User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

• ♪ Main
• Talk
• To do
• Tools
• Contributions
• Userboxes
• Awards
• Email me ♪

Welcome to my talk page! Feel free to ask me anything, but please keep things civil.

Barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		For your work at the dispute resolution noticeboard over Flag of Western Sahara NickCT (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Mr. Stradivarius,

I don't know how or whether the Flag of Western Sahara dispute will resolve, however, you've clearly put effort into to calmly seeking a resolution in a level headed manner. That deserves recognition. Kudos to you. NickCT (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much! You've made me feel all tingly inside. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey Strad,

Now that the FoWS issue is resolved (for the time being at least), I wanted to thank you again for your work! NickCT (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the timely, informative reply, it's helping. --Thaavatar (talk) 02:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thank you for helping me with one of my first contributions on Wikipedia! I really appreciate your help! Falksim (talk) 06:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! It wasn't any problem to help you out - it's all part of my evil plan to recruit linguistics editors for Wikipedia, after all ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

MotD: New Year's Eve&Day + Wikipedia's birthday

Hi Mr. Stradivarius!
Please, consider to give your opinion on this nomination for the New Year's Day, and, if you can, check the nomination for the eleventh birthday of Wikipedia (it's just 1-2 noms below).
Thank you, and a Merry Christmas and a New Year of health, happiness, peace, love, and prosperity to you and your family. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Mr. Stradivarius. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 22:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: 1971 again 2 months later

Hello Mr. Stradivarius,

It appears that the issues on the 1971 war page have sprung up again. User top gun was previously reported on his pattern of conduct on other pages. Other users such as Dbigxray, JCAla and IP 202 have either given up or appear to have been preemptively reported for a block by top gun. I myself was blocked even though top gun commenced the edit war and has refused to comment beyond his initial remarks. He even rv'd on the basis of my being blocked at his behest rather than on substantive grounds. Please advise as the previous DR appears to have led nowhere: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_11#Indo-Pakistani_War_of_1971

The easiest thing would simply be a decision to maintain wiki best practices and only list casualties and losses in the casualties and losses section. I will likely be blocked by another unsuspecting admin courtesy of topgun again, so any guidance would be appreciated. Thank you for your time.

IP 98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.115.152 (talk) 02:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi 98, sorry to hear that you are having trouble with the article again. I've reviewed the most recent disputed edits, and I still think the best thing you could do to resolve this dispute is to take it to mediation - how about leaving a request at the Mediation Cabal? Also, I recommend you register a username - it makes keeping track of things like this much easier when you can put things on a watchlist. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Domenicism

I felt it was inappropriate to propose a deletion to the article regarding Domenicism simply because of the inability to reference. The movement is very new and not publicly debated and not yet web based, but it is a reality. Furthermore, I feel I was very factual in my writing and did not deserve this. I hope you can understand.

Kind regards,

Luxoculi (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Luxoculi. Sorry if I offended you by proposing the page for deletion with a rationale including "probable hoax", and if it is a real movement I apologise. If it makes any difference, I labelled it like this because I could find no results for it on Google Web search, Google News, or Google Books, and it is very unusual for movements such as the one described in the article to not have a presence on the web or in any of the more traditional sources indexed by Google. In any case, for the page to stay on Wikipedia, I'm afraid that the subject needs to pass Wikipedia's notability guideline, which requires that it is covered in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. If this cannot be proved then I'm afraid the page will likely be deleted. Let me know if you have any questions about the process, and I'll be happy to answer them. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hasty reply. I was aware of the notability guidelines before publishing the article, but I was hoping they could be overlooked due to the understandably difficult subject being treated. I heard of Domenicism in several masonic lodges and since I could not find any sources I thought starting an editable article here could help in bringing out the subject. Thank you nevertheless. Do you think it will be deleted? Kind regards, Luxoculi (talk) 16:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that if there are no sources then it is almost certain to be deleted. In addition to the notability guidelines, Wikipedia also has the policies of verifiability and no original research, which means that any material that cannot be backed up by sources will have a hard time here indeed. You may have an easier time submitting it somewhere else - have a look at Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for some suggestions. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 17:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Bots

What is a bot, and what are they used for? --19maxx (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi 19maxx, and thanks for asking. "Bots" are basically just pieces of software that make automatic edits to Wikipedia. Usually they do stuff that would be really tedious and time-consuming to do by hand. Bots always have "bot" at the end of their username in some form, so they're quite easy to spot. See for example this edit by User:EdwardsBot which posts a copy of The Signpost (amongst other things) on many user talk pages. Have a look at our page on Wikipedia bots for more details. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 10:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. A long-time problem on this page has been that Silverstein built much of the page himself [1] (Richards1052), leading the page to take on an excessively promotional tone not backed by reliable sources. I think now that these self-published sources have been effectively removed, a more neutral, encyclopedic page can be created. Plot Spoiler (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

UK GB

Sorry i don't know what you are doing editing horses but uk and gb are completely different ... so get some facts right before you edit please ty — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Royalrock! Sorry if I upset you - I was just looking at the page as part of routine new pages patrol. I'm aware of the difference between the UK and Great Britain (that's where I'm from, after all), and I changed it to the UK because it is the name of the state, whereas Great Britain is the name of an island. (Though I appreciate that it is a little more complicated than that.) Anyway, there is a more pressing issue at hand - I'm not certain that Camelot is notable, so unless some independent reliable sources can be found that mention him, the article is in danger of being deleted. Have a look at Wikipedia's notability guidelines for more information. Are you aware of any sources that could go in the article? Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

sorry.... do you mean a like a mention in a news paper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 00:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mean sources like newspapers or books. See our guidelines on identifying reliable sources for the details. To prove that Camelot is notable, it would need to be something more than just a passing mention, so things like race results won't help too much. It also needs to be more than one source, and these sources need to be independent of each other and of Camelot and his backers. Let me know if you have any more questions, and I'll be glad to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

hiya do i send them to you on here or? cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 00:39, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

No, just add them straight to the article. For help with referencing you can have a look at this simple guide if you want. Thanks for adding those two sources, by the way. They are a good start towards proving notability. To make it really clear that he is notable, it would be best to have a source that talks about Camelot's background in more depth. Are you aware of anything like this? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

That the problem he is only a young horse but i will try and find some other sources thanks you your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Your help / Doyle article

Your help with my Ryan Doyle article questions have been exactly what I was looking for when I started his discussion page a month ago. It's a complete tangent to my dispute with Cindy; e.g. if someone had given this type of attentive response from day 1, it would have prevented a month of hell. I would appreciate it if you would watch the Doyle discussion page and pop in occasionally. I've copied your main passage addressing my source use there, and my response(s) to it. No pressure whatsoever. Thanks for your help so far. Squish7 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Squish7 - I've replied on the talk page and at the DRN thread. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks

Cheers Stradivarius ill have a look at that.. and sorry that we didn't get off to the best start . i was rude.

Thanks for your help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalrock (talk • contribs) 14:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! Don't worry about what kind of start we got off to - I've had a lot worse than that, let me tell you. As always, let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	ライアンドイルの記事で素晴らしい作品。私はDRNにご参加や支援を感謝し、紛争の外側の別の場所ではあるが、将来的にはあなたとより多くの作業を楽しみにしています！ Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 19:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

どうもありがとうございます！こんな不器用な記事をほめていただいて本当にもったいないお言葉です。私の投稿が少しだけ役に立ったのであれば嬉しいかぎりです。 Thanks! (*^_^*) — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• While I spent years writing speeches for Japanese corporate executives speaking before English audiences in the San Francisco Bay area, conversational Japanese and accurate use of kanji still eludes me. I played around with the Google translator, but have no idea how it is practical in its use. ;) In essence, I appreciate your work on the DRN, as well as the editing made to the Ryan Doyle article. Much of your edits made reflect what I wanted to offer earlier, but was met with opposition from the article creator. Hopefully your input will serve as a voice of reason, where my voice has failed. Again, I appreciate your work. It does not go unnoticed. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Aha, that explains why I didn't understand your Japanese straight away! Still, it was surprisingly comprehensible. I just tried putting my reply through Google Translate, though, and I think the nuance definitely got lost a little there. ;) Glad that I could be of some assistance at Ryan Doyle - I just hope I haven't offended Squish7 too much with my pruning. I'll be watching the page for a while, so I should pick up what goes on there. I have to say, though, that I've become a bit of a Ryan Doyle fan after watching all of those videos of him. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:18, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Help!

Hello again! Would you please inform User:Pieter Kuiper about this? I'd like to avoid direct contact with him, as you know. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

PS the section is called "User:Pieter Kuiper again" the link does not go directly to it because of some compression above somewhere, or whatever it is. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Question on dispute process

Hi there,

Just to check something - Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Augmentative_and_alternative_communication_discussion is currently closed - I'm guessing this might be while we get a response at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Academic_Conferences - when such a response comes, is the Dispute re-opened (and possibly restored from archive) or would a new one be started? Failedwizard (talk) 09:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Failedwizard. You're right that it's closed pending a consensus on the use of sources. I see that you've posted the context of the dispute to the RSN now, so that should increase the quality of the responses you get. If you manage to get a clear consensus on the sources there, then I would say the best thing to do would be to take it back to the article's talk page, and try and work things out with Poule. If that discussion becomes stalled, then you can take things back to the DRN. Also, if RSN doesn't net you any clear results, then you can bring it back to DRN and we can discuss other steps that you can take to find consensus about the sources. If/when you take things back to DRN, you should probably start a new thread. There's no particular rule about it, but making a new thread is more transparent for people looking at how DRN threads are closed, and it will also stop you from running into problems with automatic archiving. You might want to give the thread a custom title to indicate that it's the second time it's been there, and you can just include a link to the previous DRN thread, rather than writing out the entire dispute overview again. Let me know if you have any more questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that sounds clear and fair Failedwizard (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: My dispute case

Hi, I responded to the AE case, and the thing is that I wrote that talk page reply before I was blocked for 24 hours, and pasted it after it expired. Should I go and cross off the particular point to show my intents of not willing to further discuss that banned topic?--PCPP (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean striking your comment with <s></s>? If so, then I think that would be a good idea, yes. I don't see your response at the AE case, though - the most important thing is to comment there so that the closing admin can see the root of the confusion. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 08:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I've now properly responded to the topic. Another thing is, is the DRN suitable to address user interaction issues? I've noticed that several other editors already took similar concerns to that topic's talk page, so I wish to focus on interaction issues first, if possible.--PCPP (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't usually deal with pure conduct disputes. They are usually handled at a few different places - WP:WQA, WP:RFC/U, WP:ANI, and at the various ArbCom pages, including WP:AE. However, we do deal with disputes that mix content and conduct issues, as often solving the content issues solves the conduct issues too. I think in this case there are a lot of things we can discuss regarding the article's content, and that is what we would focus on. Hopefully, interaction issues would be sorted out in the process. Sorry that's a bit vague, but did it answer your question? — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I have no problems with mixed issues. I just hope to avoid anything to do with the banned topic, and the article seemed to only make a passing mention of it.--PCPP (talk) 09:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I don't think your topic ban prevents you from editing the article, only the section in question, and we would take that into account in dispute resolution. The exact solution will probably depend on the clerk/mediator. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 09:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I wish to hold off the case for a bit until my AE case is resolved.--PCPP (talk) 06:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello again PCPP - it looks like the AE case has been closed, and that you will be allowed to continue editing the article, if you so choose. I'm willing to open up the thread at the dispute resolution noticeboard again so that we can discuss the options we have, but first I wanted to ask whether or not you intend to continue editing the article. I'm sure that you now realise this well, but during any dispute resolution process you will not be able to edit or discuss, either directly or indirectly, anything in the article relating to the area of your topic ban. In my opinion it would be easiest for you to comply with the topic ban by not editing the article at all. However, if you are still intent on contributing it then that is your decision - just be aware that you will need to be very careful not to stray into the subject area you are banned from. Let me know what your thoughts are on this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm very busy at the moment and won't be available for a while, is it possible to postpone it?--PCPP (talk) 12:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course. If you are away for an extended period, then it might be best to just come back to the talk page and bring up your concerns there (with the caveats about the topic ban that I mentioned above). The article could change a lot while you are away, and indeed it seems like discussions are going on about what to do with it even now. If you do decide to come back to it, and if discussions break down again, then dispute resolution will still be around. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Put another in with the Aamoo AfD?

Hi! I'm writing because I noticed that you very recently put in an AfD for a group of books put out by a spa that only added books by a specific family run publisher (Chanda Books). I noticed that the editor also added the book Sonu ke Afsane, which is also non-notable and was also written by a family member of Chanda Books. I figure that it'd be better for you to add it rather than for me to do a separate AfD for this article.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Done, plus I found another, Sonu ke Kisse. I've added them both to the AfD. If you could confirm your position on Sonu ke Kisse over there, that would be great. Thanks for letting me know! — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for adding them and for catching that other one! I'd almost recommend salting, except that the publisher has long since dumped their articles and ran.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)tokyogirl79

Birbal Jha

I've deleted the page (again) for copyright infringement of an article I found online. You commented on the article's talk page, so I'm letting you know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for that - I did briefly check the link in the deletion log to see it wasn't a direct copy, but I must have missed something. Still, I don't think he passed WP:BIO anyway. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 22:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Web Storage capitalisation

Hello. I see you recently moved Web Storage to Web storage, citing MOS:CAPS, but the proper name is actually Web Storage, so I believe the move was incorrect. Thanks for your time.

--MilkMiruku (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi MilkMiruku, and thanks for getting in touch. It looked like a generic name to me, but I am fully willing to admit that I could have been wrong. Feel free to revert the move, and I'll leave a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Internet to see what editors who know the subject area think. Sorry if my move was too hasty. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

MotD Special

Hi there! Being a frequent Motto of the Day participant i thought you might care to comment on a current nomination at the Specials page, urgent in that it is due for January 18, 2012 (in two days time). Thanks, benzband (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Interaction problem

Collapsed thread due to newly-imposed interaction ban

I am writing this to you openly so as to avoid any possible accusations or suspicions about of behind-the-scenes impropriety. As you may remember, here there were 6 of us that supported an interaction ban between Pieter Kuiper and me, with him alone objecting. Then more recently, you seem to have changed your mind. Well we are getting into a full blown situation again now with mud-slinging about "spurios" edits and about"hoaxes" etc. And I sincerely fear I'm not going to make it on enWP much longer if this continues. I lose sleep over Kuiper's behavior and actually feel physically sick over it at times, that's how hurtful and denigrating I find his unreleting campaign of insults. Please, Mr. Stradivarius! Do you have any constructive advice as to what might be able to be done? SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC) PS: Please allow me to quote here my most important statement from that previous discussion: Accusations against me of "rather poor editing" cannot be substantiated in fact, and Kuiper has no expertise whatsoever in the areas where I usually work, such as Swedish history. I do. If enWP doesn't want to appreciate that, it would be sad for me and for WP. Please note that I am the one requesting this, not Kuiper, just like the one that was negotiated with him on Commons, where it was documemnted how he stalks and bugs other editors too. He always has a personal, not a helpfully informational, agenda. I make a lot of mistakes, like we all do, and as I said at Commons, I am always very interested in all civil, constructrive help in correcting them. I am not interested, though, in being hounded by Kuiper for several more years, or in agreeing to his being given free reign to add more things like the huge penis image to articles about people like Queen Sophia Magdalena of Sweden to slur her reputation posthumously, as I see it, in an article where the image isn't that relevant to her life story. I try very hard to edit in a neutral and balanced manner and to add valuable info, but I have added a few personal-name exonyms at times which I knew of as factual, but in a very few caess was not able to source properly. If it can be shown that I have done any other "poor editing" than that, or that I have ever stalked anyone or been sarcastic and rude to anyone who has been civil to me, please show me those errors, so that I may mend my ways! The ban on Commons had the prerequisite that Kuiper, if he sees that I have made any mistakes that need correcting, could inform another neutral editor to deal with that rather than acting on it himself. Excellent solution. SergeWoodzing (talk) 06:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Hi Serge, and sorry to hear that you're having more interaction issues with Pieter. Could I suggest starting an WP:RFC/U on this? This should get all the issues out in the open and allow everyone to judge your case on its merits. At the moment the talk is spread out on different talk pages and in different ANI threads, and so it is very difficult for uninvolved editors to know what is going on. Be aware that the process is non-binding, and that you shouldn't file it lightly - it will take a long time to assemble the evidence, and the behaviour of all parties will be under scrutiny. I recommend reading the instructions at WP:RFC/U carefully. Bearing all this in mind, does starting an RfC/U sound like something you would want to do? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you! I have now read through most of all that and would have no problem in initiating one of those. Would love to have his and my behavior scrutinized. It looks to me, however, like it might be as fruitless as what I thought was an interaction ban already decided on. That time, 6 users supported the ban, no one was against it except Kuiper, who refused, and nothing happened. What makes you think an RfC/U would be more effective? All he'd have to do is refuse again, wouldn't he? SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC) PS Still going strong by the way. This is being discussed on Swedish WP right now. A typical example of Kuiper flexing his muscles here right now just to show us he doesn't give a flying f--- about our wishes that he stay away from me. Whether or not his new portrait photo of the bio subject is atrocious or not, compared to the old one, is irrelevant of course. SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC) Will you please inform Kuiper of this latest thingy? I don't want to post on his talk page. Thanks! SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC) Hi Serge, it looks like I was beaten to it - RA has already notified Pieter and blocked for 48 hours. I'll be following the ANI thread to see how things turn out. By the way, I think it would have been fine to inform Pieter yourself. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Update - you should now, of course, ignore my post above because of the interaction ban you have voluntarily agreed to. If any issues come up now, you should report them directly to RA, probably by email. I'll collapse this thread to remove any temptation to reply. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 03:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Domestication and Foreignization

Hey, thank you for your help on my article on Domestication and Foreignization. I am a Master student in Translation Studies and I was required to create an entry on Wikipedia as part of my final project for one of my courses. It turned out to be more complex process that I had imagined. So sincerely thank you for the editing. Best, --Miss barbarona (talk) 18:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem! The article still needs some work, if you're up for the challenge. :) The problems that you had are common among people coming to Wikipedia from the world of academia, as Wikipedia's sourcing requirements are much more strict. In academia a lot of trust is placed in the author to research things thoroughly, and write their reports accurately (and rightly so, as if they didn't do these things they would be out of a job before too long). On Wikipedia anyone can add any information, though, and this brings with it an issue of trust - you can't be sure who wrote anything on Wikipedia (unless you check the edit history), so to get round it everything has to be cited. Or more exactly, every quotation, and any material that is "challenged or likely to be challenged" must be given an inline citation to a reliable source. Have a look at Wikipedia:Verifiability for the details.

One consequence of this is that we can't do original research on Wikipedia, as that would be unverifiable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and we must rely on secondary sources to get our material (with limited and judicious use of primary sources). The policy in this case is Wikipedia:No original research. I recommend that you read both of these, and if you can I'd be really grateful if you can find secondary sources for the claims that you made in the foreignization article. (I've had a little look round at the literature, so I know that there are plenty of sources to choose from.) If we get it sorted out by tomorrow then we can enter it for Did you know? and it could be featured on the main page. We will have to get a move on to do it though! Let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Article about Restaurant Week

Just wanted your feedback on a new Wiki that I have created. Does it meet Wiki standards? Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!). Here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Bangalore_restaurant_week Varunr (talk) 11:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Varunr. Have patience - one of the reviewers at articles for creation will come along and review it sooner or later. In the meantime why don't you try editing some of our existing articles? You can find some tips at How to develop an article. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 11:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

DRN

Looking for a third opinion at DRN. Would you mind providing an opinion here. Racingstripes (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a poke to find further input on the following DR/N: [2]

Please feel free to weigh in.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:08, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny that both of you should message me about the same dispute. I had set aside this afternoon for dispute resolution stuff, but it appears that Steven Zhang has beaten me to it and closed the discussion. Let me know if there's anything else I can do, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 04:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

• Hey bud. Can you take a look at this thread and give your opinion on the matter? Also, you have mail. Cheers. Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your closing comments

Mr. Stradivarius, with all due respect, I do not agree with your closing comments. I do not agree with you that the argument that DO is ambiguous regarding the degree vs. the holder of the degree is a persuasive one. This is an argument that I already thoroughly addressed during the discussion with the other editors. It is clear from context, not to mention from the crystal clear definition at the article's beginning, that DO is being used to refer to the holder of the degree in the article. Or, we could just say DO degree when referring to the degree to improve clarity on that front. That ultimately seems simpler to me than expanding the phrase M.D. because what are you going to expand it into? You could expand it into Doctor of Medicine and DO into Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, I think that would be an excellent solution, granted you might sacrifice a bit of conciseness in doing so, but it would ultimately improve clarity if people are really not going to be able to figure out that DO means the holder of the DO degree. Personally, I think it's rather simple. DOs performing acts, e.g. DOs perform surgery, prescribe medications, and attend four years of medical school and several years of residency, etc. the context of this sentence seems extremely clear to me that a piece of paper is not performing the actions but the holder of the degree. That being said, I would not be opposed to expanding DO to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and MD to Doctor of Medicine since these are the appropriate titles. The MD community has voiced strong concerns, and understandably so, that the term allopathic is not a suitable one due to its pejorative connotations much the way the DO community has voices its concerns over the term osteopath because it is an outdated term and leads to confusion between American trained osteopathic physicians (DOs) and foreign trained osteopaths which are not the same. I also do not agree with the decision on "consensus." If that is what consensus is, which is really ill-defined on the consensus page if we're being honest here, then wikipedia has some deeply flawed policies in dire need of reform. Wikipedia needs specific guidelines dictating how many people in a debate such as this one must be on one side of the issue to constitute consensus (e.g. >80% must agree to establish consensus) and/or a requirement for a number of users to be engaged in the discussion should be in place to ensure that a representative view of the wikipedia community is achieved. If there is some way to convey my sentiments to the other editors involved in this debate, I can't even find the new RFC page since the one I posted apparently did not work and someone fixed it, I would deeply appreciate it. I do not know your exact role on wikipedia but it seems you have more knowledge of wikipedia's ins and outs than myself. DoctorK88 (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello DoctorK88, and thank you for your post. I agree that the notion of "consensus" can be quite vague on Wikipedia, and while it is possible to get an idea of what it consists of from Wikipedia:Consensus, it is one of those concepts that is embedded into Wikipedia's culture, and so takes a while to learn. Most of the policies and guidelines on Wikipedia are tightly interwoven, and it is pretty much impossible to understand them in isolation. (We even have a rule that says we can ignore the other rules if it helps the encyclopedia, so go figure.) My closing comments were intended to sum up the various arguments that had been made, rather than give my own opinion on the matter, and although I probably could have done a better job of the summing up part, it really does seem clear to me that the consensus is against abbreviating to DO in most instances.

If I am reading this rightly, then it would seem that the original reason that you wanted to change osteopathic physician to DO was to emphasize the difference between (in the words of the osteopathy article) '"restricted scope manual therapist" osteopaths and "full scope of medical practice" osteopathic physicians'. I agree that this is an important and necessary distinction to make, and we should make it crystal clear to Wikipedia readers that osteopathic physicians are fully accepted by the medical establishment. How about making this distinction even more explicit in the article text, while still using plain English words rather than abbreviations?

As for the term "allopathic", I agree that using it is not a good idea. Maybe we could say something like "licensed medical practitioners"? That still doesn't quite get the distinction between the person with the medical degree, the degree itself, and the licence to practice, though. I think the other medical editors would be your best resource here - you can try and work things out on the article talk page, or you can ask the editors at WikiProject Medicine. There are a lot of clever and helpful editors at that WikiProject, and although you have had a hard time with discussions there so far, I am sure that they will give you good advice if you are willing to listen.

By the way, I don't have any official role in Wikipedia, I just have a bit of experience at resolving disputes between editors and help out at the noticeboard from time to time. In fact, most processes on Wikipedia are run in this fashion, and even administrators have the same say in discussions as any other editor. (Though in practice, editors who have a good understanding of how to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines often gain a significant amount of respect.) This is also one of those things that takes some getting used to.

I see that you have already opened an RfC on the article talk page. I'm afraid that this is all we can do regarding the matter of DO versus osteopathic physician at the moment, and you will have to wait for other editors to comment. If the RfC provides more editors that support using DO, then there may be a case for its inclusion, but if not then unfortunately you will have little choice but to accept it. Be aware that any judgment of consensus must also include the editors who have already commented at WikiProject Medicine and at the dispute resolution noticeboard, so I would say we would need at least three or four more editors to come out in favor of DO for there to be a reasonable doubt over using osteopathic physician. I hope you can understand this. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius. Let me start off by saying, and I sincerely mean this, that I appreciate reading a response that is not full of negativity, hostility and antagonism (some of the other editors I have been debating against have been like this and it has been quite frustrating to deal with them and their impossible expectations for burden of proof not to mention just the outright rudeness). I would not be opposed to a sentence being added in the article to distinguish between osteopathic physicians and osteopaths who are foreign trained. That being said, I feel I should clarify something. That was not my only reason for the proposed substitution. Another is that I feel it would be best to move away from the allopathic/osteopathic dichotomy and instead replace it with less offensive, more modern terminology, especially when trying to inform, educate the new generations/public. But yes, I certainly do not think osteopathic physician and osteopath should be confused and I have seen other people in the wikipedia community voice these exact concerns. In fact, I saw such a user say this on Hopping's (one of the opposing editors) talk page (which is now blanked for some odd reason, I don't know if that information is recoverable or not). I made the suggestion going off of your last comments about expanding DO to Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine and MD to Doctor of Medicine but WhatamIdoing (the rude editor of whom I spoke, Literaturegeek too but to a lesser extent on the rudeness) has said that it fails to make the distinction between holders of the degree (who may not be necessarily licensed) and those who are. I said we could add a sentence making this distinction clearer, that not all holders of MD and DO degrees are licensed to practice in order to eliminate confusion. The other editors on this particular wikiproject who I have engaged in discussion do not seem to have a very agreeable attitude and do not seem to seek a solution when I consistently urge them to keep their comments restricted to the issue at hand and to work with me to reach a solution that satisfies everyone but unfortunately to no avail. Considering your experience at mediating/resolving disputes, could you perhaps do so on the wikiproject medicine page? I feel that an outside opinion such as your own would help to establish the professional, cool, calm, collected and constructive tone I have been striving to elicit from the other editors. I have no problem waiting to see if the Rfc bares fruit or not. If it does not, as I said, I will accept the decision even if it is to my befuddlement. I still think that the concept of consensus is far too vague for people to definitively say it has been achieved with essentially no parameters given in terms of how many people must be participating in the discussion and/or what proportion of those must be in agreement for consensus to have been achieved. If you know the proper channels to make this suggestion, could you perhaps tell me? I feel this is a deep flaw in wikipedia's current policies. I can understand that if I am alone (with the exception of Pesky) in favoring this proposal then it will not go through. That being said, WhatamIdoing took the liberty to, on the Rfc page, construct a list of negative arguments against the proposal (I would call neutrality into question) and so I balanced it out with a list of arguments that countered his (that were present in the discussions that were linked to) but as a matter of how things are done, once an Rfc is posted, are people participating in the discussion supposed to get involved in ways that potentially influence other editors decisions in an Rfc like that? That seems like it goes against the point considering that the links to the discussions I have had with the other editors were already provided as was a summary of the issue at hand. So WhatamIdoing's input seems to me like it threatens the neutrality (which I think Rfcs should be neutral since we are introducing new editors and encouraging each of them to make his/her own decision about the issue on their own or in discussion with each other). Thoughts? Either way, I appreciate your help on this matter Mr. Stradivarius. I will seek you out should I ever have another issue like this come up, you are quite adept at defusing them and your knowledge of wikipedia is one to be lauded. DoctorK88 (talk) 02:36, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Mr. Stradivarius: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/24 October 2011/Battle of Tali-Ihantala

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Mr. Stradivarius, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 05:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	For somehow being able to take two stubborn egoes and turning them around, preventing a nasty confrontation from becoming hostile and helping find a peaceful solution to a complex problem. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! You deserve a lot of the credit for coming up with the actual solution though. Let me know if anything else comes up. (I'll be watching the article for a while as well.) All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

MotD Needs Your Help !

Hi there, Mr. Stradivarius ! If you can spare a moment please comment on some of the current nominations at WP:MOTD, as they are in need of votes.

Cheers, benzband (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hangout

Got time to do a Google Hangout in an hour? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:04, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, no can do - I'm at work. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 05:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Bummer. Shouldn't you be working? :P (When do you finish?) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

English as a foreign or second language

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

thank you very much for your message!

Kind Regards Laurentius2008 (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No problems - in fact, your message may be the nicest message I've ever got from someone whose external link I removed. :) Let me know if you have any questions about the English as a foreign or second language article or about Wikipedia in general, and I will be happy to help. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 13:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Future of MOTD

I've decided to start a project discussion on this. Please see WT:MOTD. Simply south...... having large explosions for 5 years 17:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice opportunity

Hey Mr. Stradivarius, I think this would be the perfect opportunity to work together while Steven is on break, such as, working to keep everything at DRN and MEDCAB in order while he's gone. Also, another note, do you mind taking over "Purpose redirect" strand, I'm busy with other things as well as the stuff Steve has given us. Thanks! Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be around to keep an eye on things. Be wary of mediator burnout! You don't want to spread yourself too thin or take on cases that you don't have the time to oversee. And thanks for contributing at the noticeboard - it's a real help. And yes, I'll deal with the purpose redirect dispute, no problem. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 23:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

On break, but still aware of everything ;-) Y'all will be fine, I'm not irreplacable :P 203.35.135.133 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and haha we'll try our best! Whenaxis talk · contribs 23:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

• News and notes: The Foundation visits Tunisia, analyzes donors

• In the news: Leading scholar hails Wikipedia, historians urged to contribute while PR pros remain shunned

• Discussion report: Discussion swarms around Templates for deletion and returning editors of colourful pasts

• WikiProject report: The Eye of the Storm: WikiProject Tropical Cyclones

• Featured content: Talking architecture with MrPanyGoff

• Arbitration report: Four open cases, final decision in Muhammad images, Betacommand 3 near closure

• Technology report: October's coding challenge: results now in; progress on 1.19 steady; and why for a while interwiki links were no more

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick question if you can let me know :)

Dear Mr Stradivaruis, Hi,I just had a quick question as I read your message sent to me and I just wanted to find some more information that you might be able to help me with since you seem like you have a great amount of knowledge in second language acquisition. I myself did not speak English first as it is actually my fourth language learnt. I first learnt my home language, Farsi from my Afghan parents as a child and living in a French city, I learnt French at school, which none of my parents thought me. I then learnt Dari which is a bit similar in some ways to Farsi but has many different words and pronunciation styles from other relatives. After moving, we moved into an English speaking city, which I learnt English in less than a year at 9 years old from other kids and teachers at school. I picked up languages very fast as a child and was able to communicate really well without any help from my parents and I never went home to practice language. I just could not learn to write the languages I learnt to speak very fast. Sorry for all of that information but it was just some background information that might help in my question. Adults seem to have a much harder time learning language then kids but as a child I never focused on the writing aspect, I was wondering if you could share with me some information that can help me understand why a child might learn faster a language than an adult, because when it comes to other types of knowledge, adults are able to learn much faster then a child. Also, i was just wondering if it is better to learn how to speak a language and forget the majority of writing aspects or is it better to focus on both to learn a new language. Sorry for the big paragraph and I do not mean to take your time, and if you ever have free time and could show me a few good sources to learn more, it will be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, Abdul — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdulpshyc (talk • contribs) 03:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow, my very first Wikipedia fan mail! Hello Abdul, and thank you for your message. I don't really have a "great amount of knowledge in second language acquisition" - I'm just a language teacher who has read a few books, and I'm still very much an amateur. Nevertheless, I'll attempt to answer your questions (although just for next time, you should be aware that we have a reference desk for this very purpose).

First, your point about children learning quicker than adults. Actually, at the beginning stages, this isn't true - adults actually learn faster than children, given the same conditions. Adults have the advantage of already knowing a lot about the world, and are able to use logical reasoning and conscious memory strategies, which gives them an edge over children. However, adults almost always fossilize, meaning that they almost never reach the same level as native speakers who learned their language as a child. They also often learn slower than children do in practice, due to a number of factors.

The factors that slow adult learning and increase the chance of fossilization are both biological, and environmental. The biological factors are a result of the brain developing over time; some of them are due purely to aging, and some are a result of already knowing another language. In second-language acquisition, there is a term language transfer that refers to a person's first language "interfering" with their second.

You might be more interested in the environmental factors. One of these is that often, adults receive much worse language input than children. People often try and talk about complicated subjects to adult language learners, with the result that they don't understand and don't learn anything. On the other hand, people generally use simple language with children, and it is usually focused on the here-and-now; this kind of input is much better for language learning. Also, adults can have negative attitudes towards language learning, possibly because of their culture or their society, or possibly because they are nervous or uncertain about learning.

Also, although adults' capability for conscious reasoning helps them with some aspects of language learning, it can hinder them with others. This mental capacity can trick adults into thinking that "knowing the rules" is the most important thing in language learning, when actually subconscious learning - learning without realising that you are learning - is arguably more important for becoming fluent. (There is still much debate about this.)

As for whether it is better just to learn how to speak and listen, or whether you should learn to read and write as well, it depends what you want to use your language for. If you are only going to be speaking to people (like learning a new language for going on holiday, for example), then not learning how to read and write may be enough. However, if you want to use a language seriously, then reading and writing are indispensible. Also, your reading and writing skills can help your listening and speaking skills - there is an overlap between the different areas. However, there are many elements of reading and writing that need to be learned consciously, such as learning the alphabet itself, how letters correspond to sounds, and wider issues of formatting and style. In general, learning to read and write requires more conscious learning than listening and speaking, although the exact degree to which conscious attention is required in second-language acquisition is controversial.

So, now for my recommendations for learning. A lot depends on what stage you are at in the language that you want to learn, but in general I would focus on listening first, then reading, and then let the other two skills follow. Listening informs all of the other language skills, and you need to listen to a lot of language to learn it. The best listening is focused on meaning, easy enough for you to understand, and repetitive. It should also be in context - you should always be able to picture the situation in your head. Reading will also help you a lot, especially extensive reading of easy novels.

However, even though listening and reading should come first, you shouldn't just learn them in isolation. You should learn them together with the other two skills. For example you could listen to an audio book, then read the real book, then talk to a native speaker about it using your own words, and then maybe write a diary entry about it and have it checked by a teacher. It is also important to learn grammar, but I think that grammar should help you understand new things in the language that are strange to you - you shouldn't just learn the grammar and then expect to be able to use it in real life. Use grammar as seasoning, and listening and reading as the main dish. This has been a very long reply, but don't worry! I actually enjoyed writing it. Let me know if you have any other questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 07:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Purpose

Hi. How would you like to proceed regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Purpose_redirected_discussion? I appreciate your help with this. We could get something together in short order. Thanks Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Zulu Papa - I've replied over at the noticeboard. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 01:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Lotus

Hey, Mr. Stradivarius,

I'm hoping you can just keep an eye on Lotus E20 for the next few days. It's nothing serious; the ceasefire has ended, and the page is progressing. Going back to the original dispute, DeFacto's main issue seems to have been that device that was developed for the car had no reference stating that it was developed for the car. I have since found a reference that supports this statement, and edited the page accordingly. However, DeFacto insists on editing the page to include phrases like "it was reported that" and "was expected to feature" when there is a reference that clearly supports the statement that the device was intended for use. It's basically weasel words, creating a possibility that what was reported did not actually happen at all. I don't want another row over it, so can you please keep an eye on things? Prisonermonkeys (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

SNiPER

Dear Mr Stradivarius I just wanted to advise you that I have edited the Wikipedia page for the artist SNiPER (Anthony Melas) previously of So Solid Crew. He is currently receiving play on BBC Radio1 extra; http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01blcy0 http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01b98x4 but on the link for his name it comes up with Wikipedia information on a French band called Sniper. It does however say that this can be changed; http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/artists/88ad74d6-2dde-496f-86f3-722ff9274ea9. This entry is from Wikipedia, the user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors and is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. If you find the biography content factually incorrect, defamatory or highly offensive you can edit this article at Wikipedia.

Because there isn’t the correct page, the BBC have attached the wrong information to his name. I think that with his recent press and radio coverage he does in fact qualify as recognised solo artist. I really feel that it would be clearer for all his thousands of fans around the world if his career was recognised on Wikipedia.

I thank you for your time and look forward to hearing from you.