Misplaced Pages

User talk:Mr. Stradivarius: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:29, 23 May 2013 editMr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,192 edits →A cup of coffee for you!: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 21:32, 23 May 2013 edit undoMr. Stradivarius (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators59,192 edits →Sources for Jerusalem: replyNext edit →
Line 353: Line 353:


I'd like to add a few more sources to be included in . How should I go about doing that? Thanks. --] (]) 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC) I'd like to add a few more sources to be included in . How should I go about doing that? Thanks. --] (]) 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
:Hi there. Sorry, but you can't update the source summary now - we have arrived at the current version after much hard-fought debate, and adding new sources would be controversial. However, you are more than welcome to add new sources to the ]. Best — ''''']''''' <sup>]</sup> 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:32, 23 May 2013


Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.
User talk
  • If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
  • If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
  • Please click here to leave me a new message.
This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius.
This is Mr. Stradivarius's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28Auto-archiving period: 14 days 
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27
Archive 28

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Jerusalem RfC notifications

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, would it be possible to include me on the notices you place on people's user talk pages regarding the progress of the RFC? Just so I can keep the Arbitrators apprised of the progress. I'm asking as an editor (to make it easier so I don't need to keep checking) not as a clerk - no is a perfectly reasonable answer. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:21, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I might be sending one out quite soon as well, as only a few editors have participated since I closed the previous discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok thank you. :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Stradivarius,
Reading this and as a contributor who follows closely the evolution of the RfC (I was among the contributors who complainted to the ArbCom that appointed you) I wanted to tell you that I think you and the other contributors do a fair good job on this page. Given the difficulty of this topic and the time since which there are problems on this, the is an exceptionnal result !
Pluto2012 (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your words of encouragement - they mean a lot! I can totally understand the criticisms of the process, but hopefully things will work out in the end. For now, all I can do is to try not to concentrate too much on past mistakes, and to do my best to make the RfC work. Wish me luck. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Good luck then ! Pluto2012 (talk) 17:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, Mr. Strad. Due to certain circumstances, I have been away too long from closely following the discussion. I would like to be involved again, but am a bit confused about where we stand in the overall process. In the next step, will I have the opportunity to comment on the quality and validity of the numbered drafts, or am I too late to do that? Would such comments belong on the main talk page or on the new sub-page? Can those drafts still be tweaked and clarified? Will they ultimately be presented together with background information (giving, e.g., pros, cons, and context)? Hertz1888 (talk) 04:11, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. You do still have the opportunity to comment on the drafts, but you won't after we move to step four. As you can see from the talk page message I sent out, I've set a deadline of the end of today for this (Wednesday 8th May), so there's no time to delay. If it turns out that there needs to be more discussion to find a consensus on the content of the drafts, then I can always extend the deadline, but you have to understand that the process has already come under criticism for being too long and drawn-out, so I won't take such a decision lightly. I recommend that you set your thoughts down on the drafts now, under the relevant section at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion, and see what other participants think about them in the remaining time before the deadline expires. Decisions about whether to present the drafts with background will be made as part of step four, however, so that is not so urgent. Hope this answers your question. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 07:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Once again, alas, illness has interfered, and I will be unable to participate in step four as I had hoped. I want to thank you for your reassurance that my proposed draft in step three can yet be included. I also want to thank you for your patient, fairhanded and skillful management of the entire process. Best wishes, Hertz1888 (talk) 06:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Username after a ...

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius.

How do you do?

I need a second opinion, but before I begin, I'd like to stress that, as before, this is not a request for blocking someone or intervening in any dispute or anything of the kind. (Now, I like you a lot but spending a round of conversation clarifying this in our past discussions has not exactly lead to productivity. In fact, I'd be very grateful if all my subsequent messages are treated like this unless I explicitly state otherwise with significant emphasis.)

So here is the question: Having Misplaced Pages user naming policy in mind, is it okay to choose username that is an alteration of the name of a car? For example, "Lord Focus ST" which is obviously a mod of "Ford Focus ST"? Or, not just cars; for instance, is "Flint Westwood" okay as a username?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi CL. :) Well, at WP:CORPNAME you can see that "sernames that unambiguously consist of a name of a company, group, institution or product" are not allowed on Misplaced Pages. If the name is unambiguously a product name and the user has been making promotional edits, then you should report it at WP:UAA. If they haven't been making problematic edits, or the username violation is less clear-cut, then you should leave a note on their talk page to try and get them to change the name themselves. You can use {{uw-username}} for this purpose, which I recommend because it also puts the page in a category for administrator review, so it will be followed up on after a few days. If the username is not a clear-cut violation of the username policy, but the user is spamming or vandalising, then it's probably more efficient to just warn them about those behaviours instead, and only get onto the username issue if the other things are sorted out first. The username policy is a must-read here, and I also recommend looking over Misplaced Pages:Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions to see how admins review things. Does this answer your question? Best — Mr. Stradivarius 09:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2013

Tony

as in Antonio Stradivarius --Ravpapa (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I got that part. It would still feel weird, though. "Antonio" would be a little less jarring. Or maybe just "maestro"? ;) — Mr. Stradivarius 13:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Closure of Question 8

I'm a bit surprised you've decided to close Question 8. It seems like a couple things there warrant a response, namely my lengthy comment to you and Hertz's suggestion. -- tariqabjotu 20:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that your comment warranted a response, but the discussion also seemed to be getting more antagonistic, and I didn't want a repeat of the previous time where I had to go round and issue warnings, etc. I've worked around this by responding to you in the closing comments. Not ideal, I know, but hopefully it should clear things up a little. Let me know if you have any questions about it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 15:08, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
This is overdue I know, but I just wanted to say that I looked over your RfA and quite frankly you're truly a professional of the Wiki. this barnstar also kinda comes for answering my RPP request, So how does the brilliant idea fit it? The brilliant idea of coming to Misplaced Pages in the first place! XD so yeah. You do good work Mr Stradivarius and i'm proud to see you around. MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - 19:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much! That's really kind of you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 21:51, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

gfdgdf

why did you delete Erik Michael Tristan?

24.190.192.139 (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2013 (UTC))

The page was created by a user who had been blocked from editing under the Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppetry rules and thus the page qualified for G5 of the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. Does that explain the notice left? MIVP (I Can Help? ◕‿◕) - 20:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, thank you
24.190.192.139 (talk) 21:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yep, that's the reason I deleted it. A large part of the reason King Genovese got blocked in the first place was because he created many articles of dubious notability with substandard sources. This one is a good example, as there are two or three claims of criminal activity that aren't backed up by a citation, a pretty strong fail of WP:BLP. It would have probably been deleted anyway even if G5 didn't apply. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Gold standard

I have responded to your post at gold standard talk page.71.174.140.32 (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I've left a reply there. Hopefully we can get some involvement from the other editors there too. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 15:31, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, how are you doing? It's great to see you back again in WP:RPP. Tolly4bolly 10:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well, thanks. I see you got yourself a new username! I like it. :) (And I have to admit, I could never remember how to spell your old one...) I'm not sure how much time I'll be able to spend at RPP, but I'll help out here and there when I have a chance. Hope things are good with you too. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:55, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I changed my username since I hate the older one. I changed to this since I want the username which describes my work here. Thanks for liking my username and also fixing my userpage (I tried that earlier but always bring those categories on the page). I'm doing great, thanks. Tolly4bolly 11:00, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh yes, I meant to mention the category edit. That little trick works for images too - see Help:Colon trick. Glad to hear you're doing well! — Mr. Stradivarius 11:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the greetings, I am pretty busy with an upcoming book at the moment then working on a new kind of spelling APP...so I am not really able to commit myself to your offer. I am prepared to make some contributions at times..a welcome change. So maybe at a later stage.

All the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LanguageCoach (talk • contribs) 11:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for protecting the page for us. Well, it wasn't my intention to make that change in the top page there. I didn't even know I've caused something ugly there. Im sorry.

Thanks --Nkansahrexford (talk) 15:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. These things happen. And you're welcome. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 15:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

University Philosophical Society

Firstly thank you for ending the Editting War with regard this to page. Secondly thank you for placing the page under protection, although it seems that from 21 May 2013 the war may continue.

Unfortunately the page as it currently stands does not give an accurate historical representation. It should read a versions by myself, Adamseline and Murpha57 as it had done since 2006 until it was attacked. I understand however that saying that will sound very bias, however if you read the Dublin Philosophical Society page (although I wrote it, check the references), then talk:University Philosophical Society page you may be able to see things for our prospective.

There is at the moment a Request for Comments on talk:University Philosophical Society page, your comments, and external perspective would no doubt resolve the matter.

Lastly, I would ask that perhaps you keep watch on the Dublin Philosophical Society page, as no doubt it will soon come under attack from 46.7.236.155 also.

Thanks, KountKurly (talk) 22:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not attack the page. I added referenced information to it. How can it possibly "read a versions by myself, Adamseline and Murpha57 as it had done since 2006," given that your account is only a month old? 46.7.236.155 (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Share the Cookies

Here's a plate full of cookies to share!
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, here are some delicious cookies to help brighten your day! However, there are too many cookies here for one person to eat all at once, so please share these cookies with at least two other editors by copying {{subst:Sharethecookies}} to their talk pages. Enjoy! AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Nom nom nom. Thanks! :) — Mr. Stradivarius 07:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rangers edits

Hi Stradivarius the sources being used by Captain are from July 2012 when no-one knew what was going on with the club. Since then official and third party sources maintain it is the same club. The Rangers FC page alone has many appropriate sources to show this hence why consensus was achieved on it being deemed as the same club. I mentioned this to Captain but he maintained he was correct going by his outdated sources. BadSynergy (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

'Random' IP making similar edits

Just after blocking Captain an IP user has just reverted again. I think we can deduce who it is but I'm not too familiar with reporting such behavior. BadSynergy (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not surprised you're unsure where to report it, because we have three venues: for the most obvious disruptive WP:DUCK sockpuppets you can use WP:AIV, if there are multiple IP socks you should use WP:RFPP, and if it's more complicated you should use WP:SPI. Also, be careful not to call edits like CaptainCorrecto's "vandalism", because we have a narrow definition of vandalism at Misplaced Pages, and misusing the term is generally frowned upon. (You can see the definition at Misplaced Pages:Vandalism.) Also, if we're getting into niggling details, a ban is different from a block as well. (The former is a socially imposed restriction, and the latter is a technically imposed one.) But yes, hopefully CaptainCorrecto will be more open to discussion after they return from their block. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 12:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Ach, I tried to mediate here. I happen to agree with this block, but for Bad Synergy to state that I am aiding vandalism is beyond the pale. A contentious issue no doubt, and one where consensus would seem unlikely to reached. I only formatted the sources provided as they looked a bit untidy, in order that they be judged fairly on their own merits. Clearly Correcto isn't the sort of guy who likes to back down (and I'm 90% sure I know who the user is), that doesn't make is sources incorrect, they looked relevant to me. Hillbillyholiday 12:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I apologize Hillbilly I keep forgetting not every single editor is aware of what goes in every article. BadSynergy (talk) 12:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed, the "aiding vandalism" remarks were definitely over the top, but I'm glad we have everything sorted out now. Hillbilly, if you think this is more of a long-term sockpuppet situation, could you file a case at WP:SPI? 90% certain is more than enough to justify opening a new case. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
(I've removed some posts here because of WP:OUTING concerns.) — Mr. Stradivarius 13:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Stradivarius, I was trying to tightrope walk that one, and obviously fell off.. Hillbillyholiday 13:41, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for your input hopefully after ban is up he will be open to discussion BadSynergy (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius 12:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. page protection

I think you were played by TriiipleThreat. He reverted twice and then asked for page protection less than 15 seconds after his/her second revert, presumably to lock in their version for (as you have) for an entire month. This seems like an excessive period of time to lock a single version in place, especially when dissenting views are able to back up their edits with sources. I have no dog in this fight, but think that Triiiple acted quite cynically and without a lot of good faith here. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:54, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

It would have been better to start a requested move discussion straight away, yes. But two reverts over two days doesn't really reach the level of disruptive editing. As for the length of the protection, this can be reduced if a consensus is found, or extended if one is not found. The best thing to do is to just start the move discussion and then take things from there. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 15:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I understand that retroactively fixing things like this is like trying to stuff toothpaste back in the tube. I think the article would have been better served if the requester's edits on the page they were requesting protection for had been given a closer look. Theirs is the edit in place for a month, not the two different people he reverted. I'm just saying that the PP made it less likely that actual discussion will take place. Users will see the interplay followed by a month protection (read: preference) of one user's edit and think, 'why bother?' - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's always going to be The Wrong Version for somebody... Given the choice of letting a move war continue and making someone annoyed, I'll choose making someone annoyed. Having the wrong title for a week while the name gets discussed doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, and if you're aware of anyone who's reluctant to start a requested move discussion because of the protection, let me know and I'll leave them a note to let them know how the process works. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Of course it's going to be the Wrong Version for someone in a RfPP, Stradivarius; no one is arguing that. What I am saying is that if one of the active warriors makes the request, its usually smarter (and a lot more conducive to discussion) move to protect the version that isn't the requestors. This prevents more experienced users from gaming the system. Most new users and inexperienced users are easily put off by seeing someone revert a specific change in and then ask that the page be locked into that version for a month. In Wiki turnover, a month is practically a lifetime; we often remove tagged uncited information after only a week or two. Knowing that they are arguing uphill for over a month against someone who gets to have what they wanted for at least a month is depressing, since the person whose version is in place doesn't even have to comment, except to say the other guy is wrong. PP when there is clear dissent creates the false impression that the article is stable; so false, in fact, that when protection ends without resolution in talk, that any undoing of the formerly protected version is seen as 'disruptive' or 'edit-warring'.
More thought needs to go into these protection decisions. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:46, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

I find it unfortunate that Jack Sebastian believes I played you and believes that you did not put enough thought behind your descision. Maybe the whole thing could have been handled better but I think all parties here acted in good faith, even those with opposing views. I simply asked for protection to prevent a third unrequested move.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I am wrong, guys. If the version the requestor wished to be protected wasn't the one they wanted, then perhaps I wouldn't be thinking that. It is exactly these sorts of situations which make the Assumption of Good Faith a great deal harder to assume. What adds to that is that Triiiple doesn't have to defend his two reverts (and has not as of yet defended his position) on the matter - a situation frequently seen when RfPP is invoked to protect one user's preferred version of the article. It's unfortunate that Triiiple hit the jackpot with a month's worth of protection. That would be enough to have most users give up and move on, as to them, with one version locked into place, there seems little room for dissent. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
JS, please just drop this. Unless TriiipleThreat has made a habit of doing this kind of thing, there's nothing actionable here, and your suggestion that I revert again before protecting is a non-starter. I want to stop the move war, not join in with it. And your suggestion that "there seems little room for dissent" is very wide of the mark. There is absolutely room for dissent - by starting a requested move discussion. Instead of continuing this thread, it would be much more productive for you to go and start a one a move discussion over at the article talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:37, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2013

Beginner

1. How to get username ? if you specify procedure , i can exactly go through it .

2. looking into article that you have suggested .. and i'll definitely follow it Thanks.

Parag Sudame — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prg.sdme (talk • contribs) 14:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. If you want to change your username, you can find instructions at Misplaced Pages:Changing username. I don't remember suggesting an article to you, but I'm glad that whatever I did was helpful. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius 21:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For protecting 00 Agent per my request. - Fantr (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 23:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Pepsi

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pepsi. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Module:UnitTests

Hi!

I don't understand it. tick is declared as a local variable, but has no value. cross is also a local variable, without a value. You say, they ara frame variables. How so? --Pepo41 (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Searching for function UnitTester:run(frame_arg) at Module:UnitTests shows that frame, tick, and cross are all given appropriate values. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. You are right--Pepo41 (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, your edit introduced the code: 
local frame, tick = '{{done}}'
This assigns '{{done}}' to the frame variable, and a nil value to the tick variable. Have a look at this tutorial to see why. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 02:14, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Adminship

Hi, I'll nominally state that I am interested in running, but would you mind giving me a few days to think it over and do some reading up on the nomination process? And thanks of course for considering me! Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, not a problem. :) The best way to get a feel for the process, in my opinion, is to have a look at the past several successful and unsuccessful RfAs. It's also a good idea to do RfA at a time when you are not overly busy, because you'll need to respond to any questions that might come up. I'd say allow for one hour of wiki-time every day, just to be on the safe side. Ping me when you're ready and I'll set everything up for you. — Mr. Stradivarius 02:26, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for waiting, I'd be happy for you to start the nomination now. One concern I have is regarding the issue that prevailed during my previous nomination, which was that I falsely claimed copyright on a number of images. It's certainly not an issue that I want to avoid, as it's something I've long learned from and have since become highly active over at Wikimedia Commons, where I've uploaded a sizeable number of properly licenced images. None of the three opening questions are particularly appropriate, so would it be best to wait for it to be asked about in one of the follow-up questions? Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Moldova

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Moldova. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the feedback. Appreciate the constructive tone Gbawden (talk) 11:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

No worries. I'm glad it came across that way - those messages can seem pretty terse, because they also have to fit inside the edit summary. If you want to see some more examples of what does and does not constitute G11, I heartily recommend looking through the list of G11s that were overturned at DRV. I certainly found it useful, anyway. Also recommended are the essays listed at Template:Speedy deletion navbox. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Not engaged in an edit war

Hi :-) To cut a long story short, I started a discussion which established a consensus. The other side didn't respect the consensus, and when I started a despite resolution discussion they didn't show up. I am not the one engaged in an edit war and if you look at the talk page you'll see I'm actually the one who started 2 discussions trying to resolve the issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.60.197 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. A consensus that "the other side didn't respect" doesn't sound all that much like a consensus to me. But anyway, does it really matter that much who is in the infobox for the remaining two weeks of the discussion? I think it would be much better to just let the discussion take its course and then update the infobox after it has been closed. Would you be willing to try this? Best — Mr. Stradivarius 15:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. Fair point, but "the other side" is 2 people while the side that reached consensus is a heavy group. That's the point, the discussion finished. I left the info box untouched until the discussion finished, and was shocked to see the other guy continue it (I tried despute resolution and few people came to support me, but the other side, the 2 people, didn't turn up):
I started another discussion: Even though the previous consensus resolved it, the other side pretends it didn't so I started that one. After that discussion I can assure you no one will revert anyone because it will be too obvious. 90.196.60.197 (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at NickCT's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gospel of success

I do not want to edit war, only prevent removal of material germane to the article's deletion discussion. Don't you think special measures are needed to preserve such material? If so, isn't some sort of protection warranted? Attleboro (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Stefan Kovács

Hi! This my opinion. It was strange and very sad. I gave a reliable source and the result you protected the previous version. It is not good direction. - Csurla (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've replied over there. — Mr. Stradivarius 21:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you think...

I know that I am not quite ready for adminship, but what should I do to become one. I mean, I read all the guides and such, but what does a request of adminship come down to? I hope you can help my confused mind, Chihin.chong (tea and biscuits) 21:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. To get the best idea you should take a look at a few of the previous successful and unsuccessful RfAs that we've had, and also you can have a look at the guide to RfA. Let me know if you have any questions after that. :) Best — Mr. Stradivarius 21:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Also, the minimum number of edits a successful candidate had in the last year was about 5000, and you now only have 418, so you are right that you will need to get a bit more experience before running... — Mr. Stradivarius 21:33, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Requesting someone to close a discussion

Hello.

I was wondering if by any chance there is a way of requesting a neutral party to close a discussion in this vast Misplaced Pages? I'd like to ask someone neutral to close this. I prefer a neutral person with power to rename articles, like an admin or a pagemover (if such a right exists).

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Now that's an easy one. All you need to do is start a new section at WP:ANRFC. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour 07:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a bunch! Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Székely language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Székely language. 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 Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2013

RFC

Do you contest the importance to the RFC of, or the truthness of, the statement that "No news agency, or at least none that could be found after an extensive search, with a guideline for neutral reporting allows Jerusalem to be reported as the capital of Israel."?

Do you understand why it is improper on[REDACTED] to refer to a single source as "many sources"?

Do you understand why mentioning only how pro-Israeli sources treat the capital of Israel outside of prose and not mentioning how neutral sources treat the C of I outside of prose is unbalanced and would introduce bias?

And also, why did you let all those personal attacks by Tariq go without notice for the last three months? Sepsis II (talk) 10:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about whether I contest the statement or not, but whether there is a consensus for its inclusion. There was no consensus for it in step three, and none has developed for it since, hence it can't be included. As for the statement only being backed up by one citation, I know that this isn't ideal, but it's what we've got. I seem to remember other participants saying that there were other sources that we could use to back the statement up, but we never got around to actually including them. If you are concerned about this statement introducing bias into the RfC, I suggest that you post about it on the RfC page, in the discussion section. You are more than welcome to do that, but it can't go in the source summary itself unless it has a consensus. And I'm not going to comment about Tariqabjotu's alleged personal attacks now - I think that debate would best be left for another day. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 12:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC close criteria

Hi Mr Stradivarius,

Once again, congratulations to your management of these discussions that are not easy.

That may have been discussed but if so I missed it and I apologize. I wonder on what bases the final draft will be chosen ?

Kind Regards, Pluto2012 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

About time :P (I thought you'd died or something). We miss you at DRN buddy. Steven Zhang 11:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Haha, well I did drop off the radar for a little while, 'tis true. But there's life in the old dog yet. :) I think I'll be taking a short break from dispute resolution after all of this is over, but DRN remains in my thoughts - I may well revisit it sooner or later. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
@Pluto - the closers will close the discussion based on the arguments presented and their relevance to policy. The participants at the moderated discussion opted for quite an open format, so it is likely that a lot will be left to the closers' discretion. On the other hand, it could be an easy close if a clear consensus develops - only time will tell on that one. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 12:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thanks for this. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! And I was just starting to feel peckish, as well. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius 12:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC advertisements

The RfC has not yet been advertised at the places mentioned here. -- Ypnypn (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sheesh, give a moderator a break, will you? I'm on it. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 13:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thanks for tolerating my nonstop pestering and for moderating such a difficult discussion. I just wonder when you have time to sleep. :-) Ypnypn (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Hehe, no problems. :) (And the answer is, I should probably get some more sleep...) — Mr. Stradivarius 21:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Jerusalem

I'd like to add a few more sources to be included in . How should I go about doing that? Thanks. --GHcool (talk) 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry, but you can't update the source summary now - we have arrived at the current version after much hard-fought debate, and adding new sources would be controversial. However, you are more than welcome to add new sources to the general discussion section. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 21:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
User talk:Mr. Stradivarius: Difference between revisions Add topic