User talk:Samsara

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

Contents

Archives[edit]

Threads  Dates Archive
1 to 39  September 2003 to February 20 2006 0
40 to 82  February 20 2006 to March 19 2006 1
83 to 101  up to and all of May 2006 2
102 to 121  June 2006 3
122 to 169  July 2006 4
170 to 203  1 to August 19 2006 5
204 to 234  19 August to 30 September 2006 6
235 to 266  October 2006 7
267 to 305  November 2006 8
306 to 344 December 2006 9
345 to 384 January to April 2007 10
385 to 440 May to December 2007 11
441 to 471 December 2007 to February 2008 12
472 to 544 2008-2012 13
14

Invitation to WikiProject Brands[edit]

Fredmeyer edit 1.jpg
Hello, Samsara.

You are invited to join WikiProject Brands, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of brands and brand-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Camera lens lists[edit]

Hi, noticed your work on Fisheye lens and wondered if you have any input on the list at Superzoom. It looks to me to be mostly a WP:LINKFARM that needs to be trimmed back (90%) to WP:LIST, but other suggestions would be welcome. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you![edit]

I don't know if it's only from you or it was decided by someone else, but I wanna take the time to say thank you for the page protection on the Drag Race season 5 page! I requested it earlier in January and it was declined. I am so happy it's finally protected because not only me but a lot of people had to revert the vandalism. Anyways, thank you! ─ Fabzzz talk 05:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you also for protecting the Normandy landings page. Frankly, I have been disgusted by some of the "edits". My own father was one of the very many killed in this campaign and some of the contributions are an insult to their memory. Many thanks & regards, David J Johnson (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Spelling Mistake[edit]

This page: The word "trumpeteer" should be "trumpeter". (First paragraph). 91.85.61.182 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

               you did protect it, so i though i would irritate you...91.85.61.182 (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland[edit]

I'm just dropping you a quick note about a new Wikipedian in Residence job that's opened up at the National Library of Scotland. There're more details at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scotland#Wikimedian in Residence at the National Library of Scotland. Richard Symonds (WMUK) (talk) 14:59, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Normandy landings[edit]

Hello Samsara, Could I please draw your attention to recent changes in the Normandy landings article. An unregistered editor is making alterations to the participants/flags in the conflict, which have already been agreed some time back. I wonder if it is time for full protection and maybe action against this unregistered editor? Your advice/action would be appreciated. Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Harlem Shake[edit]

If vandalism continues in this article "Harlem Shake (song)" after its protection expires, request to semi-protect it "indefinitely in response to an ongoing risk of vandalism". VGPHD (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This is not how you request page protection. You do so WP:RFPP. Also, don't edit the page's protection template, it is not your job to do that. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Love history & culture? Get involved in WikiProject World Digital Library![edit]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!
WorldDigitalLibraryLogo2.png
Hi Samsara! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editors are welcome! (But being multilingual is not a requirement.) Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Tree of life.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tree of life.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Million Awards[edit]

Million award logo.svg The Million Award
For your contributions to bring hydrogen (estimated annual readership: 1,996,000) and Charles Darwin (estimated annual readership: 4,080,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you two Million Awards. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment-- very few Wikipedians have significantly contributed to two articles on this list. Thanks for all you do for our readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

Million award logo.svg This user won the Million Award for bringing Hydrogen to Featured Article status.
Million award logo.svg This user won the Million Award for bringing Charles Darwin to Featured Article status.


If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to let you know -- Missing Wikipedians[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Samsara,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Ecnomiohyla rabborum.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 10, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-11-10. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Emmett Till Biliography[edit]

Hi, sorry! I'm trying to add an entry to the bibliography, "Charge Two with Lynch Death of 14-Year-Old" by Marty Richardson in the anthology, Reporting Civil Rights. pt. 1. American journalism, 1941-1963. p. 211-213 so that I can try and cite it properly above. But it appears protected? I'm new and a complete noob. ty! Danielle Geller (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Red_Skelton[edit]

I suppose, if two people who know photography suggest something, you should at least try an alternative. I've uploaded one. I may be overreacting from one too many people seeing one of my restorations of sepia toned images, and immediately desaturating it and suggesting it as an alt, which makes you somewhat resistant. That may be an overreaction in this case, given photographic prints' contrast can be adjusted readily by changing development time from the negative. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Leica X2. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. When removing maintenance tags, please ensure you have resolved the problems those tags refer to. In the case of this article, I tagged this article with a notability tag as you have not asserted anywhere in the article why this particular product is notable and why it merits an encyclopedic entry. This concern was not addressed before you removed the tag. Adam Black talkcontribsuploadslogs 05:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

POTD notification[edit]

Hi Samsara,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Bos grunniens at Yundrok Yumtso Lake.jpg is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 4, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-09-04. Thank you for all of your contributions! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:42, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Historicity of Jesus. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Samsara (FA  FP) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Samsara (FA  FP) 10:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Nash Grier[edit]

Hello.

How do I add a protection level to Nash Griers page for a longer extended time? Please, tell me how, not that it's doesn't need to be done because I wouldlike to extend the protection on his page... Frenchman101 15:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

It's still semi-protected until 17th Sept. If vandalism continues, the protection will be renewed. I would like to take this opportunity to remind you that protection is not to be used to advance a position in an edit war. Regards, Samsara (FA  FP) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of reverting[edit]

If You had payed attention to this link http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-two/10877137/D-Day-French-torn-over-criminal-British-and-American-D-Day-bombings-of-Caen.html You would have found support of the mentioned D-day civilian death toll (a bit down), a better source than a thesis. (However the idea of Wehrmacht being so kind "to move most the civilian population away from the potential battle zone" remains as a silly statement, in my opinion.) Boeing720 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

  1. You might be talking to the wrong person, since I did not revert any edits made by you. However, since you posted here, I'll give you my 2 cents.
  2. I don't share your view that a peer-reviewed academic thesis is a worse source than a newspaper.
  3. Whether you think something is a silly statement is irrelevant to Wikipedia.
  4. What you've put in quote marks does not appear in the material you oppose.
  5. It seems to me that you are trying to present material as irreconcilable when that is not the case. If you take a step back and a deep breath, you may realise that the material you are trying to contribute can form part of a consensus article on the subject. My experience is that "the truth", if sourceable, will eventually establish itself in an article. However, if you're not willing to wait that long, you may have to collaborate with the other editors towards an accepted revision. As part of that process, you may have to abandon your position that sources that do not agree with your POV are "silly".
Regards,
Samsara (FA  FP) 12:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
It was just that You moved my two links to my talk-page. I think the Telegraph is a better source than a thesis, but I havn't used the negative word "worse". I still believe - also after taken Your suggested deep breath, that following statement "The Germans had ordered French civilians, other than those deemed essential to the war effort, to leave potential combat zones in Normandy." is of harm to the article in general, pure nonsens and silly in my humble opinion. I find the statement so strange that it ought to require more than one single thesis source. I've stated before, some civilians were moved from the entire coastline from Brittany to the Netherlands, but due to military installations. Which civilian Frenchmen were "essential" to the German war effort, by the way ? And why only in Normandy ? I'm only asking of You to reflect about it, does the statement really feel logical ? Wouldn't one more source be better ?. If You don't agree with me, fine. I don't think we need to argue this further. Reguards Boeing720 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Album article style guide. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done 01:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus[edit]

No reason to protect Historicity of Jesus. I see no continuing disruption to the article -- certainly no vandalism. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you immediately messaged me to complain I think tells the story. The edit war is quite plain to see, and I apparently just stopped you from reverting again. Please review the WP:3RR policy and work with your fellow editors to determine whether consensus on the content of the article has, or can be, changed. Regards, Samsara (FA  FP) 00:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Please review WP:Assume bad faith. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a very appropriate link, thank you. I will keep it in mind. Samsara (FA  FP) 01:24, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done 00:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of Templateeditor right in protecting a page[edit]

Hi there, I noticed that you (quite rightly) protected Liam Jones today, but you used ‎‎[edit=templateeditor] and [move=sysop] (indefinite) to do so. Why? It isn't a template and no one had tried to move it. Was it a mis-selection, or are you using templateeditor to get around the "it's too easy to get autoconfirmed" loophole? As an established editor who has neither the template editor (should be, but haven't proved I need it) nor sysop (not going to run the gauntlet) rights, you have just prevented me from editing or moving the article for no good reason. Regards, The-Pope (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It was a misclick on the edit permission. Fixed now. Why do you need to move his article? Has he changed his name? Can you provide sources? Samsara (FA  FP) 18:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that up. I don't need to move it, but why do you think only sysops should be able to move it. Surely the default position is all autoconfirmed users can move articles and indefinite changes to that position should be justified. The-Pope (talk) 03:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
What do you need to move it for? Is he about to change his name? Are you familiar with WP:BLP? Samsara (FA  FP) 03:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
As I said above, I don't need to move it. I also don't see the need to protect it from being moved. You applied the protection. What part of WP:MOVP are you using to justify the move protection, or are you using your admin tools incorrectly. The-Pope (talk) 10:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's be clear on a few things here. You came here stating, you have just prevented me from editing or moving the article. I corrected my protection error and asked why you needed to move the article. You couldn't provide a reason. You also did not edit the article which you previously stated you were going to. You continued to lobby for move unprotection, and yet maintained that there was no actual need for a move. Now, can you see how your behaviour came across as disruptive? As a principle, we don't generally lower protection when someone asks for it without having a good reason that aims at building the encyclopedia. On review, I see that you did edit the article twenty months ago, and that the recent vandalism spree has no precedent. I'm therefore going to extend good faith and lower the move protection to autoconfirmed with 10 days' expiry. Let's hope it works out. Regards, Samsara (FA  FP) 12:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I noticed and queried a strange application of protection, you admitted you made a mistake and fixed it, but didn't change the indefinite admin only move protection, so I queried that again. The most common reason for moving a BLP article isn't because he changes his name, but because someone else with the same name becomes notable and there is a need for disambiguation. You talk about not lowering protection without good reason. As an established editor who isn't an admin, I would argue that you should never apply indefinite admin only protection without VERY good reasons. Until there is a global policy of preventing autoconfirmed editors from moving articles then applying admin only protection without good reason is much more disruptive than a polite request to return to the default position. Thank you for now doing so. The-Pope (talk) 13:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dragon Rescue Service[edit]

Metal dragon half frontal view.jpg Dragon Rescue Service
Thanks! Firs time anyone tried to rescue any of my dragons! Much appreciated.Hafspajen (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Most people only complain about them ... ( I think it is because the colored backround ... pictures without a text use to look like that) Face-smile.svg Hafspajen (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Does this one have a favourite food, or is it just the usual fish and candlewax? Samsara (FA  FP) 11:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
This one like pearls. Hafspajen (talk) 16:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruption[edit]

Please do not disrupt GANs. If you have a problem that you think is relevant to the process, point it out on the talk page of the same page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations As I have already pointed out, there is a consensus to use such restorations. Therefore, your disclaimer is irrelevant until you change that consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Good_article_nominations#Disruption_of_nomination.3F FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Gerard Way[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Samsara. You have new messages at Vertium's talk page.
Message added 00:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Article titles[edit]

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


Hightail[edit]

Hi. I saw that you took some interest in the page and in particular the changing of the guard at the CEO level. I submitted a Request Edit here about a week ago asking for this information to be updated in the body of the article. (I have a COI so I am not suppose to edit the article myself) and I was wondering if you had a moment to take a look. CorporateM (Talk) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Four Award[edit]

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

BSI-CMOS sensor[edit]

As I know, BSI means shorter circuit, so the consume of the battery is more efficient than non-BSI. BSI-CMOS and CMOS of the same type will catch and process the light with no different. Thank you for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 15:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read Back-illuminated sensor, which provides sources supporting the statement you were changing. If changes need to be made, they should be made to the Back-illuminated sensor article first. Thanks. Samsara (FA  FP) 16:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. I have read Back-illuminated sensor and the article is true, but maybe need some exceptions. This http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16184/what-are-the-advantages-or-disadvantages-of-a-back-illuminated-cmos-sensor maybe will enrich our knowledge.Gsarwa (talk) 07:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know which part of that I'm supposed to read, but you should be aware that the stackexchange network consists of content generated by pseudonymous users. It is essentially a forum where anyone can contribute, and therefore not a reliable source that should be used for Wikipedia. I haven't seen any source state that power consumption is a major concern in the choice of BSI over conventional CMOS. I think you should find a proper source first before you make further changes. FWIW, this press release from Samsung states that the lower power consumption in its NX1 comes from a 65nm copper based design rather than 180nm aluminium, and not from their choice of BSI over traditional CMOS. Samsara (FA  FP) 13:47, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Additional info from reliable source: http://www.cnet.com/news/why-the-iphone-4-takes-good-low-light-photos-bsi-cmos-sensors-explained/ Thank you for your concern.Gsarwa (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. We have some agreements and I think one misunderstanding:
  • There are CCD sensors, conventional CMOS sensors, and BSI-CMOS sensors - three different types, where BSI CMOS and conventional CMOS have a lot in common. Obviously, we could list more subtypes if we wanted to, but none of them, I think, are of interest to this discussion.
  • BSI CMOS sensors capture light more efficiently than conventional CMOS sensors, and this difference should be greatest for small pixel pitch - larger pixels should not experience significant light loss due to the wiring that covers them in a traditional CMOS design, but small pixels should. However, we still need a reliable source that says so.
  • CMOS sensors are more energy efficient than CCD sensors; no source brought forward so far has documented the existence of a difference in energy consumption between CMOS and BSI-CMOS - all have exclusively spoken to the difference between CMOS and CCD.
  • In contrast, the vast majority of sources state, first thing, that the difference between CMOS and BSI-CMOS is in light capturing ability. We should therefore reproduce that view in Wikipedia as well - anything else would be original research.
There are a number of other facts about BSI sensors, such as cost of production and difficulty of scaling, that one could write about, and that are well-documented and universally agreed on by reliable sources. I think we should follow the general emphasis found in reliable sources.
Regards, Samsara (FA  FP) 18:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You know a lot and concern about the detail. Very few persons know exactly about cameras from film cameras to digital cameras, even sometimes, reflex in SLR/DSLR is mislead as reflection. Digital cameras are still growth, mainly the sensor and the processor, while lenses maybe have near 100 percent been explored. One possibility is to use bigger diameter lens to increase sensitivity, if the cost is not the constrain. Sensor and processor day by day become powerful and the price decline a lot. So, when we talk about sensor itself, maybe many views will appear depends on point of view and where will be applied. Still changing confuse us which one is right, if we are not follow the changing continously. Seems CCD is dormant, but old CCD is different with current CCD. Thank you so much for your attention.Gsarwa (talk) 06:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I don't know a lot about recent innovation in CCDs, maybe there isn't much happening - it was a reasonably mature technology when it was starting to be abandoned in DSLRs. I would suggest to you though that lenses have not been explored 100% yet. There are new lens design patents every year. Samsara (FA  FP) 01:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your views. Sony has made prototype of curve-sensor, but certainly it should need new lenses. But I think the battle is not merely in hardware area anymore, but also in software. Some lens distortions have been reduced by in-camera sofware, but certainly need still improvement. Until now only a few cameras use open system as Android and almost all still use propietary systems and if we crack and improve it, the warranty become invalid.Gsarwa (talk) 04:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/State Arms of the Union (set)[edit]

Samsara- Thank you for your support of this FP nominated set. Based on some feedback received from a reviewer, yesterday I started another round of light cleaning of the images to remove thread-like white fibers that could be found in the brown and black ink areas of the images. I do not expect to edit each image but have already completed 33 of 46. If for any reason the touch ups are not completed by the end of the nomination (approximately 24 hours), I will suspend the nomination. Thanks again for your support. --Godot13 (talk) 03:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Israel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on the Israel article. If I understand correctly, you seem to say the 2013 UN vote where 165 countries voted for “The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” does not imply those countries wanted the Palestinian people to have a representative democracy. I was not aware there was a way for people of a country to achieve self-determination without some sort of representative democracy. Would you help me understand this? Gouncbeatduke (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can, but I'll try. Quoting you, Palestinian people to have a representative democracy. No Israel in that sentence. The resolution refers explicitly to a two-state solution. Samsara (FA  FP) 23:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No original research. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Wikimedia sister projects. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 September 28. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

It is[edit]

Consensus is generally regarded to be a two-third majority in support, including the nominator and/or creator of the image; however, anonymous votes are generally disregarded, as are opinions of sockpuppets. If necessary, decisions about close candidacies will be made on a case-by-case basis. (FP high up) Hafspajen (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

  • In case Haffy's meaning isn't clear, it meas that the Marinka account was already suspected to be a sock violating a block, from a user whom Haffy had repeatedly asked to stop interacting with him. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@Hafspajen, Crisco 1492: There are several issues here.
  1. Innocent until proven guilty. The fact that a sockpuppet investigation has been opened does not justify treating the contributor as a sock before a positive finding has been made. Several other principles intersect with the case at hand:
    1. Making a disclaimer of the kind you made on that nomination only invites further debate - I hope this is not what you intended, as it is not productive for the project overall.
    2. Individuals who feel they have in some way been victimised sometimes feel their subjective victimisation justifies demands that they place on other involved or uninvolved parties. This kind of behaviour, like the above, should be avoided, and we should all self-check to ensure that we do not engage in it.
  2. Recently, I have heard complaints about declines in participation at FPC, AfD, and WikiProjects, as well as a reduction in nominations for adminship. A perennial complaint in these scenarios is our acerbic atmosphere. Principally, we should encourage participation by anyone so long as it is civil and on-topic. Diversity of viewpoints according to my reading is generally believed, on average, to improve the quality of the encyclopaedia. We should therefore encourage and respect participation from IP users as well, even or especially if they disagree with the motion. Non-promotion is a necessary part of a consultation process such as FPC, and nobody should feel they'll be gagged if they say the wrong thing. In fact, even though IP users' votes may not be counted, their participation may enrich the debate and cause others to consider aspects they would otherwise gloss over. I felt the comment you made was not helpful in encouraging the kind of collaborative working environment that we want to create. Samsara (FA  FP) 17:11, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry you feel that way - but I think you were not the target of the harrasment that almost meade me leave Wiki. Actually. I feel that you see only the top of the iceberg and thus - don't really have an inside wiev. There are several other off wiki ramifications to this, that I don't want let you know here AND generally nobody would accuse me for being hars with Wiki-folk, on the contrary. I appreciate your consern, but this editor all in one was indeed the one not productive for the project at overall. I would hardly say that about Crisco - on the contrary. Regards. Hafspajen (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Please understand I'm not criticising the sockpuppet investigation request, only the remark on the FPC page. I think it would have been better practice to wait for the investigation to conclude and then make a remark about it at FPC. As far as my assessment goes, no positive effect was achieved by the attempt to anticipate the other user's contribution (he/she contributed anyway), and a second comment had to be made in any case. And I'm sorry that you've been affected off-wiki, but I don't think your FPC remark would have had any impact on that, positive or negative. Regards, Samsara (FA  FP) 17:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, you are probably right, I just find interacting with this person this so - well, no words can tell... I knew it was him - I always do - and here he goes trying to fool us again and again. Hafspajen (talk) 20:52, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And he did it ... again. Hafspajen (talk) 17:23, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Traditional marriage[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Traditional marriage. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Alex Jones close[edit]

I read your close of the RfC as specifically finding a consensus for inclusion of the New York Magazine quote in the lead, but no consensus to include on the other bits. Gaba seems to read your close as saying that there was no consensus for removal of any cites in the lead. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC close[edit]

First of all, thank you for your attention to the RFC and bringing it to a close with a summary and suggestions. But I am confused. The only objection I had to @Iaritmioawp:'s proposal was the wording. I already proposed the discussed change and it was denied by an administrator (because the template is fully protected.) So we are going to need to prove some kind of wider consensus to actually change the infobox. As for the status quo, nobody who edits bishop articles has read any of our discussions. It's essentially a meat puppet problem. New editors come in all the time to make updates as soon as the appointments hit the news. So there will be no implementation of any proposal without community and infobox support. Elizium23 (talk) 01:38, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

  1. I understood that your objection was to the wording, but I see exactly that your wording did not have support, and his/hers had, within the low participation of the RfC, a majority among those who commented on it (including Iaritmioawp).
  2. You don't need to change the template to try the new format within articles. It looks to me like it's something that can easily be done manually by changing the parameter value inserted using "<br />" to cause a line break. Alternatively, if you study the template source, you'll understand how to do it manually for the sake of a trial. Thirdly, you could create a temporary copy of the template with the modifications made. If you choose the last option, I would suggest naming it sth like "Template:Infobox Christian leader temporary sandbox".
  3. As for the awareness problem, the places to advertise an RfC such as this probably include Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity and probably Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anglicanism, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy and similar wikiprojects that may use this or a similar related template. Obviously, Template talk:Infobox Christian leader should also receive a notification. You could also notify these places now and give an opportunity to comment, but I think given the small number of articles likely to be affected at any given time, a BRD approach is appropriate.
Regards, Samsara 05:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

RFC close for America: Imagine a World Without Her[edit]

I do not believe there was a consensus as the arguments from both sides have not been addressed or resolved to reach a conclusion. Consensus is not determined by majority vote but by a fair evaluation of the valid concerns in alignment with WP policies and then the creation of a resolution that addresses those concerns. The closer statement should read "unresolved" and not in favor of a position that blatantly ignores the legitimate arguments against it. Scoobydunk (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of your particular concerns were out of scope for the RfC. The RfC posed the question, "is it a reliable source for its own film review?" (emphasis mine) This question was answered in the affirmative, and hence, the RfC is closed correctly. It sounds like you want to be asking a different question, in which case, you should open a separate discussion. Samsara 08:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Incorrect, the RFC asked if it was reliable for its own film review in regards to adding it to the article as a minority perspective. I'll quote part of the RFC that you ignored "The dispute isn't about the proposed quote's content, but whether the source is allowable here." So my arguments directly address why it can not be included in the article and is not allowable, because the article "America: Imagine a world without Her" is not an article about the review itself, the author of the review, or Breitbart.com. WP:QS specifically says that questionable source should only be used in articles/topics about the source itself. So, it can be a reliable source if it was being used as a primary source on a WP article about Christian Toto or Breitbart.com. However, that does not make it a reliable source to be included on other articles. This was part of the RFC question and this is certainly not resolved.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The bottom line here is that it's my role as closer to assess community opinion. In this case, a clear majority of the community did not follow your interpretation of QS. Regards, Samsara 08:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
Again, consensus is not determined by "majority" opinion and to make a conclusion or determination based on majority opinion is a violation of WP policies regarding establishing consensus. Furthermore, the community didn't address the clear concerns presented by WP:QS, they've completely ignored them. You claiming that it's my "interpretation" is also inherently dishonest since it's not an interpretation, it's explicitly what WP:QS says. And I quote, "Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves". So there is no interpretation being made here. So, not only have you abandoned your first unfounded defense for closing the board, you've now manifested a second unfounded defense that directly goes against WP's policies regarding consensus. The community opinion doesn't override or bypass WP policy. Your job as a closer is to assess the ARGUMENTS presented and determine if a consensus was reached. A consensus clearly was not reached and multiple contributors blatantly ignored WP policy concerning WP:QS. My concerns are valid, aligned with WP policy, and clearly have not been addressed. They've simply been disregarded, just like you've disregarded them twice now, which is not how consensus is met, especially when my concerns are backed by what WP policies explicitly state. Again, I urge that if you're intent on closing the RFC, that you change the verdict to "consensus not met" since majority opinion has nothing to do with reaching a consensus and the arguments opposed to the RFC have merit and haven't been resolved.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm contacting you again to seek a resolution to your closing this article. As per WP:ANRFC "Any uninvolved editor may close most discussions, so long as they are prepared to discuss and justify their closing rationale." and "All closers should be prepared to fully discuss the closure rationale with any editors who have questions about the closure or the underlying policies." It seems that you've stopped discussing your closure rationale after your first two justifications were refuted and showed to be in violation of WP policies regarding consensus and showed a lack of understanding of the scope of the RFC. As per WP:RFC/U, if not all participants agree to a closing summary then the RFC is to be closed as if it was due to inactivity. It's very clear that the participants did not all agree on a summary and therefore "closing by agreement" was erroneous. I urge you again to change the closing status to that it is in alignment with Wikipedia policies regarding closing. Scoobydunk (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
If you feel that the closure is wrong, there is a review process for that. As a general principle though, clear policy violations do not require RfCs, they can be dealt with directly. A number of other experienced editors commented on the RfC and did not see reason for immediate action. Samsara 01:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Talk:2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Iran.2C_Hezbollah_Reaction_to_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq[edit]

Regarding you close, I question the consensus. You say the Section can be amended to better link it with the core subject but when asked how they would or could do that they failed to provide a solution.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, since I'm not familiar with the subject, it's not my job to figure that out. My experience is that a way can be found - often this is by integrating more material into the main body of text, rather than letting it stand as a separate section. However, as per WP:NODEADLINE, the remark should be seen as an optional statement - it is not intended as imperative, but rather, as encouragement. Regards, Samsara 09:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Your Job is to figure out what's going on in the conversation you closed and determine a consensus. The section being discussed is not about the Iranian led intervention in Iraq. It is about 2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq. The person that started the RFC failed to get a consensus to post it there. There is no deadline for article completion. There was a deadline for making a case for inclusion of that material in the article in that RFC. They did not accomplish that and I would ask you to review your close.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It is not my job to produce a specific edit that satisfies all sides. If you wish to have this reviewed, there is a process for that. Samsara 20:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There is indeed a process for that. One of the first things todo in that process is to contact the orginal closer and discuss it with them. I'm trying to figure out if your close was more than a vote count. You don't have a problem discussing your close do you?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Square Enix. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Guidelines. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lady Gaga. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure[edit]

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2014 (UTC)