User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 →


  • Thanks: I see that at last I am getting some help with history-merging. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 18:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
    You're welcome! Always glad to help out. It was a bit confusing the first couple of times, but I think I've got the hang of it now. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 18:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

About hist-merging: I'm a bit confused (or slightly irritated perhaps) that at Qaxach Tower / Kachaghakaberd two more admins have had to perform yet more histmerges, after I did one just a month ago or so. Did you see what happened there? As far as I see, the page was originally at Qaxach Tower; then somebody did a cut-n-paste move of it to Kachaghakaberd in June; then I repaired that by merging it back to the original location on 30 June, drawing furious protests by the POV warriors who didn't get their way [1]; I told them they should do the normal thing and file an RM; instead of doing that, another editor comes out of the woodwork, does yet another cut-n-paste move, files an out-of-process AfD against the original page, fools one administrator into speedy-deleting that original page as an alleged duplicate, and then everything gets doubly hist-merged another time (or twice? Why did Explicit and you both end up having to do one?) – Pure chaos :-) I mean, I couldn't care less whether it ends up at this title or the other, but somehow it just doesn't feel right that it happens in this way. Fut.Perf. 19:11, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that one was a bit chaotic - it took me half an hour just to figure out which bits of history had been at which title at which times. It looks like Explicit didn't actually merge anything, which makes the logs even more confusing. He just moved Kachaghakaberd to Qaxach Tower, then apparently gave up and moved it back again, leaving a {{histmerge}} tag. The only one who merged any actual history that time was me. I agree with you that it doesn't feel right, though. I was actually considering fully protecting the redirect, but it didn't really seem justified as no-one actually did a cut and paste move to Qaxach Tower - both of them went from Qaxach Tower to Kachaghakaberd. I'll go and have a look at the sources and see if I can find out what the right title should actually be. Hopefully we can prevent the need for a third history merge. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I get four GBooks hits for "Kachaghakaberd" versus zero for "Qaxach Tower", and about 1500 Google hits for "Kachaghakaberd" versus about 40 for "Qaxach Tower" (and the hits for "Qaxach Tower" all seem to be from Wikipedia, despite me trying to exclude Wikipedia from the search). It looks like "Qaxach Tower" is a direct translation from the Azerbaijani name for the fortress (az:Qaxaç qalası) and isn't actually used in English at all. The reason seems to be some sort of naming dispute between Armenian and Azerbaijani, but I'm not sure of the details. Whatever those details might be, the few English-language sources there are all use "Kachaghakaberd", so the case for "Qaxach Tower" seems very weak. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 20:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for checking. I'm happy to leave it at that if you feel the evidence is clear enough. (All the more annoying though, that if the situation is so clear, none of the editors involved could be bothered to do the correct thing and file an RM; they could have spared us all a lot of work.) Fut.Perf. 05:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Mr Stradivarius, I just saw you eliminating disruptive edition from a Talk Page. Do you happen to have sysop rights? There is an IP disrupting Talk: Tenedos. I removed his "shit" comment but I think he needs a more authoritative warning/measure. Arigato. --E4024 (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I couldn't really see anything disruptive in the talk page history, but I might have just missed it. Could you give me a diff? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Here. Just look at the last comment over the "Request for Comment" title. He makes mock of the proposed change, "Bozcaada", by deforming it like "Bozcashat". (I am sure he hopes to get away with this for changing the (i) of the word "shit" to "shat".) However, in no typing board "ada" could change to "shat" for typing mistake, especially if the "Bozca" part is intact there... All the best and sayonara. --E4024 (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm... actually, I have no idea whether the word "Bozcashat" is rude or not. It might just be some idiom or expression in Greek or Turkish. I don't want to give out warnings for editors who use words I don't understand. Maybe you could ask for the second opinion of a Greek- or Turkish-speaking Wikipedian? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It most certainly isn't some idiom or expression in Greek (Greek has no "sh" sound, for starters), and I can't think of anything Turkish either. Fut.Perf. 18:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
It is simple shit, Future Perfect, it is... --E4024 (talk) 20:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on Template:Infobox_disease

Hi, I wonder if you've noticed that I reactivated this edit request. Thanks! Klortho (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

DRN needs your help!

Hey there Mr. Stradivarius, I noticed that you haven't been very active at the dispute resolution noticeboard lately where you listed yourself as a volunteer - I was hoping if you had some spare time if you could take a look there and offer some assistance. Thanks again for your help :-) Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 11:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your support in my RfA and your well wishes. I look forward to maintaining your trust in me.—Bagumba (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for not biting me

Haha thanks for notifying me and not biting me - I cocked up with the CSD templates. Need to learn slowly - only just really got going with it again. Porterjoh (talk) 23:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I was just using a script, it wasn't a big deal at all. Really I'd like to leave a personalized message for everyone whose speedies I decline, but that would be an awful lot of typing. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about the process though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 23:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


Hello. I edited Talk:Qoma. He was a chief in Fiji, but when some article is redirected, what happens to its talk page?-- (talk) 11:49, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. There's no particular need to redirect talk pages if the corresponding article is redirected, and in fact if you don't redirect the talk page it makes it easier to find. I don't think there's any particular rule about it though. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Beatles mediation

Hi, Mr. Stradivarius. First off, thanks for keeping my talk page clean while I was gone. I do appreciate it.

Now, a question: Would it be at all possible for us to remove 99's address from the list of involved parties? I feel like this is part of why he feels the need to keep coming back; he feels that he's still legitimately part of it, when the community at large seems to have recognized him as a troll for the past month or so. I suggest we deny recognition and also remove all of his comments at the mediation page, if that is allowed by WP:RTP.

Just some thoughts. I could be completely off-base, so if I am please let me know. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! I agree with Evan, assuming protocol allows this. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there, and sorry for the delay in replying. The IP is already stricken from the list, so I don't think any more action is needed there. I've collapsed the only comment by them on the mediation page that I could see as well. (If there are any others, feel free to collapse them unless doing so would interrupt the flow of conversation.) Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! And no worries about the delay. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


I have removed the {{prod}} tag from TALK2ME, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. I have removed the WP:PROD tag due to the addition of secondary sources as well as my intent to continue building on the article and working to get it up to standards. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jessbear14 (talkcontribs) 14:46, 2 September 2012‎ (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. I've listed it at AfD with a more detailed rationale. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for your input at Beatles mediation

Just a note, in case it gets lost in our current wall of text, that your input has been requested in regard to the issue of whether or not a rhesus monkey and a dishwasher can be considered the same thing. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 03:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Apologies again that this reply has been so slow - something in real life came up and I haven't been able to access Wikipedia for the last three days. It looks like that particular thread has already been settled in my absence, but I see that a new issue has come up in the thread below that could do with some attention. This looks like one I will need to discuss with Feezo, so I don't want to say anything about it right away, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:54, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for help in mediation

Dear Mr. Stradivarious, my name is Patricia Caicedo, my username is singerpat. I´m writing you to ask for help. A few years ago, I believe on 2007, the article with my biography was deleted and blocked after I uploaded a picture. This because the person in charge of articles thought I was selfpromoting myself and because I did not have rights for using the image. Same happen with the covers or my CDs that were rejected.

I´m a classical musician with years of experience, many concerts, a doctorate and I appear in Who´s who in America and WHo´s who in the world and Who´s Who in American Women among many other publications. I have published 4 books, 5 CDs and many articles and normally present concerts in different countries.

Other people I know also tryied to create an article about me and those were erased. The company who manages me also tried to create the article with no success.

I don´t know how to manage the Wikipedia page very well reason because I´m asking for your help and mediation. Last week I decided to ask for a mediation but did not anderstand well the procedure and Im sure I did it wrong. So please, could you help me resolve this situation?

I will be very grateful.

Thanks in advance and look forward to your news.


Patricia Caicedo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singerpat (talkcontribs) 17:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Patricia, and thank you for your message. Actually, questions of whether articles should be included in Wikipedia or not are not well suited to mediation. Mediation works best for disputes over article content, but as there is no article at the moment, there is no content that can be disputed. Instead, Wikipedia has developed a few guidelines about the creation and deletion of articles to decide what subjects can be included. The most important of these to your case is the general notability guideline, which states that any topic must have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". (See also this simple explanation of what notability means on Wikipedia.) When I searched the internet for sources about you, I found this article in El Tiempo, which is a very good example of the sort of sources that we are looking for. However, I couldn't find any other similar sources, and unfortunately articles are generally deleted when there is only one source available on the subject. Are you aware of any other sources like this which we could use? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Stradivarious, thanks for your answer and guidance. There are many articles like the one in El tiempo and interviews on video like this one on Russia Today . Most of news, articles and videos related to my work are in Google US. What can I do now? Thanks again! P. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singerpat (talkcontribs) 14:15, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
My biography also appears in the Who´s Who in the world, Who´s WHo in America, Who´s Who in American Women. This publications are made by Marquis and are very respected.
Dear Mr. Stradivarious, thanks for your answer and guidance. There are many articles like the one in El tiempo and interviews on video like this one on Russia Today. . Most of news an articles related to my work are in Google US. What can I do now? Thanks again! SINGERPAT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Singerpat (talkcontribs) 14:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Just link them to me here, and I'll take a look at them. If they are good enough to pass Wikipedia's guidelines, we can talk about making a draft article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:18, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I didn't see the link to the Russia Today video. That too looks like a good source that we can use. I'm afraid we can't use Who's Who as evidence of notability on Wikipedia - there's a long-standing consensus against using them for that purpose. (I can link the discussions if you want, but it's probably best to just trust me on this point.) So that's two good sources we have, the El Tiempo and Russia Today. Are there any other quality sources like this that you're aware of? The more high-quality sources there are the better your case will be. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! I´m attaching a few sources. Hope it works. THANKS AGAIN.
  • Russia Today interview here [2]
Other sources:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Singerpat (talkcontribs) 18:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello Patricia, and thank you for all those sources. Sorry to make you run around and find all the information for me, but thanks to your work I now have a pretty good idea of how an article on you would stand in relation to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I'm afraid to say that the news I have isn't so good though. Though the El Tiempo article and the Russia Today interview are good sources, the other sources cannot be used to prove your notability, because they don't meet Wikipedia's fairly strict definition of a reliable third-party source. The "third-party" part is the main problem - most of them look reliable enough, but we generally only regard sources as third-party if they are published by respected publishing houses, news organizations, or scholarly journals.

With only the two sources from El Tiempo and Russia Today an article about you would have borderline notability, and it could face being deleted again, although this may be uncertain. I recommend waiting until there are more sources out there about you, and and then perhaps someone else will start an article about you. I don't want to leave you with a completely negative message, so here are a couple of good essays that you should read in the meantime: Wikipedia:Autobiography and Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of. Let me know if you have any questions ahout any of this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

King genovese - another sock?

Barely a few days after. Would've refiled, but the last report I made didn't seem to get archived yet. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I've filed a new SPI. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)


Thankyou very much Mr. Stradivarius for giving me those links to click on. I will try them. They are very useful, and it means a lot to me that you would help me with my talk page. Thank you Mr. Stradivarius! DEIDRA C. (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Deidra

Children's manga and anime

Why are you closing the this AfD discussion?? and what do you mean "no consensus" when like only 4 editors gave their opinion, re open that AfD and allow more time or else I will do it myself. --Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 14:41, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Camilo, and thanks for your post. I closed the discussion as it has been open for two weeks and was in the queue to be closed. I can see how you might like the discussion to stay open for longer, but actually it is usually preferable to close discussions as "no consensus" rather than relisting if enough people have commented on it. (And I count ten different contributors, not four, correct me if I'm wrong.) The guideline on this is at WP:RELIST. You're quite welcome to contest my close, but I'm afraid that you're not allowed to revert an AfD close by an admin. Instead you should go to deletion review where everyone interested can comment on it. Let me know if you have any more questions about the process here, and I'll be happy to help you out. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I love manga! You were doing a section about manga? COOL! DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you?

Hey! You've helped out a lot, and I just wanted to ask you if you can pleae add me to your Watchlist! That would be great Mr. Stradivarius. I am trying to improve my talk page. If you can come over and help me out a little, once in a while, I would really appreciate it! Thank you! I reallly hope you have a great week. DEIDRA C. (talk) 18:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. You're on my watchlist already, actually, because I welcomed you. I can't help but think that you should be improving articles rather than improving your talk page - after all we are here to build an encyclopedia - but hey, if it results in Wikipedia being improved in the long run then it can't be so bad. By the way, I had a look at your edit to Taki (Soulcalibur), and it looks like you need to check out our verifiability policy, and to check how those notes work. That's why your addition got undone. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. What I was trying to do, was do my talk page perfectly so I can start to work with articles I have a higher knowledge of. Thanks anyway. Also, later I need to ask you a question about editing articles. DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:08, 8 September 2012 (UTC) Oh, yes, I wanted you to come to my talk page and talk to me about the perfect steps to editing an article, because I really want to finally be accepted into Wikipedia. I really don't get the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. So I would love it if you went to my talk page and told me some professional things. I want to edit Adventure Time with Finn and Jake because my knowledge of it is pretty outstanding. If you could give me some pointers on it, that would be great. Thanks. DEIDRA C. (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Result of discussion on 'List of countries by ethnic and cultural diversity levels'

Hello, there were three votes for keeping the article (Kitfoxxe, Trevj and Bearian), one person had no opinion (Dbrodbeck). Two people who had voted to delete (Ipsign and S Marshall) earlier have not responded since I made substantial edits to address their concerns. So I think the result of the vote should be keep, not no consensus. Thanks. I am invariant under co-ordinate transformations (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there FMT. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the concerns raised by Ipsign and S Marshall. Their arguments were well-grounded in Wikipedia's deletion policy, and it could also be reasonably argued that the Patsiurko, Campbell and Hall (2012) source is a primary source, depending what parts and in what context it is used. It would have been nice for there to have been more discussion about this particular source, but in the absence of such discussion I simply assumed that Ipsign's and S Marshall's arguments would also extend to cover that source as well.

I think the basic issue here is that, from a Wikipedian point of view, the article has been written backwards. It was written from the main primary sources in the field, and then secondary sources were sought to provide additional views and commentary. In the academic world this is good practice, and the sign of a well-thought-out and well-written article. However, in Wikipedia, this is a tell-tale sign that an article may be based on original research, which is a big no-no. On Wikipedia, the bedrock of the article should be provided by the secondary sources, and then primary sources can be used to flesh out the details. This reminds me of a quote which Guy Macon has on his userpage:

"If Wikipedia had been available around the fourth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and Galileo's view would have been rejected as 'original research'. Of course, if there is a popularly held or notable view that the earth is flat, Wikipedia reports this view. But it does not report it as true. It reports only on what its adherents believe, the history of the view, and its notable or prominent adherents. Wikipedia is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. Which is A Good Thing." --WP:FLAT

Hopefully with this you can begin to understand the attitude to primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia, and why that attitude led to the article you wrote being nominated for deletion. With a "no consensus" close the article is not likely to be nominated again for a few months at least, and practical upshot will likely be the same as if the close had been "keep". There is a reasonable chance that the article would be kept an any future AfD debate, but there is not a lot we can do about that now unless more secondary sources are published that cover the subject in detail. There will likely be a quiet period at the article now that the AfD has been closed, so I recommend taking a break from it and concentrating on other articles you are interested in. And for next time, try starting with the secondary sources - it will save you a lot of headaches in the long run. This has been a bit tl:dr but I hope it helps. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 07:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Regarding afd

Sir, I have nominated Sanmarga for afd. But initially i found that it is not properly listed in afd listing. So I thought of removing the tag and nominating again. Now, This should have resulted in two nominations. I beg your pardon and am very Sorry for this. I don't know how to rectify the same. So am kindly requesting you to rectify the mistake. -- Bharathiya (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I've fixed it for you. Let me know if you have any more AfD trouble. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 06:37, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown Emergency Response Medical Service

Got an EC with you while trying to close this AFD. Are you sure it needs relisting? Deryck C. 11:24, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I was relisting pretty much per Stalwart111's comment - I'd like to see more discussion along that general theme, and also about how the sources relate to WP:CORPDEPTH. That said, if you want to close it, feel free. Just revert my changes and have at it. I should probably leave a relisting comment if you don't, though, as it is probably going to confuse people given the two "keep" !votes. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:31, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
I'll leave it open. Do go ahead and add your relister's comment. Deryck C. 11:40, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, done. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Fazhengnian/“Sending Forth Righteous Thoughts”

I came here after noticing a Notability discussion at Talk:Falun Gong. Then I discovered Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fazhengnian. Here is an image of Falun Gong practitioners send forth righteous thoughts before the Chinese Consulate in New York. According to google books, secondary reliable sources discuss the subject of FLG "sending forth righteous thoughts". According to primary FLG sources: "Sending forth righteous thoughts is one of the three things that Master requires of us. It is very important, and every Fa-rectification period Dafa disciple must do well in this regard.". Bottom line is I am not sure why the page was deleted. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:34, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi AgadaUrbanit. Among some of the "keep" !voters there seemed to be a misunderstanding of WP:RS, and User:Cravix's comment seemed to be a case of WP:ITSIMPORTANT. The "delete" !voters, on the other hand, mostly pointed towards the lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. I chose to delete because the "deletes" seemed much better based in policy than the "keeps". Most of the mentions in that Google Books search you linked to above look like mentions in passing, so they could reasonably be argued not to count towards notability; if solid sources can be found, though, there is no reason that another article on fazhengnian cannot be created. I think probably the best way of going about this would be to add more content on fazhengnian to the main falun gong article, and split it out if it becomes big enough. Or if you like, you are welcome to take this to deletion review if you think there was a procedural problem with my close. Let me know if you have any more questions about any of this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:00, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 07:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: natural and programming languages labels

Hello! Template talk:Infobox software § RfC: natural and programming languages labels is now month old. As you proposed the RfC and didn't !vote there, I wanted to ask you to close it formally and implement the result. Thanks in advance! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 11:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. :) I'd be glad to close it, but I'm going to be busy today. Can you hold on until tomorrow? — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:21, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, no deadlines on Wikipedia, and I'm not in a hurry. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 13:45, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, closed. Let me know if there's any aspect of the implementation that I messed up. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm only not sure whether it is right to remove the links per lack of consensus – as I get it, no consensus means no change. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 09:37, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, I suppose so, but then I don't think it would make that much sense to use a wikilink with "written in" and "available in". This seems like a good place to apply IAR to me, although I'm not opposed to adding back the wikilinks if people object. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm OK with no links. If anybody isn't, malcontent will surface on talk page, and dedicated discussion will result in some explicit consensus. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talktrack) 17:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution about minorities in Greece

Hi. Referring to this closed dispute, I see no progress have been made. I had to be absent since almost a year and user Chzz seems to have turned inactive meanwhile. Besides, unfortunately, I see no progress in the page. Do you have any suggestions as to how to solve this issue? Best regards, Filanca (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Filanca! I recommend filing another case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and linking to the discussion that was closed. We can work out what the best course of action is after that. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:08, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

According to deletion of Minetest article

In my opinion, this article should not be deleted. Of course, it may be not fitting in your "notability guideline", but really, what exactly does it mean? And why are the articles from the community-driven pages considered as "unreliable"? Seriously, Wikipedia was meant to be "free and open encyclopedia that anyone can edit" and to gather crowdsourced information. This point has been lost since, if articles like that are being deleted. According to the policy, it seems to me, every article regarding a smaller or even bigger open source projects is a subject for a deletion. My question is: why is that? You need from the article to be "notable" and it is hard for open source projects, because the projects there, especially the less known but great games like Minetest, hardly ever win some prize or are reviewed on games websites or in magazines - just because they are free and open source, and websites and magazines like that focus on the commercial projects. In my opinion, having some information about this game on Wikipedia would not be a harm to Wikipedia itself, more - it will be an enrichenment. Please reconsider your decision.Phitherek (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Phitherek. Articles from community-driven sites are not generally considered as "reliable" per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources as anyone is free to write anything they like about a subject. If we did not have this rule then editors could write an article about their pet subject, and then source it to sources that they themselves wrote. (See WP:SPS for the policy.) I hope that you can understand that it would not be a good idea for us to allow this kind of thing on Wikipedia. But actually, the guideline for identifying reliable sources goes one step further. It requires that sources have some sort of process of editorial oversight or fact-checking to be considered as reliable, and this is where the sources that were in the article seem to fall down. If sources that have this kind of fact-checking are found in the future, then we can consider having an article about Minetest and possibly restoring the article that was deleted. But until this is the case, we have to abide by Wikipedia's notability guidelines, I'm afraid. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this, and I'll be glad to help you out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for action in Infobox Software

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius

Thanks for this edit. It was long overdue. I am glad it has finally come.

By the way, you needn't have used {{nowrap}} because of |labelstyle=white-space: nowrap that is already in the code.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ah, that's a good point. I'll go and remove it now. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Just Decided To

Can you share more about why you relisted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Just Decided To? Something beyond the boilerplate in the discussion of "generating more discussion". Is there anything in particular you see missing from the discussion? Please be specific, I'm trying to understand why this was relisted.--RadioFan (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I decided to relist basically because there weren't any new convincing arguments presented since the last relisting. At the moment the discussion seems to be leaning towards redirection, but I saw it as borderline as to whether there was a strong enough consensus for it to be closed. As it was borderline, I thought I would err on the side of caution and defer to the previous relisting admin's decision. Hope this explains things well enough. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 04:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate the explanation. I get a bit concerned when I see multiple re-listings. They generally drag things out and rarely produce much additional productive discussion. Occasionally it does happen though.--RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Article about Radha Thomas

Hi. I have created an article about Radha Thomas and am contemplating it to move it to the AFC space. Before that, I'd really appreciate if you could have a look and give me some inputs, suggestions and advice and hopefully a green signal :-). Here's the link: Varunr (talk) 09:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


It was a trial template that I forgot to delete - thanks for pointing it out Victuallers (talk) 21:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talking about you behind your back ...

Just wanted to let you know I mentioned your name to someone seeking advice about dispute resolution in a particular protracted article naming issue, at Tenedos/Bozcaada. Maybe you could offer some advice on the basis of your mediation experience. Current thread here. Cheers, – Fut.Perf. 15:43, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi, as FP mentioned I'm, and possibly few silent others, are seeking information on mediation concerning the title for Tenedos/Bozcaada article. Currently, there is a move conflict that seems to have spilled into a various sections of Wikipedia. The question I'm looking for an answer is what kind of formal actions can we consider to resolve this and avoid it for a longer amount of time. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there TDLS! First of all, we need to wait for the move review discussion to be closed, as dispute resolution processes usually won't take on cases that are already under discussion in other venues. Then I think it would be a good idea to wait a while for the results of the move discussion and the move review to sink in. A minimum of three months is the general accepted standard, as it is usually seen as disruptive to start new move discussions very soon after a previous discussion has been closed. Personally, I think six months may be a more appropriate figure, to give everyone some breathing space. After that, we can reassess the mood at the page and see whether another move discussion, or perhaps a request for mediation, would be worthwhile. However, if the move review ends with no consensus and the title is still in active dispute, it may be worthwhile to start a request for mediation straight away in order to prevent the dispute from becoming further entrenched. Send me another message here when the move review is closed, and I'll be able to give you a clearer answer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 12:24, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. My gut tells me that it will be less than 6 months that we'll see an other move request but let's see how the move review ends. I'll inform you when it does. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 13:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Toronto FC photo

I do understand why consensus is needed. A user requested a photo. I have one to add. Kingjeff (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. The problem is that another user also objected to including the photo in the article, so there is no clear consensus for including it. This means that more discussion is needed - if more discussion results in a consensus, then we can include it. If there is no consensus for inclusion, though, then it should stay out, I'm afraid. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Adminship

Hi, Mr. Stradivarius - I don't think I'm quite ready to go for the mop at this time, but I am genuinely flattered that you would think enough of my contributions here to ask. If I reconsider in the future, I'd hope to still have your support. Thanks again for the nice words! Cheers,  Gongshow Talk 02:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you would pass an RfA easily, but it's your choice, of course, and if you don't feel like running now then I'll respect that. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 02:26, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Adminship, part II

Thank you very much for the offer, but I just can't see going thru the vetting process just so I could delete the odd redirect page - that's about the only thing I'd like to be able to do that I can't now. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you were active at AfD, so I thought you might be able to help out there. There's always WP:RM as well if you like dealing with page moves. The offer is always open, so feel free to mull it over as long as you want and let me know if you're ready to go for it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

I was impressed by your detailed close of Template talk:Infobox software#RfC: natural and programming languages labels. Would you consider closing the discussions listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure in addition to the AfD discussions you already close? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's probably about time I had a look at those! I did say I would help there in my RfA, after all. I'll close some when I have a spare moment. And thank you for the compliment, by the way. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 06:39, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I didn't notice you had volunteered to help out at ANRFC in Q2 of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you for volunteering! Cunard (talk) 06:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Mr. Stradivarius. This will be, if not our final newsletter, one of the final ones :). After months of churning away at this project, our final version (apart from a few tweaks and bugfixes) is now live. Changes between this and the last release include deletion tag logging, a centralised log, and fixes to things like edit summaries.

Hopefully you like what we've done with the place; suggestions for future work on it, complaints and bugs to the usual address :). We'll be holding a couple of office hours sessions, which I hope you'll all attend. Many thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 11:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I don't know how to proceed in reopening the Concerns and controversies over Confucius Institutes dispute that was temporarily closed on 18 June 2012. Would you be willing to help us resolve this? Thanks, Keahapana (talk) 20:59, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keahapana. I think the best course of action would be to file a new case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and link to the old case that was closed due to the conflict with the ArbCom proceedings. If we can resolve it there, we will, and if not, then we'll refer it on to the appropriate venue. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:01, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I've just left a message on PCPP's talk page, but noticed that he/she hasn't contributed since 8 August. I'll keep you updated. Thanks again for your help. Best, Keahapana (talk) 01:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi everyone, sorry I haven't be editing for a while, but the AE case ended and the arbitrators didn't touch the really touch anything related to DR, so I'll be happy to reopen the case and hopefully work something out with Keahapana. The old case is here [8].--PCPP (talk) 02:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi sorry again is there any follow up to the case? I was really busy in the last couple of weeks but I can spare some time next week.--PCPP (talk) 12:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi there. Again, let's open up another thread on WP:DRN and see what conclusions we can come to. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:18, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
No problem, but should I repost the archived thread?--PCPP (talk) 06:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
I think it would be fine just to leave a link to it. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour (have a chat) 06:37, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Hey, on second though I'd be leaving for China later this week, and it doesn't seem like this dispute can be solved in a few days, so is it possible to pospone the DR until I get back in mid October? Thanks--PCPP (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Sure, that's no problem - there's no deadline here, after all. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 13:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

That's fine with me. However, the article has become outdated. Since we stopped editing in June, some new CI controversies have arisen, including one involving LSE Professor Hughes. I've been waiting to update the page, but what should I do? Wait? Post the links on the Talk page? And PCPP, 一路平安. Keahapana (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

谢谢你,Keahapana. BTW feel free to include the stuff you want to add either in the talk page or your own user page.--PCPP (talk) 06:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like a good way of doing things to me. Propose a wording on the talk page, and we can work together until everyone is satisfied with it. Also, if a post on the talk page doesn't receive a response in a while, I think it would be ok to add the material to the article. We don't want to completely stop the flow of edits, especially while PCPP isn't free to participate in dispute resolution, but there's also no need to be hasty. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Poll disruption

Please remove the disruptive addition of a third option to the poll text. I agree with Piriczki. If the poll text changes during the process we open ourselves up to charges of confusion and disruption. Also, the mediators advised all parties to the mediation that the poll would not go live until the parties had reached agreement. Since no discussion for this third "option" occured during mediation, I argue that to allow it now is in fact to be in breach of the mediation agreement. ~ GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

I left a message on the talk page of the editor who added it, and Feezo removed it before I could get to it. Discussion about the option is now in the discussion section, which I think is probably a good place for it to go. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Re:Beatles notifications

Thank you, I will look at Andreasegde's talk page at once, your offer to mass revert is a good offer and will take you up on that if you don't mind, there might be a couple via my phone account User:Mlpearc Phone also. thank you very much I hadn't heard anything about the controversial status. Off to catch your link. (if you could let me know if your script works, if not I'll start it manually) Cheers Mlpearc (powwow) 15:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

According to my watchlist your script seems to be working, thank you for your help. Mlpearc (powwow) 15:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I think I've got all of them now (apart from the one at Talk:Rock music, which gave me a little chuckle). For some reason the script tries to revert everything twice, but luckily it seems the MediaWiki software doesn't allow that. Anyway, thank you for helping me deal with this quickly - it's much appreciated. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Your welcome, and thank you for the help, also I forgot about the Talk:Rock music I'm glad someone else found it lighthearted as it was meant (I wasn't absolutely sure it would be taken that way when I wrote it). Mlpearc (powwow) 03:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at Tvoz's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tvoz/talk 19:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. In regards to Clone Manga's recent deletion.

Today I found some more content that may (or may not) make Clone Manga's page eligible to return. It seems Clone Manga recently won an award The 5th International Manga Award. I believe it, along with the Shuester Awards it won in the past, plus the addition of the fact that Kim has published NNN and Paper Eleven, might give it the notability it may need to stay afloat. I've tried to read up on Wikipedia guidelines for notability, and I believe a webcomic with at least two of these under its belt can have an article put up. What are your thoughts? If you would like, I can provide you with the appropriate links in another PM. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super-staff (talkcontribs) 07:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Super-staff. It wasn't mentioned in the deletion debate, but I've just checked the article, and a mention about the 5th International Manga Award was inserted on September 16, 2012. That is after all the comments in the deletion debate were made, so you could be right that we have a faulty discussion on our hands. However, it looks like the award wasn't the top prize, but a "bronze award" that would put Kim in somewhere between 5th and 14th place in terms of numbers. I don't personally think that a bronze award would count much toward notability, but if you feel strongly about it then the appropriate place to bring this up is at deletion review. Let me know if you have any questions about filing a report there, and I'll help you out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Hello again! I would like to give it a shot, if possible. I'm a little new to this, so I would greatly appreciate any help you could give me in regards to filing a report. In addition, I did find out that Kim also published two of his works. In and of itself, it's not notable, but maybe if lumped in together with the other stuff can be considered enough to bring it back? I'm not entirely sure, so maybe you could clarify that as well? As for the page, is it possible to just bring it back or would it need to be re-written from scratch? Again, thanks for hearing me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Super-staff (talkcontribs) 14:05, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I've gone ahead and listed it - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 September 27, and please consider commenting there and putting it on your watchlist. Kim having published something doesn't count at all towards his notability - it has to be other people who have published stuff about Kim (or about Clone Manga). Have a look at the notability guidelines, and also this simple (and in-your-face) guide to notability for a better idea. And yes, it is possible to undelete the page as it was. It may also be possible to move it into your userspace, but let's see what conclusion the deletion review comes to first. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
Great, I stated my case there just now. I read the notability guideline before, but I'm going to give it a more thorough read through. Again, thanks a lot for helping me out!

Dispute Resolution RFC

Hello.As a member of Wikiproject Dispute Resolution I am just letting you know that there is an RFC discussing changes to dispute resolution on Wikipedia. You can find the RFC on this page. If you have already commented there, please disregard this message. Regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 08:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Unscruplous deletion of Indiavision news

Indiavision news page was indeed a perfect well researched page on wikipedia, I am surprised to see its deleted, people will think its mafia`sm is on wiki if such pages are deleted for ulterior motives, I kindly request you to put back this page or else all peoples will loose faith on wiki for your unpleasing actions.--Farhan.dastoor (talk) 09:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Farhan.dastoor. I can appreciate that you might be angry after seeing the Indiavision news page deleted. I assure you though that I didn't have any ulterior motives in doing so. It might help you to understand why the page was deleted if you look at the notability guidelines for companies and the short and simple guide to notability on Wikipedia. The two arguments for "Kindly UnDelete" and "Do NoT Delete" in the deletion discussion weren't based on these guidelines or on any other valid reasons listed in the deletion policy, and since administrators are only supposed to delete articles for valid reasons, I ignored those comments when I closed the discussion. After I ignored those comments there seemed to be a rough consensus to delete the article. If there are independent, reliable sources about Indiavision news, then we may be able to undelete the page, however. Are you aware of any such sources? Let me know if you have any more questions. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 09:31, 28 September 2012 (UTC)