User talk:Mr. Stradivarius/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4


This is just a reminder. If a motto has been used multiple times it should be under or added to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Frequently used ideas. Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 10:01, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Simply, thanks for the reminder. I'm not sure which motto it is that you mean - could you spell it out painfully for me, please? :-) — Mr. Stradivarius 12:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Avtually it is just a general reminder on any motto that has been used multiple times. Simply south...... improving for 5 years So much for ER 18:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Oh, that kind of just a reminder. I see. :-) Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius 21:49, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Linda McMahon

I would like someone to take the maturity and responsibility of actually closing the Linda McMahon discussion.

I disagree with the idea that a discussion can be closed simply due to lack of involvement, as I laid out valid points throughout the discussion, and had a 3rd party expose the foolishness of the other editors there. I want the issue resolved - and since you are the moderator, I want you to resolve it and state that it has been resolved that Linda McMahon is a professional wrestling magnate and the page will stay as is. Collect should be given notice on this, as well as a notice on his behavior, because I was given harassment nonstop the entire thread while I was giving legitimate points.

I would say shame on you, but I don't know how long you've been doing this, so I won't judge.

Please do the right thing and close it accurately. That is all I am asking from you.--Screwball23 talk 03:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Screwball23, and thanks for your message. Sorry to hear that you thought the thread was closed too early. First, I should point out that the dispute resolution noticeboard really doesn't have any power to make binding decisions on consensus. All we can do is make suggestions, and if the participants like them, then they can follow those suggestions. Also, looking at the opinions of the editors on the article talk page and in the noticeboard thread, I don't see any clear consensus one way or the other.

If you want this kind of binding decision on consensus to use magnate or not, the thing to do is to file a request for comments on the article talk page. This has the advantage of making the consensus clear, but it takes time to get everything sorted out. If you don't want to go through the RfC process, then probably the best thing to do is leave the article as it is, and wait to see if Collect still wants to pursue the matter further. It does have your preferred wording at the moment, after all.

As for the behaviour of the participants, I can sympathise with your position. No-one likes getting that many negative comments in a discussion (and yes, I know, this includes my warnings about personal attacks). I do think you shot yourself in the foot somewhat with your original post, however - I think that focusing on Collect's behaviour and using negative words like "vandalizing" put the moderators on guard. My honest opinion is that both you and Collect could have been more cooperative, and I don't think that giving Collect a warning without discussing the situation first is going to actually help to resolve the dispute.

Perhaps the best thing is just to leave things as they are for a while, and for everyone to come back to the article in a few weeks' time with a clear head. Like I said in the closing comments, if anything else comes up you are welcome to post at the noticeboard again. I hope this helps, and of course if you have any questions I'll be happy to answer them below. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't buy your argument that you can't close the discussion. I mean, if you can threaten me for challenging Collect, and if you can tell me to shut up when I bring up Collect's behavior, then you can obviously put a position on this. There was no consensus on Collect's part, and his entire argument was based on that faulty "no consensus" argument. I praise born2cycle for understanding how full of it you were during the process. Do the right thing and put a position on the discussion, because I can assure you, that as a person who has dealt with Collect before, I am 110% confident this will come up again. And his behavior should not be condoned. I don't care how 'nonbinding' you believe your ideas are. I don't care how afraid you are of Collect. I don't care how much he games the system. You have every reason to stand up to him, and not because I say so, but because you spent one time after another giving me the runaround and telling me to shut up on the forum. Look into your heart and do the right thing. Treat people the same. Stand up for what's right, and don't let yourself be a puppet to the BLPZealots. That is all I'm asking from you. Go ahead and say I'm full of BS, because I know I'm speaking from pure honesty - and that, my friend, is what sustains me in every edit war.--Screwball23 talk 04:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm afraid it's true - we really can't make binding decisions at the DRN. If you have a look at the text at the top of the noticeboard it says: 'Being a "clerk" on this page is not formal in any respect; the user should merely be able to demonstrate some ability or past experience in dispute resolution in order to assist in the smooth flow of the noticeboard.' It's a place to resolve minor disputes and point more complex disputes to a more appropriate venue, not to make final judgements on disputes. We can provide more support for a particular position by providing more outside opinions, but that is the limit of what we can do. As for putting a position on the dispute, I can't open the thread back up, but I never did let you know what my opinion was on the matter, so I'll do that now.

I think that you are absolutely right that Linda McMahon is a pro-wrestling magnate, and I agree that that description has support in the sources. However, I also think we can't describe her like that in Wikipedia. This is because "magnate" is a subjective word, and calling someone a magnate is an opinion, not a fact - there's no exact cut-off point where we can say that one person is just a businessman, but another is a magnate. If you look near the top of WP:NPOV, then you will see that as part of the explanation of the policy it says "avoid stating opinions as facts". What this means is that no matter how accurate the opinion that McMahon is a magnate, and no matter how widely-held it is, we still cannot present it as a fact. Instead we would have to say something like "Joe Bloggs from the New York Times described her as 'the most powerful business magnate in the history of pro-wrestling'".

Or, even better in my opinion, we could just describe it using more facts to give an impression of her influence in the business world. For example, "Linda McMahon is a businesswoman and politician, and was the chief executive of WWE Corporation, a multi-billion dollar enterprise with franchises in 55 countries". (I'm sure you can make it more impressive and more accurate than I have done here.) If you do this then I think it is both more factual and more powerful than simply calling her a "magnate". Also, I have a hunch that if you can reformulate the opening text of the article to something like that, then you won't have any more problems with Collect on that article. If you need some more guidance on this you can look at WP:ASF and WP:NPOVT for some good places to start, and I'll be happy to help you here as well. Let me know what you think of this, and I'll answer any more questions you might have. — Mr. Stradivarius 18:27, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Man, don't talk to me. You insisted again and again that we should stay on the topic when we were on the discussion, but every time Collect brought up past discussions it was cool with you. Whenever I brought up his past of policy abuse and editwarring, you kept telling me to shut up. I'm willing to bet you didn't even read the links I was providing. Even your "feeling" that a word is subjective doesn't carry any water, and you know it. The level of discourse that was there was shameful, and even now, you insist on going back to your "feeling". If your argument made sense you wouldn't need to be popping up policies right now. And now, almost a week after the discussion that you prematurely closed - and refuse to reopen - is done, you suddenly want to reveal your position on the topic. Now? What were you doing before? Playing referee? You and I both know you had nothing productive to say in that discussion, and it showed. It showed by your willingness to close it so early, your refusal to hear me, and your consistent failure to support any view. The entire "subjective" nature of a word is a garbage argument and you and I both know it. This is not about selling her credentials as a businessperson, it is about following accuracy and references. I also want to make it very clear that wikipedia is not about being buddy-buddy with every douchey editor. It sickens me to hear someone like you, who has absolutely no idea how disruptive an editor Collect is, come to me with an idea like "hey, my hunch is, if you follow what collect says, then you won't have any more problems with him." Believe me, Collect has enough problems. The guy messes up pages all the time and gets into edit wars nonstop. So think about that. If I was on wikipedia to please everyone, this encyclopedia would go to shit fast.--Screwball23 talk 01:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm hearing a lot of accusations against Collect, but no evidence. I said it in the discussion, and I'll say it again - if you want your accusations to be taken seriously you need to provide some evidence. Simple as that. As for not getting on to the actual content during the noticeboard discussion, the tone of that discussion was so bad that I didn't think anyone would listen. It was full of bolded WP:SHOUT-y comments, personal accusations, and neither side showed any side of compromise whatsoever. If you think that is a constructive environment to solve disputes in, you are gravely mistaken. I recommend that you either provide some serious evidence of Collect's alleged disruptive editing, or you stick to commenting solely on content. — Mr. Stradivarius 07:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at Rohith goura's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RohG ??· 01:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Though Lord Voldemort is not technically a flesh and blood person, he is a real character in the Harry Potter series written by J.K. Rowling. If you would like proof of Voldemort's existence in the history of Vauxhall you need not look any further than page 232 of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. Please reconsider adding him to the Noteable people list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karissa89 (talkcontribs) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe you that he is from Vauxhall in the books. I think that list should be reserved for real flesh-and-blood people though, because it is misleading to our readers to include fictional people alongside real people. We have readers from all over the world, and if a person is not familiar with Harry Potter for whatever reason, they may mistakenly think that Lord Voldemort is a real English lord when they read the article. — Mr. Stradivarius 20:27, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at Template talk:Vandalism information.
Message added 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:27, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Company

Hi, saw that you removed a section from this article, citing WP:PROMOTION. Can you please explain to me why reporting growth "reads like an advert" because it seems to me that past growth and future outlook, when properly verifiable by reliable sources, would be something that an encyclopedia entry should include. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 06:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I just thought the whole thing sounded like it came from a company brochure. The phrase "outpacing the industry" in particular sounds like marketing speak to me. That said, I agree that information about past growth would be good to include if we can keep the marketing speak out. Future outlook, I'm not so sure - I've never been fond of including speculation in Wikipedia articles, although I suppose there's no inherent reason why we can't if we have the sources. I'm not going to press the point on this one, though, so feel free to reinsert the material if you think it is necessary. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I'll try and make it more neutral. Thanks. ɳorɑfʈ Talk! 02:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

DRN archive notice fix

Thanks. I knew I'd mess something up when I did that since the intricacies of archiving absolutely baffle me, even though I use it on my talk page. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Always a pleasure. — Mr. Stradivarius 19:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


Hey there. How do you feel about TransporterMan, you and myself working on the backlog of MedCab cases to clear it out? You seem pretty good at finding solutions to tricky disputes, so I thought it might be something you'd be interested in. We could collaborate to try and improve MedCab at the same time, too. What do you think? (Note, I have about ~3500 pages on my watch list, if I miss your reply then poke me.) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:17, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah well, if you ask me that nicely, how can I refuse? ;) There have definitely been a few disputes at DRN that I have wanted to send to MedCab but have held back on because it looked full of cobwebs, and that seems a shame because it has great potential to stop disputes from escalating. I do think that it could benefit from having more structure - I admittedly didn't spend long checking it out, but my impression was that it was the same format as DRN but longer-term. But I'm not sure about that, I think I'll have to look over the page again tomorrow to find out exactly how it works. But yes, I would definitely be willing to help you clear out the backlog. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:58, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
See User_talk:Steven_Zhang#Your_proposal. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

List of hentai authors

Hello, we spoke before about the article List of hentai authors in Dispute Resolution where it was decided deleted entries could be re-added if reliable sources were added. I began the process today and the user I was in dispute with began deleting my entries again (he's gone as far as to even delete other names that are already on Wikipedia because "they're not primarily known as hentai authors"). I used for my source which is essentially an IMDB for anime and manga. I'm at the end of my rope here and I could use some advice. Thank you. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, well the problem here is that Anime News Network doesn't really count as a reliable source. If it's like IMDB, then anyone can contribute to it, and there is no independent fact-checking of the source. That independent fact-checking is usually required to make a source count as reliable. Have a look at our guideline on identifying reliable sources to get an idea of what you need to look for. Hope this helps. — Mr. Stradivarius 04:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
AFAIK, IMDB does fact check. ANN also does this, but I would say they're even more meticulous. Is there a list of websites considered reliable? Perhaps it would be easier to speak with an administrator part of the Anime project? Is there a list of admins in the project? I'm sorry for asking so many questions. Thank you, again. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 08:30, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
The place to take this up would be the reliable sources noticeboard. I had a search of the archives there and it seems it has come up before. It looks like I was wrong about it being flat-out rejected - from the little that I searched the archives it seems there are some people who will accept it as a reliable source, and some who won't. If you manage to reach a consensus there for using ANN on List of hentai authors then I'll help you negotiate some inclusion criteria on the talk page there, and that should make crystal clear what should go in the article and what shouldn't. Also, you might want to have a look around for some other sources - there are bound to be sources out there of which no-one will question the reliability. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 12:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Wow, that was a depressing read. Read some rather scathing debates over ANN. Searched for hentai and read the user I'm in conflict with tear into someone like a ham. From what I can tell, there does not exist on the internet a reliable source for anime. Searching the term, there's seems to be debate over everything. ANN is as close as it gets and editors refuse to use it's encyclopedia section because someone at some point may have had user-content. Insane. How does anything get done here? Alucardbarnivous (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I can see that this must be very frustrating, especially because of all that work you put into the list. However, I hope you can appreciate that using someone else's user-generated content to verify our user-generated content has an obvious logical flaw. Hard though it may be for you to accept it now, the users who are vehemently against sources like ANN have that stance for the sake of improving Wikipedia. Have you considered using Google Books or Google News archive? Or how about Japanese-language sources? I'm sure that there must be something out there that you can use. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:21, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate your help. Google Books looks promising. Would I source each individual book by Google Books? Thanks. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 14:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Do you mean using the Google Books URL in your inline citations? It's not strictly necessary, but in this case I think it would help in case others want to check the sources. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, just in case you didn't know, {{Cite book}} is the template of choice for this particular task. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much. That looks like it has potential. Alucardbarnivous (talk) 15:56, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Old MedCab Case

Greetings Mr Stradivarius, I noticed that you had dealings with this MedCab which has now closed. It appears that the dispute is still on-going and turning into a article talk page slanging match still between the main parties involved. As I was one of the mediators who contributed also, I was wondering if it would be OK for myself to reopen the case, and get to a final resolution, in a peaceful and diplomatic manner? A few of the parties involved are fine with this decision, and I don't mind whatsoever in tackling this one alone. I look forward to your response in due course. Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Wesley Mouse, yes, by all means re-open the case. My close was a purely procedural one, based on no activity at the article or on the talk page in over a month. As the dispute has flared up again, then reopening the MedCab case sounds like a sensible move. I am happy for you to be the mediator, and I will also keep an eye on the case myself to see how it goes on. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 00:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for getting back to me. How do we go about reopening the case? I'm guessing we reopen the original MedCab case, instead of submitting a new one. Although it may be simpler to leave that as it is, and I host the mediation on the article talk page, and then just update he MedCab file with the final outcome. Wesley Mouse (talk) 14:17, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I've reopened the case for you at the link you posted above. The bot should come along soon and re-list it on the main MedCab page. If you would prefer to do it on the talk page, that's fine too - just undo my change and that will close it again. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that for me, it is very much appreciated. I am however, having concerns about the main user who submitted the medcab request in the first place. As you know, I appointed myself as one of the three mediators at the time, and continued to monitor the article talk page to make sure a resolution had been reached. As we've already established, a resolution hasn't been agreed, as continued heated arguments between parties involved is on-going. Now User:FleetCommand is declining my offer stating it "isn't personal", only to use personal attacks towards myself further down the MedCab page. I'm keeping a cool head and ignoring his sly comments, whilst maintaining professionalism in reminding the user to avoid such attacks and keep civil throughout the mediation process. I do feel though that he could be acting in such a way as he may be feeling he isn't getting his own way for how he would like the article to be set out. Would it be possible for yourself (when you get a spare moment) to quickly check what the user has written along with my replies back; as it may be a case of rejecting the entire medcab, and escalating things to the next level. Thank you in advance. Wesley Mouse (talk) 22:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: I declined Wesley Mouse's mediation, that is right. You or Steven would be better mediators. I have already asked Steven to step up. If he did not, perhaps you should. (I have no preference between him or you. Just he was upper in the list so I clicked on him first.) Fleet Command (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Unless a clear explanation to back-up the decline can be given, without using personal attacks; then I shall continue to proceed in a professional matter. Especially when the subject of the dispute is something that I have no interest in, which gives me a better position to sit on the fence and listen to all sides of the argument. Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

User OpenFuture puts all the burden on me while presenting no evidence of her/his own, this has to cease

I urge you to inform OpenFuture to have a level playing field in discussions. OpenFuture demands that I present evidence that there is "no connection at all" with pre-Nazi national socialism in order to disprove that a cohesive national socialism existed prior to World War I. I present clear individual examples of prominent "national socialist" ideologies unrelated to Nazism that disrupt the idea that a cohesive national socialism existed prior to the development and rise of Nazism and OpenFuture refuses to acknowledge them and falsely accuses me of trying to change the topic. It seems that OpenFuture is demanding that I find a source that states "all national socialism prior to World War I and Nazism is unrelated to Nazism", such as source will not exist and besides I have NEVER said that there is no possibility of pre-WWI Nazi-esque national socialism, but all that is needed to demonstrate that pre-WWI Nazi national socialism existed are sources. I ask OpenFuture to provide some as he/she has asked of me, and he/she refuses to. I cannot accept a one-way burden upon me. OpenFuture has to provide sources for her/his argument just as I have to. I would appreciate it if you could request for OpenFuture to provide sources for her/his argument, OpenFuture seems to hate my guts because I disagree with her/him and refuses to listen to my requests, so there is no point in me asking again. This needs to be a level playing field, or else nothing I provide will be good enough. When responding, I hope that you please focus on how to bring OpenFuture to be on a level playing field such as by requesting her/him to present sources for her/his argument.--R-41 (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that OpenFuture needs to provide a source if they want to claim that other uses of "National Socialism" should be put in the article. It appears that they were under the impression that the term "National Socialism" redirecting to Nazism meant that the Nazism article should cover all uses of the term "National Socialism". I have left a message on the talk page pointing out the correct way to disambiguate the term - hopefully this should take us in a more productive direction. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 02:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
It's not "other uses". It's the same use. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

MedCab Sri Lanka

We've been named as parties. You might want to see my response there. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

haloo - Mobile Network in Bosnia and Herzegovina

This is a new mobile network that started a few days ago, This information is 100% legit.

Would you return the information I added earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message. The reason I removed your addition is that on Wikipedia every claim that is contested or is likely to be contested must be backed up by a reliable source. Have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability for more details on this. If you can provide a reliable source that this mobile network exists, then by all means, add it back to the article. If you have any more questions, I'll be happy to answer them here. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, if you want to access your contributions again, you can find them through the article's edit history. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:01, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Good language learner studies

Dear sir

Thank you very much for your feedback on our writing about A good language learner.

We are a group of teachers of English doing research about writing in an online context. We are very pleased about our decision to put the writing on Wikipedia, because we are learning a lot from this experience and most importantly from your feedback, although our writing has been messing up your original page. Please accept my apology for having put you in an uneasy situation of seeing and commenting an out-of-place section in your page of Good language learner studies. Actually we are at present not living in the same country, and may not be able to act soon enough for our writing after we received your feedback, things like editing or removing the writing to another page.

Once again thank you very much for your kindness and keen feedback and apologies for upsetting you some time.

Best regards, Anhhpham (talk) 03:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the message! You don't need to worry about messing up the page - it's not really "mine" in any sense, and this is a wiki after all. I actually think your addition was very good and belongs on this project somewhere. The trouble is that on the page good language learner studies it was just a little bit off-topic. I think that you could move material about motivation to motivation in second language learning and you could move anything that contains "how-to" instructions to Wikibooks, and it probably wouldn't be too much extra effort. Let me know what you think, and if you have any more questions, please ask them below and I'll be happy to answer. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 03:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your message Mr. Stradivarius. I am happy with your response. I will forward your message to other members in our group and we will discuss the splitting way as you suggested.

Actually what we aim at when working on Wikipedia is this process, things like discussing, editing, commenting, etc. and lessons we get behind this experience, rather than the product, namely a Wikipedia entry itself. It is therefore very helpful for us to be able to talk to someone here like you and to get your response. Best regards, Anhhpham (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nazism mediation

Hi, and thanks for trying to mediate.

R-41 is now opening topics that I thought were covered already. You moved one to a new section below, namely R-41's requirement that we prove that the word "national socialism" in 1919 have some sort of relationship to the word "national socialism" as used earlier. I've pointed out that the burden of evidence in a change of a meaning of a word instead lies on the one claiming that the meaning of the word changed. He responded with now requiring evidence that other "national socialism" existed at all, another topic already covered and a consensus was reached. His reaction to that was requiring that we provide sources showing that the word means the same. You see the circularity here?

Anywaym this means two new topic need to be added to the list of disagreements, namely "did any other national socialism exist at all" and "do you need to prove that a words meaning changed or that it stayed the same". I have little doubt that this form of discussion (coming up with new small, to some extent quite absurd disagreements) is going to keep on forever, and more and more pointless and already covered disagreements will be dug up. As such I have lost my hope in any informal mediation working. I'll obviously keep on cooperating with it should it go on, but I would like to say that it is probably a waste of your time. If you decide to keep on going, good luck, and I'll probably try to keep out of the way and not discuss to much, as I'll just grow frustrated with the inevitable slow progress as very few people involved in this debate are willing to listen to anybody else (R-41 is in fact one of the more sensible ones). But I think it'll end up in formal mediation in the end anyway...

Thanks --OpenFuture (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've been observing your dispute, and I agree that we need to get this sorted before we can make real progress with the article. I have just started a new sub-thread on the Nazism talk page about finding the most reliable sources on the subject, and I hope that you can join in with it. If we find out what the most reliable sources say on the subject, then that will give us a good indication of what to include. As for new disputes added to the list, I think those two can be categorised as part of the dispute over the scope of the article - I'm not sure there's a real need to separate them from that wider context. That's not to say that they aren't important parts of it, though, and I have no doubt we will address them as part of mediation.

I think it's a little early to give up on mediation, as we've only just started. Once we've had a little time for the ball to get rolling, things will likely get a lot easier. I have faith in the dispute resolution process: I think that if all users involved are willing to compromise and follow the Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then there's every possibility for us to resolve this dispute right now. Let's see what the response is to the new sub-thread and take things from there. — Mr. Stradivarius 17:27, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

The Four Deuces is arguing that comments from one author are taken out of context. What is a best way to settle this dispute if we can't come to agreement? -- Vision Thing -- 20:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, if we limit ourselves to just the comments from that author, and the claim in the article that it is backing up, then I think a further step in the dispute resolution ladder could be a good idea. You basically have two choices here, an RfC or a Mediation Cabal case. RfCs are designed to get wider community input on something, and to get a decision on the consensus there. Mediation is more to help the involved parties work out their differences and to come to a compromise. I think in this case I would opt for an RfC to get the wider input, but the decision is up to you. If you want any help with drafting it, etc., then just ask. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 03:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


Thanks so much for your kind note. I might pop in there from time to time, when my aging content-grinder's on the blink (an increasingly frequent problem. Oh, to be built from user-serviceable parts!) Haploidavey (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Just had to add the following. The more I think about it (DRN), the more excellent an invention it seems. Talk-page disputes too easily generate more heat than light, or walls of text stout enough to fend off even the idea of an exchange of ideas, or worse still, mountains of obfuscation (and that, I confess, is one of my favourite words but one of the most depressing tactics I've even encountered). DRN process requires honesty, humanity and sober precision. Good practice all round, eh? So yes, I guess I'll stick around, and thanks once again for the note. Haploidavey (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


I noticed your closing comment at the Dispute Resolution board for the Volunteer (Irish republican) discussion, and would like to say that several hours before you made it i opened an RfC on the matter first of all for more outside input, before possibly moving to the original research board. I may face a rehashing of all the same arguements, or maybe not, however i'll give a RfC a shot first of all. Thanks for all your help on this issue. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I should have checked for that. Thanks for letting me know about it. Hopefully the RfC will provide lots of outside input - I will keep an eye on it and maybe comment as well. We can decide any further course of action after the RfC has run its course - there's no need to jump the gun here. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Out of curiousity could you make a comment at the RfC as Domer48 feels: "This is one example, were WP:DRN is not being represented fairly.". Can you look at my RfC request and judge as to whether or not i have so that i can amend it to represent the WP:DRN fairly. Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani

Dear Mr.Stradivarius, Thank you for your guidance on editing the page: Syrian Malabar Nasrani in Wikipedia. I appreciate your views and would try to modify the article as you directed. -- (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Nicely designed RfC


Just wanted to drop-by and register my admiration of a very clearly written RfC. Kudos. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! This is the first content RfC that I've written, if you can believe that. I just hope it can actually settle the disputes on the page, which have been going on for a long time now. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Reasons to quit Wikipedia

Thanks for the reminder that it is not worth someone like me trying to add pages to Wikipedia.

You have doubtless saved me hours of time that I might have spent trying to expand an American encyclopedia with unAmerican material! :Yonmei (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Have another look at the page - I've added the references for you. I don't think there's any question that the book is notable. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 13:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Motto of the Day Motto Shop

Hello! My name is Belugaboy, and by now, you and I both have heard of the Motto Shop, and if not, there's a Motto Shop! It's an exclusive place where users can get their own motto to live by on the wiki. It's great, but we're really running slow, in fact, we haven't seen a customer in months. So we thought YOU, the contributors to Motto of the Day, could spread the word to your WikiFriends, heck, order yourself one, whether you have or haven't before. Thank you and warm regards to all of you!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Belugaboy (talk) at 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC).


You've got email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Different strains of punks

I've just commented on that nomination about the "two different strains of punks...", but I've also approved it so I want to personally thank you for understanding! I feared I was too rude (that was not my intention, because I was kidding). All the best and, once again, thank you. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 09:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, and don't worry, I'm not so easily offended. :) — Mr. Stradivarius 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Ouch! Ouch! This is way too rude for my taste! Even my watchlist is shaking... Fleet Command (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani page vandalism need help

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, I thought that there was resolution to the problem on the page Syrian Malabar Nasrani. But now Ashleypt indeed is engaging in vandalism. He is systematically removing all referenced passages dealing with jewish identity of the community. Removing referenced passages is indeed vandalism. Please stop this. I have tried reverting the edits but he keeps on removing the referenced passages. Please stop him from deleting referenced passages. Please help. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Robin! This looks like a content dispute to me, so the thing to do is go to the next stage in dispute resolution. Did you think of filing a new case at the Mediation Cabal like I suggested? — Mr. Stradivarius 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Mr. Stradivarius, I should say this is not a content issue. He or anyone may put in information with citations from peer reviewed journals. But nobody can delete passages with peer reviewed references. Ashleypt is deleting passages with references, and that is definitely vandalism. thanks Robin klein (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Removing referenced information isn't always vandalism. We also have to be careful to keep content relevant and avoid undue weight, and fixing issues such as these can mean removing content that is referenced to reliable sources. I'm not trying to suggest that that is what happened in this case, but I do think that the picture isn't as clear-cut as you make out. If it was clear-cut, repeated vandalism, for example, then the place to deal with it would be WP:AIV, but I suspect that the editors there would also point you towards dispute resolution. I suggest you read WP:VANDAL one more time, and then file a mediation case. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Portuguese language

Hello, Stradivarius. User PedroPVZ changed the article "Portuguese language" again, returning it to the form he likes, that is, saying that the language was born just in Northern Portugal. I re-changed all again, writing down the quotes of the references to make it clear (I think they are necessary in order to avoid more changes by PedroPVZ or another users) and added that it was Portugal, not Galicia, that spread the language to South and overseas. Also I added that while Portugal spread the language Galicia decayed (and added a reference). I hope that change will please PedroPVZ.

Anyway, this is the last change I do in this article. I am bored and I don't want to loose my time arguing with people about things that anyone can verify in any library. I'm done and I don't want to keep standing the political ideas of anyone applyed to language items in Wikipedia. I'm a linguist, not a politician. In add, English is not a language I manage very well and I rather prefer to contribute to another versions of the project.

Thank you in advance,

Susomoinhos (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Susomoinhos, sorry to hear that you're still having trouble with the article. I think the most sensible thing to do now is to have a request for comments on the question. This is a very good way to get outside opinions on a question and to find a general consensus among Wikipedia editors. When you file it, you should give a brief, neutral overview of the dispute and then ask other editors for their opinions. I think it helps to give editors a clear question to respond to as well. You could ask something like "Should the article say that Portuguese originated in the Kingdom of Galicia, or in northern Portugal?" Before you file it, you should read through the guidelines at WP:RFC, and if you need more advice on how to word your request, just let me know. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 17:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Minorities in Greece

Hello, and thank you very much for your taking the time to look into the dispute. However, I have absolutely no idea how to go about establishing which three sources the academic community considers most reliable on the subject. I can tell you which ones I consider most reliable, but how does one establish which ones the academic community considers most reliable? This isn't at all my field. Any suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, yes, I may have made that question a little bit too hard... In that case just finding some likely-looking books from the article and from a Google Books search should do the trick. The main idea is just to get an idea of what kind of sources we should be using to judge the weight to give to each subtopic in the article - I wasn't expecting anything that would require extensive knowledge of the field. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius 16:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
I responded to your request at the DR noticeboard. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation

Just a quick note - I saw your edit to User talk:Volunteer Marek asking him/her for a statement regarding this mediation. It appears that they've retired as of October 8th (as per this, their most recent edit). Now, this may have no effect whatsoever, retirements being what they are on Wikipedia, but - since you say you need statements from all parties - I thought it worth a mention. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. It's certainly hard to keep track of all the participants when they keep retiring! I'll assume that Volunteer Marek won't be taking part. Best — Mr. Stradivarius 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Created a new Wiki


You had advised me sometime back on a Wiki that I had created. Among others, I had keenly observed your feedback and implemented stuff accordingly. Just wanted your (and other Wikipedians') feedback on a new Wiki that I have created. Does it meet Wiki standards? Does it suffice? It's a new Wiki and I will be posting more content about it in the next few days. I am a graphic novel enthusiast (love the genre) and am naturally excited that India is waking up to Graphic novels and this Wiki is about a particularly good graphic novel company. Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!) Link: Varunr (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there Varunr, do you mean a new article? A new wiki would mean you were creating an entirely different website. — Mr. Stradivarius 15:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yikes! My bad! I meant new article. I am pretty happy with the current Wikipedia and have no intent of making another one! I was referring to a new article, yes. Requesting your feedback and advice. Varunr (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the first thing I'd be concerned about is notability. I see a few sources for the Jump magazine, which might make it notable, but only the one article in The Hindu that actually talks specifically about Level10. You should probably have a look at WP:CORP before you move the article to the mainspace. Another solid source about the company itself would do the trick in my opinion - others may be more lenient, I don't know. If you want more help, some good places to try are WP:EA or maybe to move your article to WP:AFC. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 07:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for the advice. I have added one more citation from The Hindu and one link from The Times of India. I have also cleaned up the external links section by removing links that aren't really noteworthy (eg. a review by a comic fan; their Twitter and Facebook profiles, etc.) Varunr (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor statement deadline

Hi. I've had a request to ask you to stop spamming users' talk pages with your messages about Holodomor statement deadline. One message should be enough. Thanks, and happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Disregard that; there's some IP running amok on my tp and I put in a request to have it dealt with, which Kudpung misunderstood. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that IP as I had your talk page on my watchlist. It seemed like just random spam to me - no idea what happened to attract IP spam to your page, but that's life, I suppose. Hopefully this exchange has cleared up the confusion. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Minorities of Greece

Hi. Could you have a look at my questions at the dispute resolution page?[1] Sorry for bothering you but I do not have scholarly or extensive information on minorities and it is not easy to find correct sources. Besides I am suffering from a lack of time nowadays so I aplogogize in advance for my late replies. Filanca (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about the delay - I've left a reply on the noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius 10:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dan Savage redux

Hi, following your closing of the recent Dan Savage DR, the two editors who did not achieve consensus for their wording have each further edited the disputed phrasing. I've reverted the one that was contrary to the DR, but (sensitive to EWing) would like your help on handling the second, which also removed sources. Thanks, Rostz (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think there could be more to this than meets the eye. I am curious as to the second edit summary containing "SEO", which I am pretty sure is short for "search engine optimisation". I want to know more about Gujamin means by this, so I'll leave a note on their talk page. I personally don't see any big difference between "Savage, who is gay, ..." and "As a gay male, Savage ...", so I advise leaving it in place for now. We can wait for a reply from Gujamin before deciding any further steps. As for the sources, are they also included in the body of the article? If they are included in the body then there is no particular need to have them in the lede, as it is a summary of the rest of the article anyway. If they aren't, then there must be a place in the body where they can be used, and I would say to insert them there rather then putting them back in the lede, as that would be less controversial at this time. Does that sound like a reasonable suggestion to you? — Mr. Stradivarius 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
The citations weren't duplicates; I added them specifically to support the "is gay" wording. The article body doesn't currently contain any such explicit statement, so your implied suggestion to create one is appropriate - thanks. Rostz (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I will admit to not paying too much attention to the edit history of the article, but I think the advice should stand anyway. If your addition of those sources to the article body is contested as well, then feel free to let me know and/or file another dispute resolution noticeboard post. We can decide on how best to deal with the situation after that. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 13:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Syrian Malabar Nasrani

Dear Stradivarius, I think, now the editing is moving in a convergent and positive way, though there are some aberrations. OK. I started explaining the things in Talk Page as you suggested. I was a little frustrated with Dispute resolution board because didn't find any serious attempt by anybody to mediate there. Also, it's not the issue between me and Robin, but due to the rivalry between to communities. I'm not trying to superimpose my side's view, but just trying to find a balanced presentation of history and tradition. I wish if some experts in history could comment on the article. --Ashleypt (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi again Ashleypt. I can appreciate that you might feel frustrated with the problems in the article not being addressed immediately at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The reason I referred it to further mediation was that it looked like it would take some time to work through the issues, and space on the noticeboard is limited. Would you be willing to undergo mediation at the Mediation Cabal? I can even file the request for you if necessary. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Stradivarius, I would like to invite your attention to a suggestion put forward by User:Cuchullain in the discussion page. He suggested to merge the articles: Syrian Malabar Nasrani and Saint Thomas Christians, as both deal with the same group of people.
It's better to move the article to Saint Thomas Christians. I came to observe the article Syrian Malabar Nasrani while searching Nasrani in Wikipedia and later on I was surprised to see another article Saint Thomas Christians with some contradictory contents on comparing both. In India, both the terms Saint Thomas Christians and Nasranis are synonymous and as Cúchullain stated the term Syrian Malabar Nasrani is an artificially formed name. But I would like to clarify that in India, the term Nasrani is exclusively used for Syrian Christians of Kerala only, not for all Christians and it should be considered as an ethno-religious group. The confusion could be avoided using Disambiguation page. If it is moved as suggested, we could concentrate in improving a single article on Nasranis, including the ethnic aspects as suggested by Mr. Robin. --Ashleypt (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Yes, a merge sounds like a good solution to the problem. You can add the Nasrani clarification inside the article itself if you like; you don't have to have a separate dismabiguation page just for that purpose. Of course, you will still need to cite sources that say this is the case, etc. Best of luck with it. — Mr. Stradivarius 11:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Dear Stradivarius, The discussion on the proposal for merging was going on from 13th Oct. But suddenly, User: Thom100 has deleted the Merge Tag from both articles blaming all others including me for conspiracy. He is also adamant to include a diagram and an equation which were observed as blatant hoaxes without any verifiable source. He has already got warnings against Vandalism two times, but still he is behaving erratically. Please help? --Ashleypt (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. Because the merge is contested, it might be a good idea to get an uninvolved admin to assess the level of consensus and close the thread, rather than trying to assess the level of consensus yourself. If an uninvolved admin does it, there will probably be a lot less complaint from the other users. Or, alternatively, you could wait for another week or so to see if more people comment to make the consensus clearer. (If you do this then you should probably advertise the merger discussion at the relevant WikiProjects, etc.) It's probably best to separate the issues of a) whether to merge, and b) whether to include the content that Thom100 is talking about. If necessary you could think of having a separate RfC for the content issue. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Robert Zoellick bio

Dear Mr. Stradivarius: Nobody has considered the position of the Mediator from the Mediation Cabal, who supported the edits I proposed on the Zoellick talk pages, and then tendered his resignation in the middle of the mediation. The multiple, authoritative sources I cited for my edits were not considered, but simply ignored and in this so-called conflict resolution (a misnomer), the existence of these sources was denied. Closing a discussion because it is "stale" only three days after the posting of clearly erroneous comments is highly questionable. As for my "conflict of interest", the UK Parliament International Development Select Committee just announced an inquiry into the Department for International Development Annual Review and Multilateral Aid Review and requested comments from individuals. Thirteen World Bank whistleblowers intend to avail of this opportunity. The best way I can think of to improve the Wikipedia site is to publicize what has happened here. Please convey to the rest of Wikipedia's community that as a cellist accustomed to the fellowship of chamber music, I am put off by aggressive, high-handed and nonsensical edicts. Currency1 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You're probably right - I was just closing it based on advice by other editors here and at the BLP noticeboard thread. I think there is a clear consensus so far that you shouldn't edit the article itself, but as you obviously feel strongly about it, I will reopen the thread on the dispute resolution noticeboard for you. I'll have a look at the content you have provided and judge it on its merits with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but I can't guarantee that I will come to a different conclusion than the other editors who looked at it. About the mediation cabal case - I can't seem to find it anywhere. Are you sure it was a mediation cabal case and not in some other location? I'd like to read the arguments there so that I can better inform myself of all the issues involved here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius 08:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
For some reason, the MedCab case was posted on my talk page, so some of it is now buried in my talk page archives. I think parts of it also got posted on user talk pages elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. See, point 20, and see also, where Demiurge1000, who didn't approve of my sources or edits, also complained about the mediator, forgetting to mention that he was involved in the dispute.Currency1 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, please inform me why you reverted the following comment which I placed on the Dispute resolution discussion page after you reopened the Robert Zoellick bio discussion?

The mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that the sources justified Currency1's edits to the Zoellick bio: "If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you mean, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion... Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)"Currency1 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Currency1 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Currency1 (talkcontribs)

Hi again, Currency1. I'm not sure what you mean - I just checked the page, and that comment is still there (permanent link). I've been looking at the other disputes at the page first, admittedly, but I will get round to yours. Hold on while I read through the discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius 14:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Stradivarius, you're correct. I must have linked to the previous version by mistake somehow. (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, Demiurge could not refute the reliability of the primary and secondary sources I cited. Wikipedia is incorrect in branding the issues as a COI. This is a global governance and rule of law issue. I intend to request assistance from the Arbitration Committee on these problems. Currency1 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mr Stradivarius, The Arbitration Committee obviously didn't consider the end to the gentlemen's agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US newsworthy enough for Wikipedia's readers, even though there was no justification for suppressing the recommendation of the mediator in Mediation Cabal to restore my edits to Robert Zoellick's biography. I am simply notifying you (and the Arbitration Committee) that the governance issues presented to Wikipedia are currently before the World Bank's member countries and various legislative bodies.Currency1 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)