User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14



Could you please ponder over my humble & small request which is just sitting on this page for like 10 days without a response? Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 05:47, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:25, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

WP Linguistics in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Linguistics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:39, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year 2013

Happy New Year 2013.jpg Have an enjoyable New Year!
Hello Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, –pjoef (talkcontribs) 10:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

May the New Year bring everything you wish for and more!
Wishing you and yours all the very best. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 10:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Pjoef! I hope 2013 will be a fantastic year for you too. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 11:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Help/Advice in creation of an article

Hello Sir, I wanted to create a page on Mr. Ziauddin Yousafzai, father of Malala Yousafzai. But am unable to create a page on Ziauddin Yousafzai as now it is a redirect. Could you kindly remove the redirect so as to enable to create an article about him.

Ok, the reason for the need of creation of an article on him is that now he has been appointed as United nation's Special advisor/envoy on Global Education [1] and also Pakistan’s education attache in Birmingham.[2] So IMHO, this makes him very much notable figure and as he has been nominated for the post of UN envoy, a page on him is feasible and needed.

Kindly advice. Thanks. Meanwhile wish you all a very happy New Year 2013..:) With best regards, Bharathiya (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. You can edit the Zauddin Yousafzai page through this link. Good luck with it, and if you have any more questions you can ask at the help desk. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 19:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Talk header

Firstly, thank you for your edits to {{talk header}}. However, I think you misunderstood what I was saying about categories somewhat: basically, my point is that on pages like Talk:iPad, it can now be called an "iPad" in the talk header, but is still referred to as an "IPad" in e.g. its GA status templates. Therefore I was asking whether it was possible to add that same display_title functionality to other templates, without it taking up an inordinate amount of your time? It Is Me Here t / c 10:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, just go ahead and make protected edit requests on the relevant template talk pages. You get bonus points for putting the code in the template sandboxes as well. Admins who patrol CAT:EP won't usually do your coding for you, but we might be able to give you a pointer on how to get the code working if you're stuck. You can also ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates if you want help. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Sonali Mukherjee

Do you remember you helped in Shubha Phutela where someone (subject's cousin) was asking to change information without source? Now, we have an article on a poor girl, an acid attack victim. I am bit caring towards this article because of misfortune of subject (see this Dailymail article very pathetic.)
Now, we have got someone (I reverted his first unsourced edit) who is saying we don't have correct information there! Any suggestion? Second question follows then. --Tito Dutta (talk) 11:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tito Dutta! Sorry, but I don't have time to help right now, and I'll be unavailable for a couple of days due to real-life commitments. Maybe you could make a post at WP:BLPN in the meantime? I'll check back in a few days when I'm free. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 15:52, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

My connection with another user on Wikipedia


I'm a little agitated, I apologize in advance. Remember before when I told you how I think I am connected with another user in Wikipedia that I do not know? Okay, it was no strictly you, because it was a Teahouse discussion but you replied. As I said, all my family used to contribute to Wikipedia and I am the last to start, but they don't tell me their user names.

Right, I think I discovered one of them. I am not sure but I think it is possible. I caught him editing Wikipedia. Didn't see his username but I saw what he was editing, so I think I know his user name from the article history.

What should I do?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have read WP:SHARE and WP:MULTIPLE but none of them say what should I do in this situation. I.e. is there an "I suspect this user shares an IP with me" template? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hey, Lisa! I'm a poor substitute for Mr. Strad, so you may still want to wait to hear from him, but I'd say that there's nothing you should do at this point. I'd guess that, if your family members don't want to divulge their account names, it's best to respect their wishes; revealing them without their consent could conceivably constitute outing. (How's that for alliteration? :) As long as y'all are not conspiring together to do things, there's nothing wrong going on, and you do have that one template on your userpage, so you're probably okay. Writ Keeper 21:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Codename Lisa, and sorry for the delay in replying to this. I generally agree with Writ Keeper (who, by the way, isn't at all a poor substitute for me) - there isn't any need to disclose this connection or the name of the article in question if everyone is editing in good faith and there is no meatpuppetry going on. I also agree that disclosing the relationship against their wishes could constitute outing, and is best avoided on-wiki. If there are other extenuating circumstances which you are worried about, you also have the option of emailing the Arbitration Committee, or if you are paranoid about email security you could send an email to a CheckUser who you trust. There is no absolute right course of action, as these policies are shades of grey rather than black and white, and a lot will depend on your particular circumstances. In the end this has to be your judgement call, just as if any problems were to arise it would be the judgement call of the checkusers or admins who looked at your case. Sorry I can't be more specific, but I hope this helps. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the reply. I contacted a checkuser on a secure channel who said he can't tell a lot of things but goose test (Am I right?) has failed by a very huge margin and apparently it is a good thing. Frankly, I am just being frightened more and more but I think the logical thing is that when three people (all of whom are at least sysops) tell me everything is all right, I must trust them and bear in mind that as long as I myself do not commit any puppetwork (if you may), I'll be alright.
Thanks for everything. You are marvelous, Mr. Stradivarius.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:18, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
It's the duck test, not the goose test, but you are right that failing it by a large margin is a good thing. :) I'm glad that things seem to be sorted out now, but as always, feel free to ask me here or by email if you want any more advice. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi There

Ive tried to create an page but it had been deleted. I have now found there are sufficient references I can sue to create the article, how do i do this if the page has previously been deleted?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. The article was deleted at this deletion discussion, which means that if you create a page that is sufficiently similar to the old page it can be deleted from Wikipedia straight away per section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. However, if you now have references that prove the website passes WP:WEB, then we can have an article on it. The best way to go about creating the article is to submit it to articles for creation and make a note that the page was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Please be aware that the page will need high-quality references for it to be kept, however. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 16:22, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox country

Hello again,

Thanks for implementing the Gini/HDI-handling in this template. I've since discovered a small wrinkle in it, though, so have just reactivated the edit request (with link to corrected version in sandbox). Hopefully, there're no more wrinkles waiting to emerge. Thanks again, (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Thanks for updating. So far, I haven't spotted any other misfires, but, now I've said that... (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
    No problem - glad I could help. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 20:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

External links question

Hello Stradivarius, Happy new year and Thanks for helping me out and letting me know the important info that you left on my talk page. Just wanted to check if the Wikipedia pages can have a link for community site such as Facebook, twitter, G+, so that if someone likes to share those article can be shared? Just thought, but asked in curiosity. Udangng (talk) 05:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Udangng. Usually we can't include such links. However, if the link is the official site of the subject of the article, then it is possible to include them. Also, all external links must be put in an "external links" section at the bottom of the article - they can't go in the article body. Have a look at WP:EL for the details. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)

I just noticed I had missed a probable BLP violation in the lede when I was clearing out the others. Citation 21 is a blog by Steven Kay in which he discusses Lord Avebury. Although a living person is not mentioned in the text in the article I am unsure if this is in fact a BLP issue. Can you take a look please? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a BLP violation, as the criticism in the article is of an organisation, not a person. It would probably be a good idea to remove the citation for failing WP:PRIMARY, however, but there's no rush to do so. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 20:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: YOUR REASON HERE — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2013‎ (UTC)

Hi there! To what do I owe this painful, fishy honour? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 22:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Re. Turkey

Deskana replied to our posts on his talk page, with his current stance on maintaining Turkey's full protection somewhat ambiguous; in no uncertain terms, however, he's made it clear that he doesn't have the time to keep track of the article or what goes on there.

I doubt anybody would mind if you downgraded the protection yourself (although I think an article like Turkey should probably be indefinitely semiprotected). Would you be willing to do so? Kurtis (talk) 16:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Yep, I've gone ahead and done it. I've also left a note at Talk:Turkey#Protection level reduced to try and dissuade people from edit warring. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There is now a consensus: Move?

There is now a consensus here, so perhaps you might be reconsidering your rejection of the proposal to move? Opposition has been withdrawn. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 08:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's only been 24 hours since you proposed the move, which isn't very fair on editors who don't check Wikipedia every day. I still think that it would be better to file a requested move so that the relevant WikiProjects are notified and that editors have time to comment if they are interested. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


What is the latest? [Guy Manning] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talkcontribs) 15:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there Guy. Since there have already been two recent deletion discussions about the article, it's probably not a good idea recreate it just now. I would say wait six months, and if there are more reviews in high-quality sources, then you can submit the article again through articles for creation. If you want to do this, give me a shout, and I can make sure the editing history of the page stays intact rather than creating a whole separate page for review purposes. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

OK will do...but I think 6 mths is too long...the album came out OCTOBER 2012!...there are now multiple reviews of it on my site (referencing the external sources as well)Quite why this ONE SIMPLE page is causing so much concern is beyond me! [Guy] 16 Jan 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talkcontribs) 14:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Pls have a look — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Hm, looks like a violation of WP:FAKEARTICLE - I'll have a word. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You made a mistake

I would appreciate it if you didnt delete my post on Adam Kwarasey, hes related to me so I think I know more about my own family then you. SHHHHHHHHHH — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, we aren't allowed to use first-hand knowledge when writing articles - have a look at our policy Wikipedia:No original research. You need to have a reliable source to back up claims that you want to include. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Userspace cat

I had no idea, about both the policy and the fact that my sandbox was showing up in categories. Thanks for handling that; in the future, I will make sure to just work with categories without the [ ] brackets in my sandbox, until the article is ready to be published. Thanks again! MezzoMezzo (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries. Commenting the categories out works well too, or you can just add them after you've moved the page to mainspace. Whatever floats your boat, really. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

Hi Mr Stradivarius, just a small point about your introduction on Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion: I'm not an administrator. I have nothing against the phrase closing admin as it has its own meaning on WP, but your explicit statement that the closers are all admins probably needs a tweak. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Not sure how I managed to miss that one... I'll go and change it now. Thanks for pointing it out. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Or on second thoughts, I could just nominate you instead. ;) I think you would probably pass... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That would not be a good idea at this time because I ran for ArbCom in November on a non-admin ticket---that's probably how I became a closer of the RfC. Gaining attention in this way, and a month later accepting an RfA nomination, would leave a bad taste in anyone's mouth. Besides, I still don't really need the tools. Cheers, Pgallert (talk) 05:58, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Ah, well, that's fair enough. (Plus I've already edited the introduction, so you no longer need to become an admin just so I can avoid copy-editing my work.) If you ever feel like running, though, give me a shout and I'll nominate you. My point of view is, if people will trust you to do a good job, then why not? It all helps the project. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 06:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocking of page Gary Terzian

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

You just blocked the page I created "Gary Terzian" The reasons mentioned are all the same as confirmed by a copy of the statement:

This matter has especially addressed by me by sending wikipedia by email the formal authorization to use all contents from the website

I have had a chat with your help service which advised me to send the email. They also informed me that I can recreate the page immediately after sending the email (see the chat at 17:13). So i am just following instructions. There is no intention from my part to force the recreation of the page. Please check below the chat that I had:

I hope this will clear any misunderstanding and unblock the page so that I can continue the editing. Thanks.

Silk road star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silk road star (talkcontribs) 00:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was my mistake. I have restored the page. Please note, however, that the page must also comply with our notability guidelines for biographies, with our verifiability policy, and with our policy on having a neutral point of view. In particular, if the subject of the article doesn't pass the notability guidelines, the page may be deleted again for that reason. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
After thinking about this some more, I have nominated the article for deletion myself, as I don't think the subject passes our notability guidelines of WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. (See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Terzian.) You are free to update the article in the meantime, though, and if you provide sources that prove the subject meets one of these guidelines then you may be able to prevent it from being deleted. As I have nominated the article for deletion, I won't take any more administrative actions regarding it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion and Salting of Gary Terzian

You deleted and salted Gary Terzian citing copyright infringment. The content in question however was not copyright infringment, as the website is the creator's. An OTRS email was sent by the creating user I believe. Can you please restore the page? Vacation9 01:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the page - see my comment in the related section above. Thanks for pointing it out! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:47, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that. Thanks! Vacation9 03:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I did do it after you left the message, so that's fair enough, really. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:27, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


Hey Mr. Stradivarius. Here is a userbox you might like to add on your user page:

Noia 64 apps karm.svg This user has been on Wikipedia for 7 years, 9 months and 28 days.


And by the way, do you have a guestbook? CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 05:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't really been on Wikipedia for that long. That's just when I registered my account. And no, I don't have a guestbook... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Infobox book

Hi, and thanks for updating {{Infobox book}} last month; I noticed that you also updated the doc page with what was actually a better solution than I'd coded. My version (currently in place) uses the "preceded_by_quotation_marks" field as a switch, so if anything was added to the field, the text in "preceded_by" would have quotation marks instead of italics. Your idea seemed to be to use either one or the other, which is much more straightforward, so I've made a working version in {{Infobox book/sandbox}}, and added an example here; the code tests to see if "preceded_by" has text, and only uses "preceded_by_quotation_marks" if it doesn't, which means that all current uses of the infobox will still work, as will any attempts to use quotation marks in line with the documentation. Would you be willing to update the template again to use this more logical solution? Thanks. --xensyriaT 02:58, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. :) Actually the documentation was updated by Michael Bednarek, and it looks like he slightly misunderstood the template code. If you want to change the template again that's fine if the change has consensus, but you should probably check whether there are any infoboxes that will be broken. I have to go now, but I might have time to look at this later. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 03:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Ahh, my mistake, and I understand if you're busy – I'd hoped for just a quick update while the current version has only been in use for a short time, but I see that you're right, and have added my proposed update to the template's talk page, and asked Michael Bednarek for his thoughts too. I've only seen one page using the quotation marks (and am ready to update it; my sandbox test uses it for an example), but no page which uses the old system will break as a result of the new code, as I've made sure it checks for the existing field before it can display the new one. Thanks :D --xensyriaT 04:20, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC discussion

Hi, regrading the Talk:Jerusalem/2013_RfC_discussion. Can you outline how the discussion should take place, because right now it is a little bit confusing mix of forum thread and section/Position and I don't want to butt in the wrong place.--Mor2 (talk) 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mor. That's a good question - I've just been letting people format the discussion how they want to because I didn't think it mattered that much. I would say keep the discussion threaded, post in Ravpapa's section if you have a comment about his proposal, post at the end of the top part if you have a small comment to make, and make a new subsection if your post is a large one or if it is a completely new idea. I know this is a bit vague, but does it answer your question? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 03:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
I assume that your intention is to avoid setting boundaries, in order to encourage discussion(unlike before where the point was to allow us say what we have to say), so as long as it something that others can follow, you don't care what we do(?). On that note would you mind if later on, I add several sub section to help navigate? --Mor2 (talk) 08:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
That's right - I want this part of the discussion to be collaborative, and I don't want to set any strict boundaries for participants just now. Adding subsections sounds like a good idea, so be my guest. If for some reason I decide to do things differently later on, I can always edit them again. (And thanks for your latest comment, by the way.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


While I marked FEDIMA for deletion, there was only one source of reference. Now it has more references.--atnair (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, G11 doesn't have anything to do with the references in the article. It's all about the tone. For it to be eligible for G11, it has to have a promotional tone the whole way through - it's basically a way to stop blatant spammers creating advertisements on Wikipedia that masquerade as articles. If you're not sure if an article is promotional, or if only part of an article is promotional, it is better to not ask for speedy deletion. Instead you can edit the article and fix the problems, or tag it with {{advert}}. If the article also has problems with notability or another reason for deletion you might also be able to use proposed deletion or articles for deletion. If you want some background reading, I recommend the essays in Template:Speedy deletion navbox. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding adding the name of linguist on /* List of linguists */

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

I am new to Wekipedia (as a user). I tried to add a name to 'List of linguists'. Due to ignorance i made mistakes, thus the name has been removed. I would like to know how to add a name to /* List of linguists */. I would like to add two names: 1) Rama Kant Agnihotri and 2) Shobha Satyanath. These two people don't have their own Wikipedia articles. So, Can i write Bibliographic articles about these two linguists? and after that, can i add there names to List of linguists.

Please help me!

Raj Tilak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raj Tilak Saxena (talkcontribs) 14:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you can create articles for those two people. However, they need to pass the notability guidelines for academics or the notability guidelines for biographies, otherwise the articles will be deleted. For more information, have a look at Wikipedia:Your first article - it should tell you pretty much all that you need to know. If you have any questions after that, feel free to ask. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)


Good of you to let me know. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

"User:Ripunjay13/Ripunjay PATHAK to User:Ripunjay13". Grazie mille, Maestro Stradivario. --Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nessun problema. (Thanks, Google Translate!)Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:39, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello and thanks re:Divali_Complex/El_Socorro_Lambert

hope this is the right place to do this. Want to thank you for the deletion of the article I have been trying to get someone to do that since September 2012. (Maybe I have been going about it the wrong way and that's why I got no response. No matter).
Thanks again. Glad to see that article gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Yes, this is the right place to do this, and you're welcome. :) You are also right that your note wasn't in the right place to get noticed. We have a few different deletion processes, which you can read about here, and if that all seems far too complicated you can ask for help at the help desk or just add the text {{help me}} to your talk page, or another talk page. Or you can always come and ask me. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:26, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Journal of Global Health deletion

Hi User:Mr. Stradivarius. I did not have access to the internet for the last couple of days and today I saw that my last article was deleted following the speedy deletion process. I also understand that you did so based on the discussion on the page that was created one year ago.

I would like to let you know that the reason for the deletion of the article last year was that the journal is not notable enough. However since then it has been indexed in many databases. I therefore thought that it was notable enough to re-write the article.

Which is my second point - I have re-written the article from scratch. I also did more investigation. You can compare the two versions if you like.

Do you think that based on the above arguments you could restore the deleted article? e-korax (talk) 23:19, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, and this was a careless mistake on my part. I've restored the article. It doesn't qualify for speedy deletion, but I wasn't sure if it met the notability guidelines for journals, so I left a message here so that more knowledgeable editors could take a look. Sorry for all the hassle I've caused. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:57, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I think you are right about the notability and I will comment on the discussion page. Thanks for your response. e-korax (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Well done!

(Barnstar archived)

Thanks! On reading the thread at WP:AN, I had a sudden desire to go and close all AfDs that had been relisted more than twice. Must be the budding rouge admin in me... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:00, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Jean Baptiste DuBay

Thanks for the redirect of Jean Baptiste DuBay, but it was entirely a mistake based on going from an incorrectly spelled redlink. I believe Jean Baptiste DuBay should probably be deleted altogether, and I was about to put a deletion request tag and we had an editing conflict. His name was actually never spelled "Jean." Please advise if deletion is best option. Laurentian Shield (talk) 01:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the page for deletion for you. As you have requested deletion, it qualifies for speedy deletion under criterion G7, and it will probably be deleted at some time in the next hour or two. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!! Laurentian Shield (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius on tour

Glad to see you using an alternate account, but may I suggest using {{Public user}} or a similar template on Mr. Sttradivarius on tour's Userpage? This way people who aren't too experienced will know that the account is yours. Vacation9 12:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. I agree that it might not be too obvious with just the userbox on my user page. I'll go and do it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
That looks good. Thanks! Face-smile.svg Vacation9 12:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bob Doyle (politician)

I raised the article at AfD, but I'm curious, what did you consider substantial edits from another contributor? I only saw two editors with substantial edits and they were both socks. Ryan Vesey 13:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Whoops - you're right, it's definitely a G5. I missed the fact that the other substantial contributor was also a sock. Thanks for pointing it out. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem, I hate G5, but OSUHEY's articles get an exception in my book because I hate copyvio even more. Ryan Vesey 14:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm assuming you're watching Marcus' talk page. If not, I left a script for you there. Ryan Vesey 14:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Article Submission

Hi there,

A couple of months ago I had an article pulled for reasons of notability and advertising. Given that you were one of the mods who voted for deletion I'd really like the opportunity to possibly run the revised article past you to get your thoughts on whether it's worth resubmitting. Would this be possible? I'd really appreciate any help you could give me on this.


Travis Booth 1985 (talk) 10:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)Travis Booth 1985

Sure, I can take a look. Just let me know where you've started the article. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


What happened to our thread on the subject? Guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talkcontribs) 16:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

It got archived. You can find it from the archive links at the top of the page, but to save you time here it is. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

River Lee

Per your comments here please see Talk:River Lee (Ireland) where there is 7 supports, and the oppose was based on the rational of another editor who changed their !vote to neutral. Further a review of the discussion shows no merit for what they are proposing, likely why they changes to neutral. I welcome your thoughts on this. Tiggerjay (talk) 18:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't work like that. The move was contested in the past, so now and forever more moving that page will be a controversial act. Speedy deletion G6 is only for uncontroversial maintenance, which moving that page will never be any more. You need to wait for the outcome of the requested move, which should come in a couple of days anyway. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 22:31, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi Mr. Strat. (I hope the informality of shortening your last name isn't offensive to you.),

I was sort of following along as to how a recent RfA was going (Jason's) and noticed your edits. While it's not uncommon for someone to reevaluate their position, there was something in your posts that made me want to stop by. The time you took to not only change and modify your original post, BUT, the way you explained not only the WHY, but your detailed thought process truly impressed me. After reading through what you wrote I felt as though I had actually met the person behind the "Mr. Stradivarius" moniker. I just wanted to say thanks for that. Hope all is well for you. — Ched :  ?  20:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. (But it should be Strad, not Strat - that's the difference between a Stradivarius and a Stratocaster. :) And thanks for the compliment! Usually I try and leave meaningful comments at RfA, and sometimes it works better than other times. After I saw that so many experienced users were disagreeing with me, I thought perhaps that this was one of the other times. I don't mind about looking silly for changing my mind halfway through something, but I definitely do mind about a wrong outcome that was partially my fault. Jason's RfA is looking pretty likely to pass now, and I think that's probably the result he deserves. Good on him, and thanks for the message. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:29, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Restoring Article "Chicken John"

Regarding an article that you approved for deletion last August, I read through the deletion vote and find it lacking. 3 out of 5 delete votes (of 6 votes total) cited WP:POLITICIAN as being unmet, and thus justified for deletion. This implies to me that they didn't even read the entire page, as most of it was not devoted to the subject's political work.

Another participant voted delete with the perplexing reason "not enough significant coverage in reliable independent sources to warrant a page", despite the inclusion of numerous newspaper citations, including mentions in the New York Times. [1][2]

Most bothersome, one delete voter noted, "the template on the page does not link to this AFD for some reason". In other words, the only Wikipedians who were aware of the delete nomination were those browsing the articles for deletion page. Given that fact, is it much surprise that so little consideration was given?

To me, this was an unfair and hasty vote. It is worthwhile to note that I've defended this article before from certain editors who carry a personal vendetta against Chicken John. This page has received spiteful vandalism more than once. I suspect, in fact, this was the actual cause for its nomination. It's not difficult to hear bile and derision in the words: "Self-Promotional, and not-notable outside of the 'burning man community' and his own promotional affairs."

If you choose to restore it, I'd ask that you semi-protect it against deletion as well. This will be the 4th time admins have had to undelete. Thank you for your consideration,

-OrinR (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi OrinR. I'll need my admin tools to investigate this fully, so that will have to wait until I get back home. For now, though, I'll just note that the first New York Times article you linked to doesn't have the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG - it is just a couple of mentions of him. (See also WP:42 for a clear but somewhat in-your-face explanation.) The second NYT link you posted goes to a log-in screen - are you able to link to the article without requiring me to log in? Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello, though I'm being meat-puppeted into this discussion as another wikipedia editor, I think there's more than enough to establish notability in this case. There are a number of articles written about Mr. Rinaldi, not just mentions of him in the press in the links cited by OrinR.
And that's without any mention of being a mayoral candidate. Though I'm not sure he got a "significant amount of coverage in reliable sources" per WP:POLITICIAN for his mayoral run, he clearly has a significant amount of coverage when this is combined with the American Apparel, Dolores Park, Camp Tispy, and book authorship articles. There are 55 articles in the SF Chronicle alone mentioning him, and it seems clear to me that he's a notable San Francisco politician that being contacted by journalists when they want an opinion on a topic. If they think he's notable, WP should agree.
That said, I've seen an old version of the deleted article on a wikipedia mirror, and I'll agree with whomever referred to it as "self-promotional" in the AfD. If you restore the article, I'd be willing to clean it up into a 3 or 4 paragraph multiply referenced article that I think would satisfy everyone. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
PS: though I may be outing myself as an inclusionist by mentioning access/search statistics that don't establish notability, let me just note that there are enough people searching for his name that he even shows up in Google trends, and his WP article was accessed about 30 times a day before it was deleted according to, about as many as the more obscure articles on my watchlist like this. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
After looking at the sources again, I think you may both have a point. However, I can't just restore the article, as there was a clear consensus at the deletion discussion that it should be deleted. Instead, I have userfied it to User:Pro crast in a tor/Chicken John so that improvements can be made to it. Anyone is welcome to make the improvements, not just Pro crast in a tor. When you feel it is up to scratch, leave me another message here and I will review it. As part of this process, I might have to put the article through WP:AFD again, but if you can prove the notability sufficiently well, it might not get deleted the second time around. Let me know if you have any questions about this, and I'll be happy to answer them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:31, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. Stradivarius for restoring the article to my sandbox. I've made a first cut, dropping it from 28k to 13k by removing content that was only cited on non-WP:RS sites, and also adding in the references I mentioned. Seems a bit more reasonable to me, and I don't think the article would have a problem in the AfD process at this point. Pro crast in a tor (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I've moved it back to the mainspace and nominated it at AfD again - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicken John (2nd nomination). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Akatsuki Iikubo

Well, I was not the one who tagged the article. I only reverted the blanked page just before you declined the speedy. Torreslfchero (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. When I loaded the page you hadn't edited it yet, so I thought I was sending a message to the original tagger. Because of the edits inbetween when I loaded the page and when I declined the speedy, the script I was using got the wrong person. Technology sucks sometimes. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I was quite suprised when I got the message. Btw, can you speak french? Torreslfchero (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Enough to know that the subject was a member of Morning Musume. :) I've deleted the article as a G7 - the editor who blanked it was actually the creator, so the G7 tag that Skamecrazy123 left was correct even though they self-reverted. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
I self reverted because Huggle seemed to show four edits between the blanking and my addition of the template. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
There were two edits since the blanking, but neither affected the validity of the G7. Even ignoring the fact that all the edits occurred in such a short space of time, which is a good indicator that not everyone was aware of all of the page history, you are still allowed to tag a page for speedy deletion after it has been contested if you are nominating it under a different criterion. So there's no problem with tagging something as G7 if it has been previously declined deletion as A7 - although if another editor thinks that the page should be kept then it should probably go to AfD instead. The timeline is a bit strange in this case, but I couldn't see any reason for anyone to object to a G7 deletion. Here's the page history if anyone is interested.
I'll be happy to give more explanations if anybody wants them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I translated the message the user posted in my talk page. He actually wanted the page to be deleted which Stradivarius did. Thanks for deleting that page. Torreslfchero (talk) 17:23, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I tagged the page for A7 because Akatsuki Iikubo is not a regular member of Morning Musume. She's just a replacement for her sister. And, article didn't "credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject". What's wrong in that? — Bill william comptonTalk 17:41, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, the fact that she was just a replacement for her sister got lost in translation - my French isn't that good. :) But even so, it's still a vaguely credible claim to importance, as Morning Musume are/were a very big group in Japan, and I'd still probably have declined the A7. If the author hadn't blanked the page probably BLPPROD or AfD would have been the way to go. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Point taken. Thanks for the explanation! — Bill william comptonTalk 05:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

You have been trouted for declining my nomination for deletion of Fritz Ritterbusch and then proposing the same article for deletion exactly five minutes later. - ʈucoxn\talk 12:57, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a difference between just deleting something right away and giving the community a week to comment on a proposed deletion... Have you ever read the essay "Why I Hate Speedy Deleters"? It might be useful in explaining the attitudes of the wider Wikipedia community attitude to speedy deletion. (And it's also rather good for increasing tagging accuracy.) Give it a read, and then let me know if you have any questions afterwards. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:08, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC discussion step two

Hi, just some thoughts on the current stage of the RFC. Questions 1-4 seem to me to be technical questions about working out the mechanics of a functional RFC. Question 5 seems to touch on something more fundamental: core Wikipedia policy. As accurately summarized by yourself, there is a contradiction in the views expressed by different editors on how evidence (aka sources) should be used in the RFC, and I think this is something that needs to be discussed, with reference to our policy, to ensure that the RFC is consistent with and guided by our relevant policy. Dlv999 (talk) 10:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree, WP:NPOV does have large ramifications for question 5, and it is something we definitely do need to discuss. My plan is to get question 1 decided, and then start discussions about all the other questions simultaneously, as none of them really depend on each other the way they do on the result of question 1. So it's not an attempt to skirt the issue, just a desire to discuss things in the most efficient order. Although if there's a reason that doing things in this order would not be a good idea, please do let me know. I'm not infallible, by any means. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Prescott Studios

I think we may be up against a language barrier. We asked for references, and all these people start showing up as "references", letting us know how great the studio is. This edit was my favorite. I've been trying to work with the authors, asking for actual sources, but they don't seem very communicative. Perhaps the deletion discussion will get their attention... ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully the links I posted plus the {{not a vote}} template I put on the AfD discussion will do the trick. I don't think there's really anything else we need to worry about, though. It seems kind of strange they aren't commenting at the AfD, but I have the article on my watchlist so I should be able to deal with anything else that comes up. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem article moderation

Hello! Hopefully it's not too late in the day to do it, but I've just added my name to the list of participants.     ←   ZScarpia   18:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem at all. Go ahead and comment on the latest discussion section, and let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!

I was struggling with trying to get it like that. And now I know how.

Thanks! =) Kurtis (talk) 14:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) And we should probably put that in a guideline somewhere, if it isn't there already. (I can't remember for the life of me where I learned it.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem rfc

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

I'm a new editor and I would like to participate in the Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion.

I recently joined Wikipedia as an editor after many years of seeing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict being taken over by zealots on both sides. I'm in favor of having both sides accurately reflected, so that the reader can use their own judgement to assess the situation. Since I joined Wiki as an editor, I've spent most of my time countering many of the one-sided POV that are keeping the articles from accurately reflecting a NPOV. I look forward to helping ensure that the rfc for Jerusalem stays neutral.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to let me know. I look forward to being part of this democratic process. SimplesC (talk) 15:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, welcome to the team. :) You're welcome to start participating in the RfC discussion right now - just make sure that before you make any comments you read through all of the present discussion and through the archives as well. I look forward to reading your comments over at the discussion page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Dear Mr. Stradivarius, I am a teacher at the school that built the Smrt English curriculum and was interested in putting it in wikipedia, the school gave me permission to put it up. I have added several new sources to the Smrt English wikipedia page. It is a new company so there aren't many sources online but I can assure you it is a company and works with over 70 colleges and universities globally. I can send you a certificate of incorporation if you wish.

thank you Jeremy Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerclark (talkcontribs) 04:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello there Jeremy. No, it won't be necessary to show me a certificate of incorporation. It's not in question that the company exists - the issue is whether it passes our notability guidelines for companies. I did have a look at the sources you added, but unfortunately they don't appear to pass the guidelines on identifying reliable sources. If a reference doesn't pass this guideline, then I'm afraid it cannot be counted as proof that the company passes the notability guidelines. It might be helpful for you to read this simple guide to notability (although my apologies if it is a bit blunt). I think you may be misunderstanding Wikipedia's purpose: we document things that have already achieved note; we don't document things so that others may notice them. I hope this makes sense, but please do let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Is is possible to put this page on hold until I find more reliable sources? I don't want to loose the work I have done if it is deleted. thanks again. Jeremy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerclark (talkcontribs) 17:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. The deletion discussion will remain open until at least February 17th, and possibly longer if there is low participation. That should hopefully be long enough for you (and other editors) to find reliable sources about the company, if they exist. If you don't want to lose your work, you can take a copy of the page now, or if it does end up being deleted then any administrator can email email you a copy. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

My Signature

Hi, many thanks for pointing that out about my signature, I hadn't realised. Hopefully I have changed it so it works now. In fact, I will check it once I have saved this page :) thanks again  TUXLIE  16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Edit: I have changed it again to go to my user page, as yours does  TUXLIE  16:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Complain on Codename_Lisa user

This is to complain on User:Codename_Lisa, who reversed my changes regarding the removal of Windows 1.0 logo, which cannot be found on any media from 1980's-1990's and has appeared for the first time on February 17, 2012 on Windows blog for the comparison with the current Windows 8 logo. The reason he/she provides is: The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. We have three sources here.

However, In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. For which reason the Windows blog article and two derivated articles in PCMag and PCAdvisor are considered more reliable than photos and screenshots of Windows 1.0 retail boxes, distribution media, the operating environment itself which can be easily found on the web using Google where you for sure will not find anything similar to that logo? -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. It seems like you have got yourself into a content dispute. For that, you need to follow the steps at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. If you have already talked about this on a talk page, and there are only two of you in the dispute, I recommend getting a third opinion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the fast response. Would you please check the dispute page at , at least 3 persons (including me) claimed that the logo should be removed as there are no reliable sources to prove its validity, so how a single person decides to close the discussion only because some more disputed sources have been provided? Do I still need a third opinion? -- Aaleksanyants (talk) 12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
In that case, the dispute resolution noticeboard is your best option if you can't work it out between yourselves. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)


There are now a whole load of reviews for AKOUSTIK on the net (See my own press page where these are all included / re-published) I thin k this page should be re-instated as it has not other purpose other than to objectively describe the album (as has been done previously with the other 12!) If somebody can state formally / explain to me why this ONE page is so different to its predecessor album pages, I would be most grateful If we cannot come to some amicable agreement on this, then the whole Guy Manning site should be deleted and I will go do that myself I have to say I do find this draconian and somewhat pedantic approach very taxing [Guy Manning Feb 18 2013] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talkcontribs) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guy. The forum you want is Wikipedia:Deletion review. Now that Akoustik has been sent to AfD a second time, and closed by someone else, there isn't anything else I can do for you here. (Unless I was of a mind to restore the article myself, but I'm still not sure that Akoustik passes our notability guidelines for albums.) However, you should bear in mind the possibility that your other album articles might not actually pass the notability guidelines either. The reason for the difference in their treatment as compared to Akoustik might be that no-one has got around to checking their notability yet. The best solution might be to merge them all into the main Guy Manning article (and I mean a full merge, not just the bulleted list there is now), or possibly merge them all to a new Guy Manning discography album. If you like either of these merge suggestions, then we can just get on and do it ourselves. Otherwise, if you really want to see Akoustik turned back into a full article, you should ask at deletion review and see what the editors there say. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If each of album title links on the main Guy Manning pager went to the new Discography page then yes, this would be fine...and a good suggestion But I would want ALL the album details from each of the sub Album pages (including the Album Cover) on that Discography page (As details/players have changed over the years) - What do you think? Alternatively, the whole damn lot can go including the main page as I do not think anything about me or my work would qualify the WIKI policy guidelines in order to be deemed noteable!! [Guy Manning Feb 2013] — Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyManning (talkcontribs) 16:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC Jerusalem

Dear Mr S i would like to take part in this. Regards Upper lima 65 (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Upper lima. You're welcome to join the discussion, and I see that you have already left a comment on the discussion page. Go ahead and add your name to the list of participants as well. Just make sure that you read all of the talk in the archive and on the current page, so that you are up to date with everything that we have been talking about. And please feel free to ask me if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


[3] ... Only if you block yourself for an article you edited. Another interesting question -- does reverting yourself count as 1rr or 2rr? NE Ent 12:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Probably 1RR, but admins should be wary of giving themselves a first-mover advantage. It might be advisable for them to self-revert again to prevent themselves reporting their behaviour at WP:AN3. Yet another interesting question: If an admin reported themselves at WP:AN3 for edit warring with themselves, what would the reviewing admin say? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Fox Wilson's Delsort Script

I have found the problem and fixed it, and it appears Fox is offline. Could you copy User:Vacation9/delsort.js to User:Fox Wilson/delsort.js for me? All I changed was changed http:// to // so it would use http or https depending on which you are connected through. Vacation9 12:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. It works now, magic. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent issue related to the Flag of Western Sahara


Recently, a major change was made on the article Flag of Western Sahara, by merging it with Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic .

Since you participated to the RfC discussion on Talk:Flag_of_Western_Sahara, you might be interested by a related discussion on ANI or, at least, you might be interested in participating to the recently launched discussion on Talk:Flag of Western Sahara.

--Omar-toons (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


Hi, Mr. Stradivarius. I self-blocked myself here for a year. That's way too long. Could you please remove the block? Thank you and sorry for the trouble. My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

You can probably do it yourself if you turn off javascript in your browser. As for me, I won't be able to access my admin account until tomorrow night, so you might want to ask someone else if you want to get back into your account now. You should probably provide some proof that it's really you, too. :) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:18, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is very simple. Thank you! My very best wishes (talk) 04:32, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Sign Language Link

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, The link sign language alphabet is a good resource of the hand shapes for students, teachers and parents.

Michael Bennett (ColoringBuddyMike) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coloringbuddymike (talkcontribs) 14:49, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I removed your link because it seems redundant to the links to various sign language dictionaries that are already linked from the sign language article, and because I think we already have too many external links there. As a compromise, we might be able to link to the Open Directory Project from the Wikipedia article, and you might be able to list your link at that project under the sign language category. Let me know if you think this is a good idea. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R204DESIGN

Hi Mr S, I notice you closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R204DESIGN as 'soft delete' but as far as I can see it was never deleted. Do you know what happened? Sionk (talk) 16:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sionk. If you look at the page logs, you can see that I deleted it, but that King of Hearts restored it yesterday today citing WP:REFUND (although I can't seem to find its entry at WP:REFUND myself). If you think it should be deleted again, I'm afraid it needs to go through another AfD. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah yes, there's just a declined request for restoration. Maybe I'll ask the King... Sionk (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Potential copyright violation: Office Picture Manager

Hi. There is a small issue in need of the attention of an administrator at :File talk:Office Picture Manager icon.png § Picture Manager icon. Hopefully, it does not need much discussion. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Images eh? Sorry, not my strong point - I'm afraid you'll have to ask someone who knows what they're doing. :) After a quick look around it looks like the admins Masem, Crisco 1492, Orangemike and Graeme Bartlett are all active in image/copyright issues, so you might want to try one of them. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:56, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


31st February? -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

D'oh, I'm such an idiot... I should have waited until the morning to write those messages, obviously... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

SPA tag for Knight of Infinity

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

I think the SPA tag for Knight of Infinity in the AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swfdec may have been an error. The editor is new, but seems to have made edits on many different articles. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Unfortunately I think this user was recruited to !vote on Sarkar-related articles. The SPI is waiting to be closed; there are several possible meatpuppets listed there. Garamond Lethet
19:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize there was another context for this. Thanks for cluing me in. --Mark viking (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Speaking of: Mr. Stradivarius, would you mind taking a look at the SPI and closing it as you see fit? There's an RfC !vote in the Sarkarverse that will be closing soon and I'd like to get the canvassing issue settled before then. Thanks, Garamond Lethet
20:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I won't have much time for this today. Possibly after I get back from work... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I had a quick look, but I just don't feel well enough acquainted with SPI and how it works to close that report. You'd be better off asking someone with more experience there, sorry. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, and thanks for having the good sense to defer when you're not comfortable. I'll ping Toddst1 and see if he has time and inclination. Best, Garamond Lethet
15:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)


Is there any way I can be automatically notified when the actual Jerusalem RfC starts? Ryan Vesey 21:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, I've started a list at User:Mr. Stradivarius/Jerusalem. There was someone else who requested to be notified as well, so I'm going to have to trawl through the archives and find out who it was and add them too. You can expect a message on your talk page when the RfC starts. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:39, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you much. Ryan Vesey 03:36, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


Hey, thanks for your comment about my request for sources on L1/L2 acquisition. Those sources were useful though not precisely what I was hoping for. I wonder if noone's ever written the kind of review of differences in learning mechanisms I was thinking of.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I looked a bit harder and found these two on Google Books: Paths of Development in L1 and L2 acquisition and First and Second Language Acquisition. Is that more the right kind of thing? The differences in L1 and L2 acquisition are an integral part of SLA study, so we have probably both just been looking in the wrong places. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 01:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I happen to have a background in L1/L2 acquisition, TESOL, and the like. One text that's available online is Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition: Implications for Language Teachers by Ipek. I just skimmed it, and it seems like a reasonable outline; it certainly gestures to many of the big names in the field. A good one that I've read before (though a little bit older) is the chapter "Comparing and Contrasting First and Second Language Acquisition" in Principles of Language Learning And Teaching by H. Douglas Brown. If I think of any more, I'll let you know. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks both of you, at first glance those are much closer to what I was looking for! (Except for Meisel which I had looked and rejected because of its generative theoretical outlook)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

GA template broken

Hi Mr. S, it appears your last edit to Template:GA/Topic added a hard return to the template that's causing it to display without the proper links. Could you revert? -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, taken care of. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I really should have noticed that. Glad to see it's been fixed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for your work on the template. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


thanks for your helpful replies at the page for discussing an RfC for the article on Jerusalem. I look forward to being part of the further discussion. thanks. Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox country#Edit request on 22 February 2013

There seems to be a misunderstanding - you asked for an example - but all we want is it reverted back to its normal format - before the image sizes was changed.Moxy (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for doing the merge. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 10:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, Mr Stradivarius, and thanks for the note on page protection. I've created a subpage here for IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. I would very much appreciate indefinite protection, if you think it's appropriate. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 16:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok, done. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Rangers FC article

Hi. Sorry to have to bring this to an administrator, but an editor has made the same edit 3 times in 9 hours despite the article having a one revert rule. I don't think editors should be able to impose their opinions by ignoring the rules of the community - I assume you agree. Regards Fishiehelper2 (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I've reinstated the semi-protection, but I don't have time to look into edit-warring allegations just now. Perhaps try WP:ANEW? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:46, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Resubmission

Hi Mr Stradivarius,

A couple of months ago I had an article deleted for reasons of notability. As you were one of the voting mods I'd really like to run the revised version past you to see if there's any improvement on the new version. I've put up a sandbox version here| .

I'd really appreciate any feedback you could give me here!


Travis Booth 1985 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't remember commenting on an old version - can you give me a link to the AfD discussion, or let me know the name of the old article? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr S, thanks for replying. You can view the discussion here:
Thanks again,

Travis Booth 1985 (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox country edit

The edit you did yesterday at {{Infobox country}} seems to have caused some problems. If you expand the two examples at Template:Infobox country/doc, you'll see that both infobox displays now contain parser function error messages, and the population of Category:ParserFunction errors has increased from about 30 to 120. My knowledge of template syntax is pretty much nil, so I can't identify where the problem lies. Deor (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that's really odd - the problem didn't come up on the test cases page at all from the sandbox version, but appeared when I updated the main template. I'm not quite sure what happened there, but I've reverted for now. Thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Ok, this was the problem - someone had set up the test cases with different parameters. Now that I've synched them this shouldn't happen again. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 00:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The problem reappeared with your 3 March edit. See, once again, the examples at Template:Infobox country/doc. Deor (talk) 14:06, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, sorry about that - I've reverted again. It looks like I will need to do a full code review before I try and put another fixed version up, and not just rely on the test cases. Again, thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The only actual mainspace article on which an error message cropped up because of your edit was Kyrgyzstan, although the parser function error did also appear in about 90 user sandboxes and such. Maybe there's a problem with the infobox syntax used in those pages, along with the template doc examples, rather than a problem with the edit per se? The other mainspace articles using the infobox don't seem to have had a problem with it. It bothers me, though, that the examples can't handle the edit, since it's the syntax in those that folks are likely to follow. Deor (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that now the HDI and Gini fields can only take numerical values, whereas before they could take any value. These errors are a remnant of infoboxes that did things the old way. I've changed the error message to make it a tiny bit more descriptive, and also so that it won't show up in Category:ParserFunction errors. Instead, mainspace articles that produce errors with the template will be added to Category:Country articles requiring maintenance. Errors in other namespaces won't be added to the category, but they will still show up in red inside the infobox. Hopefully this should keep everyone happy. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks. Now I (and others) won't have to wade through too much extraneous stuff in Category:ParserFunction errors to find things that really need fixing. Deor (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


It may just be my weird sense of humor, but I got a kick out of this. Before I realized it was a templated message, I was trying to figure out why you said, "Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself" because we had just spent two days getting consensus, and the requested edit was so complicated that we gave you an example diff in a user sandbox, so I was trying to figure out why you had given us the link to Help:Editing. :-) ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:50, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I suppose that probably did look a little bit strange. :) A nice custom message would have been much better; will file that away in my brain for next time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Rhotic/Non-rhotic Question from Tagalog Talk Page


My IP has changed but I was the person who asked the Rhotic/Non-rhotic question on this page. Thanks for taking the time to reply to that. I see now that my question was based on assumptions I was making due mostly to my own ignorance so I apologise for that. I get the impression that this is a general convention used by people who know what they're talking about and I was just seeing dialect bias where there was none. Anyway, this is getting rather long-winded for an apology and a thank you so I'll stop. Ta — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi there! Maybe you have the wrong user? I've never edited Talk:Tagalog language as far as I can recall, and I don't really have the expertise to answer questions on rhotic vs. non-rhotic. I do know a few editors who would be able to help you, though, if you're still looking for answers. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 06:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, turns out it was an ex-user and I just looked for the first sign of a place I could leave a message - I think I just clicked on the link to your talk page in your welcome message on his defunct user page without checking the context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2013‎ (UTC)
No worries. :) Do let me know if you have any questions about editing Wikipedia though. We're always looking for more linguistics editors. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC

In the past few weeks I have been marginally present, and have taken time off here and there to try to keep my cool. At this point, however, I am fully active in reading and keeping track of comments. Having read everything today in the current threads, I find that I have nothing further to add to the current conversation. Arguments for or against certain types of evidence and defining meta-sources are of course worthy areas of discussion, but the points for and against these are being handled well and I don't have a definite opinion on which are more valid. So if I'm being silent, don't mistake this for non-participation. I'm just letting the details get worked out and I am satisfied the process is going well. ClaudeReigns (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, and thanks for letting me know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I give.

I'm leery about adminship, but I give in. I'll run for it, if only so I can do more of the custodial duties at AfD without having to write "non-admin closure". What do I have to do to get started? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

PC1 Padlock

You're edit broke it. Do you mind changing it back? PP-meta doesn't support the white padlock.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, reverted. Was the problem with the positioning of the padlock? I remember there being some problems about that before, but I was put off guard this time because it looked fine on my machine. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 17:53, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I've made some changes at {{pp-meta}}, and reinstated my changes at {{pp-pc1}}. It should be working now, but let me know if things have gone horribly wrong again... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 18:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Nope. The padlock is invisible. If I was an admin, I could look at it tinker around with it, but I can't.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind. It's working now. Thanks.—cyberpower ChatOnline 19:44, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Glad everything seems to be working again. As for not being able to tinker around with it, is there some reason that you couldn't do that in the sandbox? That's where I do my tinkering, even though I have the ability to edit protected pages. Alternatively, how about running for adminship? If you like I can review your edits to see if I think you're ready. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:45, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I'd love that. Although, I don't think I would pass just yet. I could go for the Protected Page Editor right, but that proposal, although had majority support, was closed as no consensus. :P—cyberpower ChatOnline 13:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Poke.—cyberpower ChatOffline 14:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm a bit busy at the moment. I'll have a look over the weekend though. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
You'll need to send me a talkback for my attention. Looking on my talkpage will explain why.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 22:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Weren't you going to evaluate me? ;)—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, yes - I've been wiki-busy with other stuff as well, it had slipped my mind. I have some time today though, so I will do it later on. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 :)—cyberpower ChatOnline 12:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Ok, I've finally finished it - check your email. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Jerusalem RfC remarks

Hi Tariqabjotu. Thanks for your comments on the new question in the RfC discussion - I'm glad that it's seeing a nice healthy amount of debate. I just wanted to have a word about your replies to FormerIP there, as I think you might have misinterpreted his intentions. I see that there was some confusion about your use of the word "inconclusive", but I think that this was an honest misinterpretation by FormerIP. Saying that he's patronizing you[4] or that he's manipulating the word[5] is assuming a bad-faith motivation on his part, and I don't think he intended it like that at all. In any case, this is a little too much comment on contributors for the RfC page, in my opinion. If other things like this crop up in the future, could you take them to my talk page, or email me about them instead? I think that would be the best way to resolve any conduct issues while still keeping the discussion on track. Best regards —Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That was hardly an accusation of misconduct, and I find it wholly unnatural to complain to you about a matter so trivial -- particularly when I assume you're monitoring the page and will call out misconduct if you feel something is such. Nevertheless, given FormerIP responded to the first remark you referenced by saying Your above statement is the first time I have been aware of someone from the other side of the hill acknowledging that there is inconclusiveness in the sourcing. It's a bold thing to accept because, obviously, it raises the question as to why our current wording expresses a conclusion., I'm not sure what exactly you thought I assumed incorrectly. It's a circuitous way of saying "So I see you've finally started to see the light", an expression I reject. -- tariqabjotu 02:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
You're probably right about the misinterpretation - perhaps that was a misinterpretation on my part instead. On the wider point, though, it's better to not bring up conduct matters on the RfC page at all, as that tends to create bad blood and stops people from working well with one another. Even if you think someone has tried to get a rise out of you, it's best to just respond to the content aspects of their comments, to prevent conduct issues from escalating. For really small things, it would probably get tiring for you to report them here every time, I agree. If you're going to bring up conduct issues at all, though, it should probably be here rather than at the RfC discussion. Hope this makes sense. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Your message

I am incredibly flattered (i need to lay off the adverbs I realize) by your message to me. I have a more extensive message on my talk in response to you, but I just want to let you know how much that kind of encouragement means to me. Thank you. Shadowjams (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Metalloid English language variety

Awesomely fast work Mr. Stradivarius. Thank you from Down Under. Sandbh (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome! — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 23:42, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikiproject Conflict Resolution

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conflict Resolution.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at the WP:RESCON talkpage. I understand you feel that the new project is redundant, but in reality we will be taking off where WP:DRP leaves off with only a slight overlap. WP:DRP only touches a=on some content and is primarily for content. WP:RESCON is the opposit. It only slightly touches on content and only if that is the basis of the conflict and conduct issie, but we will not be attempting resolve the content if that is the main issue. It will simply be referef to DR or DR/N the very same way that DR/N refers to other venues when appropriate. Hope you will contribute when and if you feel inclined even if you do not join the project. I think you are a good editor and would be a plus to any project of this nature. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Infobox settlement Chile

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

I would appreciate to know your opinion in the case of merging {{Infobox settlement Chile}} to {{Infobox settlement}} as proposed in {{Infobox settlement/sandbox}}. The discussion is in Template_talk:Infobox_settlement#Infobox_settlement_Chile. Feel free to ask more information that isn't given in the discussion.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 18:47, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Coat of arms of Western Sahara/SADR


There's a discussion you might be interested in at Talk:Coat_of_arms_of_the_Sahrawi_Arab_Democratic_Republic#Move?.

--Omar-toons (talk) 22:07, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

737 Park Avenue


I'm writing because the last time I made an edit to this Wikipedia page it was flagged because of my previously stated conflict. However, upon review of the page recently, I noticed that there were some incendiary and factually incorrect piece of information regarding the eviction and harrassment of current tenants of the building. This is not at all the case, and reflects negatively on Macklowe Properties. Is there a way to remedy this in keeping with Wikipedia standards?

Best, Joe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Gaspard (talkcontribs) 17:43, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote was based on my experience. How could you say it is "vandal" when you know nothing of that case.
No matter if you get paid for what you did or said from Fatwallet, you have no right to stop other people to speak out the fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaPA (talkcontribs) 04:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted, because we are not allowed to base encyclopedia articles on personal experiences - they have to be based on reliable sources. See our verifiability policy for more details. And Joe, next time you want an edit to be made to that article, please start a new discussion section at Talk:737 Park Avenue and include the text {{request edit}}. That will ensure that someone sees what you wrote. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I reported JoshuaPA for his edits as I think they are more vandal then just a disagreement of opinions. I added back your warning on his TALK page. Since your name was on it I wanted to make sure you knew. Your warning was better than mine but just in case that was not right wanted to make sure you knew what happened. Thanks Sallynice (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the message - I've blocked for three days for edit warring and violation of the verifiability and neutrality policies. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Wikify/tutorial

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Wikify/tutorial has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. GoingBatty (talk) 17:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

AC/DS comments requested

Hi, as an administrator who has recently been active at WP:AE, you may be interested in AGK's request for comments at User talk:Sandstein#Draft of discretionary sanctions update.  Sandstein  15:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Epoka University

Hi -- you have assisted on this article in the past -- could I ask you to take a quick look at recent activity, please? An IP editor is adding unsourced information ("nonsectarian", e.g. here) and otherwise mucking things up. Seems to be dynamic IP, so EWN won't be of much help, and there aren't other editors involved to keep tabs on it. thanks, —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've semi-protected for a month and left a note on the talk page. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius: I would like to object on your support to the activity of Nomoskedasticity on Epoka University page. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, and at this point, the only thing that can be verified is that allegations exist that EU belong to Gulen Movement. Thanks for your understanding and for preventing someone to show unprecedented bias on WP as Nomoskedasticity is clearly doing: one can just read the history of edits and verify the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talkcontribs) 14:25, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sefina. Are you aware of any sources that state that Epoka University is non-sectarian, or any sources that contest that the University is part of the Gülen movement? If such sources exist then it might change the way Wikipedia policy says we should describe the University's relation to Gülen, but as it is we must follow the single source that we have, which says clearly that the university is part of the movement. Have you read up on our content policies, by the way? You'll want to read the most important three first - Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. And let me know if you have any questions after you finish. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Stradivarius: thanks for the reading suggestions. I'm taking a look on them. As for the non-sectarian part, the constitution [3] and the Law on Higher Education [4] makes such institutions to be non-sectarian by definition. Regards, Sefina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talkcontribs) 12:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the constitution and the law on higher education, sorry, but we can't use them as references. This is one of the hard-to-understand parts of Wikipedia policy, so bear with me. We can only use things which mention Epoka University directly. It would seem to make sense to assume that Epoka University is non-sectarian because the constitution and the law on higher education say that it must be. However, on Wikipedia we are not allowed to assume things that aren't actually written in the sources that we use. All we can do is write things that other authors have written already.

The problem in this case is original synthesis. Saying that "Epoka University is a university in Albania<ref>some source</ref>" is fine. Saying "The Albanian constitution and law on higher education say that universities in Albania must be non-sectarian<ref>another source</ref>" is also fine. But saying "Because Epoka University is a university in Albania,<ref>some source</ref> and because the Albanian constitution and law on higher education say that universities in Albania must be non-sectarian<ref>another source</ref>, Epoka University must be non-sectarian" is not allowed. It would be using the two pieces of information to create a new, original, piece of information, and that is forbidden in Wikipedia by the "original synthesis" part of the "no original research" policy.

If we had a source that explicitly says that Epoka University is non-sectarian, then things would be different. (By the way, does the university's website have anything about them being non-sectarian? Or are there any published documents from the university saying that they are non-sectarian? These would be viable sources.) If we have two conflicting viewpoints expressed in sources, then the neutral point of view policy comes into play. We could then say something like, "According to Epoka University's website it is non-sectarian, but according to Kerem Öktem it is part of the Gülen movement". Exactly how to put this in the article is something that you would need to debate at Talk:Epoka University to try and find a consensus. I hope this reply helps - let me know if you have more questions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius: Again, thanks for your valuable comments. A little research on Epoka's website gave more insight on this institution than ever. Namely, the article 5 of Epoka's Statute says: “Epoka” University is a private, international and secular institution. [5] I think that now we can go with your formulation. This means that we should as well remove this information from the Infobox. As I don't have the rights to edit and bearing in mind that I am afraid that Nomoskedasticity's passion would come into play again, I think that you should take care of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talkcontribs) 12:12, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
It does sound like we can use that as a source, yes. I'm afraid that I don't really have the time to get involved in the debate, though - you'll need to do that yourself. I'll let Nomoskedasticity know about this thread, so we should all hopefully be on the same page with respect to policy. Let me know if you run into any problems in the discussion, though. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi Stradivarius, I am afraid User: Sefina is engaging in edit warring. I have followed the debates with talk and it looks like it's impossible to engage Sefina in a constructive debate on the talk page. I think this user is herself/himself part of the Gulen Movement, which means he/she probably should not be editing at all on this as it would be impossible to be neutral. Just letting you know - sorry don't have time to deal with this too much. Vetevendosje (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, one last thing [[User:Sefina|Sefina] keeps undoing the edits of others - I suggest you protect this page again.Vetevendosje (talk) 18:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi again, as predicted, passionate editors are again mucking the page and flagging the other editors with various attributes. Clearly, the WP policies are being violated here. Infobox is being constantly diluted against the rules defining its purpose etc. My stands on the matter are on the talk page of Epoka. Thanks for your understanding. Regards --- Sefina — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sefina (talkcontribs) 18:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  • I have made a report at AN3; I disagree that protection is the right way forward, as Sefina is now autoconfirmed. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks for letting me know. I think I will leave this to the admins who patrol AN3, though, as I have already expressed an opinion on the content here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

editting the article kolkata

Sir i have find out some things about this and i want to update this. But it is a semi protected article so what can i do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anitek bhattacharya (talkcontribs) 10:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at User talk:Anitek bhattacharya. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)