User talk:The Devil's Advocate/Archive 7

< Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8 >

All Pages:

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

See here for related revision history

Misrepresenting sources

(Moved from my page. Your attitude toward sourcing is a real problem, one you need to correct immediately. Guettarda (talk)) If you are going to repeatedly accuse me of "misrepresenting" sources or having a "cavalier" attitude "towards factual accuracy" then you better back it up with some seriously compelling evidence and reasoning. As it stands you have not done that anywhere. You have only thrown out the accusation and let it hang there as if it proves something on its own. The accusation alone has exactly zero weight.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Look, we went through two of the four sources you presented in the GGAS discussion, and you misrepresented both of them. That's two strike there already. What you did on the R&I article is a different sort of misrepresentation - I'm sure it wasn't intentional, it was (I presume) simply the result of your re-insertion of the text, which implicitly attributes several statements to a source which does not support them. But you're responsible for your edits.

When I raised the question, you aggressively defended your edit. And this is a serious problem. You don't seem to be concerned about whether your actions misrepresent sources. This is a serious problem. You need to start putting some effort into ensuring that you're correctly representing sources. Guettarda (talk) 13:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said anyone can make empty pronouncements yet you have so far been unwilling to actually explain how anything was misrepresented. You have just made the accusation and failed to substantiate it. There is no "implicit attribution" involved in my restoration of the lede. We are talking about the lede of the article where not all statements have to be sourced because it is meant as a summary of material in the article body. That means, inevitably, that some statements will precede a citation that are not actually backed by that citation. In essence, your position would make citations in the lede an all-or-nothing proposition and that has no basis in policy whatsoever.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BURDEN from WP:V: Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. As you appear to be unfamiliar with the policy sections of WP:Verifiability, articles under WP:ARBR&I are probably not good candidates for you to edit. Please spend some time reviewing policy. aprock (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

If anything in the lede were seriously contentious to the point where the sources in the article body were not enough it would have been challenged well before KC started blowing smoke. Of course, that has nothing to do with the obscene and baseless accusations about my use of sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've gave you a more than fair explanation at GGaS. If you don't understand that then, I suppose, you don't understand how to read and interpret sources. Which is fine - we all have our strengths and weaknesses, and this just may not be one of yours. Guettarda (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

No you didn't give a "more than fair explanation" for your accusations. You said I didn't satisfy aprock's demands and this can either mean I was "ignoring facts" or misrepresenting sources and followed up with threats. That is the closest you got to an actual explanation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

As I said - stick to the things you're good at. This doesn't appear to be one of them. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

TDA: You are a good editor with a lot of interests at Wikipedia. We have disagreed on some topics, but while I am a lot less active than you, I see a fair bit of stuff and find that I often agree with your views. The thing that distinguishes you from others on your side at R&I is that you plainly are not an SPA and are helpful to the encyclopedia. However, you may have become interested in supporting some interesting and quite valid facts in the R&I field without having had an opportunity to read a broader review. First, I'd better state the finding, and since I don't like obfuscation or PC I'm going to say it plainly—blacks are dumber than whites—there is evidence for that conclusion. Seeing the evidence as presented by supporters of that view, it would be very easy to conclude that a bunch of PC wankers are trying to suppress the truth so no one will have their feelings hurt. While that undoubtedly applies to some people, it is not what is going on at race and intelligence. On reading a modern review of the situation, it becomes clear that there is a lot of reason to believe that the tests and statistical manipulations surrounding them are not measuring what their three or four proponents think they are measuring. Please get hold of a book like this—it doesn't take long to read chapter 13 of that book where the author presents a balanced review of the situation. Reading that shows that it is very misleading to state that "blacks are dumber than whites"—it ain't necessarily so, and the findings with that conclusion need a lot of qualification to avoid misleading readers. Johnuniq (talk) 21:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I am actually quite familiar with all the arguments and evidence regarding this subject, though not as familiar with all the names and literature associated with it. My feeling is not that people are trying to "suppress the truth" but that you and several other editors have an understandable hostility towards the hereditarian view and that this colors your judgment on the topic. When you and other editors insist GGAS has very little to do with the hereditarian view, in spite of the extensive body of secondary sources saying it does, I naturally conclude that you are basing your arguments on personal opinions about the subject rather than an objective evaluation of the facts. This appears to be the case at the R&I article as well. Edits to the article shouldn't be grounded in what people think of the subject, but in what the facts and the body of academic literature say about the subject and massive outright deletions should be considered carefully beforehand. What all this rejectionist regression on the R&I page is really doing is preventing reasonable discussion of actual improvements in favor of a slash-and-burn approach. Tell me, do you really think KC's approach has created a constructive atmosphere?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm interested in pretty well all interesting things, and the fact that certain tests show an IQ gap between groups is very interesting. I don't care at all about the consequences—if it turns out that genetics is the explanation, that would be very interesting and not of any concern to me, and the only hostility I have is regarding POV pushers who use Wikipedia in the R&I and other fields. The story regarding GGaS is different—the problem there is that an article on a book should not be used to coatrack opposing views. The book concerns "why some groups do better than other groups", but an article on the book is not the right page to canvass opinions on that topic. Various people have written their views on GGaS, but the only reason they did that was to promote their ideas. We should not amplify their attempts by decorating the GGaS article with their opinions. In an article on a book presenting a minority view, it is fine to give a solid explanation that mainstream scholars have rubbished the book, but that is not what is happening at GGaS—it's the reverse.

At any rate, I'm happy to disagree about GGaS, but it's R&I where I think there may be a misunderstanding that should be cleared up. You know that R&I topics have been dominated by SPAs for years, and while some non-SPA editors are currently being aggressive, that's about all that works when dealing with someone on a mission. I accept you've read about the arguments and evidence, but next time you're near a library, please check the chapter I mentioned. Johnuniq (talk) 00:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

With regard to GGaS, how a work is received, described, and used in academic discussion is pertinent to an article on the work. That you think they are not being faithful to what you believe the book is about is fine but it is still something that should be described in an article on the subject. It is a book placed within the scope of the debate and fully documenting its role and reception in that debate is important. As it stands that article barely mentions race, let alone the race and intelligence dispute. I think such problems are endemic of these topic areas and the main article on R&I is only somewhat better because it has a high profile, which allows for more diverse participation.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

your revert

here was not helpful. Please make yourself familiar with the new interwiki feature of Wikidata. Thx. --109.48.76.201 (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the are hundreds of users, who have started yesterday with removing interwiki links. Removals by users with an account don't get reverted. So maybe your problem is a different one...?

The more interwiki links got removed, the more users will learn about the new feature. Please help to make this a success. Thx. -- 109.48.76.201 (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi

I just saw your comments on BH's webpages. I think we agree on that. And we aren't that far off - see my reply on the article talk page. As I said on BH's page in reply to the IP, my previous post on the article talk page was long ago and was a note about the ArbCom sanctions. I'm very concerned about sock puppetry in general, Mikemikev in particular. And I still argue that editors need to be aware of the history of editing of an article - it's all part of the context. Not a reason to make changes (except for sock puppet edits which should be removed), but something to think about. I just ran into an editor who was adding completely fake sources - taking a genuine article in a good journal, using the page numbers and authors, but changing the article's title and subject entirely to back a spurious claim. Not saying that's what has happened here but as I said in my reply to you, the reasons for banning can be important. But simple disruptive/tendentious editing doesn't make an edit bad, just the editor. It all depends upon whether an editor was banned for being misleading or for being disruptive, I guess. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Waldorf education

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Waldorf education. 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) 11:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Uninvolved?

Do you know whether Future Perfect at Sunrise is an uninvolved admin? He recently blocked BlackHades for a week, but I am not convinced he meets the criteria of WP:UNINVOLVED, which is a requirement for making blocks. He certainly was involved in some of the arbitration requests. 101.0.71.13 (talk) 11:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

You could try taking your concerns to WP:AN. aprock (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Black went overboard, against the wrong type of target, and that he probably would have been sanctioned regardless. Certainly, I don't think Future has the necessary temperament to be an admin, but Black's block is not something where that argument is likely to have much effect. I would encourage you to create an account, if only to stop the relentless attacks on you for not having one. No one is terribly confused by the IP-hopping, I think, but it is an attack that can be used to distract from actual constructive discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My internet access makes it impractical to have an account, so I prefer to continue editing as an unregistered user. Newly registered users typically are not taken seriously either, at least not in this topic area, so I don't believe registering would change anything in that regard.

I'm putting some thought and attention into something BlackHades told me in his user talk, and it does seem that people get away with more or less depending on what viewpoint they represent. While it was a bad idea for BlackHades to start that SPI, over a long period his editing does not seem more disruptive than ArtifexMayhem's. Yet BlackHades was blocked, while ArtifexMayhem is continuing to remove material from articles. I'm coming to the conclusion that ArtifexMayhem should be reported at AE. Do you agree with that? You probably know more than I do about his history in this topic. 101.0.71.26 (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Addressing the problems would involve more than just one editor. I think Artifex's deletions are just a symptom of a generally problematic approach to these topic areas.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

On another note, there are indications that you are editing from a VPN. It would help to clarify the reasons for it.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:20, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Devil's Advocate. This is the same person who commented here and on article talk pages from the 101 IP range. I have to use a proxy server because Future Perfect has blocked my IP range. I know using a proxy server for this purpose is normally forbidden, but Future Perfect said here his block only was meant to force me to register an account. Although that was the purpose of his block, the block also disables registration from my IP, so now I don't know how to tell what I'm supposed to do. He doesn't appear to have blocked the 110.32.* range, which I also have used (for example: [1]), but that was when I was using a different ISP that I don't use anymore.

I don't know why my IP address looks like a VPN. My internet connection is now provided by the company where I work, so I suppose that might be what they use.

I agree to refrain from making any more comments about race and intelligence until I find a way to register an account and keep it secure, which might be a few days or weeks. If registration is never re-enabled from my current IP range, then I suppose registering would have to wait until my IP range changes again, which could be months. Can you tell me if I would be allowed to register an account after my IP range changes again? I don't know whether Future Perfect's block is meant to apply just to these IPs, or to me as a person. 201.76.185.214 (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a mistake to automatically assume the user is using PureVPN. There are many companies that use servers from Digital Pacific not just PureVPN. I made a note of this in WP:AN. BlackHades (talk) 04:02, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting article

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324162304578303992108696034.html?mod=WSJ_hps_sections_lifestyle

You may need to patch the link together. The title of the article is "A Genetic Code for Genius?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.202.196 (talk) 03:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK The Hole (Scientology)

DYK:The Hole some WP:UNDUE queries to nom and ALT3 needs another reviewer --Senra (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article

I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me that the article contains a lot of negative material about the company already so concerns about biasing the article towards the negative are reasonable, though the article could do with balanced expansion on the company's controversies. Preferably that would be integrated into the article and not split into a "criticism" or "controversy" section. As to your allegations regarding other editors, you seem to be a bit too combative about the situation. You should try to focus on content as much as possible and avoid bringing in personal commentary. While some of the conduct towards you is inappropriate, it doesn't help matters to simply feed into the cycle of misconduct.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

fyi

FYI, User_talk:TParis#Review_requested. (Obviously you'll need to avoid addressing MathSci.) NE Ent 22:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You may wish to display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox and/or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

Wifione ^Message 20:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Standard Book Number

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:International Standard Book Number. 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) 00:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Last few days for step two of Jerusalem RfC discussion

Hi there. This is just a quick message to let you know that unless there is significant ongoing discussion, I intend to wrap up step two in a few days, probably on Thursday 31st 28th February. I invite you to have a look at the discussion there, especially at question five where I have just asked a question for all participants. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Binders_full_of_women

Your selective merge of Binders full of women seems to go against the WP:CONSENSUS. What's up? - SummerPhD (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

It was only kept at AfD due to one admin's rather questionable decision at AfD, a classic supervote in line with that admin's particular bias. When nearly an equal number vote keep as delete and then a large number also vote Redirect or merge, it is obvious that consensus is against keeping it as an independent article, especially when those against keeping it as an independent article form a wide cross-section of opinion. The proposed merge was similarly a questionable close, now that I look into it, as the admin had explicitly made the argument for deleting and not merging during the AfD. It seems some others actually voted oppose because they preferred a deletion. My merge is being bold and ignoring the strict adherence to "rules" that you suggest in order to implement what should have been the common sense solution given the large opposition to an independent article evidenced in the initial AfD that was not superseded by a more limited merge discussion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)t

Ignoring rules for a reason is not the same as ignoring consensus. If you disagree with the consensus or the admins' calls on those !votes, being "bold" is not, IMO, a wise course of action. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is not a vote and is not reached by an admin, but assessed by them. An admin's supervote at a contentious AfD and a less active post-AfD discussion closed by an involved admin are not gauges of real consensus. Your argument is basically that because an admin said so and because of x policy, I should not have made an edit. That is an argument about "rules" and "process", not consensus.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I am well aware it is not a vote )thus "!vote") and that admins do not create consensus ("admins' calls on !votes").After several months with no complaints about the admins' calls, you have substituted your opinion for that of the admins. Rather than forging ahead based on your contention that the AfD closure was based on an "admin's particular bias", discussion at an appropriate forum seems to be a better idea. I am reverting the redirect. - SummerPhD (talk)

Looks like someone else beat me to it. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone else who happened to be on the other side of the debate. I could say your comments go the other way. People objecting so quickly tend to be those who wanted it kept.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:59, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

To summarize: You disagree with the decisions of two admins and two other editors and feel that all four are biased. I do need a bit of clarification: did you expect (A) people who ignored the AfD and merge debates to suddenly show up or (B) those who wanted the article gone to restore it or {C) everyone to suddenly agree? :)

In any event, obviously you'll need to discuss the issue in a more public area if you wish to proceed. Cheers. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My hope was that it had been long enough that no one would care anymore since this ridiculously trivial quirk in a storied campaign isn't really worth the drama.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:25, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that didn't work. :) - SummerPhD (talk) 01:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

response

Hello, The Devil's Advocate. You have new messages at Cheesecake Factory's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WP:OUTING

TDA, please remember that our policies apply to you, too. I know you're trying to do a diligent job defending someone you feel was blocked unfairly, but writing comments laying a trail of how someone else could find personal information on a user makes it look a lot like you're gaming the wording of the policy to accomplish the same aim as Cla68 was trying to do. I strongly suggest you consider editing or removing some of the last comments you've made on the topic - which I am not linking to for obvious reasons - as they're edging close and closer to the line (recall that the same policy that forbids outing also spells out that "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for 'opposition research'."). Posting continual details about another person on Wikipedia, for no other reason than because you appear to be fascinated by them and by someone else's right to use them against that person, is not behavior we expect of an editor in good standing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Nothing I have said goes against the spirit of the policy and it certainly doesn't go against the letter. My intention is to point out to those wondering about the credibility of the outing allegations that the information can be easily gleaned with minimal effort by anyone looking at on-wiki information. In other words, the point is to illustrate that there is no actual outing involved because the editor provided identifying information willingly, in a manner that clearly violated policy on promotional editing I might add. Vaguely noting the existence of this on-wiki information and how a common web tool with which most people are familiar will immediately get the identifying information is clearly not outing. So no, I will not remove those comments.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For proper reversion of blanking of verified to reliable source content on the 2012 Benghazi attack article, I present to you this barnstar. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Spinal manipulation

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Spinal manipulation. 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) 13:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Samurai Jack - Other Media - Fan Sites

Hi, tlk., I was looking at the article after being away from it, and I noticed that an edit that I made mentioning Fan Sites a couple of weeks ago had been removed by Paper Luigi as not "encyclopedic or noteworthy," then reverted by another, anonymous reader. However, you yourself RE-removed the revert using the justification that "these are not reliable sources."

I wanted to know why you consider these sources, all real fan sites with references given, as unreliable. I would revert the edit again on my own but I fear that it would turn the whole thing into an edit-war. I would rather hear from you, and perhaps find a way to get you to just restore the section yourself. If you want to know my own history at Wikipedia, of course, you can just look me up. Thanks! Playerpage (talk) 20:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Whether they are real fan sites or not is beside the point. It is not uncommon that a show has fans, that said fans congregate to discuss a show, and that after the cancellation of the show there are fans wanting more episodes. Fan sites are not reliable for the purpose of establishing this as something significant. Some shows, such as Star Trek, develop a fan following that is highly notable and the following gets mentioned in secondary sources. In some cases a campaign to bring back a show also becomes noteworthy enough for secondary sources to discuss it. Fan sites and personal blogs are not sufficient.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:00, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

But why not mention them? I'm sorry, I fail to see how they would not be significant. The whole purpose of the section [Other Media] is to mention ways in which the show has moved beyond television. By your standard, the video games of Samurai Jack should not be mentioned, or really, its comics. Yes, these were created by professionals, but they became possible because of the fans who supported the show. And it is definitely the fans, as noted by Gennedy, who have kept the show alive in the minds of the media to the point that a movie deal is still being discussed, even today.Playerpage (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I will copy this exchange over to the main article "Talk" section, to get other perspectives. Cheers! Playerpage (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

All you need are some reliable secondary sources, not fan sites, saying all that to add such material. The mere existence of a continuous fanbase is not noteworthy unless it has gotten attention from such sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Crazynas ^t 07:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:49, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

:)

If you would, feel free to let The Joy know that i'm not trying to get anyone banned. Silverseren^C 08:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Vigilant is capable of stopping. I does seem a bit ironic though that one of the more vociferous people that doxes others and hates anonymity is one of the most anonymous and unknown people on the site. Silverseren^C 08:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

RfAr Kevin

Your statement is very long. The easiest way to make it more concise is to replace the lengthy quotes you've added in full with diffs. And no more pretty pictures please. Thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 07:55, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sistar

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sistar. 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) 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK Janssens

Hello, I've made a suggestion for a replacement hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Émile Janssens. Would very much welcome your thoughts! ---Brigade Piron (talk) 14:04, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Alteration made. ---Brigade Piron (talk) 14:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Cheers

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Cheers. 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) 15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion: step three

Hello all. We have finally reached step three in the Jerusalem RfC discussion. In this step we are going to decide the exact text of the various drafts and the general questions. We are also going to prepare a summary of the various positions on the dispute outlined in reliable sources, per the result of question nine in step two. I have left questions for you all to answer at the discussion page, and I'd be grateful for your input there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

COI on WP

Hey, thanks for adding to the article! I've been sitting on a year's worth of updates but it's nice to see someone put new content in. I agree that it belongs where you put it rather than at BP, and i'm glad you added it. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 04:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Prego.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: disruption of the arbitration enforcement process

Please do not undo actions by administrators that were made to manage the arbitration enforcement process. If you do it again, I'll consider blocking you for disruption of that process. Thanks,  Sandstein  06:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, dude, stop being such an officious little jerk. Do you really think people like having your completely unnecessary marks of shame replacing their messages? Try to show people some more respect. As far as I'm concerned, you're the one who is disrupting the arbitration enforcement process. No one wants to participate in a process where they have to deal with the berating of petty tyrants.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 15:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome to your views about how arbitration enforcement should take place. However, as long as you are not one of the administrators who assume the responsibility to act on enforcement requests, I must – politely but firmly – insist that you do not interfere with how they choose to do it now.  Sandstein  16:50, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

It is about how you choose to do it. Having monitored that area for over a year, I can safely say that your actions are not standard. AE is not a playground where anyone who is an admin gets to pretend to be royalty. Should you continue conducting yourself in the manner you do then you might find yourself getting stripped of any such privileged position. I respect your conduct elsewhere, but it seems you are out of control when it comes to AE.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I second TDA's comments. Tony (talk) 01:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kurban Said

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kurban Said. 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) 03:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

DYK for MovieWeb

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

talkback

FYI, I replied to your comment in my user talk. Akuri (talk) 23:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Jimbo's talk page

I'm sure you have everyone's best interests at heart, but I post things on Jimbo's talk page so that Jimbo can see them. The discussion is collapsed now, so why don't why just leave it like that? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:36, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Because, no matter how right you think you are or how horrible you think someone else may be, no page should be used for public flogging of anyone in such a manner. If you want the editor sanctioned then use the appropriate procedures, if you believe there is cause for criminal action then alert the proper authorities. Using any space of Wikipedia for the purpose of public shaming is not appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:51, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, the appropriate procedures. Like sending a discreet note to ArbCom? I've tried that - why do you think I started doing things this way? I think you will find that WP:BLP won't apply in this case, since I am relying on (Redacted)'s own statements. I do understand what you are saying and why you are doing this, but I want to let Jimbo decide how to handle this himself. Let's not not edit war over a collapsed section, ok? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:22, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This sort of thing isn't subject to the usual rules on edit-warring so it doesn't really apply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:38, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with your position, but we have to give that... person... due process. He's still edit warring at ANI too. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• This is not just my position, though, policy does allow exemptions to the normal rules on reverting and this would fall under one of them.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sadly, if we are to AGF (hard to do), it's not vandalism and/or deliberate disruption. I think it's time to open a discussion for an indef block/ban of the editor. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I am not saying it is vandalism, but comments about other editors, especially those who identify by name on-wiki, can be serious BLP issues just as much as claims about a famous person in an article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think, based on Tarc's response at ANI, it's a bit more complicated than that, and that this position is not universally agreed upon (for some reason). It's just a warning for now, don't get too worried about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly some people do not think they should be prevented from using Wikipedia process for this sort of activity, but that is the reason the policy exists and is not seen as strictly a community policy. People see red over this sort of issue, reasonably so, and having it subject to a community perspective would be disastrous. Being accused of anything like this can have very real consequences for the person accused. Even if the allegation is true, no one should suggest that getting someone banned from a site is worth the risk of such an outcome.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:17, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philosophy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Philosophy. 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) 16:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Your signature

I don't remember all the red being there. Did you change it, or did something else happen? The reason I ask is that, as you can see here, a couple of my more recent signatures show red where you might expect blue (and where there was blue). I'm starting to believe something got deleted, but I'm not sure what to do about it. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to be all snazzy like the other cool kids.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh. I guess I'll have to ask for an explanation about what happened to my signature somewhere else. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C • Sign AAPT) 00:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mining. 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) 08:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Interaction bans

I don't want to have to keep defending you from what Mathsci says about you, when he makes accusations against you that you can't respond to in discussions like your AE report and the ANI thread about Apostle12. But I also know that if I don't, there will be no one to argue against his suggestion that your report be closed with a warning against you. Can you please do something so defending you doesn't have to remain other editors' responsibility? I've been doing that because I feel there's no other choice when you can't defend yourself, but I don't like being in this situation, and if you don't care about changing it I think you should consider how it affects others. 101.0.79.13 (talk) 07:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me? Since you seem unwilling to stand up for yourself, I (reluctantly) have posted something to defend you in the AE thread. I feel bad for you and I think your participation in R&I articles is helpful, but it is reasonable for me to say I don't want defending you to remain my job, and for me to request that you take more responsibility for yourself. If in response you intend to just ignore me, I think that's rather rude. Akuri (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not ignoring you. Just pretty sure I can't really respond on-wiki and I'm not fond of using e-mail. I feel I can say that you don't have to feel any obligation towards me.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you don't think I have to, but I don't want Mathsci to be able to turn your AE thread around into an an attack on you. KillerChihuahua's massive reverts bother me as well as you, so it also will bother me if Mathsci can use your interaction ban to redirect that report (and any other AE report you make) away from the editor you tried to report, and make AE examine your behaviour instead of theirs. His using your interaction ban to do that may have a big effect on what the editing environment of R&I articles is like, and I care about that. If you can't defend yourself, I feel like it's my responsibility just because of how the outcome will effect everyone.

I'm not asking you to say anything about Mathsci. I just want to know if you think you'll ever request that your one-way interaction ban be lifted or turned into a mutual ban, or whether you intend to always put up the way things currently are. I personally think the way things currently are is completely unacceptable, but I'm reluctant to make a request about it myself, because I haven't had an account very long yet and because the interaction ban issue affects you more than it affects me. But if you could tell me you definitely won't request this yourself, then I'll know I should plan on doing so eventually. That's why I want you to tell me whether you intend to or not. Can you please tell me? Akuri (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I do intend to appeal the restriction in time, but not yet.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you tell me when you plan to appeal it? After what I have seen in the past few days, I might decide I don't want to come back until someone does something to try to improve what it's like here. I'd like to know how long I have to wait for that. Akuri (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, it would be easier if you looked for some other topic where you can contribute, preferably one without so much as a tangential connection to R&I. That way you will at least not have to deal with SPA accusations. Don't worry about me, I am good. ;) --The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Why not let the request stand so it can be denied? You're already at 3RR anyway. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You're now at 4RR.[2][3][4][5] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KillerChihuahua 02:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013: Block

TDA - I honestly hate to do this, but you've left no options. I've blocked you for 31 hours for edit warring at WP:AE. Really? .. like 5 reverts in just a few hours? The last one AFTER a warning and notice on the 3RR board. All this on an Arb board? You really do need to step back a bit. I see you've been blocked before for exactly this same type of thing, so in line with WP:DNTTR, I won't bother you with the pictures. Like I said, I actually do appreciate how you can often offer a different point of view in any given discussion - and I think the username is perfect. But please, don't do this anymore. — Ched :  ?  03:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, um after the admin closing the noticeboard discussion said "We don't usually block people for reverting socks" so no.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you want one of the templates or links? — Ched :  ?  04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest unblocking TDA. For one thing, EdJohnston has semi-protected WP:AE, so this block is no longer preventative but merely punitive. For another, TDA is correct; we generally give people a great deal of latitude in dealing with sockpuppetry, as it seems inherently unfair to block someone for repeatedly reverting a sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 04:18, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, there were at least 3 different IP addresses Mastcell, and one of those is not blocked. However, I actually do like TDA, and have a lot of trust and faith in your views as well .. So I will unblock. TDA .. please though, from now on - just report it to AIV, SPI, or RFPP .. please? — Ched :  ?  04:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. — Ched :  ?  04:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)