User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 4

We still good for in 40mins? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Available to chat today? 12pm local time (in about an hour) would work well for me. Email me. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hey, you got some time today to jump on Skype? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DRN#Ra_One_-_Response_section. Started to spill onto WP:WQA, asked editors to keep at DRN. Best. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Re. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Minorities in Greece

Just to keep you informed - please see [1] [2] [3]

I hope that seems OK to you; of course, if not, let me know. Thanks very much for your continued help with this.  Chzz  ►  05:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

That's looking very nice indeed. It's you who I should be thanking for help! I really appreciate what you're doing, and I look forward to see how Filanca will respond to this. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Arabic A. My bad. Tony (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I did think that the section name should probably be shorter anyway, but I didn't fix it for whatever reason. I might have another look over it and see if there's a good way of doing it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ive completed the edits to the Education in Africa that I proposed. Asiamcclearygaddy (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's looking very nice! Thank you for your great work. I have a couple of pointers for how you could make it even better:

• First, you can't use Wikipedia as a source - it doesn't pass the criteria set out in our reliable sources guideline. The other sources you have used look fine, though.
• If you state an opinion, you can't state it directly, in "Wikipedia's voice". You need to either attribute it to someone, or change it into a factual statement. For example, "They are being denied their basic human right to education" is an opinion, albeit one that many people would agree with. You need to change this somehow - I suggest saying something like, 'According to UNICEF, they are being denied their basic human right to education.(ref)' Or even better, use a quote: 'According to UNICEF spokesman John Smith, "these children are simply being denied their basic human right to education".(ref)'
• If you want to group citations together, you can do it by using <ref name="blah">Blah</ref> for the first one and <ref name="blah" /> for the second one. For more details see WP:REFB.
• The article's citation style is inconsistent at the moment. Try using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} to get all the references looking the same.
• Finally, be careful of putting a full stop before a reference and after it as well! The full stop should go directly before the ref tag, with no space.

This has been quite a long list - I hope it is useful! All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I added this to AfD. Which criterion of WP:ACADEMIC do you think is met? Or what is the third party coverage that you think meets WP:GNG? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented over at AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, Mr. Stradivarius. I'm currently mediating a medical-based dispute at the DRN, but my medical knowledge is limited. I was wondering if you'd be able to provide any input to make up for my lack of medical knowledge? The dispute is about Spirulina. Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi ItsZippy, sorry for the delay. I'm no expert in medical matters either, but that shouldn't really be necessary as long as we remind editors to stick to WP:MEDRS. I've commented over at DRN. Again, thanks for your help on the noticeboard there; it really makes a difference. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply - much appreciated. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

I created this from another article, and noticed you had it on your to-do list. I added your refs as a bibliography. The article currently consists only of a single example, plus a short comment on creoles. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! This all goes back to when I was looking around for sources for difficulty of learning languages. I found those sources from that search, and thought I might have a go at making them into an article, but I ended up leaving it halfway through. I'll have a look and see if there's anything I can add. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[4]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I have tried to open a case at the Mediation Cabal (see here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 November 2011/) regarding the Iraqi Turkmens article. It is the first time I have opened a case and I'm not sure if I have done it correctly; would you have a look and let me know if it is ok? Have a good day.Turco85 (Talk) 13:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the page over to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 November 2011/Iraqi Turkmens, and made a few formatting changes. Hopefully that should do the trick. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!Turco85 (Talk) 13:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr.Stradivarius, could you reply to my last comment @ Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Spirulina_.28dietary_supplement.29 before I decide whether I should follow your next suggested step. I would really appreciate your input. I understand I got some important things wrong originally but I really fail to see what is wrong in my very final suggestion. I am really just seeking to conform to sticking to secondary sources and eliminating primary and tertiary sources on the subject... Cheers Rdavout (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry for the delay. I'll go and take a look at it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius - the author of the Kamala Lopez page, clearly a very close friend or family member OR Lopez herself (a non-identified SOCK PUPPET) continues to try to maintain the Lopez page as a fan site. If it were a page about a truly notable director, such as Martin Scorsese and one of his collaborators was unhappy with the work or there had been any kind of creative OR personal struggle that affected the outcome of the film, it would be discussed on their respective Wikipedia pages. The fact that JH Scribe is calling this a "personal issue" and blaming "Ms. Simpson" for trying to push it betrays an entirely personal bias on HIS (or her) part. The fact that the film is so poor despite its host of celebrities is interesting and historically notable, especially considering the historicity of its subject.Webberkenny (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Webberkenny, sorry to hear that you're still having problems at the article. I think the best thing to do is to file another request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, so that it will be seen by more people. Let me know if you have any questions about filing there again. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius: I loathe to write to you again about issues with the Kamala Lopez page but "Webberkenny" insists on using the page to air her/his beef with Lopez. In reviewing information about "Webberkenny", she/he is self described as "a fan of Jeanmarie Simpson". Furthermore, she/he has a history of vandalizing and publicizing personal battles (see the Webberkenny talk page). Finally, Simpson's opinions are already posted on her wikipage (along with a picture for which she claims to have the copyright but does not).

I realize you must be inundated with petty squabbles and I would hope most issues are much larger than this but I'm clearly not going to be able to reason with her/him. Please let me know the next best steps.

Best,

John

JHScribe (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see "webberkenney"'s post until after I submitted mine. At least she and I agree on one thing - there is a problem. A ruling by you or another administrator is likely going to be the only way to resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHScribe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi again. Thinking about it, maybe a good way to resolve this would be to open an RfC on the question on the article's talk page. That would get outside eyes on the dispute, which is usually the most efficient way of dealing with this kind of thing, in my experience. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will do that. Meanwhile, what picture does Simpson not have the copyright to? Her headshot? Or the one with Judd Nelson? And how is JHScribe invested in that and why not challenge it? Yes, I am a huge fan of Simpson's and have been ever since I saw her play seven years ago. I'm trying to not have her page be a fan site, though, and if it comes off that way, please give me suggestions to help improve it, or even work to improve it yourself. I doubt that you'll do that, because you clearly have a personal bias and agenda against her.Webberkenny (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting your bias. I will look at Simpson's page but my interest is only in national and international activists currently forwarding causes. I do have an evolving interest in Jeanette Rankin as it pertains to the fight for passage of the ERA. Apparently Lopez is a main player in promoting that cause. I have asked for permission to use pictures from Heroica Films but was told that they would not be available for general use and that they owned the copyright. That was true for ANY picture connected with the film. I would suggest that you address that issue yourself.

As for your insistence on forcing the critique into the article, Mr. Stradivarius addressed this issue by stating:

"...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."

The biggest issue is not whether or not there is a criticism of Lopez. If she has been convicted of something or acted inconsistently with her mission, that should be shown based on reliable sources. On the other hand, if Lopez has made controversial statements through a respected and mainstream source like The Huffington Post, that should be shown in my opinion and I will be adding that content.

I am not Kamala Lopez nor a sockpuppet nor grinding any axes on behalf of Lopez or any other related parties. And I will not relent in my desire to have an encyclopedic reference available for the public as the ERA moves towards ratification. I hope this doesn't become another Maury Ornest flash point for you.

You are definitely Lopez or her husband. What is the Ornest reference about? In what context are you talking about pics from the film? What is the HuffPo reference about? All I did was take out an uncited reference to Lopez having been invited by Arianna Huffington to become a blogger on the HuffPo site.

Simpson is and has been an artist on the national and international levels working in the peace movement, very notably since 9/11. You are trying to elevate Lopez (probably yourself) to Simpson's level, and the level of thousands (if not millions) of legitimate, hard working activist. Ask Cindy Sheehan or S. Brian Willson or Mimi Kennedy or Frank Dorrel or any of a host of other relevant peace activists today, and they will know and applaud Simpson's work and refute any claims you (Lopez) have of meaningful activism. Lopez (you) have a long and sordid history of alienating people including Ben Affleck, a well-respected political activist who has revealed Lopez's (your) narcissistic, phony tendencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webberkenny (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... thanks for the unrestrained rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHScribe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

JHScribe (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, thank YOU for the phony intellectual blather. Webberkenny (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

And also for not addressing a single one of the salient points or questions addressed to your previous accusatory post. Phony! Webberkenny (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in here, but could you please file another request on this at the dispute resolution noticeboard rather than arguing about it on my talk page? This isn't really the right place to continue this conversation. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^♫ 06:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Stradivarius. My sincere apologies. I had no intention of giving you a vandalism warning. I realise that I must have clicked on the wrong template - it should of course simply have been the 'Declined Speedy Deletion' notification. Sorry! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was probably what happened, so no worries :) Your reading of the subject seems like a plausible one, but hopefully we can get the original author of the smart space page to update it a little more - I still can't bring myself to say that I can definitely tell what the subject is. Anyway, if it doesn't get updated, I think I'll take your suggestion and PROD it. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Glad I could be of assistance. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, as always. (And I think you know me well enough to realise, I'd have said that, regardless of whether or not we happened to agree!)

Keep up the good stuff. Best,  Chzz  ►  16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you translate カイミロア (砲艦) to Kaimiloa? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at it, though I haven't done the infobox yet. It still needs wikifying and you should probably verify the references too, just in case anything got lost in translation. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your balanced review of the Royal Hosptial School dispute.

I'm a bit baffled by your view that it's OK to remove something if it us uncited. I had thought this was only the case in certain circumstances (eg if it is damaging). Surely it's not the case that anything uncited can be removed? There wouldn't be much of WP left if that was the case. Not wishing to make trouble, just genuinely amazed that this is the standard.

Anyway, the good news is I found a citation for the point so have reinserted it, as well as meeting all the other points of your response.

Many thanks.

RHSAMember (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC) (formerly JustResignGC)

Amazing though it may be, that is indeed the standard. Please note that it's not really my view, but the contents of Wikipedia's policy of verifiability - it doesn't really matter what any one editor thinks about it. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

No probs. If I was cheeky I would suggest going away and deleting virtually the whole RHS article!! But I won't :-) That said, the deletion was made time and time again with absolutely no comment and no attempt at discussion. WP would quickly cease to function if that was considered acceptable behaviour. RHSAMember (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right, it's usually better to talk things out on the discussion page and reach a consensus rather than edit warring. In all seriousness, though, if there are things in that article that can't be sourced, then they should be removed. You are also free to challenge material that isn't sourced and remove it yourself, and I don't think doing so would be "cheeky" at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I would of course like to start by apologising for the creation of such a mock-up page. It was done in a bout of frustration that I was experiencing about the college. I would just like to say that this will not happen again, and I am not generally a Wikipedia vandal. Vasu619 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. If you do feel like doing an odd bit of vandalism again you can use the sandbox - no-one will mind if you do it there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not know if it was my fault with "da punkY thingY", but since October I have not seen you at MotD. There are only three active users, right now: Benzaband, Hi878, and I. If you have time, it would be great if you could give us your contribution (help) by reviewing the nominations at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review.
All the best! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been caught up with dispute resolution stuff, and work at WikiProject Linguistics. I haven't forgotten MotD though, honest! I'll come over and have a look. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Firstly I do tend to agree with Silent Billy's comment (as blunt as it was) that you may have in fact missed the point... The reason I opted to go down the WP:DRN path was to instigate some dialogue on putting some closure on the matter once and for all because it IS needed. Talk page discussions are a waste of time because the SAME discussion is had on EVERY single australilan football article. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) article needs to be revised and decided upon so all codes of football have an agreed naming convention. I must say that I am a little disappointed that the discussion didn't even stay open for 24 hours. In your comment on User talk:Silent Billy#Football, you talk about not liking to see editors wasting effort - it is wasted effort having to discuss page move's over and over again on every australian football talk page because some people do not like how it is. I'm happy to do the leg work, I just need to know where to start. Ck786 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It does sound like a good idea to decide specific conventions for all Australian football/soccer articles, and doing that would definitely help disputes over the names. In that case, the best thing to do would be to open an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). To get a wide base of participants you should probably notify WikiProject Football, WikiProject Australia, and maybe Wikipedia talk:Article titles; and because it is still quite soon after the requested move, you should link to the requested move discussion in the RfC summary, and also notify all the editors who took part in it. Just be warned that you might need to accept a solution that you don't like, if it's the one that works for Wikipedia. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Re your last message to my talk page, I already posted that I would speak for myself. Is this a case of I have to nominate a spokesperson? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I must have missed that. No, you don't have to nominate a spokesperson if you would rather not; it's just that I didn't see the post where you stated your position. I see you've clarified this on the mediation page, too, so thanks for that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I'm a Swede who was very active on continuation war and Ihantala-Tali and did a great amount of work improving the article in 2009. But I felled I was forced to leave as an active contributor as I feelt the booth section was falling apart due to politicization of history. Im pleased to see your effort to mediate, but also feels some concerns.

First the question of the name of Viipuri. Even on Soviet war time map from 1941 the city is called Viipuri with Cyrillic alphabet, cheeking out http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=viipuri&more=date_all&n=10&prev=0&frow=10&page=2 You will find no mentioned of the Vyborg before 1950s but both Viborg and Viipuri is mentioned until late 1950s.

Swedish sources who often is very critical of Finnish history due tend to support the Finnish view when it opposite the Soviet/Russian view. When it comes to Baryshnikov i must say its just share politics and nothing to do with history. For example Barisnikov does not dig deep enough to verify his claim. Its very hard for an out stander to understand what he build his claim on. There are very many good Swedish source is the Swedish military historian Niklas Zetterling http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Zetterling

Whos book "Hitler mot Stalin" From 2009 about the eastern front 1941-45 is a good source.

An alternative his the Russian historian Mark Solonin who actually goes very deep in his research and tends to support the Finnish view in most cases.

Rgds Posse — Preceding unsigned comment added by Posse72 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 27 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Hi Posse, and thanks for the pointers. I'll bring those sources up on the mediation page tomorrow, though I won't have time today. As for the naming of Vyborg/Viipuri, have you commented on the request for comments at Talk:Continuation War? If you haven't already, then you should probably let people know your preference and your rationale here. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

We need your help. We would be grateful if you would take a few minutes to discuss the nomination for Christmas. The second version is much better, but it is necessary to reach a consensus before approving it.
Thanks and all the best for the upcoming Holiday season! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi.

Because Filanca (talk · contribs) has not edited in over a month, and did not yet respond to this query, I am going to consider this 'case closed', for now. Of course, it could be re-opened, if necessary, at a future date - just that I am going to stop checking back for updates. I have advised Filanca that, if xe wishes to resume discussions, xe should post a new thread on WP:DRN. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Thanks again for dealing with this, and for keeping me in the loop. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:14, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr Stradivarius, Thanks for the heads up! I made the edit for my psych class actually. First time for everything. I will be sure to take note of the editing summary in the future :) I must ask a friend of mine if she knows band; she's the Japan fanatic :D Thanks again! (not sure if I'm posting this in the write place...)--Greenbbbeans (talk) 17:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yep, this is where messages go. Thanks for the reply! Again, if you have any questions, just ask. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 21:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 

Dear Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 4: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If I understand it correctly, Steven is experiencing health problems in his real life. In connection to that, can I ask you tp summarise the discussion about the issue #1 and open a discussion #2? I am a little bit concerned with the speed of the mediation process. If others, much more complex questions will be being discussed in the same manner, the whole process will take years.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

My health problems amount to a broken left pinkie finger, which limits my abilities to type quickly. You'd be surprised how much one who is a touch typer uses their left pinkie. I plan to open up discussion on issue 2 later today, after us mediators discuss issue 1. Best, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 22:02, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Great. Glad to learn that the health problem appeared to be much less serious than I thought.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I haven't been all that active on the case recently. I'll discuss it with Steven, and we'll get things moving. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Kindly join us in the debate on the naming issues for this article at its talk page – Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 09:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarious,

Thank you for getting in touch. I’ve been working in this page for a class project, which is due this week. I have been working in the article a lot these past days and uploaded the changes today. I re-worded a couple of things and since I have to cite everything I’ve had to change some of the quotes in the article for similar quotes. The concepts are still pretty much the same, although I did change the structure a bit. I’ve copy pasted a lot from my word document so I don’t know if it might be hard to track the changes.

I haven’t been able to find the articles that were used for the “4 component section” and the “initial orientation section”, so I’m not really sure how to tie them in or if I should change their current location. If you have any information, or know of any articles where I could learn more about the concepts introduced here that would be a huge help. Part of the goal of the project is interacting with the online community so any suggestions will be greatly appreciated. It is also my first wikipedia project, so if you have any suggestions about how to make it more accessible that would also help. Finally I have been having trouble with the notes section, for some reason every time I quote an article, it is giving it a different number instead of liking all references to the article under one number.

So, well there’s a lot of stuff to do :). Unfortunately I only have until Tuesday to work in it but I look forward to working with you.

Gesund (talk) 06:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I've had a go at fixing the references for you. There are still quite a few that haven't got years or page numbers (if appropriate), so it would be really helpful if you could fill those in. Also, you have cited a few books that don't appear in the references section - if you have time, could you fill those in too? Oh, and you don't have to cite everything in the lede section, as it is supposed to be a summary of everything else in the article, so everything that it says should be cited already. As always, let me know if you have more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, about the other sections, I'm also not sure what articles or sources were originally used for them. If you can't find them, then it might be that it was just written without any sources in the first place. In this case, don't be afraid to re-write it completely if that would make things better. In little-edited areas of the encyclopaedia such as these, it pays to be bold. Don't worry about messing up other editors' work - it can always be fixed from the page history pretty easily, and if the end result is better, then it's a plus for Wikipedia. So go for it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, now that the mediation has been closed it seems as though the edit-war is starting again. "User:MamRostam03" now seems to have a new user name "User:KakaSur"… what should be done about this?Turco85 (Talk) 15:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, and sorry to hear that you're having problems on the page again. If you suspect that User:KakaSur is a sockpuppet, then you should follow the instructions at Sockpuppet Investigations and use the case name "Ledenierhomme", as that was the previous case in which User:MamRostam03 was involved. I agree that the connection looks obvious, but let's wait and hear what other editors think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the timely, informative reply, it's helping. --Thaavatar (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius!
Please, consider to give your opinion on this nomination for the New Year's Day, and, if you can, check the nomination for the eleventh birthday of Wikipedia (it's just 1-2 noms below).
Thank you, and a Merry Christmas and a New Year of health, happiness, peace, love, and prosperity to you and your family. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

 

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

It appears that the issues on the 1971 war page have sprung up again. User top gun was previously reported on his pattern of conduct on other pages. Other users such as Dbigxray, JCAla and IP 202 have either given up or appear to have been preemptively reported for a block by top gun. I myself was blocked even though top gun commenced the edit war and has refused to comment beyond his initial remarks. He even rv'd on the basis of my being blocked at his behest rather than on substantive grounds. Please advise as the previous DR appears to have led nowhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_11#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

The easiest thing would simply be a decision to maintain wiki best practices and only list casualties and losses in the casualties and losses section. I will likely be blocked by another unsuspecting admin courtesy of topgun again, so any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you for your time.

IP 98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi 98, sorry to hear that you are having trouble with the article again. I've reviewed the most recent disputed edits, and I still think the best thing you could do to resolve this dispute is to take it to mediation - how about leaving a request at the Mediation Cabal? Also, I recommend you register a username - it makes keeping track of things like this much easier when you can put things on a watchlist. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I felt it was inappropriate to propose a deletion to the article regarding Domenicism simply because of the inability to reference. The movement is very new and not publicly debated and not yet web based, but it is a reality. Furthermore, I feel I was very factual in my writing and did not deserve this. I hope you can understand.

Kind regards,

Luxoculi (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Luxoculi. Sorry if I offended you by proposing the page for deletion with a rationale including "probable hoax", and if it is a real movement I apologise. If it makes any difference, I labelled it like this because I could find no results for it on Google Web search, Google News, or Google Books, and it is very unusual for movements such as the one described in the article to not have a presence on the web or in any of the more traditional sources indexed by Google. In any case, for the page to stay on Wikipedia, I'm afraid that the subject needs to pass Wikipedia's notability guideline, which requires that it is covered in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this cannot be proved then I'm afraid the page will likely be deleted. Let me know if you have any questions about the process, and I'll be happy to answer them. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hasty reply. I was aware of the notability guidelines before publishing the article, but I was hoping they could be overlooked due to the understandably difficult subject being treated. I heard of Domenicism in several masonic lodges and since I could not find any sources I thought starting an editable article here could help in bringing out the subject. Thank you nevertheless. Do you think it will be deleted? Kind regards, Luxoculi (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if there are no sources then it is almost certain to be deleted. In addition to the notability guidelines, Wikipedia also has the policies of verifiability and no original research, which means that any material that cannot be backed up by sources will have a hard time here indeed. You may have an easier time submitting it somewhere else - have a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for some suggestions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

What is a bot, and what are they used for? --19maxx (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi 19maxx, and thanks for asking. "Bots" are basically just pieces of software that make automatic edits to Wikipedia. Usually they do stuff that would be really tedious and time-consuming to do by hand. Bots always have "bot" at the end of their username in some form, so they're quite easy to spot. See for example this edit by User:EdwardsBot which posts a copy of The Signpost (amongst other things) on many user talk pages. Have a look at our page on Wikipedia bots for more details. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. A long-time problem on this page has been that Silverstein built much of the page himself [5] (Richards1052), leading the page to take on an excessively promotional tone not backed by reliable sources. I think now that these self-published sources have been effectively removed, a more neutral, encyclopedic page can be created. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry i don't know what you are doing editing horses but uk and gb are completely different ... so get some facts right before you edit please ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Royalrock! Sorry if I upset you - I was just looking at the page as part of routine new pages patrol. I'm aware of the difference between the UK and Great Britain (that's where I'm from, after all), and I changed it to the UK because it is the name of the state, whereas Great Britain is the name of an island. (Though I appreciate that it is a little more complicated than that.) Anyway, there is a more pressing issue at hand - I'm not certain that Camelot is notable, so unless some independent reliable sources can be found that mention him, the article is in danger of being deleted. Have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for more information. Are you aware of any sources that could go in the article? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry.... do you mean a like a mention in a news paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 00:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mean sources like newspapers or books. See our guidelines on identifying reliable sources for the details. To prove that Camelot is notable, it would need to be something more than just a passing mention, so things like race results won't help too much. It also needs to be more than one source, and these sources need to be independent of each other and of Camelot and his backers. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be glad to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

hiya do i send them to you on here or? cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, just add them straight to the article. For help with referencing you can have a look at this simple guide if you want. Thanks for adding those two sources, by the way. They are a good start towards proving notability. To make it really clear that he is notable, it would be best to have a source that talks about Camelot's background in more depth. Are you aware of anything like this? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That the problem he is only a young horse but i will try and find some other sources thanks you your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your help with my Ryan Doyle article questions have been exactly what I was looking for when I started his discussion page a month ago. It's a complete tangent to my dispute with Cindy; e.g. if someone had given this type of attentive response from day 1, it would have prevented a month of hell. I would appreciate it if you would watch the Doyle discussion page and pop in occasionally. I've copied your main passage addressing my source use there, and my response(s) to it. No pressure whatsoever. Thanks for your help so far. Squish7 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Squish7 - I've replied on the talk page and at the DRN thread. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Cheers Stradivarius ill have a look at that.. and sorry that we didn't get off to the best start . i was rude.

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Don't worry about what kind of start we got off to - I've had a lot worse than that, let me tell you. As always, let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again! Would you please inform User:Pieter Kuiper about this? I'd like to avoid direct contact with him, as you know. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

PS the section is called "User:Pieter Kuiper again" the link does not go directly to it because of some compression above somewhere, or whatever it is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just to check something - Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Augmentative_and_alternative_communication_discussion is currently closed - I'm guessing this might be while we get a response at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences - when such a response comes, is the Dispute re-opened (and possibly restored from archive) or would a new one be started? Failedwizard (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Failedwizard. You're right that it's closed pending a consensus on the use of sources. I see that you've posted the context of the dispute to the RSN now, so that should increase the quality of the responses you get. If you manage to get a clear consensus on the sources there, then I would say the best thing to do would be to take it back to the article's talk page, and try and work things out with Poule. If that discussion becomes stalled, then you can take things back to the DRN. Also, if RSN doesn't net you any clear results, then you can bring it back to DRN and we can discuss other steps that you can take to find consensus about the sources. If/when you take things back to DRN, you should probably start a new thread. There's no particular rule about it, but making a new thread is more transparent for people looking at how DRN threads are closed, and it will also stop you from running into problems with automatic archiving. You might want to give the thread a custom title to indicate that it's the second time it's been there, and you can just include a link to the previous DRN thread, rather than writing out the entire dispute overview again. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that sounds clear and fair Failedwizard (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I responded to the AE case, and the thing is that I wrote that talk page reply before I was blocked for 24 hours, and pasted it after it expired. Should I go and cross off the particular point to show my intents of not willing to further discuss that banned topic?--PCPP (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean striking your comment with <s></s>? If so, then I think that would be a good idea, yes. I don't see your response at the AE case, though - the most important thing is to comment there so that the closing admin can see the root of the confusion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now properly responded to the topic. Another thing is, is the DRN suitable to address user interaction issues? I've noticed that several other editors already took similar concerns to that topic's talk page, so I wish to focus on interaction issues first, if possible.--PCPP (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't usually deal with pure conduct disputes. They are usually handled at a few different places - WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, and at the various ArbCom pages, including WP:AE. However, we do deal with disputes that mix content and conduct issues, as often solving the content issues solves the conduct issues too. I think in this case there are a lot of things we can discuss regarding the article's content, and that is what we would focus on. Hopefully, interaction issues would be sorted out in the process. Sorry that's a bit vague, but did it answer your question? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problems with mixed issues. I just hope to avoid anything to do with the banned topic, and the article seemed to only make a passing mention of it.--PCPP (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think your topic ban prevents you from editing the article, only the section in question, and we would take that into account in dispute resolution. The exact solution will probably depend on the clerk/mediator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wish to hold off the case for a bit until my AE case is resolved.--PCPP (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again PCPP - it looks like the AE case has been closed, and that you will be allowed to continue editing the article, if you so choose. I'm willing to open up the thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard again so that we can discuss the options we have, but first I wanted to ask whether or not you intend to continue editing the article. I'm sure that you now realise this well, but during any dispute resolution process you will not be able to edit or discuss, either directly or indirectly, anything in the article relating to the area of your topic ban. In my opinion it would be easiest for you to comply with the topic ban by not editing the article at all. However, if you are still intent on contributing it then that is your decision - just be aware that you will need to be very careful not to stray into the subject area you are banned from. Let me know what your thoughts are on this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very busy at the moment and won't be available for a while, is it possible to postpone it?--PCPP (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. If you are away for an extended period, then it might be best to just come back to the talk page and bring up your concerns there (with the caveats about the topic ban that I mentioned above). The article could change a lot while you are away, and indeed it seems like discussions are going on about what to do with it even now. If you do decide to come back to it, and if discussions break down again, then dispute resolution will still be around. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm writing because I noticed that you very recently put in an AfD for a group of books put out by a spa that only added books by a specific family run publisher (Chanda Books). I noticed that the editor also added the book Sonu ke Afsane, which is also non-notable and was also written by a family member of Chanda Books. I figure that it'd be better for you to add it rather than for me to do a separate AfD for this article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Done, plus I found another, Sonu ke Kisse. I've added them both to the AfD. If you could confirm your position on Sonu ke Kisse over there, that would be great. Thanks for letting me know! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for adding them and for catching that other one! I'd almost recommend salting, except that the publisher has long since dumped their articles and ran.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79