User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Three things[edit]

Hello again. My "things to ask Mr. Stradivarius" has risen to three, so I thought it was time to leave a message:

  1. Module:List/sandbox : I took a guess at how to add liststyle, itemstyle, etc as alternatives to list_style etc and it appears to've worked – if so, should making the same additions to the live version work without problem? (Changing names already in use may be a hassle, but I thought I may as well try to add and start using those already established by {{Infobox}}, {{Sidebar}}, etc.)
  2. Module:Parameter names example : If it's possible (and not too tricky) to do so, do you think it would be worth adding an option to present the code producing the example/demo beside the example/demo (in some kind of <code> or <pre> style)..? I'm wondering if it might, as I keep seeing the redundancy of e.g. code in a pre section followed immediately by the very same code used to call a template. I'd try to see if this could be done using wikicode/HTML, but there may be no point, either because it can't and/or the result might not translate to Lua and/or...
    (As there doesn't seem to be a template offering this already, perhaps it's something that's too self-referential to implement..?)
  3. What do you make of Template:Lua/sandbox (as appearing on Template:Lua/testcases)..? I'm also wondering if "Uses Lua" might be a more futureproof template name.

Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • A "ping" in case you've lost sight of the above. Hope all well. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
@Sardanaphalus: Thanks for the ping. I'll take those in order:
  1. Nah, we only need one name for those params. Are you telling me that I did all that parameter-changing for nothing? :) Also, this should be talked about on Module talk:List so that other editors will see it.
  2. This would be possible, but I think the order of the parameters might get jumbled up. I'll have a look at it.
  3. I think you're making this too complicated. Just a list of modules would be fine. This is another thing that should probably go on the template talk page, in my opinion.
Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your replies and – despite what looked like a lot of activity here on your talkpage – prompt work on the {{Pnex}} module. I've seen the posts you've also made at Template talk:Parameter names example, so will respond there. (In a nutshell: Looks promising and I hope it'll prove possible to tailor the output without difficulty.)
I'll also respond to 1. and 3. above by starting threads on the corresponding talkpages (as you suggest). Just for the record, I think the parameter-changing work was – is – certainly worthwhile as (if I remember correctly) it disambiguated the numbering – I just wish it'd occurred to me then to suggest making the names consistent with the Navbox/Infobox/etc pattern. Thanks again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


Actually, that's 3 reverts, I should stop, but I'm not over. Crisis.EXE 04:40, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Was it related to content?[edit]

I noticed you removed a section on Talk:Zoe Quinn under WP:BLPTALK. However, BLPTALK specifically excludes content that is relating to content choices. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Please consider looking over the talk page post and consider whether it was about content choices. If not, then I endorse the removal. If it is, then I would support its addendum back on the talk page. Tutelary (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It's interesting that BLPTALK includes "and not related to making content choices", but you must be reading it wrongly, or the the wording must be incorrect. Do you really think it would be ok for someone to post "I support adding a section describing how this person eats babies" at a talk page? And it could not be removed because it was about "making content choices"? Johnuniq (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is badly worded in the BLP policy. When I look at the wording as it was originally added, it seems to directly contradict the preceding paragraph. I doubt that an exception for material related to content choices was intended there, and I've started a discussion on the policy talk page to clarify this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed an example (diff)—is this removable per BLPTALK? Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for the shitstorm that occured on the Zoe Quinn talk page.

Your's truly- (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please help on Opera Pics[edit]

Unfortunately I am heavily involved in some sort of edit war concerning the illustration of several Opera articles. Personally I feel persecuted by User:Michael Bednarek and I feel the urge to accuse him of vandalism because when ever I find a proper image showing an Opera scene he replaces it with architecture or the composer declaring that this is standard procedure. I am very desperate now (and upset). I want to use dispute resolution, but - having never done this and english not being my mother tongue - I don't know how to do it. He is currently destroying all my work in Ariadne auf Naxos, Der Rosenkavalier, Elektra and Salome. And I feel so humiliated. Please help.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 14:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Some of the discussion is going on in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, some on my talk-page, some on the talk-pages of the different operas. The problem is that this user is blocking also some of my work in German WP. So he reverted my edit in Die Soldaten (this is my version: [1]) is such a way, that the pic is now hidden somewhere below (this is his version: [2]). Should I, can I accuse this user of vandalism in what he did to my work within the last ten or fifteen minutes? I don't know what to do, I don't want to be accused of vandalism - as they already did in the Project Opera …. He also redid my work at L'Africaine and at The Magic Flute's Second Part.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 15:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
@Meister und Margarita: I haven't looked into this in detail, but it sounds like this isn't vandalism - rather, WikiProject Opera seems to have worked out a consensus for what opera articles should look like, and your edits seem to go against that consensus. I might have the details wrong, but at the very least it's clear that no-one's edits here are vandalism. Now, a consensus doesn't have to last forever - it is always subject to refinement or change through reasoned discussion. First I recommend calmly raising the issues you are concerned about on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera, and if that discussion doesn't find a resolution you are happy with, I recommend filing a case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. They will help you with any extra steps that may need to be taken. Hope this helps — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
{{|}}. Thanks for your reply. I already visited Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, there it said: If you need a helping hand just ask a volunteer, who will assist you. You are listed as one of the volunteers and so I came to you. Regarding the consensus: There is new consensus that the composer boxes be moved to the bottom of the page = exactly what I did. Nevertheless, Mr. M.B. is still insisting on the old Consensus and undoing all my work. IMHO it's now him standing up against the will of the majority. This is my complaint.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
@Meister und Margarita: Yes, this is me giving you the helping hand right here. :) I'm afraid my powers as a volunteer at DRN are quite limited (and I haven't actually handled any cases there in quite some time). I can't, for instance, tell anyone to write the articles in a certain way. All I can help you to do is to find a consensus. And from your description here, it sounds like rather than an "old" consensus and a "new" consensus, and various people following each, what you actually have is "no consensus". And mediating a dispute which doesn't yet have a consensus is out of "helping hand" territory and into dispute resolution territory. If you've already discussed this on a talk page and haven't reached a satisfactory conclusion, then a full-blown case at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard is the way to go. But beware - they do require a talk page discussion, so you can't skip that step. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation and your understanding.--Meister und Margarita (talk) 13:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Conflict has been resolved with the help of Pigsonthewing. Regards, --Meister und Margarita (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 August 2014[edit]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

zoe quinn[edit]

Hello, I am very upset that the Zoe Quinn ewiki page isn't even mentioning the [redacted] saga, I have seen through the 5,000 word post (the zoepost) the [redacted] did happen, and I for one would want gaming history to know of this. I'm asking you for I saw you were the last to edit it and it been locked from the public from adding any amount of truth. I would like to see the proof within thezoepost be shown and taken as facts, with screen shots and all. I am unable to link them. For I'm stuck on my cell phone, but this is a matter I follow closely and want what I think is the best soure of information to have all the facts presented. Thank you for your time

This has all been said on Talk:Zoe Quinn already, but our biographies of living persons policy is very strict about the kind of material that we can add to the article, which is why the controversy hasn't been mentioned in the article. See here for the latest. Also, you need to be careful about what facts you include in your talk page posts, due to the section about talk pages in the biographies of living persons policy. I've redacted a couple of things in your post here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-35[edit]

09:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)


My topic ban is about to expire. How would I go about making the appeal to have it lifted? Reece Leonard (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Reece Leonard: Your topic ban is indefinite, so it doesn't actually expire. After September 12, though, you can appeal to have it lifted. To appeal it, just start a new thread at WP:AN stating your case; if the discussion ends with a consensus to lift the ban, then it will be lifted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the help and your patience throughout this mess. Reece Leonard (talk) 23:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Editor Bias[edit]

Hello. I wanted to reach out and ask a question about the Zoe Quinn quagmire. I wanted to asked you spefically because you seem to be active there and trying to keep it objective and I might have evidence that some of the individuals participating in the conversations on the talk page have a personal tie to the subject. If I did, how would I go about addressing that? ~~Ron-- (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The place to do that is WP:COIN. However, you should try and discuss this with the users concerned first, as COIN isn't meant as a first resort. Also, make sure that you read the conflicts of interest guideline, and above all, make sure that you don't violate the "outing" policy. The outing policy takes precedence over the conflict of interest guidelines. And it will probably help your case if you register an account. Unfortunately, due to various problems with sockpuppetry and throw-away accounts used for undisclosed paid editing, etc., many established users are more likely to trust users with a few hundred edits under their belts than they are new and unregistered users. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the help. ~~Ron -- (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for a Semi protection[edit]

Hi, can you add a semi Protection for the page Stateless nation to reduce vandalism. thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vatasura (talkcontribs) 18:45, 26 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Hi Vatasura. There haven't been any vandalistic edits since the last protection expired, so it doesn't look like it is necessary to protect the page just now. If it becomes necessary in the future, you can leave a request at WP:RFPP. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Depression Quest[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Depression Quest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! czar  00:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Nabih Berri[edit]

Moved to Talk:Nabih Berri#WikiLeaks and the corruption section: Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2014[edit]

How are we supposed to discuss content?[edit]

If we can't discuss it on the talk? The content you reverted is directly related to making content choices, and you should not remove it. I'm not going to revert you again but am going to ask that you self revert. It's impossible to reach a consensus when any attempt to do so would be shut down. Tutelary (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Those were some pretty serious allegations, and the sourcing was dubious (Reddit and Talking Ship in particular). We can discuss claims that appear in reliable sources, but we can't repeat poorly sourced, problematic allegations. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:16, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-36[edit]

07:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Depression Quest[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Request to close the discussion of the RfC[edit]

Hello Stradivarius,

I let a message/question for you in Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Request_to_close_the_discussion_of_the_RfC. --Keysanger (Talk) 04:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re Nabih Berri[edit]


I have replied to you on the article's talk page. I hope the changes could be implemented soon and the article protected for a lengthier period.

Thank you, Callsfortruth (talk) 18:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Mason Bendewald Page Deletion Follow Up[edit]

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

This is a follow up to the talk message left on 21:58, 5 June 2014 (UTC), Titled Mason Bendewald Page Deletion

I'm requesting to reinstate Mason Bendewald's wikipedia page under the following wikipedia guidelines Nobility:People, Creative Professionals, 3. The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.

Mason Bendewald Wikipedia Page [[26]]

It is well-known that Mason Bendewald played a major role in the creation of P90X as the director of this project. His name is listed on back of the box cover as director and see below for links to supporting sources. [1]

Supporting Source:

[2][3][4][5] [6][7]

It is also well-known that Mason Bendewald is the Chief Production Officer at DailyBurn and has played a major role in directing their fitness videos. See below for supporting sources.

[8][9][10]Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

It is also well-known that Mason Bendewald played a major role by creating the Reject Film Festival in Philadelphia, PA. See below for supporting sources.


If I need to redraft this page, I can do that, I appreciate your expertise and knowledge of wikipedia.

Johnnyoro (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)Johnnyoro

@Johnnyoro: Hi there. It looks like some of those sources can be used, e.g. the ones about the Reject film festival. However, a lot of them don't pass our guidelines for identifying reliable sources, so make sure you read it before you try and create the article. I think the best idea would be to submit your article through Articles for Creation, as then it will be reviewed before being made live, and will be less likely to be deleted. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi Stradivarius, I've pinged you 2 times at Template talk:Lang-ka. Can you please make changes? Jaqeli 15:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello again Stradivarius, please check again the talk page of Lang-ka. Thanks. Jaqeli 23:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please see Lang-ka again. Thanks. Jaqeli 18:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So now there are credible sources talking on the Gamergate/Zoe Quinn matter[edit]

In the last 24 hours there have been several articles on the controversy

In it, it cites there was a censorship controversy in Reddit and "perceived radio silence on the part of the press" which "led to early grumblings of ‘censorship’ among gamers crying foul play". An alleged DMCA takedown on YouTube by people involved in the controversy (don't want to cite names since, as I said it's alleged. DDOS attacks on sites against their "game jam" (The Fine Young Capitalists) in itself a feminist game jam.

Please try to be neutral about the subject, I'm not in favor of attacking Zoe Quinn, just include facts about the CONTROVERSY of gaming journalism, which her game is in the center of. At least there should be mentioning of it. Also where would I go into discussing the blocked talk page of her article? And if this is libel against living persons, this isn't attacking her, it's not talking about her personal life. Just the controversy surrounding her, aside a lot of different people and sites (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there. This should probably go on Talk:Zoe Quinn. There's not much I can do about it - there needs to be a consensus there to add material before any edits can be made. As that page is semi-protected, you will need to ask at WP:RFED so that someone can copy your comments across for you. Alternatively, you can register an account, and then you will be edit the talk page after you are autoconfirmed. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Maybe I'm incredibly stupid or blind and just can't find where I'm supposed to click, but even the talk page seems to have been locked. Could you look into it? I don't know who else to contact. I was able to post there before, and now not. Willhesucceed (talk) 11:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Willhesucceed: You need to make three more edits, and then you will be autoconfirmed, and will be able to edit the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of Youtubers[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Notability of Youtubers. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


Please consider removing the page protection for Template:Update-small (protection log). It was protected due to being "highly visable" yet only has 14 transclusions. Not a major issue, but I do thank you for looking into this. Senator2029 “Talk” 01:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. Senator2029 “Talk” 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


Can you look at gerrit:158323 and make sure you're okay with the differences between Module:Arguments and it? I mentioned the major breaking changes at Module talk:Arguments#Integrating with Lua. (I'm at a loss as to why my ping there didn't work.) Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jackmcbarn: I got the ping, I just didn't have time to look at the code when I got it. I've made some comments on Gerrit now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

RE:Depression quest[edit]

The sources i have issues with are the journalistic sites, There has been a recent outcry over the integrity of these sites. I'll try to find a source that documents the outcry (I have seen the source somewhere) but the general consensus among the gaming community is that quite a few gaming sites have little ethics. Retartist (talk) 23:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't determine reliability of a source based on another source's say-so. Instead, we use the rules at WP:RS, and have a discussion at WP:RSN if we can't agree how to interpret WP:RS in respect to a given source. (Also, this discussion would probably be more visible at Talk:Zoe Quinn, not here.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2014[edit]

concerning war of the pacific[edit]

I noticed that you refused to author a change to this article despite the fact a RFC section was conducted with the majority of the contributors were in favour of a change. I know the RFC is very very long with the main instigators being Keysanger and Eddy. However if you look at the contributions of user User:Eduardo Eddy Ramirez you will notice that this user is merely a single purpose account which attacks Keysanger on the article. That’s all this account has done and it’s possible that this user might be a sock-puppet. Furthermore the contiguous paragraph which the RFC aims to change uses a citation that links to a Biography of a famous Chilean Romance novelist which by no means is a history book or a valid source for this article. However User:Darkness Shines uses a large chunk of the RFC to defend this citation as legitimate. With the information I have given you I would very much like for you to change your view on this issue or even refer this matter to another administrator. Furthermore please look into the actions of user User:Eduardo Eddy Ramirez. I will not name the editor but user Eddy resembles a current editor which has been topic banned indefinitely on Latin American history in addition considers Darkness Shines a "friend". (talk) 10:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-37[edit]

09:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Flow. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nabih Berri again[edit]


modification you made to the article Nabih Berri are being reverted by the user callsfortruth, obviously changes conducted by this user are a clear violation of BLP rules and show a case of vandalism

thank you for reading — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lebanesetruth (talkcontribs) 08:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content? Huh. Why don't you get some other admins to look into it? It his highly unethical and suspicious on your part to removed content that is actually sourced under the pretext that the section names are negative. Kindly recheck your behavior. Callsfortruth (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Callsfortruth: Yes, unsourced content. For example, "[he] is thought to maintain his support base through access to state funds." And "Assi's deals are seen as highly controversial, since the founder of the Amal Movement, Musa al-Sadr, is known to have been disappeared on the orders of Gaddafi himself." Those are both unsourced. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The first one is mentioned in the reference immediately before. The second one, regarding Gaddafi being responsible for Musa al Sadr's disappearance, this one I can get literally countless references for, but it is common knowledge and Lebanon disrupted diplomatic relations with Libya for thirty years because of that. Furthermore, if two statements were unsourced, which they are not, this doesn't allow you to remove all other edits. Callsfortruth (talk) 09:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, I believe that User:Talal.talal1 should be blocked indefinitely for consistent sockpuppeteering and not just his newly-created sockpuppet. Callsfortruth (talk) 09:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
@Callsfortruth: If the first one is mentioned in the reference immediately before, then you need to add a second reference at the end of the sentence. Or just move the reference to the end of the sentence. (See here for how to cite the same reference more than once.) And the second one still needs to be cited. It may be common knowledge in Lebanon, but it isn't where I live, and again, WP:BLP is very strict about requiring citations. Be careful of original synthesis when you cite it, as well - the source must mention the disappearing of al-Sadr in connection with Assi's deals.

I don't want to block User:Talil.talil1 again just yet, as User:Lebanesetruth only became active after Talil.talil1's previous block expired. I'm hoping that this user can go back to the Talil.talil1 account and edit productively, but if similar accounts show up I may block Talil.talil1 again.

Finally, you mentioned in one of your edit summaries that I have "no right" to undo your edits, but actually, no user on Wikipedia has a right to write content exactly how they want, or even a right to use the site itself. See Wikipedia:Free speech for more about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Callsfortruth: you're taking this article too personal and keep reverting edits conducted by users and admins and you keep complaining that your knowledge in Wikipedia's rules is bigger than an admin's while it clearly shows otherwise, anyone reading the edits you made to this article clearly sees how personal you're taking it, please keep your edits neutral as it clearly states by wikipedia and stop trying to distort the image of living people

as for Mr. Stradivarius I can only say thank you for applying Wikipedia's rules and keeping it to the book. talal.talal1 (talk)

Nabih Berri[edit]

Painting101 seems to be a new sock there - or a meatpuppet, gets autoconfirmed and then targets the article in less than an hour. Dougweller (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: This is a bit late and only tangentially related, but I saw this comment at the Lebanesetruth SPI and thought here would be a good place to reply. You said that Painting101 managed to get autoconfirmed in a couple of hours, but that's only the time after they made their first edit. The four-day count for autoconfirmed-ness starts when a user registers, not when they make their first edit, and Painting101 had registered a few days before. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I forgot about that. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio in List of DOS commands[edit]

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

How do you do?

It appears we have a full-scale copyvio problem in List of DOS commands article. The entire article and all its revisions are the problem and what is not the result of copy & paste cannot survive a WP:CSD#G1 deletion on its own.

The problem is that the source from which the copyright violation has occurred is not on the web, but the documentation pages of MS-DOS and PC-DOS, so I can't use {{Db-g12}}. I've taken screenshots of these pages on MS-DOS 6.22 and made them available for your perusal: [32]

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Codename Lisa: I've looked at the files, and I agree that those are clear copyright violations. I've reverted back to the latest semi-clean version, removed the obvious copyvio from that, and restored all the non-copyrighted content that I could. I revdelled the rest, although some early revisions still remain. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
You found a clean revision? That's pretty impressive! You must've read hundreds of revisions.
I wondering if I can have your advice too: What think is best to do with the remaining of the article? Clean, sweep and improve, or nominate in AfD for WP:NOTMANUAL violation?
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: I'd lean towards clean, sweep and improve, although there might be a case for deletion. If you think it should be deleted it would be better to nominate it, so that you don't waste a lot of effort improving it only to have it deleted later. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That's exactly the concern. Maybe I should consult someone who is both an admin and is knowledgeable about the computing landscape. Trouble is: I don't know such a person. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
@Codename Lisa: In that case, just nominate it, and note your concerns in the nomination statement. It's not the end of the world if something goes to AfD and doesn't get deleted, and if you explain your reasons for nominating it clearly, then people aren't likely to hold it against you. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Willing to serve as closer for this discussion?[edit]

There is an ongoing merger discussion at Talk:2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine#Suggested merge. It involves merging Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014) into that article. The "invasion" article has been filled with controversy since it started, and hence I think it is appropriate to request an uninvolved neutral party to close the discussion and assess consensus when the time comes. Having seen your level-headed comments appear in that dastardly and related AN/I thread, I thought you'd be a good choice for the role. If you're interested, it would be much appreciated. For reference, I'll also provide a link to this deletion discussion. RGloucester 05:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: I'm flattered to be asked, but unfortunately I don't know if I will have time to look at this this weekend. I suggest that you list it on WP:ANRFC, and I'll take a look at it if I do manage to find the time. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Got it. I'll post at the board. Thanks very much! RGloucester 04:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As the blocking admin of Reece Leonard[edit]

Just to let you know that this happened. Apparently he believes that he did not sock and all the proof at the SPI report is me and @SNUGGUMS: agenda to get him blocked. Welp. —Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 07:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not accurate at all. That post was my reaching out and apologizing for any kind of hinderance I may have caused him, and I simply forgave him for accusing me of socking on over 25 separate occasions with absolutely no proof. He regularly called users who challenged his edits by my name, much to their confusion and frustration, and I absolutely did not appreciate it. I rightfully pointed out that making any kind of accusation without proof is harassment, and to do it 25 times is absolutely ridiculous, but I forgave him because I want to move on. The "archive" he links to has several instances in which this user and another accused me of using a sock and it was found out that these allegations were inaccurate and baseless. There are two instances on that page in which I was blocked, and while I will continue to maintain that these accounts were not operated by myself, I understand why I was blocked. There was evidence, no matter how flimsy or circumstantial it was. He accused me dozens of times of operating accounts that were located in different countries, which is absolutely impossible unless I had actually moved to that country specifically for the purpose of making a sock puppet account. The only one with a conspiracy theory is the user above. I absolutely maintain that I socked on the ARTPOP talk page and have apologized to this user for doing so, so for this user to claim that I believe that I "didn't sock" is a flat out falsehood. I would urge you to read the post I made and not this filtered summation that this user has posted here with a passive aggressive "welp" in an attempt to make me seem completely unapologetic for my past actions. He has been discussing the fact that I will be seeking an ANI lift on my ban (that has lasted over half a year) with the user that he has regularly worked with on several failed attempts to have me blocked (several of which took place during a four month hiatus I had taken from this site due to how anxiety-inducing it was to have to log in every day and face another false accusation) after it was discovered that their allegations were false, presumably to warn each other so that they could attempt to have this ban extended indefinitely. I also forgave the other user that IndianBio affiliates with (Snuggums) for attempting to post personal information that he believed to be my own from an outside social media account on this site as an attempt to "use it as evidence" against me, an action punishable by immediate and possibly indefinite block. I would also like to mention that, when I posted my lengthy call for a better relationship in the spirit of Wikipedia's communal contribution policy to these two users, they immediately deleted it. I've attempted to work with these two despite repeated instances of WP:Harassment and they have refused. I will continue to attempt to work with them in the future, despite the fact that this user obviously posted the above message with the intention of misleading you into believing that I am entirely unapologetic and will disrupt his editing practices. This is hurtful, but I will move on with the idea of WP:Good Faith in mind. Reece Leonard (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm no goody-goody two shoes, Reece, and neither is IndianBio, but your socking wasn't any better- CheckUser detected you socking on multiple instances. I gave your offer thought (not an immediate delete), but ended up declining as I wasn't confident in you not socking again. Regaining trust won't be so simple after that. As admin Ponyo once said, you shot yourself in the foot in terms of credibility by socking on Artpop. Snuggums (talk / edits) 07:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit for Dendrogramma[edit]

NickGibson3900 Talk 09:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 September 2014[edit]

Tech News: 2014-38[edit]

08:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 September 2014[edit]

Please comment on Template talk:Citation style[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Citation style. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Obsolete football competition editnotices nominated for deletion[edit]

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. FYI, I have nominated a bunch of obsolete football competition editnotices, some of which you created, for deletion. You are welcome to participate in the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2014 (UTC)