User talk:Amatulic/Archives/2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Your reply to me on the Indin Instute of Planning and Management talk page

Amatulic, your last reply on the talk page ended with the statement to me, "Now I must ask, what is your association with IIPM?". In the past, I have noticed you to be a great contributor on many topics. You're one of the editors I notice has an editing history which is nothing short of brilliant. I have a polite request to you, and one you I hope you would not mind, given your positive past. Please don't use such statements. It is just a request. Thanks▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 03:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You evaded the question. My request regarding your affiliation with IIPM was legitimate. Conflicts of interest should always be disclosed. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, I have raised a COIN request here Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I made some minor edits to it yesterday. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Dear Amatulic, as I have mentioned on the talk page of the article in question, let me assure you there are no CoIs here from my side. What we have is a clear content dispute which we should resolve in the same way as editors should resolve content disputes. My request to you is, can you please take out your statement "What is your association with IIPM?" from all the places you have mentioned it? The statement goes beyond a CoI question and has been made on a talk page of an article. It is quite disparaging for a fellow editor. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 09:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
No, I will not remove the question, because it's a fair question. This has gone beyond a "clear content dispute". Your wikilawyering and content edits are highly indicative of a conflict of interest, to multiple editors, not just me. You are also editing from New Dehli, which suggests an association. There is no disparagement intended; it's simply an observation of fact. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with a conflict of interest as long as you disclose it — so disclose it and we can move on with a clear understanding of where we all stand. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Wifione, having a conflict of interest is not necessarily a bad thing. As the COI guidelines suggest, if someone has a COI, they should disclose it. If you feel someone else has a COI, you should discuss with them directly or report it to the COIN. Amatulicc simply asked you. You did not respond. Now you have denied COI. Fair enough, I take you at your word. But I don't see the need for him to remove the statement. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks for the reply. I would say your "New Delhi editing" comment is quite misplaced, both in context and objectivity wrt the discussion. It belies your experience. Irrespective, I encourage you to move beyond the current issue. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 07:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "experience" you believe that belies, but if you're really worried about being outed, then you need to be absolutely certain that you don't edit when not logged in. As you recall, your IP address appeared here not long ago (I won't link to it to not emphasize it here). When you show your IP address, you are sharing your location, even if it's inadvertently. I hate to say it Wifione, but you probably outed your own location. When you reveal it yourself, it isn't outing by another editor. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh. Missed this conversation. I have no idea what you're talking about. Still, maintain my comment. I'm not watching this page and consider this discussion over for me. If there are any further messages wrt to this thread, leave a message on my talk.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 06:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

New proposal

Hi Amatulic. I've suggested a new policy change here. If you find time, do drop in and give your views. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ ♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣ 04:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No time this week but I'll review it next week. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please weigh in

Hi Amatulic, please drop a line at Talk:List of common misconceptions – the drama seems to continue on and on... I would start going WP:BRI on hippo43, but I am no admin. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

On vacation now, will look into it next week. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)



How short does it have to be before it isn't in violation?

unnecessary detail

Isn't that an opinion?

undue weight

How so?

removal of valid citation

I removed a later attempt by Mr. Stein to spin what had happend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashbullder (talkcontribs) 05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio: yes, questionable.
Unnecessary detail: Consensus opinion.
Undue weight: same as unnecessary detail, see WP:UNDUE. Other sections don't need detailed scripts from the film.
Removal of valid citation: you have not justified its removal.
Furthermore, you are edit warring and will be blocked if you revert a fourth time. Discuss your changes on the talk page instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
So how short does it have to be?
You're the first person to mention it
Don't need or don't have?
I'm willing to incorporate the rebuttal in some form but offering readers nothing but the rebuttal is weird at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashbullder (talkcontribs) 21:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not the first, see other reverts of your edits. Describe the argument and the rebuttal, but there's no need to quote it in detail.
Further discussion should be on the article's talk page, not here. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Good catch on

I found a number of links to this yesterday trying to sell their DVDs, I missed that one, thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

You can search for links on Wikipedia using Special:Linksearch. The search form doesn't work for me in IE but it works in other browsers. You can also search directly from the URL of the special page; for example* will show you all pages that link to ~Amatulić (talk) 16:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparative bullet-lead analysis

Hi, my apologies for bumbling through a revision to "Comparative bullet-lead analysis." I realized it wasn't a talk page and was unreasonably hoping an editor would put my contribution into proper format. I've done it now, linking to a Yahoo report from this year and an old CNN transcript. The article is still not well organized, but at least now is shows that comparative bullet-lead analysis is no longer being used. Also see This case was on the CNN show I saw a tape of yesterday, which is why I headed to Wiki. Best wishes, Yopienso (talk) 00:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, no problem. If I had looked at your editing history (I didn't) I would have realized it was an honest mistake. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 :) (That's supposed to be a smiley.) Yopienso (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

White Owl Winery

Your solution to the problems I noted in my prod of White Owl Winery was rather elegant. Problem solved. It didn't occur to me to merge it with a geography article. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

It sometimes works with local companies, especially pubs and breweries and restaurants, etc, to merge them with their location. A merge is not always possible or appropriate (especially with people), however it is something worth considering; though is unfortunately not a well used option. With the proposal to bring merges under AfD, that might change. Keep well. SilkTork *YES! 09:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Braile label

Hey Amatulic, I need to de-escalate from the ludicrousness over on wine label. Rather than spend time doing research and other constructive things that actually build an encyclopedia, I'm getting frustrated dealing with the asinine wiki-politics and bureaucracy. You seem to have more patience in this matter so I'm going to step aside. AgneCheese/Wine 20:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

It's simpler just to fix the problem than to waste time and energy arguing about it. I fixed the rationales in the image you uploaded. I made a mistake earlier in attempting to combine rationales for two articles into one template. I separated them just now. Look at how I did it, so the next time you upload something with a "fair use" tag, you'll know what to do. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Wine label and File:Braile_label.jpg

The fair use rationale made for this usage of the File:Braile label.jpg label, is invalid. We do not need a fair use image to illustrate this abstract article about wine labels. There's a whole slew of wine labels at Commons to choose from; Commons:Category:Wine_labels. Choose one of those and stop reinstating this image. Reinstating it violates policy in a number of ways. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The rationale is perfectly valid. Whether you agree or not, a picture taken of a wine label, especially a partial label that is partially out of focus, is arguably fair game for fair use in any article about wine labels. Please stop being disruptive. Thank you. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't think you understand the nature of this project. We are a free encyclopedia. We use free media wherever possible to convey meaning. We do not use non-free media within the bounds of United States fair use law. We use non-free media within the bounds of our Non-free content criteria, which is in many ways a superset of fair use law. The very first numbered element of that policy states unequivocally "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". We have access to a large number of free licensed images of wine labels at Commons:Category:Wine_labels, as I mentioned before. The image you are wanting to use is completely replaceable with free content. Whether this label is a partial label or not, whether it is in focus or not, whether it is arguably fair use or not is not of concern in this discussion. The image is tagged as being copyrighted. Therefore, it must meet terms of our policy on the use of such images. This image does not meet that criteria for the article Wine label. For Chapoutier, it does. I hope I've helped clarify the issue with you. If not, you're welcome to complain to WP:AN/I that I am being disruptive. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I understand the nature of this project quite well, thank you. I don't think you understand the collaborative nature of this project. To be specific:
      • Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is disruptive.
      • Attempting to remove images completely from the project, rather than fixing trivial problems, is disruptive. If an image has an obvious purpose in a specific article (e.g. a Chapoutier label is appropriate in the Chapoutier article), and the uploader tagged it properly but forgot to include the rationale, then fix it. It takes just as much time to do that as to slap a deletion tag on the image like you did.
      • Your suggestion to escalate to WP:ANI indicates that you don't quite understand the purpose of that page. It's already overloaded, and it is inappropriate and disruptive to run over there every time two established and reasonable editors have a minor dispute.
    • You make an excellent suggestion regarding using Commons:Category:Wine_labels; unfortunately, nearly all of them are also being proposed for deletion from Commons.
    • The rationale is valid. As you quoted: "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." This particular label is unique in that it is printed in Braille. There is no other free image, on Wikipedia or Commons, that serves as an equivalent example. As such, it is an excellent example to illustrate the diversity of labels on the wine label article. That article is still a work in progress. It needs more than just one illustrative image. That its editors chose this image as the first one to show in the article is really beside the point. The real point is that a valid, strong fair use rationale exists for using the image in that article. If there is something wrong with the way the rationale is given on the image page, then please suggest a fix. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Your arguments that I am being disruptive are falling on deaf ears. I fully intend to continue doing what I have been doing, such as cases like this. If you feel that this disruptive behavior should stop, I invite you (again) to place a report at WP:AN/I. If you need assistance in doing so, please let me know. I'll be happy to help you file such a report. Continuing to call me disruptive while refusing to do anything about it is counterproductive and adds heat, not light.
  • Not all of the images at Commons:Category:Wine_labels are up for deletion. Please select one that isn't.
  • You say this label is unique, in that it is printed in braille. This is false. There's lots of other wine labels printed in braille. Just because there doesn't happen to be one on Commons at this time doesn't mean one couldn't be produced or found. You have think broader than Commons, and into the possibility of whether something could be created. Take for example living people; we don't accept non-free imagery of living people precisely because free imagery could be created, even if it doesn't exist right now, or exist on Commons.
  • What the editor chose for the image to use in the article is absolutely central to this issue, not beside the point. Not once does the article mention the label outside of the caption on the image. It's utterly superfluous to the article; a reader's understanding of what a wine label is is not compromised by the lack of the image; this is a clear failure of WP:NFCC #8.
  • You say the rationale is "strong". It's purpose of use is "Required to provide an example of a braille wine label for the wine label article." I might begin to agree with you if this were the braille wine label article (and even there I'd disagree; see below), but this isn't that article. As I noted, the article prose is not connected to the image in any way (nor should the text be retrofitted to make it connected).
  • Free equivalents DO in fact exist. Putting in "braille wine labels" (sans quotes) into Google image search returns 45,000 hits. On the first page alone, there's an uncopyrightable braille label at this location. All that image is comprised of is lettering on a yellow background. It's not a design, and it's clearly uncopyrightable. So this image you want to use is a clear failure of WP:NFCC #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Sigh. You refer to "this disruptive behavior", acknowledging it, say my arguments "are falling on deaf ears", and then state that you will proceed to make a WP:POINT by continuing this behavior. I think we're done here.
    • If you want to report yourself to ANI, go ahead. It strikes me a silly thing to do.
    • I think I have addressed your other concerns with the recent edits to the article. It's about wine labels, so it's appropriate to have a section on accessibility, with an appropriate illustration.
    • You make a valid point about finding a free example of a braille label. I will point out that this particular label is notable (if you read the wine label and Chapoutier articles, along with the cited sources, you'll see why), and therefore appropriate for inclusion in both articles -- and I know of no free replacement for an image of a notable braille label, so NFCC#1 does not apply. In fact, the label section from Chapoutier could easily be merged into wine label. The image you suggest, unfortunately, isn't clearly a wine label. However, I will not object if you take the initiative to replace the existing image with that one. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Continuing to throw various guidelines and policies at me that I am supposedly violating, when you have absolutely no intention of doing anything about it, is counter productive. Yes, we are done here. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

For your Third Opinion work

The Third Opinion Award The Third Opinion Award
For diligent and faithful service to the Wikipedia community through your work at WP:3O. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism in an article

Actually we would not separate out criticism into a separate article, see WP:Content forking. Dougweller (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm familiar with WP:FORK, thanks. You are incorrect in your interpretation, however. If criticism of a subject is notable enough by itself to warrant a separate article, then it's appropriate to create such an article, with a summary and "main article" link pointing to that article. Examples are criticism of Islam, criticism of Wikipedia, criticism of American foreign policy, criticism of the Federal Reserve, and many others. ~Amatulić (talk) 08:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Question on Albert Theodore Powers article

Hi Amatulic. I would very much like to remove the resume tage from the Albert Theodore Powers article I have been working on. If you can provide some guidance or suggestions as to what else I need to change before I can remove this tag (or perhaps the article as it has been revised with your suggestions now reads more like a biography than a resume--and therefore I can remove the tag). I would very much like to put this article behind me (my first one) and move on to another article--but very much would like the resume tag removed before doing so. I welcome your suggestions and response, and hopefully your OK to remove the resume tag. Thanks-- BuildingBlock —Preceding undated comment added 03:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC).

I made some edits and removed the tag. Basically there were too many peacock terms in the article (such as "vast") that didn't add any useful information. That's what made it read like a resume.
That said, the article still has problems, particularly in the lead section. See WP:LEAD. The lead should summarize the body of the article. It currently doesn't; rather, it contains information that doesn't exist in the body, and it omits information that exists in the body.
The lead still looks like the first paragraph of a resume, where you summarize your professional experience and qualifications. The lead contains nothing about Powers' personal life or his book and publications. And the body contains nothing about the winery. What needs to be done is to expand the body with information in the lead, and expand the lead with information from the body. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and the good suggestions. Basically, if I understand correctly, the lead section should be similar to the lead of a newspaper article. Over the next few days, time permitting, I will update the article accordingly. I believe the resume tag is still there and if you don't mind I will remove it. Thanks again for the guidance and advice. BuildingBlock 01:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

No, the resume tag isn't there anymore; I removed it yesterday. I trust that you will fix the lead to justify my removal of that tag. Please read WP:LEAD for guidance. It isn't exactly like a newspaper article lead, but it's similar. The lead should provide an overview of the entire article, summarizing the key points. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please do not delete talk page contributions

Hi, You deleted my talk page contribution on the article Easter on March 31 2010. I object to this. You cited WP:SOAPBOX. This does not apply, as my post had to do with the ARTICLE CONTENT, specifically a pro-Christian POV, not a random rant about Easter itself. Others have expressed this criticism too. Perhaps you considered my comments uncivil, but this is not grounds to delete talk page posts. According to WP:TPO, removing harmful posts "generally does not extend to messages that are merely incivil; deletions of simple invective are controversial." My comments were also not a personal attack, because they were not directed at any specific editor. According to WP:CIVIL, "It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment." Please do not use "refactor" as an excuse to censor talk page contributions you disagree with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:34, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to this comment (which is the only one I reverted recently), it was clearly non-constructive. Rather, it was inflammatory, and evidently intended to be so by engaging in name-calling in the section title. Personal attacks aren't restricted to attacking only individuals. Your comment also had nothing to do with article content, but everything to do with lecturing others about your perception of their behavior. Therefore I believe my judgment to delete it on the grounds of WP:SOAPBOX and WP:REFACTOR was correct. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Please read WP guidelines before you censor people's talk posts. There are no grounds to delete "inflammatory" posts based on your personal feelings. Reminding editors of WP:NPOV has everything to do with content. Please do not delete my talk posts again, or I will pursue dispute resolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
My personal feelings never entered into it. I had none. As I said before, you willfully posted something inflammatory and non-constructive that failed to assume good faith on the part of others. I am well aware of the guidelines, and I believe I acted correctly. I can see your point, however. Perhaps I should have merely edited your heading rather than revert the whole thing. Anyway, don't take it personally. It happens. If you don't do it again, then you won't have to worry about anyone reverting you. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Chart Size is Essential

Bollinger Bands, as most commonly used, are a visual tool, so a large, clear chart presentation is not only appropriate, it is essential. Reducing the image to a thumbnail completely defeats the point. Please leave the presentation as it has stood for years without complaint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TradingBands (talkcontribs) 14:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The chart as it stands is a terrible illustration, with extraneous plots that have little or nothing to do with the article. A thumbnail can serve quite well if the chart is clearer. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure that I understand. The chart depicts the Bollinger Bands and the two most important indicators derived from them, %b and BandWidth. It couldn't be more germane if it tried. See Section 1 of the article for definitions of the indicators. TradingBands (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:List of common misconceptions#Music examples

Hi, please weigh in – the farce is back and now hippo brought some friends with him. I really appreciate your input. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 01:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC) Why is this not notable?

Hello, I am a relatively new user and do not understand notability 100%, so I spent some time in the help area. It seemed to say that if your company has been mentioned in verifiable news sources, they are notable. I went into the wikipedia irc chat to ask what that meant, and the people there said it seemed notable to them and they thought it would be fine if I removed the tag. The company is 15 years old, has been discussed extensively in many publications, including when the owner of the company was interviewed specifically about it and they went through showing people how to use our database on CNN,, and US News and World Report and many other places listed in the article references. Your addition of the tag {{notable}} did not say anything about why our many references do not meet your standards. Could you please explain why you think it is not notable, or what kind of reference would be needed to make it notable?

Immaletufinish (talk) 12:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I have answered this on ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you undid my addition of rankings of online degrees on the College Degree Ratings and Rankings page. What about I am not trying to spam here--the entire area of online schools and degrees is vastly under-represented here on wikipedia and luckily I get to try and improve it as (a very small) part of my job. Sometimes that involves posting links to the company's own resources and articles, as they are the references and resources I am personally very familiar with. I would rather if you posted a reason for deleting things other than just saying COI every time, as it makes it difficult to help out and participate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Immaletufinish (talkcontribs) 16:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I assumed good faith until I looked at your editing history, which makes it clear that your purpose on Wikipedia is to promote your web site -- particularly when you start adding links to it in articles without first discussing on talk pages. I have left many links to alone in various articles, just removing what I felt were the more egregious ones. Personally, I think your site is borderline as a reliable source. It should go under review on Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard before using it in citations. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
I've sent the site to AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ I hope you don't mind that I copied your source analysis there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Not at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Prior experience

You posted on ANI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RIPGC (talkcontribs) 06:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You mentioned an arbcom ruling. Do you have any additional details? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2010 (UTC) No but one could look through the cases. Let's just be civil to each other is the bottom line. RIPGC (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Assuming good faith

I felt like we needed to have a small side discussion about the nature of assuming good faith. I recommend that you take a look at WP:AGF and see what it actually says. The nutshell actually sums it up pretty well: Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it. Note that it very specifically does not state "believe what people say." I don't see any particular reason to believe that Inniverse doesn't think his edits are helpful. If everything I believe to be true is true, that still gives me no reason to believe that Azviz doesn't think his edits are helpful. Most sockpuppeteers do: the reason they sockpuppet and evade blocks is because they believe that what they want to do is more important than what few rules Wikipedia has, and that they can set themselves above them.

I do work with some sockpuppeteers to try to redeem them. User:Petergriffin9901 finally admitted socking, requested an unblock, and I worked with him for six months to help him become a constructive editor. It worked out: I sometimes have to be a little stern with him still, but he's productive. User:Jivesh boodhun is the same way: lied through his teeth during unblock requests, blaming little brothers for performing edits, with socks yelling at me for calling him "Indian names". Now, Jivesh is a reasonably productive editor, having received barnstars from people editing the same articles. In both cases, it was obvious to me that both editors wanted to improve the encyclopedia and were lying to me at the same time.

I've tried mentoring a few others, and those efforts have ranged from futile, like User:Wiki-11233) and User:Andy593, to spectacular flameouts. I went to bat pretty hard for User:Anywhere But Home, better known as Brexx. Brexx is so abusive that he's a constant part of my days (WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Brexx/Archive).

We may disagree as to whether the evidence in Inniverse's case is sufficient, but please understand that that is, itself, a disagreement made in good faith. To me it's quite obvious that Inniverse is Azviz. That doesn't mean that I'm not assuming good faith with respect to Inniverse, it means that after weighing the evidence and the circumstances, I think he's lying. Anyone that deals with socking and vandalism will have to come to the conclusion that people are lying now and then. It doesn't help to start saying that everytime one of us comes to that conclusion that WP:AGF is being violated.—Kww(talk) 19:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've moved on from this, but since you took the time to post a thoughtful message to me, you deserve a reply.
Your blocking of Inniverse was made in good faith. No problem there. Where you failed to assume good faith was in your subsequent interaction with Inniverse. You asked questions that presumed guilt, similar to "have you stopped beating your wife?" that no innocent editor could have given an acceptable answer. You seemed to be in "witch hunt" mode, which I found unacceptable; your mind was evidently made up, and your discussion made zero allowance for any kind of defense in the event that you had erred.
You may believe deep down that Inniverse and Azviz are the same person. Your belief doesn't change the possibility that you made a mistake. Another editor presented evidence to the contrary, that Azviz and Inniverse aren't the same. I personally have no opinion, but it's crystal clear to me that there exists doubt about his guilt. When such a doubt exists (and it doesn't have to exist within you, it just has to be evident), you fail to assume good faith when you ask questions that presume guilt.
Yes, assuming good faith doesn't mean you should believe everything he says. That's a far different thing than communicating in such a way as to allow for the possibility of innocence. He may have hanged himself all on his own had you given him enough WP:ROPE. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation case regarding Old Church Slavonic grammar

Hello Amatulic and sorry for intruding; however, a request for mediation has been filed here. If all parties agree, Philknight and I would be glad to try and help you out! Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 10:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Fine with me, I have no stake in this dispute. I simply responded to a Wikipedia:Third opinion request. A third opinion basically casts a deciding vote between two parties, of which one will win and one will lose. In this case the loser wasn't happy with my opinion. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
I know, I read the thread on User:Ivan Štambuk's talk page, but I did not want to leave out anybody who had expressed their opinion on the matter. I'm hoping that, with outside help, the two parties can hammer out an agreement by talking. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:43, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists (television)


What should our policy be on articles that contain lists related to television? You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Stand-alone lists (television). Taric25 (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC) (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

User contribution search

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

A few weeks ago I recall seeing a display of contributions for a user, just like any other display of user contributions. The difference is, this display showed all contributions for article having titles beginning with a keyword (say "foo") and the search form above the list included an input field for this keyword.

I remember saying to myself, "this is far more useful than the normal contribution search." I wanted to put a link to it on my list of useful links at the top of my talk page. But I don't remember how to find it. Anybody know? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about changing what namespaces it shows? Otherwise I have no idea. Gonna leave {{helpme}} up to see if someone else knows how. Mr. R00t Talk 18:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I assume you don't mean something like this? Scartol • Tok 18:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Try asking at the help desk. mono 19:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
No, that's not what I meant. The output looked just like the "user contributions" page for a user, only with the ability to search for the name of the article (or at least the first word in the title). It was the first time I saw a way to examine all of one editor's past contributions to specific articles. I guess I'll ask the help desk. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


Since when are those "" sarcastic and/or scare quote? According to you what should I use or write as to make the sentence less POV?--Chrono1084 (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I call it like I see it. Putting the word in quotation marks introduced a sarcastic tone to the text. I agree that the sentence needs rephrasing so that Wikipedia doesn't give the appearance of taking a position on a matter of faith, but putting a word in quotation marks isn't the way to do it, especially since that word "miracle" is used multiple times in the same paragraph without quotation marks. One way around it is to attribute a quote to a source. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll try rewording it according to your suggestion even though the quotation marks seemed more subtle.--Chrono1084 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I just tried re-wording it myself. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the initiative, it's perfect the way you did it.--Chrono1084 (talk) 21:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Declaration of Breda

Thanks for your suggestions on Talk:Declaration of Breda. In response to you suggestions, I have made some significant changes to the article]. Please have a look at the changes to the article I have made, I would appreciate you comments on these changes on the talk page of the article. -- PBS (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave example of Islam in talk page, but perhaps you did not see it

After seeing that Islam can be described in a neutral view, without saying that "Islam is the religion founded by Mohammad", I wanted to see a better wording for definition of "Mohammed". Islam is defined as: "Islam (Arabic: الإسلام‎ al-’islām, pronounced [ʔislæːm] ( listen)[note 1]) is the monotheistic religion articulated by the Qur’an, a text considered by its adherents to be the verbatim word of the one, incomparable God (Arabic: الله‎, Allāh), and by the Prophet of Islam, Muhammad's teachings and normative example (in Arabic called the Sunnah, demonstrated in collections of Hadith). Islam literally means "submission (to God)."[1] Muslim, the word for an adherent of Islam, is the active participle of the same verb of which Islām is the infinitive (see Islam (term))."Kavas (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with calling Muhammad the "prophet of Islam" rather than the "founder of Islam". ~Amatulić (talk) 16:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Enrobing article

Thanks, nice article. I see from your profile that you are not in the candy biz but do you have an interest in it?--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not in the candy business but I know a chocolatier who specializes in toffee (plug for him: He said he needs an enrobing machine to coat the toffee completely with chocolate, but he can't afford it. That got my curiosity up, and when I failed to find a Wikipedia article, I looked up a few sources on Google Books and created one. When I created a redirect, I saw your talk page was already linked to it; that's how I found you. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I knew nothing about enrobing until this year -- yes, enrobing machines are expensive. I have a patent-pending idea for a candy one instantiation of which would probably be enrobed chocolate. I will check out your friend's site.--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I have spoken to him before.--Jrm2007 (talk) 22:38, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Small world! ~Amatulić (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Al Baqarah

Please give me a chance to improve the section.. I will make sure it abides by the manual of style. NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 07:14, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have removed certain parts of the section in dispute, please let me have your feedback/concerns in the article talk page. Thanks NëŧΜǒńğerTalk to me 07:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have replied at Talk:Al-Baqara#Allegedly proselytizing section? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much, for the reassessment to C-class of this article [1]. Much appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Good job, all it needs is a picture or two and it can be B class. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - care to reassess? :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
When I said that, I was referring to WikiProject Food and Drink's assessment criteria. I don't necessarily agree with it; what's B class on WPFOOD may not be B on others like WPWINE, but WPWINE doesn't seem to have criteria established.
A map and logo? I was hoping to see a picture of the actual facility. Personally I'd say it's still a C, given that one of my own articles (steviol glycoside), having fleshing-out similar to yours, is still rated as start-class. I agree with that assessment as I think the article is far from complete. I can't judge Daryl Wine Bar and Restaurant for completeness, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, understood. :( Will research about getting some other images for the article. :P -- Cirt (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Link about differences between MBA and Master in Management

Hi Amatulic,

thanks for your comment. I am aware of the guidelines of Wikipedia. But I linked directly on the article "Differences between MBA and Master in Management", which is - as far as I see it - the best summary of this topic. I thought publishing it here makes sense.

In the Master of Management article (that you mention) this link about the "Differences between MBA and Master in Management" is not included - however, from my perspective it would make sense there as well.

I totally respect your decision and I am aware that including the link at Wikipedia is promotion for the "Master in Management Compass"-website. But I think that the content of the respective side is really valuable and linking directly to this subpage might make it acceptable.

Thanks Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomjoad2010 (talkcontribs) 00:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The only place where your link is remotely appropriate is in the Master of Management article, and even then, only if the information on the link provides information beyond what the article should provide. Wikipedia does not exist for the purpose of linking to external sites. If a Wikipedia article on a subject already exists, then it is more appropriate to link internally to that article than to link externally to any site. Your link could conceivably be used as a citation in Master of Management; that would be preferable to an external link.
I am somewhat disturbed, also, by the fact that your editing history suggests that your purpose on Wikipedia is to promote this site. Please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest if it applies to you. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Amatulic, you're right. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to include external references but to build up reliable knowledge inside of Wikipedia. I may have lost an eye on this for a moment. As for the website I thought it's useful because it offers a register of Master in Management programs worldwide but I don't want to misuse Wikipedia in any way. Thanks for your clearance. Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-06-15/Old Church Slavonic grammar

Hi, I'm just dropping by to let you know that I've just closed the case, as hellion8513 (talk · contribs), the requesting party, hasn't edited since. Regards. Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Sock puppet Accusation

FYI - IP editor (who has been editing at General list of masonic Grand Lodges) has filed a sockpuppet investigation that names you... see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Amatulic. You can probably ignore it... the only "evidence" is that you and MSJapan both used the same phrase, which is not enough to determine sock puppetry. Still, you deserve to be notified. Blueboar (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Yawn. Thanks for the notice.
I don't really care. Looks like MSJapan is a well-established editor. If someone is stupid enough to think I have the time to maintain two well-established accounts, they're welcome to investigate until they die from exhaustion. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


Perhaps you could help out regarding [2] and [3]. The user is making spurious claims about his claim of article POV, without backing it up to reliable secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Please also see WP:ANI, thread at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption_by_User_Njsustain. -- Cirt (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What about these images?

Do religous people object to Siyer-i Nebi 298a.jpg, Siyer-i_Nebi_151b.jpg at Muhammad page? I have changed my monobook.css (, now only images which depict Muhammad are disabled, but I am not sure these images must be disabled or not. These pictures do not show the face of the prophet. Kavas (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It does no harm to disable those too. Some Muslims can accept a depiction with no face, some can't. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


Hey, on this AfD I think it was you who closed it, but no one has signed next to "The result was keep.", and in all the other closed AfDs I've seen the closer has signed it to show who closed it. (Sorry if this is a ridiculously small or insignificant thing to bring up.) Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 16:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I added my signature. That was the first time I ever closed an AfD. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal analysis?

Right, I made a couple minor edits on the Order of the Stick character page, and got a message saying that an unspecified number of them had been undone because it included my own "personal analysis" and that "[d]oing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia." I checked the history to see what differed between my edit and what you'd changed, and I'm not really sure how everything I wrote qualifies as "personal analysis" or, as you phrased on the history page, "speculation and personal commentary."

For what it's worth, I understand your removal of my saying that the Monster abandoning the post-earthquake chase because it's lazy/unmotivated. That's pretty clearly an assumption on my part, even if I still feel it's a fairly logical one to make. But the other two? I said that he didn't grasp that Miko was trying to kill him when she attacked. I can sort of see where you're coming from on that. He could just be entirely unintimidated by virtually every foe he comes across due to his immense (if underestimated by him) power, seeing Miko attacking him as not malevolent simply because it doesn't cause any damage whatsoever, like a kitten attacking someone's leg: harmless and adorable. So, like the first, I might as well let it slide, even if I'm more doubtful of the validity of this deletion than I was with the previous.

But for the last one...yeah, at this point I see no evidence that you didn't do anything but undo all my changes out of laziness. I changed the line regarding the demon roach's instruction for the Monster to stomp, adding that the roach cited a time when the Monster stomped after being refused a Transformer toy. I remembered later (while re-reading that strip) that I made a minor error in my citation in saying that Redcloak refusing to buy the toy rather than Xykon refusing, but that wasn't the issue. You're clearly a very active editor, and a very learned person if your IRL career, age, etc are to be believed (just being ambiguous due to this being online and all, not to implying you're lying), but damn, man, even if I freely admit two of my three edits were more speculation than concrete facts, why does that suddenly render my third inadmissible? Precision deletion I understand and embrace, it's what keeps Wikipedia up and running, but carpet-bombing my changes to simplify things is a mockery of the professionalism you seem to adhere so strongly to. (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: Decided to make a named account. Had a few minutes, might as well. If responding, this'd the one to direct it to. CharNobyl (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, and welcome. Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't offer an easy way to revert multiple changes selectively, and yours were in multiple places. I felt that, on the balance, the article would be improved without the edits you describe above. Even the third edit, which wasn't speculation, seemed like unnecessary detail for a character profile. Please review the Wikipedia:No original research policy and the essay WP:FANCRUFT. Then feel free to restore any edit you believe adds value to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
...of course. Because you felt that my edits were unneeded, and couldn't be arsed to look through them, you decided to wipe them all on the off chance that I added a remotely non-essential detail that you couldn't see. Wonderful.
Hang on, what? You delete my entries, then relay me to a thesis paper on 'Fancruft'? You know another word for Fancruft? The one that isn't nice and child-friendly? Fanwank
...and you keep going, and decide that once I've completed your veritable summer-reading list, I'll be graced with your permission do re-do the work that was lost when you were too lazy to selectively delete. My counter-proposal: you drop the holier-than-thou robot act and not pretend like you're doing me a massive favor by wasting my time, insulting me, and then granting me permission me to fix what you broke. CharNobyl (talk) 22:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
I already fixed what you broke, and explained my reasoning in a civil manner. Perhaps you should review WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF as well. If you can't edit in accordance with established policies and guidelines, and if you refuse even to become familiar with them because you consider them a too-long "summer reading list", then you will continue to have altercations with other editors here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
Whew. Neglected to log in for ages. Oh well. Right to business.
Broke? At absolute worst, they were superfluous details, and not even very many at that. Similarly, I don't think you can claim much credit for the decidedly non-arduous hitting the 'revert' function.
And, again, there's a difference between being civil and being detached on the verge of inhumanity. The former is fine, but the latter comes across as robotic at best and condescending at worst. Or worse still, a bit mental. Can you genuinely not see how I got the robot impression?
...right, maybe I was unclear on why the specific article was seen as insulting. I've read plenty of guidebooks on and off the internet, but most of them aren't given to me with an implied insult attached to them. I'd done some minor work on an article, only to receive what felt like a mockingly cordial message telling me I should read a paper on how I can stop my contributions from being fanwank. It only got worse when your reply said that after reading it, I could restore any of the edits I thought were worthwhile. The unfortunate implication of that is that the validity of my edits doesn't depend on the content, but whether I've taken various correspondence courses to verify choices I've already made.
Anyways, apologies for the back-and-forth spiraling out of control as much as it did, as well as the massive gap in time from the last response. Hopefully, I've laid out my thought process at least relatively clearly. CharNobyl (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Credit Card

Thanks for the correction; and apologies for the provincialism!  :)

Question 8

Regarding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Amatulic:

Hello, Amatulic. I've added a question. At your leisure. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a couple more questions since I went to bed. I have answered them all so far. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to thank you for providing your answer to my question in your RfA. I am not going to vote in the RfA either way, but that is because of my personal preference to maintain my five-year streak of never voting in any RfAs at all. Good luck. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I hope my answer is helpful to others in their decision to vote. It seems that most of the questioners have a personal policy of abstaining also. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Save the question--

Certainly. Dlohcierekim 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And now for something completely different, the subject of "blocking without warning" comes up on RFA's. RFA cabal expects policy based answers to that. In actual practice, many admins would block someone like THIS] without laying on warnings as I have. Just wanted to share. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing that. Yes, I have already given what some viewed as an inadequate answer to a question on that subject. I know many admins might block such an editor. I wouldn't. I'd give a single-warning and block if my warning was not heeded. So far that editor seems to have ceased disruption after being warned. The downside is that now you have to monitor this editor's activity, whereas with a block you could forget about it and move on to other things.
This brings up a side question: is there some sort of tool that informs you when a problem editor has edited an article that isn't in my watchlist? It would be nice to see something like the message that appears at the top of my display when someone edits my talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot

You write in your support, "I reserve the right to flip my vote to Oppose or Neutral as the questions posed here get answered." Not sure that the answers will come forth. Unless I'm over reading, "I'll answer the standard questions and leave the rest up to the community," in the nom statement. Yours, Dlohcierekim 20:49, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I struggled within myself trying to figure out in which of the three sections to put my comments. My few encounters with MZMcBride have been positive (consisting mostly of observations where his activities touch articles in my watch list), and that's the only reason why I finally commented in the "Support" section. I am still uncomfortable with my decision. But the RfA just started. I read the nom statement as meaning "I'll let the community ask more questions". I'm on the verge of striking my support. If I see no attempt to answer these questions, I will strike my support. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I really thought well of him, a while back. You've got mail. Dlohcierekim 01:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


Hey. In full disclosure, I'm actually male. You're actually not the first person to say that to me, though. (Hm... that's weird in itself.) Not a big deal though. Thanks for the support! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 01:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's the "Anny" part of your username, for those of us unfamiliar with the TV show reference you mentioned. I know an "Amy Ong" so I figured "Anny Ong" was your name.
I was referred to as "they" in my own RfA, because I mention only my first initial on my userpage. I'm male too. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Youth Pride

can you bring back Youth Pride please, I added sources and explained how it's evolved over many years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal Morality (talkcontribs) 14:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article because it didn't explain how the organization is notable. The criteria for inclusion outlined in WP:CORP explains what it needs: significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources of at least regional or national scope. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I added dozens of sources but the last person erased everything! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbal Morality (talkcontribs) 18:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Ah, I missed that. You are correct. I have restored Youth Pride to the last version you edited. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I spent several hours on it so I thank you very much.Verbal Morality (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

fuck man

has been consensus deleted at the RFD? Ah its gone now, can you salt it as well please. Off2riorob (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Nice one, ta. Off2riorob (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Benon questions

were designed to show how the candidate thinks, rather than bring out particular knowledge of policy. It's not so much a matter of right or wrong, but how did you come to that conclusion and can you justify your opinion in the crucible of RFA? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 09:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Er... I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I observed that the candidate was giving terse, vague answers to questions, so I felt that more specific "explain what you would do if..." questions would better illuminate the candidate's knowledge. Perhaps the candidate is fully capable of more complete answers, so I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.
I'm anxious to see how someone answers the question you laid on me, regarding your speedy delete. I see you re-asked it in a more general way. To me, the challenge in the question you asked me came from the specific example. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

EW, just saw optional question from Amatulic. Glad I read through before laying the relevant policy on their talk. Dlohcierekim 09:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? I made that one up on the spot. I hope the question helps shed light. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
You mentioned vagueness-- it was intentional on the part of the questioner-- to get the answerer to reveal his thinking. The answerer did his best. Your question was good, but served a different purpose- to determine specific knowledge. (That's why you're a good mediator, you cut through to the gist of the matter.) When I got the idea the candidate did not grasp blocking policy from his answer to my questions, I was going to lay the relevant info on his talk page. Then I saw your question and refrained as I did not want to give the game away. Oh, and well done in stepping up to that hornet's nest. I think they've got someone now that can bring about some progress. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 02:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
The candidate didn't get around to answering my question either. I'll save it for another RfA. And thanks for the encouragement regarding the Six Day War mess. I don't want to get involved in the debate, but I think someone non-involved needs to stay engaged somehow. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The Deletion of TuneCrank

Hi Amatulic. I would like to open dialogue on the speedy deletion of the TuneCrank page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunocarbone74 (talkcontribs) 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Here I am. Note that the article TuneCrank (with a capital C) has already been deleted twice before, in May and in July. I deleted Tunecrank (lowercase C). You created both versions.
Before I deleted the article, I searched for any sources that not only met Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability requirements but also serve as establishing notability under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and the general Wikipedia:Notability guideline, which describe the criteria for inclusion for a company such as TuneCrank. Unfortunately I found nothing that met the requirements of those policies and guidelines. The links in the article don't establish notability. TuneCrank has to have coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources of at least regional scope, and I'm not seeing that. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response. Unfortunately, though you cite "Reliable", "Verifiability" and "Notability" criteria as the reasons for your speedy deletion, you remain very vague in your actual deployment. Please consider the following conversation on User:RolePlayer's talk page reproduced here for your convenience:

(Pasted conversation removed; please link to User_talk:Roleplayer#TuneCrank Deletion instead of copying other conversations here.) ~Amatulić (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

As stated above: the guidelines in this case should not be taken literally. So long as the spirit is captured I believe the Wiki policy is spot-on. Independent forms of art provide a crucial democratic role. A literal interpretation of the current guidelines (which I believe you are deploying) would result (quite ironically) in the increased commercialization of the site. As mentioned in the TuneCrank talk page before it was speedily deleted - a literal interpretation of the guidelines in this regard would have the effect of rewarding highly popular, commercial enterprises with increased visibility at the expense of the truly independent vehicle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunocarbone74 (talkcontribs)

Please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
The criteria for inclusion as spelled out in the notability guidelines are there to keep Wikipedia useful as an encyclopedia, to prevent the accumulation of irrelevant or fringe topics. Your characterization on the commercializing effect of the guidelines is a valid opinion, but it is an opinion. You're entitled to it, but if you really feel that's a concern, then you should bring it up on the appropriate guideline talk page.
Your point about independent art forms is interesting, but not relevant. The article topic wasn't independent art. The article was about a web site. A non-notable web site, as far as I could tell in my searches for sources. If you believe that the criteria for inclusion should be relaxed for web sites that cater to independent artists, then that, too, is something to bring up on the appropriate guideline talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies).
I observe one thing that might have saved it from speedy deletion: asserting notability. What makes TuneCrank notable, as opposed to other web sites that support independent musicians? I saw no assertion of notability anywhere in the article. However, although such an assertion would have prevented speedy deletion, it wouldn't pass Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (AFD) because it still doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, plain and simple, even when those criteria are interpreted loosely.
Myself, other admins, and the Wikipedians who proposed your article for speedy deletion all have enough experience here to know how an AFD would go: the community consensus would be to delete it — even if it asserted notability, the criteria for inclusion still aren't met. The point of the speedy deletion process is to avoid taking up the community's time with deletions that aren't controversial. That's why your article was speedily deleted three times. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I asserted notability but somebody deleted that sentence as soon as it was written. The website (which exists to PROMOTE INDEPENDENT MUSIC) is unique in the sense that it acts as a one sheet and a real-time user influenced record chart simultaneously.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion about how an AFD would go.

In brief, it is notable, it has been cited on third-party sites, though young has a good number of users, has and continues to be used by said users as a one sheet and it is suitable for publication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunocarbone74 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm looking through the history again.
Ah, I see what happened. Nobody deleted the assertion of uniqueness. A BOT did it, of all things. You were editing as an anonymous IP instead of a logged in user. The bot observed your insertion of a Facebook link in violation of WP:EL, so the bot simply reverted all the anonymous edits back as far as the placement of the speedy deletion tag. As a result, I did not see the {{hangon}} template.
Assertion of notability: I still don't see it even with your statement above. Unique doesn't necessarily mean notable. Every web site is unique in some way or another, but Wikipedia doesn't need an article on every web site. I'll grant the assertion, though it's a weak claim.
You also haven't cited any independent reliable secondary sources (Facebook and Twitter don't qualify, and the web site itself isn't independent of itself). Without that, it would not pas AFD. The number of users, how they use the site, why the site exists, etc. isn't relevant to the site's notability as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
If I restore the article, it will likely be speedily deleted again, as has happened three times already. So I offer you a choice: (a) I can restore the article the way I found it, as a speedy deletion candidate, with the accompanying risk of speedy deletion, or (b) I can restore the article as a sub-page in your user space so you can work on it there, where it won't be deleted, so you can bring it to a state suitable for inclusion in the main space. Let me know what you prefer. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I prefer option (b). Are you willing to have a look at it personally after I work on it and before I attempt to republish it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunocarbone74 (talkcontribs) 21:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes. Certainly I'm happy to evaluate it when you're done working on it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That's very kind of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brunocarbone74 (talkcontribs) 22:09, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Six-Day War

I'm not going to change what you did on this article but, to be honest, you have really jammed a stick in the hornet's nest. There has been widespread criticism of the changes that editor wanted to make, he has buried that talk page in text so it looks like there's been some agreement while there is none from what I've seen. I believe it should have stayed the way it is until some consensus had emerged. --WGFinley (talk) 04:39, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

There was consensus for just one thing: deleting two contentious sentences. Two editors agreed they should be deleted, and one favored their replacement; either position points to a consensus that those sentences didn't belong in the article. That was the only edit request that I could reasonably see being fulfilled, among the ones that were made. The other requests should not have been made because they are not consensus based. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm also not going to revert the edit, but I think you should go carefully in your first few days of adminship and not make controversial edits unless they are clearly supported by consensus. Two admins had already declined to make that edit; repeatedly adding the {{editprotected}} until the desired result is obtained can be viewed as a form of admin shopping. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
After sifting through the convoluted discussion on the talk page, I saw agreement that the words in question should either be replaced or removed. In either event the contentious text would disappear, so I judged their removal an appropriate step to facilitate progress in the debate — and a step that didn't countermand decisions made by other admins who declined to change wording. I stand by my interpretation of the discussion.
I'm seeing admins basically making one comment and disappearing. I see no administrator making any attempt to mediate. If there is admin shopping going on, they got me now. I intend to stay engaged as a mediator. As far as I can see, the editprotect tag is being misused. My objective at the moment is to stop its misuse and facilitate a more orderly discussion, and I have stated this intent on the article's talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
You can't let a day or two of comments on a page that has been edit warred for months serve as consensus. Any significant changes shoud be there for a while for others to review, in this case I take a couple days off to get a root canal and I come back and a hotly disputed change has gone through. You will find these are the common tactics of one editor there "here's my change if you don't like it you have to say so right now or I'm doing it." That's not consensus building. Admins aren't there to mediate content disputes lest we get involved in the content dispute. If you want to get drawn into that you are fine but you're going to find it difficult to take admin action later because you've gotten involved. It's a slippery slope you're going down as I think you will find. --WGFinley (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Why would I take administrative action for things in which I'm involved? There are plenty of other admins out there.
Mediating disputes is part of what I do on Wikipedia. I don't see that changing just because I have administrator rights. And yes, I am aware of prior discussion, your own administrative actions, and ArbCom activity associated with this dispute. I do try to do my homework but saw no need to post a long analysis prior to taking administrative action. In this case, the hotly disputed change you refer to appeared to be a disputed modification of the text I removed (difficult to determine through the wall-o'-text), whereas I saw agreement for the text's removal.
I am currently not involved in the dispute except as an advisor to the participants, as you are. As far as I can determine, they need a consistent uninvolved person to stay engaged in some fashion. You had disappeared for a while so I stepped in. The only way to make the participants aware that I am observing them is to post a meta-comment from time to time. My intended involvement in this case isn't to take sides, but to act as a neutral outside party to guide the discussion — if that's even possible. I made a start at it by suggesting a way to use the editprotected template properly. Who knows, I may give up and move on. I do have a career and family, after all. If consensus can be achieved on a even a small point, and I have remained above the fray, I see no conflict in taking an administrative action, although I would prefer someone else do it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I welcome help from anyone as I don't own that article and work on it can be fatiguing. I'm just urging caution because first, it's P-I so even the best and purest of intentions require an admin flame retardant suit and second that one has be boiling for a couple of months and many previous mediators have been chewed up and spat out. In fact, that's how I came to the article and others as well. So long and short I'm not saying "don't" I'm saying "be careful" and you are a brave soul for bringing your new mop there. I think your direction on use of that template was appropriate and I see you already have a biting reply, enjoy! --WGFinley (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate and take to heart your cautionary advice. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your detailed responses. I'm satisfied that you know what you're doing :) Carry on and good luck. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

oh, now I see

  • Hello. Now I see; you were just RfA'd this month. Congrats on passing!
  • Now, for the record: there are a number of topics on Wikipedia that are controversial, and attract highly contentious editing (e.g., Six-Day War) and voluminous discussion/debate. You know it, I know it, we all know it. The thing is this: in cases of that nature, you can't pop onto the scene, look at a snapshot of the past 10 posts or so on a topic, take an administrative action, then ride off into the sunset. Doing so ignores reams of relevant context. Making a decision based on inadequate info is seldom a wise thing to do.
  • Good luck in your new role. • Ling.Nut 06:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but please don't presume to know what background preparation I did before I made my decision to accept that edit request, and only that edit request. Also, my record with Wikipedia:Third opinions will show that I don't just go off and abandon articles after making a judgment. You yourself supported replacing that text; others supported deleting it. Either way, the text would go away, and it did. I have no intention of complying with the other edit requests made, for the reasons I stated on the talk page. I think the edit request process is being abused here. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not discounting your Wikipedia:Third opinions exp., but being an admin... is a different role. I'm not sure it maps back to Wikipedia:Third opinion very tightly... Anyhow, no need to be defensive – there aren't any winners or losers. That's a key point. Good luck in your new role! • Ling.Nut 10:00, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Didn't mean to come across as defensive, as I'm sure you didn't mean to come across as condescending.
Third opinions are a form of conflict resolution. It's part of what I do. What I'm doing on Six-Day War is also conflict resolution. I think it maps very tightly. As you said, there are no winners and losers, and sometimes you have to give a little (such as accept an edit request that appears to have agreement) to get something back. That was step 1. I intend to stay engaged without taking sides in the argument, although my objective now is to prevent further misuse of the editprotect tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Third opinion folks a) make nonbinding decisions, b) are approached voluntarily by editors and c) don't carry a blocking stick to whack people with. To me at least it seems self-evident that your role (and your rights, obligations, etc.) has changed fundamentally. The power dynamic has changed. In the context of a dispute, every word you post is open to interpretation through the prism of that power dynamic (which is why I wish most admins would tread a bit more gently than they are wont to do, and also why an aggrieved admin should vacate the forum). Moreover, every editor who sees you and interacts with you (again, in the context of a disagreement) does so in view of that dynamic. In that respect, the people around you have "changed", by which I mean, their behavior toward you has changed. When you speak, you speak with the collective voice of all admins – for good or for ill. You are no longer a nice friend giving advice; you are Daddy. Your word has suddenly become a bit more binding and authoritative, in reality and (perhaps more importantly) in perception.
I sincerely wish you the best of luck in your future conflict resolution work. • Ling.Nut 23:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Understood, and I appreciate the advice. I admit I still see myself as a regular editor who happens to have access to a few extra tools, just as regular editors may have access to some tools (i.e. rollback) that new editors lack. But I understand your viewpoint. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect

to Malleus. You are an above average user. There are I don't know how many million registered users. You are #3220 here.Malleus is #128, so you have some catching up to do :). Cheers, Dlohcierekim 01:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Malleus inspired me to create this userbox, although I refrained from offering it to him due to my inability to convey the friendly good humor intended by it.
I didn't know about that page. Thanks! At least I made the bottom quartile of that list. I'm still curious what the distribution looks like. I plotted the distribution from that page in Excel and it looked like either a Poisson distribution or the right-hand tail of a Gaussian distribution. I suspect it's the latter, as only 4000 of the millions of registered users are represented. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

strike through, not delete

  • because your edit at AE is a significant change rather than a minor clarification, I think you should <s>strike through</s> rather than delete. • Ling.Nut 02:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Aargh. You're right, I know better. It's been a long day; I shouldn't post anything when I'd rather be sleeping. :) ~Amatulić (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection conflict

Hi Amatulic, I just wanted to bring a "protection conflict" that we had on Girl gamer to light (see here). What's funny is that we both protected at the same time for the same amount of time, and I even got an edit conflict with you at RfPP! Anyways, keep up the good mopping :). Cheers, Airplaneman 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops, just realized I did two weeks. Rv'ed self. Good night, Airplaneman 05:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Two weeks would have been fine too. I just did a week because that's as far back as that looked like duration of the recent vandalism. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Cryptozoology/main page update

All done. The page I just created may be speedy deleted (G6), and the protection status may be restored. -- Blanchardb -MeMyEarsMyMouth- timed 06:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Another admin already deleted the page. I re-protected it. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Something general

I've just read your comment on JRH's page, and I must say I admire your civility and willingness ot help. I am very inexperienced here, but what I observe on the AE page suggests that battleground mentality has penetrated all pores of Wikipedia, at least on such charged subjects as Arab-Israeli conflict. Admins are a bit more reserved but nevertheless the pattern is clear. Is it all worth it? - BorisG (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Pages such as "Six day War", the Intelligent Design pages (not so much any more; that battle has mostly been won by one side), and the Climate Change stuff are certainly not good examples of Wikipedia. They are insane. They are emotional drains, and causes for real emotional pain. They are sanity-taking and joy-taking rather than joy-giving. The one and only reason to edit them is from a sense of responsibility. Other pages can be much more pleasurable. • Ling.Nut 22:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the battleground mentality hasn't penetrated all pores of Wikipedia, it just becomes apparent on articles having topics characterized by polarizing controversy. If you want a place to practice civility and rationality in a stressful environment, those topics Ling.Nut mentioned are certainly good places to go! And yes, there are millions of potentially interesting and uncontroversial topics to work on here, other than those that attract attention from those with unshakably strong personal views. Me, I've written in some depth about a variety of things: natural sweeteners (stevia), funding bias in scientific research, a type of rocking chair, Zinfandel and other wine-related articles, and an enrober machine for coating confections with chocolate. When a controversy erupts on the talk pages of any of those articles (Zinfandel and Stevia come to mind; the others are my own articles that haven't attracted attention), I find that the participants are generally reasonable and rational in their disagreements. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
No one has ever been dragged into AE because of edits to Funerary art, Scattered disc, Battle of Red Cliffs, Georg Cantor, or Taiwanese aborigines. Ditto for Pūnana Leo, Children of the Stars, List of endangered languages in Asia, etc. • Ling.Nut 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but it appears that on highly contentious issues it is completely futile. No matter how far you can get towards consensus, someone can come and start it all over again. So much for the sense of responsibility. And by the way, many issues can become contentious. I have seen, to my amazement, ArbCom sanctions, including desysop of a high-profile admin, over, wait fo it, Cold fusion :) Sure, there are many issues which escape controversy. But on contentious issues, I am pessimistic. Especially on issues where almost everyone has a POV. Thank you and sorry for polluting your page. - BorisG (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I remember Georg Cantor. That article was the subject of on of my early third opinions. It's a good example of civil discourse where two disagreeing parties don't feel so attached to their view that they aren't willing to change it if a consensus emerges. Occasionally I'll give a third opinion on something where one side is just so entrenched that it doesn't matter what the consensus shows. I don't know what one can do about the controversial topics though. By their nature they will attract editors with ideological agendas, or editors who just like to argue, or both.
However, one of the great things about Wikipedia is that you can work on whatever you want here. Personally, I generally I find conflict resolution to be a growth experience, but when it isn't, when it causes me stress for no benefit, well, I can find plenty of other more interesting topics to work on. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My Appeal

I took your comments under consideration. In accordance with your suggestion, I added the following to my appeal:

User:Wgfinley stated, at the time he notified me of his ban against me on spurious pretexts, including willful and deliberate falsehoods and mischaracterizations: "I will be willing to consider lifting this ban if you state you can work with other editors and avoid tendentious editing."
I hereby state that I will continue to work with other editors to improve the article, as I have always done, and that I will continue, as I have always done, in a good faith effort to do so in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. JRHammond (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC) JRHammond (talk) 01:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
That's great, but in my view, you should have left it at that, and held yourself back from responding point by point to WGFinley. Anyway, we've all made our statements, I think it's time to wait and see how other administrators respond. I stated in your first appeal that I had mixed feelings about the ban being indefinite, and I still do. On the other hand, I reiterate that being banned from one single article is no hardship and no dishonor. Many fine editors, some of whom have become administrators, have some bans and blocks in their early history. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Appreciated. JRHammond (talk) 11:20, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Message for Amatulic

Why is it bad to put personal analysis into articles? I know that the director of the movie wanted Barry to die in the film. I'm not trying to criticize the director. When I saw the film, I got mad because innocent people died, but I can't get mad at the director because that's how the movie was made. When I edit I Know What You Did Last Summer(film article), can I please put personal analysis? If I write Helen should've used the microphone to inform Barry that the killer's behind him, then is that still personal analysis? ( (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)).

Personal commentary includes your own thoughts or opinions that aren't attributed to any verifiable reliable source. Our personal views usually don't meet the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. We also have another policy requiring that every claim be adequately cited to a source (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and that the sources qualify as Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For this encyclopedia to be a reliable resource, we can't have people simply writing stuff because they know it. You need to provide a way for others to verify what you write in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


Do you mind telling me what the reason was for your changes to the Parascandola article? Also, you seemed to erase a message I posted on the talk page, so just wondering the reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andyjoe7and8 (talkcontribs) 22:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Not properly sourced, possibly defamatory. No problem with source not being on the internet, but without more information (such as author) one can't even verify it in a library. Sorry about the talk page revert, but your own revert are removing the comments of others. I will restore your comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The source may have not been properly formatted. The article stated that the book I referenced was written by Parascandola himself. I would appreciate it if you could fix the source and put in the info again. Andyjoe7and8 (talk) 22:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reply on the article talk page, with all the information you have about this source, including author, ISBN, publisher, year of publication, page number, etc., whatever you have. One should at least be able to verify the existence of the source online, even if one can't actually read it. Also check if it's viewable on Google Books. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Just fyi, I've seen enough edit warring and self promotion out of that editor. When it spilled over to Talk:John Parascandola, it was time. Toddst1 (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
OK. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

La Jolla, San Diego, California

You recently added protection to this page because of edit warring and persistent vandalism. But it looks as if you FULLY protected the page - blocking even established users like myself from editing. Could I ask why? The recent problems were caused by ISPs, so it seems as if semi-protection would have been sufficient. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Thanks. Fixed. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

3rd opinion thanks

Left message here KeptSouth (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. You're welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems he keeps on removing his block on his page.--IGeMiNix (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

That's merely a message; removing it won't change the status of his block. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah ok, just asking because I was informed by some editors that if you remove the block message of the talk page, you can lose your talk page editing rights. But thanks again for blocking the IP!--IGeMiNix (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
You are correct. I have removed his right to edit the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

RfA thanks spam

Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations. You'll find there's no end of work to do.... ~Amatulić (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

wikiproject wine template

Hi, I see you just reverted a protection by HJ Mitchell.[4] Your comment says "revert back to semi" but as far as I can tell from looking at the log,[5] it wasn't protected at all prior to HJ's protection. I'm involved in an ANI thread to roll back that big batch of protections so I'm trying to figure out if I'm making a technical error in thinking it wasn't protected. I don't have any interest in the template itself. Could you check this for me? Thanks. (talk) 04:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it wasn't originally protected, but the AN/I discussion (when I saw it yesterday) seemed to show a consensus leaning toward semi-protection. I agreed that new/anon users probably shouldn't be editing the template, so I semi'd it. I have no problem if it gets unprotected, though. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:48, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't notice any clear consensus about semi-protection. I just don't see much reason to semi-protect templates that aren't shown in any articles. Do you know of any instances of IP or new-account vandalism against them? (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
As of yesterday, I saw some agreement, but no longer. I have seen instances of template vandalism, yes, although it hasn't happened on {{wine}}. However, as I said, I have no problem if an automated script or bot unprotects it. If you would prefer, I can do it manually. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Don't worry about doing it manually; there are quite a few templates that were semi-protected for (IMO) no good reason, but I'm (for now) just trying to put things back the way they were. (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
FWIW, I haven't found a single instance yet of IP vandalism against a template that got semi-protected. There was an interesting edit war between several IP's at Template:WikiProject Energy though. (talk) 05:58, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Skin.js problem

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Nothing I put in my vector.js or monobook.js has ever worked, as far as I can recall. No matter what I put in there, no matter which skin I use (currently vector), no matter what browser I try (Firefox, Chrome, IE), no matter what I comment out or uncomment, I never seen any difference. I'd really like to make use of the reference segregator (first one I put in User:Amatulic/vector.js) and other tools. Anybody have any idea what could be wrong? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(I was going to comment: You're an admin, you should know better) ;) Have you tried to clean your cache? Use Ctrl+Shift+R --Diego Grez (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Admins are just normal users who have been entrusted with a few extra tools. Yes, I cleaned my cache in the various browsers I tried. I should have mentioned that. I'll try it again. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I personally have never had problems with any .js I have put in my vector page, just have to make sure they work properly. //importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); for worked for me, but only after clearing my cache, and waiting like ten mins for some odd reason. I would suggest contacting the makers of each script, checking that you have java installed, or that your security settings in whatever brower you use are not blocking it. If you have any more questions, please reapply the {{helpme}} template or stop by our IRC channel on Freenode either by webchat or local irc client #wikipedia-en-help--WolfnixTalk • 20:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC) If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.
Actually, upon my last cache cleaning, thinks began to work. The sysopdetector (if you uncomment it by removing the //) causes the text "(User, Sysop)" to appear next to an admin's username on their user page and talk page. The citation segregator, it turns out, works only when you edit the entire article, but not when editing a section. I have to see if those others I commented out do anything useful. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
One of them seems to use URI and not URL, i am not sure if that is a problem or not. I am not that must of a guru. I orginally don't think the sysopdetector worked, but i forgot I didn't have any rights xD --WolfnixTalk • 21:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Huh. I see no reason why that script shouldn't work for anyone. Regarding user rights, when you get a few hundred more mainspace edits, and feel you can be trusted with WP:ROLLBACK, drop me a note. If you keep as busy as you have been this month, I don't see a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


Amatulic, I respectfully request that you please move the threaded comments out of the subsection Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement_by_User:Jmh649_.28Doc_James.29. Threaded comments are to be avoided in subsections on Arbitration pages [6]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hatting such comments is an acceptable way to hide them, if the comments are tangential discussions but should be kept. I answered there for your benefit; now that you read it, go right ahead and remove it. If you look in the archives of WP:AE, you'll find several examples of subsections with hatted threaded comments. See the two recent ones by JRHammond, for example. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, thanks! :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure that Cirt understood your answer. See this [7]. Perhaps this thread in my talk page can also be useful. The very fact that there is a tendency to remove the clarification that I provided is perhaps a good reason why it should not be hidden at all. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 23:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I think Cirt should have preserved your comment in your section. I hadn't hidden it, just his and my short exchange. I have just restored your comment to your section. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Clerk elections

Hi, this is just to inform you that elections for Clerkship at WP:UAA have started on the talk page. You have been sent this message because you were recently active in handling submissions or discussions. Discussion is ongoing and you are encouraged to voice your opinion on the candidates.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Fridae'sDoom (talk) at 06:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC).


See the WP:AN/I page, some of it is vandalism, and all of her edits I can't vertify with the exception of a few. I still need to remove some of Ajona information. Can you unprotect the page please. Thanks Secret account 03:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to m:The Wrong Version. I don't see vandalism from Ajona, I see content dispute. Propose your changes on the talk page with an {{editprotected}} request tag. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
100 million Texans went to her funeral and she sold over 200 million records, that's vandalism or gross misinformation, yes some of the edits were a content dispute like the see also section I removed, but that was two reverts out of six I did. WP:V was part of why I needed to revert, I was also reverting pure nonsense look at the edits closer. I'm allowed to revert if the content doesn't follow any guidelines at all (also I wasn't the only one reverting another user reverted as well), and Ajona was blocked for violating 3rr on the article just a week ago. The information Ajona placed last, I couldn't verify the book existence. I hope you reconsider, especially that the article is in WP:FAR. I asked for page protection in the first place only to prevent Ajona to edit the article with more misinformation and his highly slanted WP:POV, I thought he/she would get the message that the page is locked and would avoid the article, I never expected it to be protected for a week, especially in a crucial time for the article. Sorry if that was considered as revert warring, as you know I been an administrator for over four years before my desyropping by ArbCom because my account was shared account (I used it 99.9% of the time though) and I know every policy and guideline in this project. I just hope this incident doesn't ruin my chance of becoming an administrator again which I'm trying to get an RFA in early October and I got several high-standing people to nominate me. If you can't unprotect, can you just remove Ajona's book source, which is unverifiable. Thanks Secret account 20:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I replied back in the Selena article. Secret account 21:37, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I replied back with the proper statement. Secret account 23:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nik Lentz and violation of NPOV and BLP

Conversation moved to Talk:Nik Lentz.

Hi, sorry to get you involved again. However, I'm very keen to avoid edit warring, but teh user involved continues to add unsourced material, before claiming that I;m doing so. In reverting, I'm going back to a version widely accepted (considering it hasnt been removed in several months), but this user cannot accept that. Could you possibly weigh-in? Thanks. Paralympiakos (talk) 21:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :)

Amatulic, just wanted to leave a note of thanks to you for the comments on the neutral section. I know I would've loved a support vote; but your comments did amazingly well, believe me. I appreciated each and every word. Thanks again. My best wishes. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after thinking about it for a while, I decided that I would support you after all, but when I went to your RfA I discovered that I missed the deadline. You passed anyway; congratulations! ~Amatulić (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks :) I really really appreciate that. Will be around. Take care and bes regards again. Wifione ....... Leave a message 20:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback RE: UAA

in re: UAA Rev ID:385044933

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Amatulic. You have new messages at Wolfnix's talk page.
Message added 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As you declined the WP:UAA and another user since me this, your opinion is welcome, thanks. WolfnixTalk • 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand, I figured you would want to know, none the less. Thank you for your time! --WolfnixTalk • 05:25, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

koran burning talk page

I am sorry, i made a reply/apology to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Burn a Koran Day, (page so huge) prior to reading the warning regarding the discussion closed. Please accept my apology. Meishern (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's okay, no harm done. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Protection on A Thousand Suns

Just wanted to say thanks for following up on my request and protecting the page temporarily. This is hopefully going to make the editing process easier on all the editors and a lot less chaotic in general. Cheers. Friginator (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

the mediation thing


I lose all my database access in October and am genuinely discouraged about his loss to my productivity/value s an editor. Maybe I could do the mediation cabal thing? You seem to be one of those who prefer to communicate on-wiki; I always prefer email. But either way is OK. Tks. • Ling.Nut 14:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't parse the meaning of your first sentence. What database access? "His loss"? Email is fine if you prefer. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
"his loss" == "this loss" (typo). "Database access" == access to databases for sources for articles. JSTOR, etc. • Ling.Nut 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Got it. I can sympathise. I remember the helplessness I felt 15 or so years ago when I lost my access to LexisNexis.
If you think you can't be productive without JSTOR, consider that thousands of other editors are. Maybe your local university library gives access to it. I've never had a need for it, but occasionally wished otherwise when I have been frustrated by the inability to see more than an abstract. Even so, I still find most abstracts useful enough for the purpose of finding sources to cite. For abstracts, all I need are places like Google Scholar and PubMed. I relied on abstracts when I wrote funding bias, and relied on patent searches when I wrote glider (furniture).
You could also run for adminship. It's your choice after that whether you want to focus on mopping up, or continue being a content editor who makes occasional use of administrator tools. I'm still trying to find that balance. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Tks for the input. Several unfortunate facts come to mind, but the one that jumps out first is that I do not have access to any local library (at least, not one which has any meaningful number of English-language books). :-) Adminship: first, I doubt I'd pass the senseless gauntlet. IMO, only vandal whackers pass unscathed (I read somewhere that since rollback etc., vandal whackers are having a hard time getting through. That may be a good thing; I dunno). I have always been a content contributor and reviewer, which means I do actual work (vandal whacking takes time, but not effort), and it frequently involved valuing the content more than the contributor. I'd probably get people coming out of the woodwork whose toes I had stepped on three and a half years ago or so. I could put Ling.Nut.Dark in a packing crate with foam peanuts and give the ball to Ling.Nut.Nice, but I dunno if that would help. I dunno what I will do. I thought mediation might be useful. I dunno. • Ling.Nut 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, vandal whackers are having a harder time getting through RfA. Content creation is regarded as valuable, as are experience and wisdom. You have those. In fact your experience far exceeds mine. The overriding question in an RfA is "can the candidate be trusted with the tools?"
For mediation activity, sure, anyone can join the mediation cabal as far as I know. Come to think of it, I haven't joined it, although I do a fair amount of mediation anyway. Doesn't hurt to try. If you don't like it, then stop. Third opinions are fun too. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks. Good luck w. Six day war. • Ling.Nut 01:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Initial observations

I'm letting you know that I have read your comment, and I will look into it. Preliminary thoughts are that it is conflicting with another script or gadget, but I'll restart the thread with you over the weekend to get it figured out. I just felt that I owed it to you to let you know that I am not Mr. Godot. Face-smile.svgAnimum (talk) 02:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No hurry. Thanks for getting back to me.
If it's conflicting with another script, have a look at my page User:Amatulic/vector.js. There isn't much in there. It was working sporadically for me at one point but lately I haven't noticed anything related to easyblock appear at all. I just tried re-ordering the scripts by putting easyblock first, but that didn't help. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


With regard to this, is it "whilst" or "need not be" that is archaic? I am aware that sometimes my English is rather too formal (a result of my having learnt it mostly from literature), and would like to know what exactly is wrong with it. Cheers. sonia 05:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I first took out "whilst" and wrote the edit summary, and then did some more copyediting to remove redundant words but forgot to change the edit summary. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I see that our article agrees with you, thanks for clarifying. sonia 06:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I didn't know we had an article on while/whilst. Thanks for pointing it out. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks

"Cresix, you're being lazy.":
Information.svg Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

And here's a second admonition for you. Read WP:BURDEN. The responsibility for sourcing is on the editor who adds or restores the information. This is a legitimate content dispute. There is no need for personal attacks and false accustions. And don't drag out the excuse that you're a regular and regulars should not be templated. If you're a regular, you know better than personal attacks. Cresix (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. Unfortunately one can't undo an edit summary.
I'm quite familiar with WP:BURDEN, thanks. However, you should understand that just because the burden to add sources is on the person who restores information (and I did add sources in accordance with WP:BURDEN), that doesn't automatically mean that any reasonable unsourced fact should automatically be removed. That's why we have the {{fact}} tag. I think you should have used that rather than delete the sentence repeatedly. Therefore I became impatient with what I perceived as laziness. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:35, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
See my comments about fact tags on the particular article in question; on the article's talk page. Cresix (talk) 18:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


Hi Amatulic, recently you blocked someone, and I am wondering if that affects them responding on their talk page. I'm thinking that perhaps while they have some free time on their hands, I can maybe point them in the right direction - but it'd seem kinda cruel if I post more tips and things to study if they cant respond or ask questions (in which case, I'd obviously wait till their block expires). One of my WikiFriends is going through training on just such stuff with their adoptee right now, so I could borrow his lesson plan and use it to help this editor, so hopefully when they "return" they arent going to be heading right back out again. Anyway, your input would be appreciated. Best, Robert ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 05:46, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No, a blocked editor can still edit his own talk page. An administrator has to check a special box to prevent someone from editing their own talk page.
BTW another admin has questioned my block, and I will defer to his greater knowledge of the situation to decide whether or not to modify or undo my block. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll try to keep working with them either way I guess, unless the efforts really seem wasted. Thanks, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI TALK/CNTRB 06:07, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


Hey - thanks for weighing in on the title issue. What happens now, when your third opinion fails to sway Evertype?

And just in general, how successful are third opinions in resolving disputes - it seems like a great idea if it works.... Dohn joe (talk) 01:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Third opinions aren't binding, and they tend to work whean both parties realize mutually that they have reached an impasse. They tend not to work when one party's mind is made up and won't be swayed. If that fails, there are other forms of dispute resolution available. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Requesting a third opinion is often a good first step. There's Wikipedia:Request for comments where people weigh in to try to come to a consensus, but that also sometimes doesn't work if someone's mind is made up against consensus and won't budge. There's also Wikipedia:Mediation, and as a last resort, Wikipedia:Arbitration. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
Don't know if you're still interested, but I'd appreciate you taking a quick look at a compromise thought over at Ain't and amn't's talk page, and let me know what you think. Dohn joe (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Arabic to Latin script

I'll give you some advice so this doesn't happen elsewhere with other Islamic historians. If you are going to follow and edit articles related to Islamic history, you have to learn the Arabic script so that you can recognise the plethora of Latin script transliterations and transcriptions. The fact that you didn't know to search Barakah and Baraka, means that you didn't know that there is also Barka, Barkat, Barakat, Barkah; for "Sayyid" there is also Saiyid, Sayyed, Siyyid, Sayed, and Syed. I don't want to discourage you at all, in fact I want you to excel. Al-Zaidi (talk) 21:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

13th Amendment

Some editors have noticed the recent changes to the status you've made. That article, as you know, gets too many edits & plenty of vandalism. I also feel it needs protection, but some had questions on the talk page as to what changes have been made & why. Just asking you to clarify in a few words on it over there if you don't mind (that talk page would be ideal place for it). Many thanks.Ebanony (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


What is the reason for removing the POV and the Expert subject from the beginning of the page? --Lsorin (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply going back through the edit history to determine the point between constructive bot edits and edit warring, and reverting to that version. I didn't notice that the tags disappeared; I can restore them. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Protection of Libertarian

Thanks. Any idea how we can stop the soapboxing and talk page disruption at Talk:Libertarianism? I've filed a couple of AN/I reports [8] [9], but it just seems to have been getting worse. I've tried to start threads with a serious discussion of sources and how to integrate them, but the threads have been hijacked by Born2cycle with soapboxing and trying to turn the discussion into what to do if certain hypothetical sources which conflict with the sources I present are found. See [10] and especially this subthread. WTF? Yworo (talk) 04:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution offers some alternatives. For example, Wikipedia:Requests for comment is the place to discuss disputes about user conduct. WP:ANI isn't really the right venue. As a last resort, one can try arbitration. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


I just wanted to let you know about your edit that I reverted. While I think it was a good idea, and what you said is likely true, you inserted your "explanatory note" as an actual reference. It appears to me to be original research, and that's why I felt compelled to remove it. I hope you are not offended. Thank you! 2tuntony (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The article has a section for footnotes, and footnotes are inserted via the "ref" tag. This note was added to the article after discussion on the talk page (including in the archives) because the subject of some vs all Muslims has come up on occasion. I have re-inserted the note, because it explains "some" and directs the reader to an article about a particular group of Muslims, which has its own sources. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

CWG 2010 Medals table

Refer to the 2010 Commonwealth Games page. The countries on medal table have been wrongly ranked. The convention is to rank countries on basis of number of gold medals they have won, not on the number of total medals they have. So, right this moment (while I'm writing this at end of Day 1), South Africa, Nigeria and Malaysia rank above England and India, as they've won a gold medal each, which latter have not won as of yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britsin (talkcontribs) 19:16, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want to propose a change to the article, do so on Talk:2010 Commonwealth Games. You can use the template {{editsemiprotected}} on the talk page to preface your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for the upgrade. I was never totally sure how rollback worked; it looks like it'll be useful.—Chowbok 22:26, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Fire and Police Pension Association of Colorado (FPPA)

Could you please undelete this article? We have received OTRS permission for it which I can add as soon as it is restored. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Who has received permission? What's the OTRS ticket number?
In any case, there is nothing preventing the article from being re-created. If it was created by copy-and-pasting text from another web site originally, it can be re-created the same way if permission does indeed exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've received it, or rather I've locked it now that I've asked for it to be restored. It's Ticket:2010101410013501. I'm not an admin so I can't see if the article had already been edited or tagged or had formatting/categories applied, etc., thus my appeal to you to restore it. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, I'm a fairly new administrator. Looks like I can't view the ticket, either. Until I learn more, I honestly can't see a reason to restore a copyvio article that isn't protected from being recreated. Anyone can re-create the article. Even without OTRS permission, it can be recreated with original text rather than copied text. I don't see the problem here. If you or anyone else want the article to exist, just create it.
For the record, the deleted version had only four edits:
  1. Article was created by indef-blocked editor
  2. Article received copyvio tag {{csb-pageincludes|1=}}
  3. Article received COI tag {{coi|date=October 2010}}
  4. article received speedy-delete tag {{db-copyvio|url=}}
...after which, the article was deleted and the article creator was indef blocked. If you want to create the article with text pasted from that web site mentioned in the tags, go ahead, but reference the ticket in your edit summary and on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
The ticket is only accessibly to OTRS volunteers. I'll just ask another admin restore it. Cheers. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
What's the problem with re-creating it? You know the web page the article came from. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, it's been restored now so it's rather moot. But as to my reasoning: If it's recreated from scratch it'll get tagged by a bot again (they don't check the talk page for {{ConfirmationOTRS}}) and I want neither the credit nor the blame for creating articles which I may very well turn around and tag for notability/advert issues or AfD. In this case there's also the issue that the source page is apparently 10x longer than the article which I had no way of knowing. If I was going to rewrite the article on a notable subject to clean it all up and make it something I would be proud of then I'd be fine with recreating it myself, but generally my interest in restoring articles largely ends once the explicit reason for the previous deletion has been adressed; there's plenty of other areas for me to spend my time which involve clearly notable subjects that I am personally interested in (or more often, cleaning blatant copyvios when there's not permission). VernoWhitney (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Unprotect 2010 Commonwealth Games and Commonwealth Games

Hi Amatulic, the two abovementioned articles have been protected for some time already. The reason for protection no longer applies; should you remove protection now? Thanks, ANGCHENRUI WP:MSE 10:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The protection was set to expire in 8 days, but I just unprotected both articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

RfA ping

  • I hope you won't see this as WP:CANVASS; it's open/transparent. I am pinging you solely because my behavior at Six day war is an oft-mentioned topic at my current RfA. If you wish, feel free to comment, or !vote Oppose, Support or Neutral. I appreciate your time and trouble. • Ling.Nut (talk) 05:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Huh. You didn't strike me as being interested in adminship. In any case, you have my support. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

1RR violation at Coandă-1910

You might already have noticed the word "monoplane" inserted into the article three times in 24 hours and one minute:

The editor Lsorin wishes to introduce doubt into the reader's mind, doubt about the source saying the aircraft was sold. This wish goes against talk page consensus. The editing shown here is two violations of 1RR. Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No need to post here. Yes, I had noticed, but some urgent non-Wikipedia issues required my attention and I was unable to take action until now. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bring it here. I am very much aware that editors are also physical people trying to carry on in life. I am also sorry that your 1RR injunction was not followed by all. I think it a brilliant solution to the problems with the article. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It's raining thanks spam!

  • Please pardon the intrusion. This tin of thanks spam is offered to everyone who commented or !voted (Support, Oppose or Neutral) on my recent RfA. I appreciate the fact that you care enough about the encyclopedia and its community to participate in this forum.
  • There are a host of processes that further need community support, including content review (WP:GAN, WP:PR, WP:FAC, and WP:FAR). You can also consider becoming a Wikipedia Ambassador. If you have the requisite experience and knowledge, consider running for admin yourself!
  • If you have any further comments, input or questions, please do feel free to drop a line to me on my talk page. I am open to all discussion. Thanks • Ling.Nut (talk) 02:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Tks for your kind words on my talk page. Cheers!• Ling.Nut (talk) 08:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910 and reverts

First of all sorry for using you talk page. Could you please block Binksternet for reverting several times the word 'monoplane' from Coanda-1910 without reaching any kind of consensus with the other editors. As well the same use shows no WP:AAGF by just reverting my edits without any consensus or not even trying to read the references added. ( see as an example the entry on my talk page ). As the article it just becomes every single day just a copy of one author ( Winter ) I propose that the article is blocked until all this resolutions are solved. Thank you in advance for any kind of reply! I did not wanted to get to this point, but I really cannot stand this kind of attitude from one single editor, which imposes his own personal views on a site read by million of users.--Lsorin (talk) 07:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Lsorin, and welcome back from your block.
Binksternet has not violated the 1RR prohibition. He has not made more than one revert in a 24 hour period. I see exactly two "monoplane" reverts from Binksternet, on 01:49, 2 November 2010 and almost 38 hours later on 15:27, 3 November 2010. In accordance with the 1RR rule I laid down, Binksternet has discussed each revert on the article talk page.
Multiple editors have reverted you on this point, not just Binksternet.
Perhaps I am missing some evidence that you are seeing. If you can point out actual article diffs showing Binksternet performing more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period, I will block Binksternet also.
You seem to have a problem accepting the fact that other editors, like you, are interested in improving the article in good faith. If you can't convince the other editors of your point of view, you really must accept the consensus and move on to other topics.
Another point you must keep in mind: Truth does not matter on Wikipedia. Read the first line of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Wikipedia works on verifiability and consensus. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Israel-Palestine editing

Hi Amatulic, following the recent deterioration in editing of the Israel-Palestine set of articles, I've set up a page to discuss the problem and possible solutions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Arbitration Enforcement/Israel-Palestine articles. Your input would be appreciated. PhilKnight (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

User Telugumall

Thanks for your Comment regarding User Telugumall triggered the filter 5 times for user got blocked before I could reply Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:52, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad

I think you had some issues with some recent work I did. I agree with the point you made in the talk page there. Please join the discussion there under the first heading in the talk page there. Thank you. Rsg70007 (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice Userboxes!

I used the last two on my page. Thanks! Lilly (talk) 03:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's nice to see someone found them useful. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910 tendentious editing

Sorry for disturbing you again on this non ending subject. Binksternet is reverting continuously

the mainstream fact that Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft as listed in most of the aviation history books talking about Coanda-1910, ignoring my request to bring even a single relevant source, which will state that Coanda-1910 was not the first jet-propelled aircraft. How can we proceed from here? Is there any board where this kind of problems can be taken into account, without being just ignored? For instance my last entry in the WP:RSN went strait to the archive without a single comment :(! Thank you in advance for any reply!--Lsorin (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no tendentious editing shown in the diffs. Each of them was accompanied by an explanation on the talk page, a reasoned discussion of the concerns involved. This is a content argument in which reliable experts disagree about the aircraft. Binksternet (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
I agree those edits don't violate the articles 1RR prohibition as they occurred days apart and included talk page discussion. It would be nice, however, if they had been accompanied by edit summaries.
It looks like you each have your favorite reliable sources. The reliability of specific sources (not the behavior of editors) should be discussed on WP:RSN. If you agree the sources meet Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria, then, the article should reflect the variety of disagreeing views among the sources, with appropriate weight given to each. That is the only way to resolve this. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
All three of those diffs have edit summaries! Here they are:
  1. Book cites changed to show quotes in reference section. Tags removed for lack of discussion. Lead paragraph reworded. See Talk.
  2. Reverting lead statement of disputed fact. See Talk. Adding Stine's "The Prowling Mind of Henri Coanda" from 1967.
  3. rv IP editor promoting POV viewpoint.
Regarding edit summaries, there is conflicting advice given on Wikipedia. At Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Focus on content it says "Always explain your changes in the edit summary to help other editors understand the reasoning behind them." At Help:Edit summary#Use of edit summaries in disputes it says "Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content ... This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" At each of my reverts of Lsorin, I wrote "See Talk" so as to guide the editors to the Talk page, to prevent edit warring through edit-summary-based conversation. Each edit summary was detailed enough to tell other editors what it was about.
Looking forward, I agree that reliable sources are in conflict, and I agree that they all should be present in the article. It is only Lsorin who questions the reliability of Gibbs-Smith and Winter. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Amatulic the reliability of sources has been already buried in the WP:RSN archive. If I would draw a conclusion from merging the sources presented by Binksternet and me the result is something like this:
  • Sources supporting the statement that "Coanda-1910 was the first jet-propelled": Stine - two times ( my side and Binksternet side ), Romanian Academy - one time, Tim Brady - one time, Royal Air Force Flying Review,1956 - one time.
  • Sources debating the claim: Gibbs-Smith - one time ( with two books in Binksternet side ), Winter - one time ( debatable he the whole article can be used as Winter does not give any clear conclusion and he leave to the reader to decide their position regarding the claim )
So it is clearly even from that old discussion what is the result of the sources reliability (5 to 1,5). As well in the meanwhile Antoniu, Hartmann, Gunston, Boyne and other source have been found to support Coanda's claim taking into considerantion as well Gibbs-Smith in some of those analysis. On the rebuttals section, there is not a single new source and Winter's article what dismissed by all later work on Coanda!--Lsorin (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Binksternet just refuses to collaborate at all in any kind of form to reach any kind of consensus! I propose the user or the article with the correct introduction to be blocked, to force Binksternet to at least try to build up consensus!--Lsorin (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Add another problem! Binksternet has reverted my edits without even checking the comments I have done with my changes. So this was a an example of revert without comments on talk page. I cannot AGF from this user any longer.

  • my change [14] explains that "Updating Stine's statements from the real sources provided with the web links." My edit contained: "Coanda's turbopropulseur had elements of a true jet", but the patent application had no indication of the "critical stage — injection of fuel into the compressed air". exactly as in the document. Binksternet reverted without any comments to the previous incorrect version: Stine described the 1910–1911 patent applications as having no fuel injection indicated; "the critical element necessary to qualify the primitive engine as a jet."--Lsorin (talk) 22:51, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
No harm intended, and the matter has been addressed. The change to Stine was one I missed because it was buried in other changes. Then I had to deal with some real life concerns before I could get back into researching the Stine article. I have not yet put my hands on a copy of it, and its online traces are a real trial to figure out. I have started a thread about Stine on the talk page, to discuss this point. Binksternet (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I hope that you noticed, what kind of "decorated" editor is in "charge" of many "unbiased" Wikipedia articles.


And this is not the first time happening...--Lsorin (talk) 21:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

That edit of mine is a simple deletion of an editor's redundant/repeated talk page entry, what I saw as a copy/paste error. If I accidentally post a talk page entry twice without noticing, I hope you will delete one of them. No biggie.
Describing me as a decorated editor in "charge" of the article is not helpful to collegiality. Binksternet (talk) 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
With may colleagues I always reach consensus of contradictory things. With you that was never possible. In BTW since when the voting you have done with your rfc is called consensus? With you is plainly impossible to reach any kind of reasonable agreement as you have only one book of a foremost aviation historian in your library. I'm really wondering were is that "emerging consensus on RfC about first jet" coming from in your last edit comment [17]? Amatulic sorry for messing up your talk, page with my reply.--Lsorin (talk) 23:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections

Excuse my ignorance, Amatulic, but why don't you run? You will make an excellent arbitrator I would think... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BorisG (talkcontribs)

I have seriously considered it. I heard ArbCom is a time suck, though. My running would depend on the time commitment involved. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
I am sure it is a substantial time committment. But you already devote to wikipedia so much time. Of course there are two caviats (1) now you do it at your own will, but on ArbCom you have an advance committment. (2) you will have to spend most of the time dealing with angry and disgruntled people, rather than writing good articles. I can understand why you are reluctant. But I have recently taken on an outside committment which is of similar nature, just because... someone had to do it... : ignore my rant... - BorisG (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Order of the Stick

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Order of the Stick has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Harry Blue5 (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Coandă-1910 1RR

Hi, I've noted that you had imposed a 1RR restriction on that article, but it doesn't come under an arbitration case or community-enacted general sanction. It is my understanding that on articles which are not under a general sanction, individual admins don't have the authority to impose this type of sanctions, see for reference the failed proposal Wikipedia:Community discretionary sanctions, which proposed that. Cenarium (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It was my understanding that enforcing a 1RR restriction on an article was fine if the parties involved were agreeable to it. I have seen this happen before without ArbCom involvement. The article was fully protected, the protection was about to expire, the editors were being constructive while hotly disagreeing, and hinting at an edit war to come, so to stave it off I let the protection expire with a 1RR restriction. The editors, while still actively battling it out, are adhering to the restriction and constructive changes are taking place. 1RR has done what I intended, so I have no problem removing the restriction from the article. I will do so now. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I proposed this article to be blocked for another month with the introduction, as presented by the mainstream, to force the current WP:OWNER of the article Binksternet to participate in consensus build up which he refused to join, since he became the only owner, supported against the WP:NVC policies by a group of other editors. The current version is basically his personal synthesis based on only two references: one of them at least doubtful in the message sent to the readers and one full of missing information and assumptions (or even lies) made by a "foremost" historian.--Lsorin (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
You wish it to be blocked carrying the 'right' version, I'm sure, "the mainstream" one which is the one you keep edit warring about. However, the results of the First jet RfC confirmed your version as the minority opinion. Binksternet (talk) 15:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
I appreciated the 1RR declaration by Amatulic and I thought it moved the article from being a horrendous black-hole vortex battleground to being a standard tug of war. I would have supported a continued 1RR blanket. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
Your RfC was poll against the Wikipedia policies. But it looks like what ever you are doing is allowed, as the WP:OWNER of the article and with the support of all admins around, I supposed because you are decorated. Why you don't tell us what is the mainstream? Why you are continuously refusing consensus? Cenarium could you please block the article? My requests were just ignored by every single admin. Or just tell me how to escalate the case? The RS/N did not work. I have no clue what can be done next.--Lsorin (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
As I have already stated, there are reliable sources that disagree. In that case, the article must fairly present the points of view given in the sources. Please strive for that goal rather than bickering about personal behavior. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

M113 apc

A month of protection is a bit long don't you think? Better to hand out blocks to disruptive editors than to prevent productive edits. Marcus Qwertyus 03:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I saw a content dispute, not disruption. A month is a good amount of time to work things out. It is up to the involved editors to tell me on the talk page if they are (a) agreeable to specific edits via an {{editrequest}} tag, or (b) ready to have the page unprotected. I am willing to decrease the duration if that's what people want. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


I have just removed a post to Talk:Coandă-1910 from a blocked user evading their block. You had replied to the post, and your reply without the post it was a reply to made no sense, so I have removed it too. I am letting you know as a courtesy, because removing another editor's comments is not normally acceptable. You are, of course, free to restore your post, and if you choose to restore the post it was a reply to as well then I will accept that. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll let it be as you left it. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ibn kathr

Spewing POV on the talkpage is one thing, but this comment which includes uncivil personal remarks and speculation about another editor's religious beliefs crosses a line. I'm sure you're aware of how disruptive Ibn Kathr's editing is, and I've become sick of this nonsense. What action can be taken to remedy this situation? Doc Tropics 20:50, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The proper forum to report stuff like this is WP:ANI. As an "involved" editor, I hesitate to take administrative action, although I will do so if this behavior continues now that he's been warned. We do have a "this is your only warning" template for that, which I have just issued. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I completely understand that you wouldn't necessarily take action yourself, it was your advice I was after. Maybe between our two warnings and your extremely reasonable response on the article's talkpage, he will desist. If not, I know where to go next. Thanks again, Doc Tropics 22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


This editor comes out of nowhere on a discussion nothing to do with him, calls me malicious, calls me a liar multiple times, and a berayer. [18] Does this go against WP:Civility policy? If so, could u leave a caution on his page please? Thank you Someone65 (talk) 10:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Coanda-1910 related blocking

I posted this message on Slakr talk page. I would not mind if you can answer the question I asked as well. Thanks in advance!--Lsorin (talk) 13:12, 27 December 2010 (UTC)