User talk:The Devil's Advocate: Difference between revisions
→There is an ANI thread in which you are mentioned.: new section |
→WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology: new section |
||
Line 479: | Line 479: | ||
Please see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_admin_powers_and_Violation_of_WP:INVOLVED_by_User:Sandstein]]--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
Please see [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_admin_powers_and_Violation_of_WP:INVOLVED_by_User:Sandstein]]--[[User:Peter cohen|Peter cohen]] ([[User talk:Peter cohen|talk]]) 20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC) |
||
== [[WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Scientology]] == |
|||
Hello. I have initiated a request for clarification by the Arbitration Committee that may interest or involve you on the page linked to above. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Sandstein|<font style="color:white;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Sandstein '''</font>]]</span></small> 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:15, 10 July 2013
“ | People are so conditioned to take sides that a balanced analysis looks to them like hatred. -Scott Adams | ” |
“ | Our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children‘s futures. And we are all mortal. |
” |
Trolls at Collapse of the World Trade Center
They have been going strong for 3 hours straight from a number of IPs. I don't know if it's one person, but the fact the IPs go in sequence (until blocked) is telling. If you have any insight please share it at WP:RPP, or maybe at ANI (although I'm hoping someone will notice sooner). When I realized this was part of a concerted effort I quit treating it as a legitimate edit and began treating it as vandalism (thus not caring if I reverted more than 3 times....) Shadowjams (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just reported it to ANI. Hopefully that will get some speedy action.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- It appears it did. Thank you. I should have probably done that in the first place. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- It appears this needs an SPI now. Note the geolocations of the IPs and the edit history of the autoconfirmed account used afterwards. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Account is already blocked praise the Lord. Seems it was a WP:DUCK.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for following up after I signed off for the evening: I blocked a talkpage IP that was clearly a proxy (from Peru this time). Although I would normally consider myself involved on this topic, the serial IPs and proxy-jumping remove any concerns I might have about taking admin action. Acroterion (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- Account is already blocked praise the Lord. Seems it was a WP:DUCK.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 06:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- It appears this needs an SPI now. Note the geolocations of the IPs and the edit history of the autoconfirmed account used afterwards. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
- It appears it did. Thank you. I should have probably done that in the first place. Shadowjams (talk) 06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Cored apple
I had the same concern as you did. - 2001:558:1400:10:6DE0:56C1:8482:D86A (talk) 19:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Akrafena
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Akrafena. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK for General Hospital's 50th anniversary
![]() | On 19 April 2013, Did you know?' was updated with a fact from the article General Hospital's 50th anniversary, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that for General Hospitals 50th anniversary the soap opera's fictional Nurses' Ball was connected for the first time with a real HIV/AIDS non-profit organization? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/General Hospital's 50th anniversary. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 00:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
IP range hardblocked again
This is Akuri, having to post via proxies again for now. I explained the reason here, and I thought I should let you know about that discussion. 54.225.81.59 (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I know you told me I should wait longer and edit more articles before I try to request arbitration, but I don't think that's realistic anymore. Anything I edit until my IP range changes or the rangeblock expires will have to be with a proxy, and if if it's not a page that requires registration to edit I probably will edit without logging in, because half the time when I try to log in with a proxy the connection times out. I also think I shouldn't have to keep putting up with this dysfunction without trying to anything about it, especially now that it will affect me no matter what topic area I edit. 2001:DA8:203:503:D6AE:52FF:FE7B:19FC (talk) 19:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Nomination of Michael Brutsch for deletion
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Ambox_warning_orange.svg/48px-Ambox_warning_orange.svg.png)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Michael Brutsch is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Brutsch until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Breadblade (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
DYK for Anna Azari
![]() | On 21 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Anna Azari, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that former Israeli Ambassador to Russia Anna Azari is married to a rabbi who leads a congregation in Tel Aviv? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Azari. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Hello! I would like to say that you have a great user page and a great nick. I wish I had a colleague like you on WP-PL. Seleucidis (talk) 10:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC) |
I just wanted to let you know since you are the main person reverting the IP edits that keep mucking things up and going against the sourced classification, that I reverted back to your version, added a line from the infobox that got deleted, put in a request for temporary protection, and an HTML note on the page itself that the show's type shouldn't be changed without talk page discussion. Hopefully this will help, although I'm not holding out hope unless an admin grants the protection which will break their stride and maybe make them move on to doing something else. Until then, keep up the good work. Cat-fivetc ---- 23:34, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
Race and genetics edits
Hi TDA, I've edited this article hopefully to both AndrewAz and your liking. Please don't editwar with him - a talk page discussion would have worked as well... thoriyan 18:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- The article on race and genetics is not a platform for creationists to attack evolution with ridiculous unsourced commentary. No discussion is necessary to explain why referring to the scientific consensus view on human evolution as "speculation" in the editorial voice is inappropriate.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). 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. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Reverting my edits to Race and Genetics
Hello ! You will recall that I was persistent in making necessary editorial changes to the sub-section on Evolution in the article in question and you were reverting them ! I was unaware of the 3RR rule among other things otherwise I would have opened a conversation with you earlier. My point is simple. It is that Evolution simply does not qualify to be serious science at all. It is only a system of belief. One simple counter to the evolutionary idea is DNA repair that goes on in the cells to counter DNA damage that are a major cause of mutations. This is scientific fact.If evolution is true then there should be no mechanism like DNA repair that goes totally against the so called evolutionary principle. It is in the light of this and other examples that challenge evolution that we need to state plainly in academic articles like Race and Genetics that evolution is only the speculation of those who choose to believe in that idea - the evolutionary biologists. Otherwise serious researchers would be led up the 'wrong street' by such one sided pseudo-scientific arguments. Thanks for your attention. 11:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)AndrewAz (talk)
- Andrew, evolution is not a "pseudo-science", in fact it has been accepted by the majority of the academic community. Your opinion is not the majority opinion and the way you've written them pushes one opinion over the majority, let alone remaining neutral. thoriyan 13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- You are free to believe whatever you like, but you can't force that in when there are no reliable sources backing up what you believe. It is especially inappropriate when the article has only a tangential connection to the subject of evolution.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 13:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thoriyan, Just because a majority believe in something or do something doesn't make what they believe in or engage in right. Again I would like to ask for a proof for evolution. Or let the evolutionists atleast come up with some credible counter arguments, if they can, for 'irreducible complexity' as seen in the eye, for example. Finally, if I am accused of pushing my argument over others, then the very one accusing me of doing so is guilty of pushing his argument over mine ! Neutrality is not achieved at all!! Good wishes ! AndrewAz (talk) 09:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- TDA, With reference to your statement that the article in question 'has only a tangential connection to the subject of evolution', may I draw your attention to the fact that the word 'evolved' has been used no less than three times in the first para of the sub-section on Evolution in the article, which I saw a few minutes ago. Tangential or deliberate and authoritative ? Thanks for your attention!AndrewAz (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- The article is not about evolution. It has an "Evolution" sub-section to provide background for the actual topic of the article. Views on race and genetics, in one form or another, existed well before evolution became commonly-accepted science. Our purpose is to present what the preponderance of reliable sources say about a subject. Where there is some very small minority view that has gotten attention, it is only appropriate to take it into consideration when that view is the subject of discussion or considered of significant relevance by the same preponderance of reliable sources. Intelligent Design arguments are not in any way, shape, or form, an integral part of research into race and genetics. Evolution as you mean it isn't even really an integral part of the research. Research into hereditary causes for observed differences between racial groups is independent of research into the origin of man. They may connect, but it is a tangential connection. You don't have to accept that man and ape descended from a common ancestor to accept that different human population groups have developed different genetic traits over a period of thousands of years.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi TDA: Thanks for your elaborate reaction/response. I welcome your statements that: "Research into hereditary causes for observed differences between racial groups is independent of research into the origin of man" and "You don't have to accept that man and ape descended from a common ancestor to accept that different human population groups have developed different genetic traits over a period of thousands of years". These are neutral/neutralizing statements.I hope that contributors to the article in question have the grace to introduce atleast such statements into their article/s. By the way, 'irreducible complexity' and DNA repair should throw up good references/sources in a Google search. They are definitely not made up stories! Thanks for the attention, again! AndrewAz (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't believe such statements are necessary in the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mehcad Brooks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Elle (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Request for clarification regarding Jerusalem RFC
A request for clarification has been submitted regarding the ArbCom mandated Jerusalem RFC process. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Re: Amanda Filipacci
Please feel free to use the discussion page to explain why you think the lead section should not represent the article per WP:LEAD. Please don't use the edit summary. According the lead guideline, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Is there a reason you removed the prominent controversy from the lead section? In the edit summary of your deletion, you said, "I don't think this merits mention in the lede at this point, certainly not to this extent". Then, at what point will it merit mention, and to what extent? Viriditas (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- I would say she is more notable for being an author and that sentence about Wikipedia took up over half the lede, which gives it undue weight. Should the article and, subsequently lede, be expanded more then I think it could be included in a way that avoids any undue weight issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
- She is notable for being an author, and the lead made that very clear, noting that she wrote the op-ed piece, and the length of this content matched the current size of the body, so I disagree that there was any undue weight at all. However, I will be most happy to add it back after expanding the other sections. Viriditas (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Jimbo's talk page
I wanted to let you know that I mentioned you on Jimbo's talk page, and asked you a question. Thank you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:42, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Response to your question
You posted a question on my talkpage the other day and I'm sorry I only noticed it now. I've responded there. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 02:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I sent you email earlier today, and I'd like to make sure you saw it. 83.85.180.203 (talk) 02:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
CfD matter brought to ANI
That is all. Tarc (talk) 02:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Merge discussion for Michael Brutsch
An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Brutsch , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Breadblade (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
that discussion
Is making my head hurt. I think I'm done. I think we should just continue diffusing men from Category:American novelists to the century cats and any other specific genre cats, that will make the whole thing more manageable - and then start diffusing the women in the same way in a months time. Tempers are too hot right now, and categorization/diffusion has become a scrutinized political act as opposed to a gnomish-tweak.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- My thought is that you should just avoid the Filipacchi article. Then when all of the articles but her bio are in gender-neutral sub-cats you can have hers be the last. As a result no one will have much basis to object as it will be obvious that there is no "sexism" motivating the change and it will not create an appearance of unequal treatment.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:03, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. We can call that "Filipacchi exceptionalism" - I guess nobody liked my other compromise, which was to ensure she was in a cat with several nobel and pulitzer prize winners. wouldn't it be funny if the whole cat was emptied and she remained there alone, her editors vigorously defending the castle and her role as an un-qualified american novelist? :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Johar
Why not?, its his official page and thus his LEGITIMATE name, not some random spelling.. the fact that his page is being vandalised is not a reason to not use it as a source for his ALTERNATE name. Its the name on top of that page we care, not what people have written at the bottom....As of now, that is the name most people know him by, as per spelling, not the one given to him by the media..--Stemoc (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- It actually is a reason as it is not some stable official source or a secondary source. The vandalism is a legitimate concern as we shouldn't be using such a low-quality source when it is being bombarded with extremely degrading vandalism. Even if BLP didn't apply I would not support using an online source that is in such state. Seems there are plenty of secondary sources noting this alternate spelling. You should use one of those.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Your Editing restriction
Per consensus at AN your editing restriction around the ARS is hereby rescinded. Since the consensus to void the restriction was based on an undertaking not to go back to the behaviour that led to the original restriction, I have left it that any admin can reinstate the restriction should the behaviour reoccur but I'm confident that this won't happen. Best Spartaz Humbug! 12:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- You have just replaced one restriction with another, basically probation. Only three out of 12 support votes conditioned their support on anything to that effect with more voting to remove the entire thing as a black mark so there was no consensus for your close so I would like you to amend your close to be a straight removal of the restriction with no conditions. Note that you would also be involved as one of the people who voted for the original restriction.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't actually recall that but I recognise that appearance is important. I have withdrawn my close and will recuse from further involvement. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've re-closed it as "lifted without restrictions" after reading the discussion. As I say, you're probably well-advised to avoid messing with the ARS, but that's purely an editorial aside, not a formal restriction or anything; there's no consensus for such a restriction and I'm not sure what the point of formalizing that as one would be anyway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I don't actually recall that but I recognise that appearance is important. I have withdrawn my close and will recuse from further involvement. Spartaz Humbug! 17:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Jerusalem RfC discussion: finalising drafts
Hello. We have almost finished step three of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, but before we move on to step four I would like to make sure that all the participants are happy with the drafts that we have chosen. The content of the drafts are likely to dictate what ends up in the actual article, after all, so I want to make sure that we get them right.
So far, there hasn't been much interest in the process of choosing which drafts to present to the community, and only three editors out of twenty submitted a drafts statement. I have used these three statements to pick a selection of drafts to present, but we still need more input from other participants to make sure that the statements are representative of all participants' wishes. I have started discussions about this under question seven and question eight on the RfC discussion page, and I would be grateful for your input there.
Also, there have been complaints that this process has been moving too slowly, so I am going to implement a deadline. If there haven't been any significant objections to the current selection of drafts by the end of Wednesday, 8 May, then I will move on to step four. Questions or comments are welcome on the discussion page or on my talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Personal at Zeitgeist
Hi TDA, I have changed the title of the talk section in order to "turn down the heat". I do note that tagging something as unref with more than 40 refs does indeed seem like pure vandalism to me, it is certainly POINTy. I have not, as far as I can tell, made any personal remarks at all. If I have please tell me so that I may apologize directly and strike them. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- When you characterize an edit as vandalism and it is not actually vandalism, that is a personal remark. I agree that it is inappropriate to claim the article needs more references, but that does not make it vandalism.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I still see it as flat out vandalism, but I respect your view. Should I also remove the term from my remarks on the talk page?Capitalismojo (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- I am not gonna tell you what to do, but if that is what you think would be most appropriate then go ahead.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I still see it as flat out vandalism, but I respect your view. Should I also remove the term from my remarks on the talk page?Capitalismojo (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
It's probably contrary to blp to say "These are people who exploit antisemitism for a desired political effect," and it doesn't seem necessary to your point. I'd appreciate it if you could remove it. Tom Harrison Talk 21:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, but no, it is not. I noted her own works on the subject of politics and anti-semitism in supporting my opinion and it is relevant to the point of whether she is reliable on the question of whether something can be described as anti-semitic. Nice try, Tom.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you are stuck on that point, it is being pointed out that you may be in violation of Blp and repeating it aggressively sets a contentious tone on the talk page. At least dig up something to support your idea from the academic world, instead of slamming that female and her motivations so negatively. Then its not just your opinion. In effect you are interrupting the talk page aggressively with your opinion. Unless you are an academic writer or scholar of some type that has written on that issue, it is aggressive pov on a talk page, refusing to listen or compromise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not stuck on anything. Please, stop heckling me on this matter.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you are stuck on that point, it is being pointed out that you may be in violation of Blp and repeating it aggressively sets a contentious tone on the talk page. At least dig up something to support your idea from the academic world, instead of slamming that female and her motivations so negatively. Then its not just your opinion. In effect you are interrupting the talk page aggressively with your opinion. Unless you are an academic writer or scholar of some type that has written on that issue, it is aggressive pov on a talk page, refusing to listen or compromise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. I would hate to think if someone actually did heckle you, how you might act. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Muhammad
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
RFC/U on user:Arzel
You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Jerusalem RfC discussion: step four
Hello everyone. We are now at step four of the Jerusalem RfC discussion, where we will decide the details of the RfC implementation. This is the home stretch - the RfC proper will begin as soon as we have finished this step. Step four is also less complicated than the previous steps, as it is mostly about procedural issues. This means it should be over with a lot more quickly than the previous steps. There are some new questions for you to answer at the discussion page, and you can see how the RfC is shaping up at the RfC draft page. Also, when I say that this step should be over with a lot quicker than the previous steps, I mean it: I have set a provisional deadline of Monday, 20th May for responses. I'm looking forward to seeing your input. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
A map
I made you a new map. Take a look at the WT:RIGHT page. RGloucester (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Barnstar for you
Copy and paste this onto your userpage:
![]() |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
For the good sense you displayed on the adminboard. Asarelah (talk) 21:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC) |
Ignore the proxy IP
Did not check before responding Then I did and reported it, soon to be blocked. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John C. Meringolo
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/John C. Meringolo. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 09:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Your AE appeal
Please see this update. The closing comment explains your further options. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Jerusalem RfC discussion: final countdown
Hello again, everyone. I have now closed all the questions for step four, and updated the RfC draft. We are scheduled to start the Jerusalem RfC at 09:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC). Before then, I would like you to check the draft page, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and see if there are any errors or anything that you would like to improve. If it's a small matter of copy editing, then you can edit the page directly. If it's anything that might be contentious, then please start a discussion at Talk:Jerusalem/2013 RfC discussion#The final countdown. I'll check through everything and then set the RfC in motion on Thursday. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Talkback message from Tito Dutta
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg/40px-Nuvola_apps_edu_languages.svg.png)
Message added 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Tito Dutta (contact) 16:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Greetings, I am a little bit puzzled about the Wikipediocracy DYK. Though I have kept it on hold (specially because of the RFC, any other reviewer can continue it from there undoing the hold), but, I am following both the discussions. The main question of the RFC seems to be "Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?" etc etc— hey is not the task of a DYK reviewer to check if the article is fit to hit the main page? Or DYK reviewers do something else? The second question, is "that"/"those" hook okay? Or what should be the hook?— That was being discussed at the talk page. Let's see how the RFC goes! You can reply here, at my talk page, the DYK review page, RFC page— anywhere you want, I am following the mentioned 4 pages.--Tito Dutta (contact) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- The person doing the RfC has issues with WO and is clearly just trying to torpedo the nom out of spite.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let's see how it goes! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Greetings, I am a little bit puzzled about the Wikipediocracy DYK. Though I have kept it on hold (specially because of the RFC, any other reviewer can continue it from there undoing the hold), but, I am following both the discussions. The main question of the RFC seems to be "Should a DYK ("Did you know....") entry appear for the article Wikipediocracy?" etc etc— hey is not the task of a DYK reviewer to check if the article is fit to hit the main page? Or DYK reviewers do something else? The second question, is "that"/"those" hook okay? Or what should be the hook?— That was being discussed at the talk page. Let's see how the RFC goes! You can reply here, at my talk page, the DYK review page, RFC page— anywhere you want, I am following the mentioned 4 pages.--Tito Dutta (contact) 16:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Jerusalem RfC has started
Hello again everyone. We have finally made it - the RfC is now open, and a few editors have chimed in already. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem. I'm sure you don't actually need me to tell you this, but please go over there and leave your comments. :) You are the editors most familiar with the Jerusalem lead dispute on Wikipedia, so it would be very useful for the other participants to see what you have to say. And again, thank you for all your hard work in the discussions leading up to this. We shall reconvene after the results of the RfC have been announced, so that we can work out any next steps we need to take, if necessary. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:20, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Collapsed content
Since you are online now, could you please check if the collapsed content in the Suicide template is opening here Suicide_in_Kazakhstan? I am facing difficulties to understand if it is an issue of my computer/mouse or the template! --Tito Dutta (contact) 16:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I see no issues.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. It seems it is a problem of my browser/settings/account. I have requested for help --Tito Dutta (contact) 18:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Wikipedia
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Wikipedia. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
![](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6c/Peacedove.svg/60px-Peacedove.svg.png)
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Race and genetics". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 20:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Whip It (film)
Thanks for reverting more properly than I had. That IP has been making a number of similar edits to movie articles, all involving the same subjects. Look at the edit history for Whip It and you'll see three similar IPs all making the same sort of edits. It may very well be a PR person, who knows, but no cites used whatsoever, nor edit summaries. Echoedmyron (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
- I reported it at AIV. Some of the edits were blatant hoaxes so the rest are inherently suspect given the lack of sources.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 01:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati
Ultra respected Dignity: First of all congratulation for being an awesome administrator and being a very good human for contributing to an article related to a disabled kid. Secondly I want to inform you that the article on the subject, " Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" is about a kid, who can not walk and even can not sit properly. His fingers even tremble and His extent of disability is 65% that too progressive and permanent. He is suffering from fatal disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy and fighting bravely against death. Despite such grim medical conditions he invented circular chess for 6 players at the age of 9 and became youngest patent holder of India. He has already invented circular chess for 12 players and circular chess for 60 players and applied for patent. He is very near to completion of project of, " Economical power wheel chair accessible vehicle of the world. Last but not the least the article on the subject, " Hridayeshwar Singh Bhati" will serve as real inspiration to the world. I Appeal to you Ultra respected dignity, that this article deserves justice and worth reaching to lot of people but unfortunately there was some thing negative discussed about the inspirational kid and that was really painful. Regards182.64.83.228 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Pepsi: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Twinkle also makes it very easy to do this. Warning properly makes it easier to get an admin to put a block in place. Ibadibam (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- I only use warning templates when someone is persistent or the vandalism severe enough to warrant it.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:46, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's fair. I sometimes apply the same standard, especially to IP editors. This particular one seems to be pushing it, and flaunting our assumptions of good faith. Ibadibam (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi! I would like to encourage you to joining the conversation at WP:DRN. I don't want some voices to end up dominating the discussion or for anyone to feel that their input is not valued. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Template talk:Wikipedia languages
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Wikipedia languages. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
208.65.144.242
Hey, on WP:AIV you said that 208.65.144.242 was a proxy server. I did a port scan and didn't see any open ports. How do you know its a proxy? I've given it a temporary 24h block that we can extend if its an OP. Thanks! Legoktm (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know if it is an open proxy, only that the IP info linked from the contributions page says it is a confirmed proxy server.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Refs
Did you look at the refs in question ? [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:00, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
- Meh, guess I fudged up.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 04:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre
![]() So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:
If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along. A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk) This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC) |
RWBY
Mad props for your work on the RWBY page, sir. I was just trying to get it far enough along that it would no longer be at risk of speedy deletion following its initial creation, but you really knocked it out of the park. Kudos to you, and here's hoping more people take up the cause once the series starts next month. -- 69.14.66.237 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks!
![]() |
The Internet Barnstar | |
Congratulations, The Devil's Advocate, for winning second prize your contributions to the List of Wikipedia controversies! As you requested, $75 has been sent to you.
Thanks for all of your hard work! --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) --SB_Johnny | talk✌ 17:20, 10 June 2013 (UTC) |
- paid editing oh nooooo Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
- I am in ur Wikipedias, corrupting it for profit. Muahaha!--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:16, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Ristar
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ristar. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for fixing this. I updated the link at the source of my mistake: Template:Cite_doi/10.1061.2F.28ASCE.290733-9399.282008.29134:10.28892.29. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Request for comment on Talk:Race and genetics
Hello. Your input is requested for RfC at Talk:Race_and_genetics regarding Dawkins' position on Lewontin in the article. Your assistance will be appreciated. You have received this request if you have previously edited the section “Lewontin's argument and criticism” of Race and genetics or participated in WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the topic. BlackHades (talk) 21:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
RfC on List of Wikipedia controversies
Just wanted to let you know that I opened an RfC at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies#RfC: Should the vandalism to Anita Sarkeesian be included in this list?; since you have commented on this discussion, your input would be appreciated. Thank you, rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Terra Nova (TV series)
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Terra Nova (TV series). 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. — RFC bot (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
IMAGINE DRAGONS
Why you deleting the info then, when I listed the source, shouldn't it be kept on there, and we could just put it from our own words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.92.15 (talk) 18:09, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
- Put it in your own words and it will be fine.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 20:16, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
Your edit at AN/I
Your last edit there goes "You edit warred...", you are writing under my post, would it be possible for you to be a little more specific, "Future Perfect you edit warred..." for a moment I wondered whether you were talking to me. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think with the indent and my first comment in the sub-section that it is clear enough I am talking to Future.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 23:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- @The Devil's Advocate: Actually, I was a little confused as to who you were talking to, too. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:33, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
- I was not confused, the comment makes it pretty clear that he is talking to Fut.Perf. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Did I actually violate ANYTHING?
So far only one edit [2] has been raised as justification of my ban. I have not seen any other edit (except "Minorities of Pakistan" which I already left because of personal fear).
- That edit was well-sourced[3]
- I didn't misrepresent anything, it clearly says "Pak flag was hoisted after Godhra carnage: witness" and also mentions the remarks by Bharatiya Janata Party member and municipal corporator, Ashok patel, a witness DEPOSING before the investigative commission inquiring about the dreadful riots of 2002,
- Only one issue about that good-faith edit might be that I, perhaps, miscalculated the weight of that statement. But was there any discussion after that? Nope. I was already banned and that statement was unopposed till [4]
08:17, June 23, 2013 (UTC)
, FPaS didn't care to even remove that statement or at least comment on the talk of the article for which I am banned. It was only days after I was banned(at 21:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC))
did the other side (i.e. Darkness Shines aka DS) realize that it might be in his advantage to remove that statement per WP:UNDUE (at 08:17, June 23, 2013 (UTC)). UNDUE? Isn't UNDUE inherently a subject of personal opinions? - But what is worrying is that it's being used to justify a unilateral ban of Six months bestowed on me by an admin who clearly was involved me on Minorities of Pakistan and even threatened to block others who opposed him.
I think they are exaggerating the significance of that one edit. That article is fraught with POV claims, DS put most of them in, he also created a whole article (hazed with cherry-picked sources and distorted claims and one-sided focus on anti-muslim violence) yet he gets unblocked by his pals everytime he is blocked for more than a week. Read what I wrote on the ANI thread about DS. Hopefully you would see what's bugging me the most apart from this ban itself. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- If you are interested in knowing what DS did, I summarized what DS actually did on Jimbo's page.[5] If you want diffs here is a temporary repository. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 09:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- I wonder why you compare yourself with DS? Having said that your said edit was entirely kosher as far as I judge it. What now about the ban? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I would agree that there is a difference in treatment. Certainly, DS seems to get a lot more benefit of the doubt and, as much as many of them would deny it, I suspect it is because of a bias towards him and/or his general position. Basically, many admins may be more inclined towards his view, but still not supportive of his methods. From my own interactions with Future, I do strongly suspect he has a bias on these matters, though not as severe a bias as the participants. His actions tend to favor the side one would expect to be favored by someone with a modern German political outlook.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:13, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- "DS seems to get a lot more benefit of the doubt" - oh yes, but to call it "doubt" would be a stretch. [6],[7]. Yet we should assume good faith till the end of time. Mr T(Talk?) 17:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Does the following comment help? I tried to initiate a constructive and well-structured discussion with FPAS, but an editor (who was involved with me in past) wrote "Mrt, you wouldn't know neutral if it hit you in the face", does it help? What should I do? Please really comment on that issue and give me a fair appraisal? Am I wrong in saying that there were hazy issues at best concerning that edit in an article that is still rife with POV claims? Since when is an attempt to balance a POV claim regarded as POV itself? Mr T(Talk?) 17:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi DA! I see that you helped out on this page, taking the names of Garfield's children off. An experienced editor from the BLP Noticeboard has told us that he thinks we should honor Garfield's request to remove the family section altogether, since that information isn't necessary for a complete understanding of the topic. That's what I've done. I hope we can get your support on this point. Also, you and I seem to have crossed paths on Race and genetics. It's a small world. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Mahāvīra
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mahāvīra. 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. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
Stephenie Meyer
So fair enough, I completely misattributed the quote; it's from Amy Curtis of We Got This Covered, as seen here[1] and the Rotten Tomatoes ratings can be seen here [2] With these citations can my edit go back in? 80.235.235.153 (talk) 10:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pushing in negative material to a BLP based off a single review and some Rotten Tomatoes ratings is not appropriate at all.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:58, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Pictures
Why do you keep deleting perfectly good pictures? Please stop this as soon as possible. 67.41.180.74 (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
- The images were deleted by someone else as copyright violations, I am merely removing the red links that were left behind.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Do you know who is deleting these pictures? 67.41.180.74 (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
- Why does it matter? The reason for deleting the images is quite valid. Copyright violating material should not be kept.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:26, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Matt Dallas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hollywood Heights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK
I brought up a concern at your DYK nomination - Template:Did you know nominations/RWBY. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
DYK for RWBY
![]() | On 2 July 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RWBY, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Monty Oum, the creator of Rooster Teeth Productions' upcoming series RWBY, was concerned that the show focused on female characters but was being developed by a mostly male crew? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RWBY. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Two stroopwafels for you!
![]() |
Hello! I would like to thank you for inserting the pictures into articles. Today I wanted to do it myself and I was kindly surprised to see that it has been done. Thank you for that, also in the name of Russavia – that's why you get two very sweet Dutch cookies. One photo is left, because the article is protected. Do you know if I am allowed to ask an admin to insert it or not? I don't want to violate any policies here and after being blocked without any warning I am so confused. Greetings. Seleucidis (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC) |
- The two photos I didn't add were ones that didn't seem necessary to add, i.e. there were enough suitable images in the relevant articles already. None of the articles are full-protected, though, so you shouldn't have a problem adding the images to those articles.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 15:39, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- I rely on your opinion in this matter. Thank you for explanation. --Seleucidis (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you.
Thank you for cleaning up my mistake.[8] I tried used that new "Thank" link but I'm not sure if it worked. Did you get it? I'm using IE10 and I'm not sure if this feature is compatible with this browser. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- Didn't pop up in my notifications, but, obviously, your message is received. :) --The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I just tried it in Google Chrome, and it appears to have worked this time. :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Eurovision
Greetings! 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 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. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
LTA Vandal
Hello, The Devil's Advocate! I've noticed you removing hoax credits in several articles (e.g. [9]) and it is most appreciated. But I don't know if you're aware that there is a very annoying IP-hopping vandal that I and others have been fighting over the years, and many of your reverts have been of "the Voice Cast Vandal". He is obsessed with Jim Varney and Alec Baldwin, and has recently become obsessed with the Ghostbusters franchise. I am the resident expert on this troll, and if you have any questions about an IP being rhis jerk, I can quickly determine whether it's him or not. Thanks for cleaning up his mess! Cheers :) Doc talk 01:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Precious
controversies and peace
Thank you, user from Earth, for quality articles such as Wikimedia UK, for gnomish work on pictures, for contributing to the list of controversies but advocating peace and truth, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
RT
Hey there, just wanted to encourage you to investigate the RS archives regarding RT, because from what I have seen, it is unquestionably, considered RS. I don't care about the ExxonMobile instance, but because you're such an active editor it's important you know. petrarchan47tc 06:55, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I looked at what appears to be the most recent discussion and it is pretty clear that, while certain partisans like RT for opposing the Western establishment view, most editors think it is at best a source to be used with caution for non-contentious details if at all.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:33, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why did you think the most recent discussion would tell you the full picture? I meant to suggest you look at all of them, thats why i said 'investigate'. I hope you would stop removing RT as a source (unless the RS noticeboard doesn't say what I think it does in the matter). Thanks. petrarchan47tc 07:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, having studied the media, I seriously challenge the idea that there is any thing called a "Western establishment view", unless you are referring to the propaganda model of journalism which constructs single-narratives and limits the voice of investigative journalists. If that is what you are describing, than from an ideological perspective, there is no difference between the view put forth by RT and the "Western establishment", in that they are both different versions of single propaganda narratives. Viriditas (talk) 05:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Good edit on the ExxonMobil Mayflower no fly zone! Thanks. I am a bit liberal, and I even know that HuffPo and Mother Jones are not valid new sources. Can we have some of the more conservative editors know that NewsMax and others are also not "real" sources? My best Greg
- This is the removal we are discussing. I'm not sure where the Mother Jones comment is coming from, but you might want to investigate RS noticeboard archives regarding huffpost when you have time. (And welcome to Wikipedia!). petrarchan47tc 07:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBSCI
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Scientology. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.
Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.
As you are aware, I indefinitely blocked a user who is topic-banned from Scientology for disruption. That user misused an appeal of their ban for repeatedly and unnecessarily posting claims about the real-life identity of another user who is apparently also heavily involved in editing Scientology-related topics. In response, I indefinitely blocked the appellant for WP:OUTING and requested that their edits at issue be oversighted, which they were.
For no apparent reason, you continue to insert yourself into this matter, most recently at [10] (now revdeleted) by advancing the argument that the posting of the alleged real-life name of the editor in question did not continue outing. That argument is spurious. It is evident from the circumstances that the user in question does not wish their identity to be made public (which is entirely understandable considering the topic area they edit in). Under these circumstances, continuing to post their alleged name on-wiki, especially for no useful purpose, constitutes severe harassment. As the closer of an archived noticeboard discussion you linked to noted: "Intentionally bringing up that old name doesn't benefit anyone or the encyclopedia, and so it should be avoided". Whether or not the username may be indirectly linkable to a real name by some complicated chain of logical connections between old Wikipedia pages is immaterial. Please review particularly the parts of the policy WP:OUTING that provide: "If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia" and "If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing."
Your insistence on bringing this matter up, even though you noted that I removed a prior message by you with a remark that this matter is unfit for on-wiki discussion, potentially furthers the harassment I described above, or facilitates future similar harrassment by others by providing links to pages that may contain personally identifying material. It may also signal your intention to support or encourage such harassment of that editor or other editors involved in editing Scientology-related topics. For these reasons, I am warning you to desist from any further involvement in discussions related to the matter of the identity of the editor at issue here, or from any other misconduct related to Scientology. If you disregard this warning, you may be made subject to discretionary sanctions as indicated above. Sandstein 19:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
- I am quite amazed that you would revdel links to a public arbitration page that was directly relevant to the subject under discussion and an archived AN case from just last year. You cherry-picked the AN close, neglecting the part where it was stated plainly that noting what the [redacted, Sandstein 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)] stands for is not outing. To cry about outing and rev-del links to on-wiki findings from the Arbitration Committee case on Scientology and an archive of a barely year-old widely-read community noticeboard discussion is a bit absurd even for you. In the case brought to AN last year, Prioryman's last name was noted by an editor in a rather irrelevant context, but that is not really the case here as we are talking about an AE discussion pertaining to Scientology. Prioryman is an anti-Scientology writer off-wiki who writes heavily on that subject on Wikipedia in a way that reflects his anti-Scientology bias and the blocked editor's dispute with Prioryman over a Scientology-related article is why said editor was subject to the topic ban he was appealing at AE.
- ArbCom made Prioryman's identity a matter of public record long ago. To threaten me and delete my response for simply pointing to where it was made public record by the Arbitration Committee regarding that topic area and to where the community has rejected this claim of outing within the past year is ridiculous. My reasoning for getting involved is simple enough, you appear to be making a false claim of outing and blocked an editor under those false pretenses, while trying to conceal a matter of public record that illustrates another editor's agenda-driven editing. Please, reverse your warning, your rev-del, and your block of that other editor. All of those actions are without merit.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 21:53, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
You are mistaken. Continuing to post the real identity of a user who clearly wishes to keep it private is harassment, irrespective of whether that name may previously have been published somewhere offwiki or perhaps even onwiki (which is not at all clear to me). This is particularly so because in the instant case, the now-blocked user had no need at all, for the purpose of appealing their Scientology topic ban, to publish that name, yet did so nonetheless repeatedly despite a warning by another administrator. That you continue to bring up this matter speaks not only to your misunderstanding of the outing policy, but also to an intention to create drama for its own sake, or for some other meritless purpose, or to enable and support such harassment. If you continue to do so, as you appear to be intent on despite my warning, this will very likely lead to more pointless and drama-filled discussion that contains personally identifying material or links to such material, which would perpetuate or facilitate the harassment my previous administrator actions were intended to prevent. For these reasons, you are sanctioned as follows:
The following sanction now applies to you (in accordance with the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions):
You are banned from all discussions or other material concerning or related to the identity of Prioryman, particularly their real name. For the sake of clarity, this includes but is not limited to any discussions of sanctions imposed in relation to this topic. You may not appeal this sanction on-wiki, but only by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons given above.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology#Final decision. This sanction has been recorded on the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a topic ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#Appeal. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal. If you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Sandstein 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Because any on-wiki discussion or appeal of this sanction would likely have exactly the effect the sanction is intended to prevent (namely, the publication of personally identifying material in violation of the prohibition against outing, or links to such material), you are particularly prohibited from appealing this sanction on-wiki. Please direct any appeal by e-mail to the Arbitration Committee at arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org. Sandstein 07:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
- Noting Prioryman's previous account isn't outing either. I didn't link to anything off-wiki either. Rather I linked to an Arbitration finding that plainly confirmed his identity to anyone who reads said findings and a community discussion from last year that decided Prioryman's identity being noted on-wiki was not outing. That the closer said it should be avoided is not the same as saying it is forbidden and, in the context of Scientology discussions, Prioryman's identity is quite pertinent. Adding bad action after bad action over this matter will not turn out well for you Sandy. I suggest your rescind this restriction immediately.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:12, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
ANI notification
Hello. Please participate in the current discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Long term incivility from User:BrandonTR. Thank you. —Gamaliel (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an ANI thread in which you are mentioned.
Please see [[11]]--Peter cohen (talk) 20:20, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I have initiated a request for clarification by the Arbitration Committee that may interest or involve you on the page linked to above. Sandstein 22:15, 10 July 2013 (UTC)