)  · @810  ·  18:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestinian right of return

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestinian right of return. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Moderation of Jerusalem RfC

Hello. You are receiving this message because you have recently participated at Talk:Jerusalem or because you were listed at one of the two recent requests for mediation of the Jerusalem article (1, 2). The Arbitration Committee recently mandated a binding request for comments about the wording of the lead of the Jerusalem article, and this message is to let you know that there is currently a moderated discussion underway to decide how that request for comments should be structured. If you are interested in participating in the discussion, you are invited to read the thread at Talk:Jerusalem#Moderation, add yourself to the list of participants, and leave a statement. Please note that this discussion will not affect the contents of the article directly; the contents of the article will be decided in the request for comments itself, which will begin after we have finalised its structure. If you do not wish to participate in the present discussion, you may safely ignore this message; there is no need to respond. If you have any questions or comments about this, please leave them at my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

By glancing at this page, I see that you've already been advised of WP:3RR (which you just violated). Please consider this a friendly reminder. —David Levy 02:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am actually making constructive changes, while you are engaging in the worst kind of revert-warring, the kind where you reject the entirety of an editor's contributions on the basis of a frivolous objection rather than trying to make constructive edits to actually build on someone's work. The Manual of Style is non-binding (it's called a "guideline" for a reason), even if you were applying it correctly, and you are not. Don't throw out a frivolous edit-warring claim while you are obstructing efforts to improve the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, I was careful to examine your edits individually and revert only those with which I disagreed. (Note the word "partially" in my former reversion and explanation that I also disagreed with the other changes undone via my latter.) That you're making legitimate improvements is precisely why I left a friendly reminder instead of reporting your 3RR violation.

You're mistaken in your belief that Wikipedia's guidelines are optional. Exceptions can and do arise, but editors aren't entitled to disregard them simply because they want to.

Also note that neither "I'm right" nor "the other editor is wrong" is a valid defense to a 3RR violation. I have no doubt that you regard your edits as constructive and mine as frivolous. Conversely, I regard some (not all) of your edits as inappropriate and believe that undoing them improved the article. Which of us is "right" is immaterial to the three-revert rule and the intent behind it.

For the record, I'm not the editor who originally inserted the note (included almost from the beginning), so I obviously am not the only one who believes that it accurately reflects the guideline. —David Levy 02:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me clear up a few things for you:

1. Wikipedia is not about rules and stylistic guidelines are some of the least important rules in the bunch.
2. The guideline not only does not forbid the changes I made to the lede, the example given on the page effectively matches the style of the most recent change you reverted.
3. I am not making any defense for a minor slip-up on a fast-moving article. Only noting that this is a frivolous appeal to technicalities by someone who is engaged in a far less constructive form of reverting.
4. Invisible notes are meaningless and can be added by anyone.

I am gonna take this to the talk page now.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about rules and stylistic guidelines are some of the least important rules in the bunch.

You won't find me arguing that Wikipedia is about rules. (See my contributions at the talk page of WP:IAR if you doubt that.) I'm not clinging to bureaucratic technicalities. I'm citing practices intended to improve the encyclopedia, a goal that we share.

The guideline not only does not forbid the changes I made to the lede, the example given on the page effectively matches the style of the most recent change you reverted.

To what example are you referring?

I am not making any defense for a minor slip-up on a fast-moving article. Only noting that this is a frivolous appeal to technicalities by someone who is engaged in a far less constructive form of reverting.

I really don't see what's "frivolous" about politely reminding you of the three-revert rule. I could have reported the violation or allowed it to worsen, but I sincerely wanted to be helpful.

I'm sorry that you regard my reversions as "far less constructive". Again, this hinges on your belief that you're right and I'm wrong.

Invisible notes are meaningless and can be added by anyone.

I don't assert that the note itself carries weight. It merely explains our practices, which aren't negated by its removal.

I am gonna take this to the talk page now.

I'll see you there. —David Levy 04:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about rigid adherence to rules and regulations. At the end of the day, a well written article and consensus is what counts.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Compliance with Wikipedia's rules isn't an end in and of itself; we don't follow rules for the sake of following the rules. They provide consensus-based guidance regarding what practices improve the encyclopedia, the applicability of which I've explained here and on the article's talk page. —David Levy 09:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Including/Bolding the title of the 2011 Tucson shooting article

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You might be interested in weighing in on this. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Glee (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphan

Before timeline of the Russia--Georgia war can be deleted, you must fix the incoming links.

This talk page is hopelessly overdue for archiving. Spare a thought for people trying to read it on mobile devices. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The other links are because of redirects from previous titles so it is just matter of resolving a few double redirects to point to the current good title, though the current title should use an en-dash so I am waiting for that to happen before resolving any double redirects.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

So did you expect the en-dash move to happen all by itself? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I left a comment on the talk page of the admin who had done the en-dash move on the main article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed the double redirects, so would you please delete the bad redirect now. Also, would you mind doing the en-dash move for the Background of the Russia-Georgia war article as well? I am ready to change the only existing double redirect to reflect such a change.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:17, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey, um, you deleted the wrong redirect. The one you deleted had one hyphen, but the one I tagged is the one with two hyphens.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Why spread this discussion on to my user talk page? And what on earth are you talking about? The only deletions I have done are background of the Russia--Georgia war and timeline of the Russia--Georgia war, ie. with two hyphens. And the background redirect was another case where you should have fixed an incoming link before requesting deletion.

I agree that en-dash and em-dash are hard to create. Here is my method: in an edit box for any random page type –, preview the edit and copy the en-dash as displayed in the preview. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the titles, Roger. My personal method for entering en and em dashes is a little weird: I made some scripts in my screen reader, JAWS, to enter the characters with one keypress (insert+dash for an en dash and insert+shift+dash for an em dash). Graham87 02:07, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Never mind, I see what happened. You left the talk page of one of the redirects as a red link.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

We have both been missing the easiest way to create en-dash, etc. Immediately below this edit box as I type is a box full of useful stuff - it starts with: Insert: – — ° - what could be simpler? But do not confuse these two: – − . One is en-dash and one is minus. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Doncram Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 600 words and 16 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 00:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Piero Corsi

Hello The Devil's Advocate. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Piero Corsi, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: this is well sourced, and is not "a page that serves no purpose but to disparage or threaten its subject". Take it to AfD if you think it should be deleted. Thank you. JohnCD (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

All it does is prominently highlight in a polemical style a single negative incident about someone who would otherwise be unknown, which is the definition of an attack page. If you really think this article is about anything other than disparaging the subject then that only shows poor judgment on your part.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: rounding up step one

Hello. This is a boilerplate message for participants in the moderated discussion about the Jerusalem RfC - sorry for posting en masse. We have almost finished step one of the discussion; thanks for your statement and for any other contributions you have made there. This is just to let you know I have just posted the proposed result of step one, and I would like all participants to comment on some questions I have asked. You can find the discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Judging the consensus for step one - please take a look at it when you next have a moment. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Doncram Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 656 words and 18 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two

Hello. This is to let you know that we have now started step two in the Jerusalem RfC discussion, in which we will be deciding the general structure of the RfC. I have issued a call for statements on the subject, and I would be grateful if you could respond at some time in the next couple of days. Hope this finds you well — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 16:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

AE request concerning Noetica

Hello. As an administrator working at WP:AE, I ask you to consider removing or redacting your recent comment. When commenting on an AE request, please limit yourself to comments that help administrators evaluate whether the edit(s) reported violate an arbitral sanction. In this case, you commented not on the merits of the request, but made an (unsubstantiated) allegation concerning the allegedly disruptive nature of the request. This is not helpful because it does not help us process the request and may have the effect of continuing any underlying personal disagreements at AE, which we seek to avoid. Thanks for your understanding,  Sandstein  21:14, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The conduct of the filer and circumstances surrounding it are pertinent to how the request is handled.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Something similar happened to Dicklyon and me, again over dashes and hyphens. Apteva also filed cases at the Mediation Committee and at ArbCom that were declined. —Neotarf (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

F.Y.I.

You are being discussed here and here. If you haven't considered the purpose of the evidence Mathsci is presenting in the Doncram case (i.e. "I think I understand what you are doing"), perhaps you should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.184.226 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

ARS ArbCom

Remember how I said it wasn't going to work, and we should try something else? Well, it seems abundantly clear that it's just you and me on this one. We should pull the plug and try something else, like the RfC/U on Dream Focus I've been suggesting for months. It's been clear over the past few months that there isn't consensus to shut down the ARS, but there may be to take action against Dream Focus and some of the other more problematic editors pbp 17:56, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe noting the problems with all the editors of concern would end up leading to at least four RfC/Us, if we just focus on the most frequent and prominent offenders, and that would just be absurdly cumbersome and likely prove ineffective. Also, there is no need to shut down the ARS if there can be some sort of restraint put on the project to insure that more problem editors don't pop up and do the same things. The fact is that significant resistance is to be expected, reform is always something that is steadfastly resisted by many parties. Some favor the status quo because it favors them and others are simply wary of the uncertainty of change. It is far easier to pontificate on the consequences of change than to effectuate change.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Statement by The Devil's Advocate

Hello The Devil's Advocate. I noticed that your statement is around 1,700 words long, but only a maximun of 500 words are permitted in a statement for a case request (including responses). Therefore, I'd like to request you to reduce your statement to meet the 500-word limit before an arbitrator or one of the clerks (including me) reduce it by ourselves (which might remove information you may consider important).

From the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 01:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I would prefer that the entirety stay up there for the sake of posterity, but as I believe the intent is simply to have a statement that addresses the matter concisely, would it be acceptable if I wrote a summary statement that could then be used to the exclusion of the remainder if the case is accepted? My penchant for verbosity does make it difficult for me to stay within these word limits, but I believe I might be able to manage a summary.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes. The statement is only to provide the arbitrators a concise summary of the situation. Detailed summaries and information can be provided by you and the other parties in the Evidence page of the case, if accepted. Also, when reducing your statement, you can post a diff at the end of your summary to state that you reduced it, and to leave everyone interested into reading the longer one able to do it if wished. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

This is something I will be attempting in the morning, though I am curious whether I could just collapse my statements rather than deleting them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of Transformers: Prime characters

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Transformers: Prime characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

92.15

The 92.15.X.X IP who's been editing at Lee Harvey Oswald has been on-and-off problematic for some time on subjects relating to Lincoln, Kennedy, Alcatraz, the Titanic ..., to the point that I rangeblocked them, reluctantly, from late November to about a week ago. See my talkpage at User talk:Acroterion#Our friend is back... and User talk:Shearonink#Abraham Lincoln.27s final smile. The user is not a vandal, but is prone to inserting speculation and copying. When confronted they're polite, and I've blocked only when they've become unmanageable (or once, implied suicide, needing WMF action, which proved to be an overly dramatic literary reference), so any help and guidance you can give to them would be welcome. Acroterion (talk) 19:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

AN

any particular reason you un-archived such a large discussion? Werieth (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

There should really have been some action taken on the discussion before it was archived as there was considerable community discussion and it was a matter of some significance.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:24, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration case declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step two question

Hello everyone. I have asked a question about having drafts versus general questions at the Jerusalem RfC discussion, and it would be helpful if you could comment on it. I'm sending out this mass notification as the participation on the discussion page has been pretty low. If anyone is no longer interested in participating, just let me know and I can remove you from the list and will stop sending you these notifications. If you are still interested, it would be great if you could place the discussion page on your watchlist so that you can keep an eye out for new threads that require comments. You can find the latest discussion section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#Step two discussion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Why did you take down my link?

To Debatestats.com? It is completely relevant and is certainly not spam. It's an educational site about the 2012 Republican debates. please reinstate it. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.236.122.152 (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not a noteworthy site so the insertion into multiple high-profile articles appears to be about increasing traffic to the site. That is spamming.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I noticed the edit you made after I reviewed an anon's contribution earlier. Very much appreciated. Command and Conquer Expert! speak to me...review me... 06:13, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction

Hi. I saw that you accepted the addition of Dean Winchester to List of LGBT characters in film and radio fiction. I don't watch Supernatural myself, but, from everything I've ever heard on the subject, he's never been canonically described as bi, and I see in the page history that the addition has been reverted before. My apologies if I'm mistaken, of course, but I'd appreciate if you could clear this up. (If I'm indeed right that the addition was incorrect, I'll add a hidden-text note for future reference for other reviewers.) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems they hint at it, but there do not appear to be any sources stating this definitively so I've removed it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Rape and pregnancy controversies in United States elections, 2012. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)