User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 2

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


Testing the messaging feature of Huggle. Hurrah! Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 15:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Most difficult language to learn's talk page.

Re:edits to Alexander Arguelles

Hallo Mr. Stradivarius, in fact I confused "short edits" with "minor edits". At first I only wanted to correct a mistake, the heading phrase of the list of his publications was wrong: it said they are videos when in reality they are printed material. While I was at it I changed a little a few sentences. Next time I will take care not to tag such an edit with "minor". Greetings, --Gabodon (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

No worries, it's just one of those cases where using a word on Wikipedia means something a little different from using it in real life. Once you know it, you know it. Happy editing! Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 03:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

George Michael


thanks for welcoming me I responded in George Michael talks page. (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I hope it works out for you - let me know if you need any help. Have you considered getting an account? With the kind of heavy-duty editing you're doing, it would seem like a good idea to me. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 16:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I actually have an account. But I forget the password . lol (talk) 16:11, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Language learning

Hello, I'm the one who edited the language learning page and also the multilingualism one. The information on the first edit can be found from various HK government sources and HK's universities and media in general. The second one where I entered some info on natural trilingualism is personal experience (I am the native English-speaking father with a trilingual son). Hope that is helpful. Luojiehk (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Luojiehk, thanks for the message! I knew that the information you added probably had some source accessible somewhere - that's why I didn't revert your edits. Also, both language education by region and multilingualism are in severe need of a rewrite, so a little more unsourced info doesn't make the page that much worse. If you tried to add unsourced material to a more popular page, there's a very good chance that it would have been reverted straight away. As it is, if someone decides to rewrite those pages sometime, there's also a good chance that your edits will be removed. The multilingualism edit can't be sourced, but the language education by region one looks promising. Can you find any of the HK government/university/media sources that you spoke about? Just post them here and I can put them in the article for you. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 13:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Sock puppet

Hi, the user seems to be a confirmed sockpuppet [1] , where should one report him? --Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't really have any experience with sockpuppet investigations, so I can't say. It looks like you've written it in the right place already, but then I might be wrong. Maybe ask at the help desk or in IRC? Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 16:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the template..I will use it next time.--Khodabandeh14 (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

NRL crowd attendance figures

The source I used was as well as

I am new to this, so am not entirely sure how to cite a source in the context of an wiki table such as the NRL results table. If you could add those sources that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca147 (talkcontribs) 08:06, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Generally it's the same as citing a source somewhere else - I've added the sources in for you so take a look. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 12:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and I've used the fancy {{cite web}} template, but you can just put the link straight between the ref tags, like this - <ref></ref> - and that is perfectly acceptable. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 12:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Critical Period Hypothesis

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

This is an excerpt from an assignment I wrote for a class, which was meant to be a Wikipedia upload in the first place. To the best of my knowledge, all of the sentences are mine (meaning that sometimes you read something and forget about it and then accidentally think it was your own idea or your own words - that I am not aware of). However, I have provided all my references with links to the Notes section. Because it was a Wiki project in the first place, it was meant to be like a literature review, so I believe I have cited accurately enough. Was there a specific reason that made you wonder or is this just a general check you do with new long entries?


Seftali — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seftali (talkcontribs) 16:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

It was just a general check. For all of the long entries uploaded by newly registered users that I've seen, I'd say that probably 90% or more were copyright violations. Having said that, I don't think any of them looked as good as yours - you can usually tell straight away from the tone. So, thank you very much for uploading it! Was your contribution a part of the Public Policy Initiative? Also, if you have any questions at all about Wikipedia, please feel free to ask me. I'll be happy to help. Mr. Stradivarius (drop me a line) 02:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright Violation

The page in question is Knauf Insulation. Mr. Stradivarius 13:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


do not understand the copyright violation as i have been specifically asked from the company to update the page on Wikipedia. I can agree that some paragraphs should be modified (as they come straight from the company presentation), but most of the article is just an illustration of what the company does.

best regards,

ML — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo Lenzi (talkcontribs) 13:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Matteo! You can use text from the company website if they give their permission. I'm afraid we can't just take your word for it, as we need to be absolutely sure, and there are some special conditions regarding Wikipedia's text licensing. Please read Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more details. Also, even if we do use text from their website, it still has to be written from a neutral point of view, so any advertising-type material cannot be included I'm afraid. Things like the timeline and purely factual information should be fine. Please see WP:NPOV for more details. Also WP:V and WP:RS are essential reading. Also seeing as you are being asked to update Wikipedia by the company, it is likely that you have a conflict of interest. I'll leave another note about that on your talk page. If you have any more questions, please don't hesitate to ask. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 13:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. I have the right to use the logo as i am working for the company, but will ask for copyright permission through the link you forwarded me. Do you think the information was not neutral? i tried to insert exclusively factual information. Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matteo Lenzi (talkcontribs) 13:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, even the first line reads like something straight out of a company brochure: try changing "one of the largest insulation manufacturers in the world" to "an insulation manufacturer". Later in the article you can add information about output, number of branches, etc. "Offering a wide range of insulation materials" can be changed to "that makes loft, window, etc. insulation", and later you can add info about the exact types of insulation the company makes. You can delete most of "to meet the growing demand for energy efficiency and acoustic performance in new and existing homes, commercial buildings and industrial applications" - better to make it "for homes, commercial buildings and industrial applications." Of course all your facts should be backed up by reliable sources and cited properly. For more info on the kind of language to avoid, see WP:W2W. As for copyright, you need permission for the logo and the text. And finally, I would recommend that you don't make any edits directly to the article because of your conflict of interest. Instead, you can post your suggested edit on the talk page and then ask another editor to approve it. Mr. Stradivarius 13:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thank you for the information; i did not think it was being neutral, but i will definitely change the page according to your comment, maybe you could check the neutrality as I don't have any intention of presenting non-neutral information. Thanks for the help! Matteo Lenzi (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Sure, just leave me a message when you're finished with your improvements. To get a good idea of what you should be aiming at, you should take a look at some of Wikipedia's featured articles. Two that you can use as models for your article are the articles on BAE Systems and Microsoft. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 14:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Breastfeeding - Sorry!

I didn't know that about the links, sorry about that. I am new at this. I will try to go back and remove them, if there are some remaining please take them out. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mother18 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

They're all gone, don't worry. It's very easy to keep track of things like this with the page history and the diffs. (To see what I mean by diffs, this is the diff where you can see me taking out the links you added.) I can completely understand not being used to how things work round here. Wikipedia is a big place and has a steep learning curve! If you have any more questions please feel free to ask me here. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 17:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I am trying to go back and make the same edits I had but with citations instead of external links. Do I have to add my footnote to the references first? And if so, how? When I go to edit the footnotes page, I don't see the list of other footnotes to add mine to. I am trying to read through the how-to articles, but am getting bogged down and can't seem to find it. Thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mother18 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hi again. The way you've cited it is fine. The way the citation system works is, if you have text between two ref tags it will show up in the references section at the bottom (or wherever you type {{reflist}} or <reflist />. For example, this:

This is a citation.<ref>Hello World!</ref>


will show up like this:

This is a citation.[1]


  1. ^ Hello World!

You can put whatever you want between the ref tags and it will show up at the bottom. As to what goes inside the tags, well, you could have a look at WP:CITE and the {{citation}} templates, but I assure you that is purely optional. As long as the source is clear, that is what counts.

Actually, the reason your latest edit got reverted was because you didn't cite very reliable sources. I restored one of the edits you made, about poor latch, but even so the source really isn't up to par. It's just a website about a collective of doctors, a lot like a lobbying group, and there's no external checking for accuracy. I'm not talking about external checking for the doctors themselves, or for the test they made - I'm sure they are top class doctors and that they are doing a great job. I mean that there is no external checking for the accuracy of the site itself - that is the source you linked to, and it should not be confused with the doctors' general reputation. For this kind of medical information really you need to cite from a respected medical textbook, or medical journal article, or medical literature review. You could try this PubMed search as a starting point. Just be aware that with a source like the website you linked to, there's really nothing from preventing another editor from removing the text you added. I hope that's answered your question! If there's anything else, feel free to ask me more. Mr. Stradivarius 09:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Need help


Could you please tell me why you systematically remove links poiting to Usermeds pages ?

Is it because of ads ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaber.a (talkcontribs) 12:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if one time counts as "systematically", but sure, I'll tell you why I removed it. Firstly, the website provides very little information, just a few details at the top that could easily be added to the Wikipedia article itself. Secondly, the vast majority of the content of the page is user discussion, and it might be inaccurate or out of date, which doesn't really make it useful information. Sure, I can see there is a need for sites like that, but it doesn't make Wikipedia any better if it links to them. If you take the time to read WP:EL, you can see that there are many types of sites that aren't allowed. Number two specifically lists "unverifiable research", which is exactly what the site you linked to consists of. For more details on Wikipedia's philosophy on this type of thing, take a look at WP:LINKFARM. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 13:06, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


Someone is posting slandering material on my page, how can I resolve this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danboot89 (talkcontribs) 15:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Danboot89! I take it you are talking about Peter Tripodi? I had a look at the page history, and it does indeed appear to have been vandalized. As anyone can edit Wikipedia, vandalism is an unfortunate fact of life. Have a look at WP:VANDAL for more information about what you can do to combat it. One of the best things to do in the case of vandalism is undo it (if it is just one edit); or, look at the page history and find the latest vandalism-free version, then edit that version and save it to revert to that version (if it is more than one edit). It is also a good idea to warn vandals, so that other editors know about their editing history (again, see WP:VANDAL for how). However, please only revert clear vandalism, or information that violates Wikipedia's policy on living persons. Not liking an edit is not a justification for reverting it. Hope that helps! Mr. Stradivarius 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Khonnor page

The subject of dispute is this revert at Khonnor. Mr. Stradivarius 10:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

ALL of the biographical content on this particular page is inconsistent and superfluous. Additionally, ONLY releases under the Khonnor pseudonym should be listed on this particular page. Any other biographical content (including artistic works) by Connor Long should be listed under a separate page dedicated to the individual and opened for hyper-linking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it would seem sensible to me to have all information about him on the same page. His aliases might not have notability by themselves, and he is the same person, after all. In any case, you should take up the matter on the talk page, not here, and try to establish a consensus. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 10:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
The biographical content on this page is POORLY WRITTEN, and also INCONSISTENT with what is known of the short-lived Khonnor group. Request to revise biography and discography to only what is pertinent to Khonnor(group), and not Connor Long (artist). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, please discuss this on the talk page, not here. I am not actively involved in editing the article. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 11:06, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

New book article

Thank you again for your kind interest and advice here! I really appreciated your input and that of User:TransporterMan. Inspired, I have now created an article about the book Throne of a Thousand Years and would like very much to leave it to whatever fate it may encounter, fairly. Would you please have a look, maybe monitor it a bit, to see if everything is OK and proceeds forward in some semblance of normalcy? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you've made a good start! I've added an infobox for you, and left some more suggestions at Talk:Throne of a Thousand Years. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 23:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Starting to look presentable I hope? SergeWoodzing (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Please give me your honest opinion! Have you and I just been wasting our time and effort on this, lots of both? SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

My honest opinion is: maybe. If it fails notability, then so be it. I tried and failed to find sources using {{find sources}} - if you know of any more then it might pass AfD, but if you don't then it might not. It all depends. Even if the article gets deleted then we can both consider it a learning experience. Mr. Stradivarius 22:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
For future reference, since you seem to be knowledgeable: have you ever seen a minimum circulation limit that makes a newspaper appropriate as a source? Certainly the term "local" alone cannot be a disqualifying factor? SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
PS I'm watching your talk page so you don't need to add talkbacks to mine. Best regards, SergeWoodzing (talk) 08:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
That's a very good question, and I wasn't sure of the answer. I had a search around the various policy pages, and I couldn't find any mention of publication size on WP:N or WP:NBOOK. Instead, the idea of publication size having an effect on reliability is explicitly stated in WP:CORP. It seems to me that publication size is merely an indication of reliability (albeit a good one), but not proof, and that each source should be taken on its own merits. I also found a paragraph in WP:NBOOK about academic books, which I think you will find edifying reading. You can find it here. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 15:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Mother's Day 2011 or 2012

Okay, I'm here again to bother you (again and again... sorry). Things seem to go much better at MOTD, right now. THANK YOU!!!
The reason why I'm writing you is the following: next Sunday (8th of May) is Mother's Day. I know that it is celebrated on different days around the world, but I'd love if we could (and are able to) make our "very-little" contribution in honour of all the mothers in the world. For the upcoming 8th of May (Sunday) there is already a motto in schedule, but I think that we can move the motto approved for that day to another date and to put one about mothers in place of it. Here is my nomination.
Thank you in advance and all the best! –pjoef (talkcontribs) 12:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! I think this is only the first time you've bothered me, and I really don't mind - it's always nice to have something on my talk page other than the fruits of my labour from recent changes patrolling. You've probably noticed by now, but I like your nomination! I'm sure we will make some mothers in certain countries extremely happy ;) Mr. Stradivarius 13:48, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey Mr. Stradivarius, I'm sorry for that LOL but I send this (same impersonal) message to some MOTD's contributors... and I forgot to send you a "BIG THANK YOU" for all the great nominations you have done at MOTD. We have had to face some problems in the past month at MOTD with very few nominations and less discussions, but now it seems to be okay. Once again, thank you.
Yes, I've noticed the "fruits of your labour"... don't mind (if they do).
Anyway, Stradivarius are most excellent violins (as well as a Guarneri del Gesù is) so I'm pretty sure that your edits on Wikipedia are the most excellent either. Moreover, I'm a huge fan of that cockney/rebel of Nigel Kennedy :D.
Drop me a line anytime and I'll be glad to help you (if I can). Cheers. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Steph Watts

Hello, I've spoken to Steph Watts and he has allowed me to use the information from his website. I'm still a little confused on how to get his permission so that Wikipedia can see it? Please tell me how. I've read all the information but still don't understand.

Is it better to just start from scratch, writing a short amount of text and linking to his website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garland3688 (talkcontribs) 16:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Garland3688! I'll start with the most important thing first. You need to work out whether Steph Watts even qualifies for a Wikipedia article at all. To do this, he needs to pass Wikipedia's test of "notability", and I can tell you that it is not a foregone conclusion. See WP:Notability and WP:Notability (people) for details. The most important thing about the notability test is that there should be reliable, third-party sources that give him significant coverage. Just any old website giving him coverage is not sufficient, I'm afraid. If you have any questions about the reliability of a source, ask me here and I'll give you my opinion. (Note that my opinion is not the final word, however.) For copyright permission, you need to follow the instructions here. I would advise caution when using Steph Watts' website though, as it has most likely been written to portray him in the best light possible, and this kind of writing will most likely fail Wikipedia's policy of having a neutral point of view. (See WP:NPOV). Finally, as you know/are working for Steph, it seems that you have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia has a policy about this, too, and it might be better that you place your suggested edits on the article's talk page and wait for other editors to add them, rather than edit the article directly. See WP:COI for more. I'll also leave a message about this on your talk page. This is a lot of information - if you have any more questions about it, feel free to ask me here. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 07:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Finally finally, the next time you want to create an article I strongly recommend you use the article wizard. It will likely save you a lot of time and hassle. Mr. Stradivarius 07:47, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

English as a foreign or second language

Dear Mr Stradivarius,

Thank you for your feedback relating to a possible entry in English as a foreign or second language. We will think of another way to make the heading more readable and have the article ready before putting it on Wikipedia. (Anhhpham (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC))


Thanks, I appreciate your input :). (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Con Games (movie)

As you seem willing to give the article fair consideration, I wish to inform, that Film Threat is a decently reliable source for film reviews and inteviews, long accepted by its peers within the film idustry and by Wikipedia. Through them I have two sugnificant sources... one a Novemnber 2004 in depth interview of the producer/writer/actor, and a second a January 2005 lengthy review of the film itself. And too, Rovi is a another reliable source for films. And note too, reviewer Phil Hall himself is respected within his field. AND as the improvements are not yet complete but an editor (me) has expressed a willingness to continue them, I cannot understand the wish by those who themselves have not or will not improve the article, to give it the bum's rush when someone else has picked up the slack. And agin, improvements are still taking place and the article is far better shape that when it was nominated. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Addendum: Here are diffs that support the wide consensus that Film Threat is a reliable source for film articles... some of them even as early as 2004 (pre-dating my own arrival on Wikipedia by years): [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21][22] [23][24] [25] [26] [27] and there are many, many more. It can be seen that even in discussions of film articles that were deleted, Film Threat was acknowledged as a suitable reliable source. Two seperate articles in that reliable source, one from 2004 and another from 2005, speak toward notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Dev Benegal

Dear Mr.Stradivarius

I just got the facts from Mr Dev Benegal himself. He didnt study in Cambridge and it is not the Film Studies course in the University of New York. As I had written he did indeed earn credits by working with Shyam Benegal and went to do his masters in Cinema Studies at NYU.

Also the name of the upcoming project is Bombay Samurai.

He has also made it very clear to me that he wants his picture taken in Tokyo removed.

Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the reason I removed your edition was that you used your own personal experience to back it up. Rather than your own original research, Wikipedia requires that you use reliable sources to back up your claims here. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me here. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 17:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: User talk:

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of User talk:, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Criterion G1 does not apply to user talk pages. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. GorillaWarfare talkcontribs 04:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

... for whacking the vandal on my user page. De728631 (talk) 18:25, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Clearly a conflict of interest

Hi Mr. Stadivarius, it appears that you have not been following the actions of skol over the last month. He has trolled me and other wiki members by rv correct posts. I have asked him to be more professional but he has refused. I had no opition but to report him to the next level. I am quite surprised that you have shown your bias which only indicates that you are a sockpoppet of skol. This is sad as you should have taken time and conducted proper research instead of hindering the wiki project. Porgers (talk) 06:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for your message. I'm sorry that you think of my editing as biased, and I can assure you that I have no such intention. I was merely trying to uphold Wikipedia's policy of verifiability when I removed edits by you that didn't cite any sources. I'm not sure what you mean by "Skol's editing over the last month", as it appears you only created your account today. Have you been editing under a different account, or without being logged in? Also, would you mind telling me where you reported him? I can't see any edits to a Wikipedia noticeboard in your editing history. Finally, a "sockpuppet" is a person using multiple accounts to influence editing - a quick glance at my contributions will show you that I have made too many edits for that to be plausible. The first time I heard of User:Skol fir was in your edit summaries. Mr. Stradivarius 06:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Proof that you are a sock of skol fir, no warning given to that user for the same offence! See my talk page Porgers (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Page tagged for deletion

Hi. You've tagged the page "Talk:K.M. Munshi" for deletion. I wish to move "Kanhaiyalal Maneklal Munshi" to the page "K.M. Munshi". The reason being, firstly, the name of the person is incorrectly spelt by the creator of the page - it should be "Kanayalal" and not "Kanhaiyalal" and secondly, I'm quite sure "K.M. Munshi" being shorter is more widely searched. Would it be better if I move the page to to "Kanayalal Maneklal Munshi" and tag "Kanhiayalal Maneklal Munshi" for deletion? I've requested administrator help too. Would appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and regards. Centaur81 (talk) 16:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! First you should leave a message on Talk:Kanhaiyalal Maneklal Munshi and see if there is a consensus among the other editors there for moving the page. You should only try and move the page if there is a consensus. (See WP:Consensus for details.) If there is a consensus to move the page, then you can move the page using the "move" link at the top of the page - see WP:MOVE for detailed instructions. You probably won't need to nominate any pages for deletion, as leaving redirects behind is easier and more useful. If you have any other questions please feel free to reply here. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 17:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I shall do as you say. Centaur81 (talk) 17:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Page move

Thank you very munch for your help and support regarding "Kanhaiyalal Maneklal Munshi". Centaur81 (talk) 07:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

the bird is the word?

we write to you with regret,

The individual who carried out the unforgivable crime has been tied up in a shed and will be beaten severely by the violin playing midgets who run wikipedia. We can only thank you for alerting us to the vandalism and lack of constructive information being supplied through this network. We take these incidents extremely severely and we would like to offer you the chance to beat the culprit yourself.

The people of Builth wells are calling for the vandal to be met with the death penalty, we would like to hear your opinions on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Lars Von Trier

Please see my reply to your remarks on the Lars Von Trier Talk page, under "Vandalism". (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Parallel Forms of Chinaman, a derogatory word.

The parallel forms of Chinaman, "Franceman", "Englandman", etc do not exist in English. The terms "Englishman" constructed by adjective+man is not a parallel term of Chinaman, and it does not have derogatory connotations. Chinaman is in the list of racial slurs. Please don't confuse with different terms and mitigate the derogatory meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm not trying to say that the term Chinaman isn't offensive, and in fact I've updated the lead of Chinaman (term) to reflect its contentiousness. Take a look and see what you think. As for whether Englishman, Frenchman, etc. are parallel terms of Chinaman, my instinct says that they are. I'm not sure why people of past generations chose Chinaman instead of "Chineseman", but Wikipedia should use the terms that are widely used in reliable sources, not just make up its own. Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss the relationship between Englishman, Frenchman, etc. and Chinaman? If you do, it would be a great addition to the article. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 04:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, usually talk related to articles should go on the article's talk page, as that way all editors can see it. Thanks Mr. Stradivarius 04:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've edited the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ...

... for reverting the vandalism to my user page! MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 05:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

RE:Subst-ing warning templates

Thanks for the heads up! I'll make sure to do that next time.--GoldenGlory84 (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Dwarm12345 has levied a vandalism accusation

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here:

Hi, if you do not feel it inappropriate, could you change the section subhead at the ANI to "Conflict at Chinaman" or some other neutral term per my request there? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the editors at ANI have seen enough cases like this that they know not to take the vandalism accusation at face value, and the responses at the thread clearly indicate as much. Trying to change the heading just seems like it will drag the case out, whereas if you leave it like it is it will get archived in a few days and everyone will forget about it. Plus it will break existing links to the section (though you could always use an {{anchor}}). I wouldn't worry about it at all, to be honest. Mr. Stradivarius 15:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, you are right, it would break the link. I'll leave the request there by way of formal protest but won't push it. The problem I have is that in case of future disputes, all too many admins read the accusation without reading the substance, and say "well, you've been accused of this before..." μηδείς (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
In that case, you could just point out politely that it was a false allegation, and then after they read the ANI thread they would come to the conclusion that you are right. I've been accused of vandalism plenty of times, including one time on Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, and no-one has made anything of it. I read somewhere that a frequent response to these type of allegations is "diffs or it didn't happen". Really, it's not such a big deal. Mr. Stradivarius 16:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Sweet Dreams

Thanks. I will now close it, approving edit 5. Simply south...... eating shoes for 5 years 18:29, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Business brokers

I respectfully ask that you stop making revisions to the business brokers page. Our company has been in business over 60 years, and the origin for the text comes directly from our company handbook that was written well over 40 years ago. While I dont doubt that some of the information contained in our handbook has made it to the internet these elements are considered harmless to our everyday business operations. I only ask that if you insist on changing the text you source the company where it came from. C.H. Robinson, Citizen Eagle LLC — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blinking12 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your message. When you say "the text", do you mean the text that you added, or do you mean the entire text of the article? In either case, I should point out that Wikipedia has a strict policy on including copyrighted text, and that in most cases copying and pasting text into Wikipedia that is obtained from other sources is not permitted. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright for a more detailed explanation. The initial reason I removed your contribution was because the Citizen Eagle website that you linked to is selling a service, and as such is not compatible with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. However, the copyright issue may be the more pressing one in this case. I look forward to hearing your response. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 02:12, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
I have just found out that the section "Types of services that a broker can provide" was very similar to this page on the Citizen Eagle website. It has since been removed from the article. Is there any other text in the article that you think may be in violation of copyright? Just let me know and I shall deal with it swiftly. Mr. Stradivarius 06:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Hello again Mr./Mrs. Robinson. This is just a note to say that the business brokers article has been looked at by the Wikipedia copyright cleanup team, and they couldn't find any copyright problems. Have a look at the article's talk page and the copyright cleanup team log, and also the original request for copyright help for more details on what went on. If there is something that you still think needs addressing, then please feel free to reply to me here, and I shall do my best to help. Mr. Stradivarius 16:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Good Language Learner Studies

Dear Mr Stradivarius

I have just re-read your edits to the Good Language Learner page I wrote

You have made a good job of it, specially the referencing, so thank you very much for your efforts

Best wishes

Carol — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! Let me know if you need any other help with Wikipedia at all. I'll be happy to help. Mr. Stradivarius 06:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

two questions on wording

I am just posting this here to make sure I get your attention--if the discussion needs continuing you can place it on the talk page or continue here, but I think you can clear it up yourself.

You wrote, at Chinaman (term) with my bolding added:

"Chinaman is almost entirely absent from British English, and has been since before 1965, except in another meaning as a left-arm unorthodox spin in cricket.[26] Most British dictionaries see the term Chinaman as old-fashioned, and this view is backed up by data from the British National Corpus."

The question is, what has been what since before 1965? the word absent? or the word been used in cricket? Did you mean: "Chinaman is almost entirely absent from British English, except at least as early as 1965 to mean a left-arm unorthodox spin in cricket"?


μηδείς (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

It was the word being absent. I've tweaked the text of the article - see if that makes it any clearer. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 01:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much, much clearer. But you should add a source. Presumably you have one published in '65 saying the term is archaic?
BTW, I figured out the second question on my own, in case you were wondering.
μηδείς (talk) 03:33, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering about that... I only counted one question. The source is the same as the last time - it's all in Fowler 1996. Fowler cites Gower 1965 in the article, although I'm not exactly sure what it is. (The Cambridge source also cites it, interestingly.) Do you think we need to add the Fowler source to both sentences? Mr. Stradivarius 14:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok, a quick Google search fixed that. It is Gower's 1965 revision of Fowler's "Modern English Usage", although I have never set eyes on the document myself. Apparently, it lists Chinaman as offensive. Mr. Stradivarius 14:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we do need that 1965 source for proper scholarly standards. At this point the ref should say 1965 quoted in 1996. I can't find a searchable version at Amazon or Google. The first edition 1929 doesn't say anything about it being exceptionable. Please add the ref and I will see what I can do at the library.μηδείς (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
No, the source I was using was Fowler 1996. There's no need to add another source to make the information verifiable. Fowler 1996 has done the research for us, so that we don't have to. Mr. Stradivarius 15:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
What I meant is that the sentence with the word 1965 should have its own ref to fowler 1996 with the aded phrase in the ref, "quoting Gower, 1965".μηδείς (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Fowler 1996 doesn't quote Gowers, it just cites him. The sentence in question reads "At some point between then and 1965 (Gowers), Chinaman acquired a derogatory edge, and had virtually dropped out of use in BrE (except as a term in cricket for a left-handed bowler's offbreak to a right-handed batsman)." (Looks like it's Gowers and not Gower, my mistake.) Mr. Stradivarius 15:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I have added the ref, [28], but it needs the page and other information from the Gowers edition cited. Can you add this? I do not have access to the full citation information,μηδείς (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
There's really no need to be that specific. If we had to list every work that is cited in a work we cite, we would have to include half a page of citations every time we used an academic article as a source. That said, I won't stop you if you really want to include it. You can find the citation information at the book's WorldCat page, or the links at ISBN 9780191964121. (The WorldCat listing of the reprint might be helpful too.) Mr. Stradivarius 17:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
I see you've changed the source in the article to "Gowers 1965 cited in Fowler 1996". This is not true - the information came from Fowler 1996. We could add an explanatory note saying that Fowler was talking about Gowers 1965 when he came up with the 1965 date, but we can't say that we got the information from Gowers 1965. Not until someone actually finds out what the contents of Gowers 1965 is, at any rate. Mr. Stradivarius 18:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think the problem is that you may not be familiar with citing indirect sources. When you read a book by Jones who reports that Smith said something, you reference it as Smith, as quoted by/cited in Jones and you give both sources. This isn't considered optional, it is acadmeic and professional standard, and wikipedia policy.

See here:

Say where you read it

Don't cite a source unless you've seen it for yourself. Where you want to cite John Smith, but you've only read Paul Jones who cites Smith, write it like this (this formatting is just an example; there are several ways this can be written):

Smith, John. Name of Book I Haven't Seen, Cambridge University Press, 2009, p. 1, cited in Paul Jones (ed.). Name of Encyclopedia I Have Seen. Oxford University Press, 2010, p. 2.

Please restore the way I had it formatted unless there is some other problem. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've read that page before, and I am aware of the policy. The thing is, I'm not trying to claim anything about Gowers 1965. I am only claiming to represent what I read in Fowler 1996. I have never seen Gowers 1965, and its text does not appear inside Fowler 1996, as you can see from my quote above. I have no idea if Gowers 1965 says anything about Chinaman dropping out of British English usage, so it may not even be able to verify the claim we are making in the article. The only thing that Fowler 1996 says about Gowers 1965 is that it found Chinaman to have a "derogatory edge". It is not Gowers 1965 that is reporting that Chinaman dropped out of BrE, it is Fowler 1996. Mr. Stradivarius 03:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
But we are specifically giving the reader the date of 1965. Where does this come from if not Gowers? And do you deny that Fowler cites Gowers as his source? That is what is important. Is there some reason that we shouldn't say Fowler cites Gowers as his source? Does my fuller and academically standard citation somehow harm the reader? Please do consider reverting your last edit. μηδείς (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
The point is not where Fowler 1996 gets its information from - the point is where we get our information from. In any case, I've updated the citation to reflect the fact that Fowler 1996 derives the date of 1965 from Gowers 1965, without implying that we are citing Gowers 1965 ourselves. Hopefully this should solve the problem. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 04:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Nota bene

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, italian and latin pronuciation of a word is NOT a personal interpretation. And you have seen I've referenced my assertion with references to the correct pronunciation of those words. This kind of revertions make me think (and I'm not the only one, I've discussed about it with some other users) that you and some other people want keep wikipedia a corrupted version of an encyclopedia. Fine. User: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there, and thanks for the message. I must confess that I didn't even look at the references you added when I reverted your edit (as part of routine recent changes patrolling). This is because if there really is a correct pronunciation, then we shouldn't include the incorrect pronunciation at all - including information on an incorrect pronunciation is unencyclopedic. I am no Latin scholar, but I do have my doubts about your claim - a page on Latin pronunciation linked to from the reference you provided says:

"Evidence for pronunciation of Classical Latin is often difficult to interpret. Orthography is conventionalized, and the contemporary Roman grammarians’ comments lack clarity, so that to a considerable extent it is necessary to extrapolate from later developments in Romance in order to describe it. On the whole, linguists think that Latin probably sounded something like Italian, though some features make it close to Castillian Spanish."

The proper thing to do here according to Wikipedia policy would be to find out what authoritative textbooks on Latin pronunciation say, and stick to that (citing your sources of course). Omniglot is a good website, but for your arguments to carry the most weight you should use the best sources in the field. However, you could also solve it the quick way, which would be just removing the "wrong" pronunciation and seeing if any other editors object. If you have any other questions feel free to ask me here or on your talk page. All the best. Mr. Stradivarius 08:35, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Help: contents

Right now I'm just organizing the links and making everything more coherent... putting them in the right place. Gamewizard71 (talk) 01:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If you could contribute that'd be fab

I've started a discussion over on User:Pjoef's talk page, about the Motto of the Day project and it would be great if you could input your opinion: User talk:pjoef#About the MotD Project. Okay thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 14:48, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


Sorry, I don't really know how to reply you exactly to your message, anyway.

In fact, the list you pointed me is the list songs that Eminem PRODUCED so it's not necessary songs where Eminem sing in.

The list I did is the list of songs that Eminem rap in.

Is it enough to keep my list online?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by OlivierBrisson (talkcontribs) 19:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Replied on user talk. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Airconditioning dispute

Hi, sorry to bother you about this, but as mentioned on WP: Dispute resolution noticeboard, I proposed a compromise solution on Talk: Airconditioning and after more than five days RGCorris hasn't replied. Should I "nudge" him on his user talk page, or would that be needling? And supposing he never posts a reply, how should I proceed?--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I say just go ahead and implement it. If they have any objections they can always raise them afterwards. Have a look at bold, revert, discuss for a useful model. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 01:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Ralph Esposito

Hi, I'm not a very active wikipedia member, I'm sorry if I made a mistake on the references. I'm trying my best. However, there are quite a few sources, not just one on Ralph Esposito. I believe this man and the other 6 should be added on the Genovese crime family New Jersey faction page because their corruption over the ILA is a prime source of how the faction operates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brucewayneent (talkcontribs) 16:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

That's quite alright, nothing to be worried about. You may well be right about the seven men deserving to go on the New Jersey faction page - I think that they probably don't deserve individual articles though. There's a rule about people only being notable for one event, and it says that we should probably have an article on the event, but not on the person. This seems like a good case of that, and I think we could have an article on this particular event if you can find some good sources. I'll be happy to look at the sources for you if you want. Why don't you try making an article on the event in your userspace? If you have any questions, you can ask me here or on your user talk page. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Michigan ELI exams

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

Hi, Mr Stradivarius, thanks for your welcome. I hope I'm doing this talk-back thing correctly ... (Eckosiexi (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Travels

If you need to delete akbar travels than i guess you also need to delete, and all othe rtravel agencies on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squaremelons (talkcontribs) 13:21, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Squaremelons - I'm sorry to hear how you feel about Wikipedia's article on Akbar Travels being deleted. I want to stress that I have nothing against Akbar Travels myself - it is just that Wikipedia's notability guideline requires there to be at least two reliable sources on a subject for us to have an article on it. When I made my decision to vote "delete" in the deletion discussion, it was because I couldn't find any such sources. It was not meant as a blow to you, or as any comment at all about your competitors. I'm not sure what you mean about being on Wikipedia - I had a search and they don't appear to have an article with us. I see that has an article with us, but it's very small. I'll tell you what - if you can find me two sources that pass Wikipedia's test of reliability then I will personally write a Wikipedia article on Akbar Travels for you. I mean that quite sincerely. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me here, and I shall be happy to answer them. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)