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.

Your help at Autobiography of a Yogi dispute

Extended content

Good morning, Mr. Stradivarius. This little note is just to let you know that today I missed your wise comments and gentle help in the "Autobiography of a Yogi" dispute. I appreciate your intervention greatly. Since I am not familiar with Wikimedia's protocol, I have broken it. Sorry. Also, since the present book article, with all the wrong information, was edited with Red Rose 13 with NestedVariable's support, they are certainly very happy with it and are not in a hurry to have it changed. In the meanwhile the wrong information continues to be spread. I mean by this the Publisher's name, the wrong ISBN, the copyrighted SRF's cover, not subjective matters. Thank you, Arigato. --Tat Sat (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Tat Sat, note that I didn't make any edits to the page. It was mostly Sitush & Red Rose. I got involved with the page recently after all the disruptive edits. Also, I believe the infobox needs to be updated/removed/fixed/etc as well. However, we need to come to a consensus as per updated to what. My position was very clear, I am sorry that you misunderstood my position & intention. The page is currently being locked. It gives us enough time to work and come to a consensus. I would also allow Sitush to come back and comment as he was the one that did majority of the cleanup. NestedVariable (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC) NestedVariable, thank you for your information. I think of course that Sitush´s comments would be most welcome since I do not doubt for a second of his good faith. He did the majority of the cleanup relying on misinformations he received. What I want is not subjective, it is just to correct the facts about the book´s trajetory -- which if full of controversial issues and a dispute, which was already resolved by the 9th Court of Appeal as far as the book is concerned. Thank you. -- Tat Sat (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hi Tat Sat, NestedVariable. We will get on to the issues with the other content in due course, don't worry. Let's sort out the question of the infobox image first, though. I've left a comment at the DRN thread about the copyright status if you want to see the latest. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC) Hi Mr. Stradivarius - First, I need to ask why TatSat is allowed to continue his attack on the other editors involved? These are false accusations and Nested Variable shared his view. Sitush received no information from anyone when he did his major clean-up. He is an independent editor who was following Wikipedia guidelines when he cleaned it up. You can read his reasoning in history. All I want is a page that expresses the truth without anger or animosity. We are all trying to peacefully resolve this situation and no one else is attacking. Can you please resolve this attacking issue.Red Rose 13 (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've collapsed the thread. Sorry, but would you mind continuing this conversation at the DRN thread? It's better if we can keep everything in one place. And Red Rose, you are going to need to be more specific - at the moment I have no idea what "attacks" you are talking about. Can you send me an email with some of the diffs? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 21:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I am referring to personal attacks that started on the AY talk page with Sitush and continues even now- with many warnings. I would be happy to but I can't locate on how to add my email addressRed Rose 13 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You can enable email via the "My preferences" link at the top of every page. If you want to comment on the conduct of the other editors involved, then it is probably best to do it privately to me via email. Commenting on the other editors' conduct in public, at this stage, is only going to make it harder to resolve the dispute. On Wikipedia it is usually best to hold off on commenting on user conduct unless it becomes a real problem. More often than not, problems can be avoided if we assume good faith. (If user conduct does become a real problem we have processes to deal with that; I don't think we are at that stage with this dispute, however.) Let me know if you have more questions about enabling email, and I'll walk you through the process. And if Tat Sat and NestedVariable are reading this, my advice applies equally to you as well. Best — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, here is some reading on how to act in a situation like this: WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:IPAT, WP:AAGF, WP:GLUE, and finally, the parts about user conduct at WP:DR. Sorry about the alphabet soup, but if you read all of these it should give you a much better idea about the kind of attitude that will help in this situation. Let me know if you have any questions about them! — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ^{(have a chat)} 07:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you. As far as I am concerned I will be reading the links. Tat Sat (talk) 12:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Stradivarius, what happened to our discussion?Red Rose 13 (talk) 05:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It was archived as stale - but I will be opening a formal mediation request about the dispute and providing links to all involved. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 05:58, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Hello, Mr. Stradivarius, although a formal mediation request was opened, it says "closed". What is happening? Thank you and best regards, Tat Sat (talk) 03:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Watchlist notice

I also said this at the mediation talk page, but I just realized that the RfC is going to close in four days. If, as I hope, we are going to do another watchlist notice, we really need to act on it now. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

WP Dispute Resolution in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Dispute Resolution for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

So...

I couldn't find any recommendations for improvement, so instead I turned this blue. How do you fancy it? Worm^TT(talk) 10:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for nominating me! I've answered the questions, and I'm waiting for my co-nominator to write their nomination statement. That should hopefully appear some time today. Once it's up, we're ready to go. I might wait until tomorrow to transclude depending on what time it ends up being here, though. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 09:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Glad to. Proud to. I've been really impressed with everything I've seen, you'll make an excellent admin. Worm^TT(talk) 09:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rangeblock

Uh-oh. It looks like I've just been affected by a rangeblock placed by Elockid, so I won't be able to edit my RfA until it's sorted out. Could a passing admin give me the ip-block-exempt flag temporarily so I can answer any questions that come up? Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm looking at Special:Log/Elockid and the last range block was 3 days ago. - jc37 13:22, 31 July 2012 (UTC)note

I've seen a rangeblock notice for my IP range before (at around Christmas-time), but that time it didn't affect me after I logged in. This time, I can't edit using my account either. Plus, it looks like the instructions at Template:Autoblock are out of date. Or at least, I don't see the automatically-generated {{unblock-auto|...}} code that is supposed to be there. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe I have given this out before.

I took a look at Wikipedia:Ip_exempt#Used_to_bypass_an_IP_address_range_block.

In the future it looks like you were to post an unblock request here explaining the situation.

(Course if your RfA is successful, then there will be no need : ) - jc37 13:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh and I found it humourous how many people "voted" support in your RfA in the meantime without having even checked your talk page first : ) - jc37 13:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Yes, I had just gathered that a formal unblock request was the proper way to do things after reading through the documentation. I would have probably done it before you had issued the ipblock-exempt flag, if not for the {{unblock-auto}} issue I mentioned above. Looks like I still have a lot to learn about blocks, but I'm glad that things have been sorted out in the meantime. (And yes, it worked - I can edit again now.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The adminship tools are definitely a learning experience. - jc37 14:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Anyways, don't see any problems with the IP block exemption. Elockid ^(Talk) 15:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I admit the timing wasn't the best, but I know it wasn't your fault, and all's well that ends well, eh? :) And come to think of it, I should probably have let you know what happened sooner, given that the handing-out of ipblock-exempt was slightly unorthodox. Let me know if there are any other details you need to know. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Sandandclaysilt

I have a rather unusual request to make. I was randomly browsing some article history pages on Wikipedia, when I stumbled upon the user page of User:Sandandclaysilt, whom you have evidently helped. As the user mentioned, s/he tried to reference some BLPs, but then started making some unconstructive edits. Sandandclaysilt tried to tamper with Cluebot NG and then made some edits to the featured article of the day, Manchester Ship Canal. S/he ran into 3RR with some other editors, and then User:Waggers blocked him/her indefinitely as a "vandalism-only account". I think that the BLP edits show this user still had good faith. Trying to shut off Cluebot might be explained as case of WP:BEANS. Overall, I think this user's edits reflect not a hardened vandal, but rather a case of WP:BITE. However, as an editor of six years experience but only 250 edits, I don't feel comfortable taking this case to the blocking admins. I hope you will consider this request and give me an explanation should your opinion differ from mine. Thank you. Altamel (talk) 22:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I've left a note on Waggers' talk page, so hopefully he can outline his reasoning for you. It's usually best to ask the blocking admin directly at first, so don't be afraid about doing so next time. Also, you have just as many rights as a user with tens of thousands of edits, so edit count is really not a problem here. And admins aren't all scary, honest. :) Let's wait until Waggers comments, and we can continue discussing it after that if you want. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 23:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for forwarding my message. I must say that I'm disappointed by the decision--there's no way we can tell that the first few reference edits were bad faith edits, and it's a stretch to deem User:Sandandclaysilt vandalism-only with the first few edits questionable as to their nature. It concerns me that such policy will drive away newcomers. But like I told Waggers, I'm not going to take this any further. Thanks for helping me out with this matter. By the way, good luck with your RfA. Altamel (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Future message

Since barring a psychotic break or Wikipedia imploding you will be an admin in a few days given the state of the nomination, I am taking this opportunity to scoop the masses and congratulate you on your all-but-inevitable successful promotion. If you ever need any new admin help (or for any reason), please feel free to drop by.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your confidence! I don't like to assume too much though, so I'll wait until the RfA is actually over before I decide whether to celebrate or not. :) I'll remember your kind offer of help, and I may very well take you up on it if I pass. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:03, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Page Triage newsletter

Hey all. Some quick but important updates on what we've been up to and what's coming up next :).

The curation toolbar, our Wikimedia-supported twinkle replacement. We're going to be deploying it, along with a pile of bugfixes, to wikipedia on 9 August. After a few days to check it doesn't make anything explode or die, we'll be sticking up a big notice and sending out an additional newsletter inviting people to test it out and give us feedback :). This will be followed by two office hours sessions - one on Tuesday the 14th of August at 19:00 UTC for all us Europeans, and one on Wednesday the 15th at 23:00 UTC for the East Coasters out there :). As always, these will be held in #wikimedia-office; drop me a note if you want to know how to easily get on IRC, or if you aren't able to attend but would like the logs.

I hope to see a lot of you there; it's going to be a big day for everyone involved, I think :). I'll have more notes after the deployment! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Mail

Thanks for your mail, and the suggestions you proposed. I will reply to it soon.--andreasegde (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I am publicly replying to a Wiki-mail, so my comments may not be completely understood. I apologise.

• With respect, I don’t see a present “deadlock” regarding the Triangular Diplomacy II compromise, because it was discounted on 31 July 2012.: “For these reasons, the mediators see the mid-sentence compromise as an unsatisfactory solution.”
• I understand that both Feezo and yourself did try “to find a long-lasting solution”, but discounting the aforementioned compromise in the mediation throws the issue back into the no-man's land of opposing camps. If one side is now allowed to enforce a strict rule about which there have been so many virulent disagreements, it will be challenged by future editors at some point.
• By proposing Triangular Diplomacy II, I was not advocating a “restriction of the English language”, but advocating the expansion of the terminology. IMO, the repeated use of a name throughout an article reads like fancruft: “In 1960, Smith studied at Yale. In 1962, Smith [he?] then went to study at…” I wonder if having no “past precedent” for this precludes Wikipedia from changing it?
• I whole-heartedly agree with, “If it is going to be enforced, though, then it would affect a great many articles”. This is my greatest fear for the future of Wikipedia’s music-related articles. Having taken part in the most horrendous arguments about “the/The” problem over six years, I can not/do not want to contemplate that scenario, because it will create disagreements about many other articles.
• The Mos is written by everyone that feels inclined to do so, but reading this made me feel uneasy, as it was a change that an editor who was involved in the “mediation” actually made. Ho-hum, let’s put that to one side.
• Making the “Triangular Diplomacy a voluntary solution” is a wonderful idea, but is anybody truly confident that it would work? I have seen many recent reverts, from, “The Beatles played… in 1960”, to “In 1960, the Beatles played…” (so as to make a point, no doubt). Sad, but true.
• As a previous advocate of “The”, but then the advocate of a compromise which was warmly welcomed, I say let the Young Guns have their day. It is the nature of youth to think when a battle has been won, the war has also been won, but history has always proven that consensus, and not a defined law, will always prevail. I thank you.--andreasegde (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Di-no author-notice

{{Di-no author-notice}} can be speedily deleted per G6 and/or G8, since it's dependent on a template that was deleted two years ago. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Good point! Thanks for adding the speedy tag. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 August 2012

• Op-ed: The Athena Project: being bold

• News and notes: FDC portal launched

• Arbitration report: No pending or open arbitration cases

• Featured content: Casliber's words take root

• Technology report: Wikidata nears first deployment but wikis go down in fibre cut calamity

• WikiProject report: Summer sports series: WikiProject Martial Arts

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Your new tools have arrived.

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to get in touch on my talk page. WJBscribe (talk) 11:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I shall wield my new mop with pride. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent :) Worm^TT(talk) 11:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Congrats, well earned. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks Dennis. That mop now looks strangely glamorous. ;) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! 125 support, 0 neutral, 0 oppose. And great working with you and the RFC. Now, keep your promise not to get all crazy and delete the main page.  :-) North8000 (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! I never dreamed that I would get that much support - I'm feeling a little bit shocked at the moment, to be honest. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats! Another RfA with 0 opposes and 0 neutrals. We certainly are getting the top seeds to admin status. Always trusted your ability and all the best. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 15:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm very delighted, and very unsurprised! I cannot think of anyone whom I would trust more than you. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tryptofish! It means a lot. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations not only on becoming an admin but on the tremendous, very positive support you received.(olive (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC))

Yes, I never expected it to be unanimous! Thank you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Congrats. I have not participated in the RfA, but think you will be a great sysop. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 19:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ebe! I appreciate your trust in me, and I shall be diligent in my mopping. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:19, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Good luck with your new job! Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 02:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Mille congratulazioni, Maestro Stradivario!

Award archived.

Haha, thanks, Shirt58! I shall treasure it. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Barnstar archived.

Thank you! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 00:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)

Hello, deleting the page is a mistake. Iam Iranian and when I was going in doctor's office I was meeting many MS patients who were doing the same and it was not my own experience! Please try to keep the page save and shown to people. It can help an MS patient alot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.147.16.31 (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello again

my email address is [email address removed] and I was the guy who wrote down 'Honey Bee therapy for multiple sclerosis(M)' and I please you to help keep the page and show it to people, specially MS patients, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.147.16.31 (talk) 03:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, please either send me me message on my gmail or author mjesfahani in wikipedia or gmail, they're connected togetther.please keep the page and show it to people,do not delete. Mjesfahani either in wikipedia or gmail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.147.16.31 (talk) 03:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello there. I'm sorry that you felt the page was deleted in error. As it was originally deleted via this deletion discussion, then you will need to go to deletion review if you want it to be undeleted. However, you will need to show that there is new evidence that the subject passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines that wasn't considered in the previous discussion. This means finding reliable sources that cover the subject in detail. If you are aware of any such sources, you can link them for me here if you want, and I will take a look at them. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 05:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello,

A good proof to you is this link from a famous site that people with MS do this therapy:

http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/2975/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjesfahani (talk • contribs) 14:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 14:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)http://www.msrc.co.uk/index.cfm/fuseaction/show/pageid/2975/

A good reference NOT to delete "Honey Bee Therapy for Multiple Sclerosis(MS)"

MansourJE (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2012 (UTC) The page was specifically for MS sickness that was deleted.

Hello again Mjesfanahi. I had a look at at the reference you linked above, and unfortunately it doesn't seem to pass our guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Although the MSRC claim that their information is unbiased, it doesn't seem to be peer-reviewed, and it is not clear that it is subjected to any kind of editorial scrutiny. Without any evidence that MSRC engages in fact-checking its information, then I'm afraid that we can't use it to provide evidence of notability.

Also, please note that when writing on medical topics such as this one, we are expected to adhere to adhere to strict guidelines on medical sources. If medical sources don't exist, then it may be possible to use books published by a respectable publisher, or national newspapers. However, in this case Wikipedia would not be able to present any medical claims as true - see our guideline on fringe theories for more details.

Finally, we actually already have an article on honey bees and their use in medicine - Apitherapy. Perhaps you could consider helping to make this article better, rather than trying to create a new page specifically about honey bee treatment of MS? If you do decide to help with this article, though, please bear in mind the guidelines on sourcing for medical articles that I linked above. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:53, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

MansourJE (talk) 06:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)I added 7 references. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Honey_Bee_Therapy_for_Multiple_Sclerosis(MS)

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, please see my comment at User talk:Mjesfahani#Apitherapy. Graham87 14:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Graham87, thanks for letting me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 14:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Then this

The Latin alphabet was used for the Vietnamese language since the 20th century. Those redirects are completely irrelevance. Maybe you should go to WP Project Vietnam and tell about those redirects, or maybe you should discuss this with User:DHN, he probably would say the same thing as I did. ༆ (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm not saying that you're wrong about that - it's just that we can't use speedy deletion for redirects that are not new. I recommend that you list them at WP:RfD and see what other editors think. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

No way, a redirect from a non-native language MUST be deleted immediately. I had done many similar speedy deletion before, and those that you declined are the first to be declined. All of those redirects were created by several sock-puppets of the same person. Again, please tell DHN about those. ༆ (talk) 04:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, if sockpuppets are involved, then the redirects might qualify for speedy deletion under CSD G5. I'll have another look into this. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I see you're right - the creator is User:乾隆帝, who is indefinitely blocked as a suspected sockpuppet. However, since they were created, the pages 阮晉勇, 阮明哲, and 阮富仲 have all been edited by respected users. This, plus the length of time that has passed, makes me reluctant to delete the pages. Sorry, but WP:RfD is the way to go here, I'm afraid. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 04:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, but please tell about those redirects to talk page of WP Project VN or user DHN. ༆ (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Db-notice changes

I see that you recently changed the behavior of {{db-notice}} and all the child templates. I don't think your changes are working. For example, if I start a new section, give it a subject and include the template, I get a double header as seen here. Your automatic inclusion of a welcome message was also unexpected and is not in the documentation. Was there a discussion about the changes that I missed? Can you please check the double header? Thanks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Gogo Dodo, and thanks for letting me know about the problem. Sorry for any inconvenience I might have caused. I've reverted my changes while I figure out what's going on. There wasn't any discussion, no, but that was because the changes I made weren't supposed to actually affect the end result that appears on user talk pages. They were aimed at standardizing the |header= parameter, which behaves differently in the warning templates that use {{db-notice}} then the old ones that don't use it. Give me a second while I look into it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, that's odd. I see that a double header is not the result that you intended, but it looks like the exact same behaviour that you would have got from the old {{db-notice}} code. I can't see any difference between the results from the old code and the results from the new code if the only parameter you use with {{db-spam-notice}} is the article title. The same with the automatic welcome using {{first article}} - that was in the old template code as well. The only differences should be if you start using the |header= or |header-text= parameters. Did you notice any behaviour that was different from before I updated the header code on August 1 other than using these two parameters? I think the real problem here might be bad documentation, which is the reason I started updating all of these templates in the first place. I'm in the process of fixing that, but it will take a little while. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 08:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I discovered something new and perhaps you can help me figure out why. The templates are a bit too complex for me to understand at the moment. If you look at my sandbox, you will see some interesting quirks on some of the templates that I don't quite understand. On all of the edits, I started with a new section. In the first one, I used {{spam-warn-deletion}} and as you can see, I got the header at the very top, which is bad. On the second one, I used {{nn-warn-deletion}} and the "Speedy deletion nomination of..." header did not appear, which is what I expect. In the third one, I used {{nothanks-warn-deletion}} and the extra header line appeared, which is also bad. So why is {{nn-warn-deletion}} different?

When I think about it, I think has been the behavior of either {{spam-warn-deletion}} or {{nothanks-warn-deletion}} for a long time. I do recall that one of these did act unusually for me, but I think when I asked about your changes to {{db-notice}}, I get confused over which one was weird.

I hope all of this makes sense to you. Sorry to trouble you with it. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:08, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I just worked out what happened. Let me explain. The default behaviour of the templates that use {{db-notice}} is to include a header - the reason that {{nn-warn-deletion}} doesn't leave a header is because it doesn't use db-notice. Like I said above, the changes I made to db-notice don't change its behaviour in this regard. However, last week as I was making {{speedy deletion notices}}, I redirected some of the older notification templates to the ones that use db-notice. It must have been one of the templates that I redirected that you used and which gave you the unexpected results. Sorry about that - I should have discussed that before I went through with it. If you want me to revert my redirects while we discuss the changes that is no problem, and you are more than welcome to revert them yourself if you want. You can find the relevant changes in my contribs here and here.

The reason I redirected the templates was that I thought they were redundant to the ones that use db-notice, which I now see might not be the case. From what I have seen, the first templates to be written were the ones that don't use db-notice. I'm not sure when the templates that use db-notice were written, but Twinkle only uses the db-notice templates, hence why I assumed they were the standard ones. I had foreseen that not everyone would want to include the header, and that was actually part of the code that I added to db-notice. Before, the header was compulsory in the templates based on db-notice, but now, in theory, it is possible to suppress the header with |header=no. (The individual notice templates all need to be updated before this will work, though.)

It would be very easy to change this to suppressing the header by default, but if we decide to do it this way, we will also need to update Twinkle to add a |header=yes parameter each time it uses one of the templates. I don't mind which one of these we use, but I would prefer that we choose one way of doing things and stick to it. Part of the problem has been the documentation, which I don't think was ever written for the individual templates that use db-notice. I've written {{db notice doc}} to counteract this, and I will start rolling it out tonight, together with the template updates. Maybe we can discuss whether we want headers by default or not at WP:VPT in the meantime. Whichever one we choose, it will be easy to update {{db-notice}} and {{db notice doc}} after the fact. Does this clear things up a bit? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 13:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, after a few false starts I have the templates and documentation working for {{db-nonsense-notice}}, {{db-test-notice}} and {{db-vandalism-notice}}. So you can now use (for example) {{subst:db-test-notice|Test|header=no}} to suppress the header. I'll update all the other templates and docs when I have some more free time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 15:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough explanation. It doesn't bother me one way or another if the header is there or not, just that it is consistent across of all of the notices. I don't want to try to remember that some are off and some are on. Discussing the matter is WP:UTM is probably a bit better than the Village Pump, but either place is fine. Can you fix the header appearing above the automatic welcome notice? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 03:29, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

New Pages newsletter

Hey all :)

A couple of new things.

First, you'll note that all the project titles have now changed to the Page Curation prefix, rather than having the New Pages Feed prefix. This is because the overarching project name has changed to Page Curation; the feed is still known as New Pages Feed, and the Curation Toolbar is still the Curation Toolbar. Hopefully this will be the last namechange ;p.

On the subject of the Curation Toolbar (nice segue, Oliver!) - it's now deployed on Wikipedia. Just open up any article in the New Pages Feed and it should appear on the right. It's still a beta version - bugs are expected - and we've got a lot more work to do. But if you see something going wrong, or a feature missing, drop me a note or post on the project talkpage and I'll be happy to help :). We'll be holding two office hours sessions to discuss the tool and improvements to it; the first is at 19:00 UTC on 14 August, and the second at 23:00 on the 15th. Both will be in #wikimedia-office as always. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Deleting Vu telepresence Wiki page

Dear Mr. Stradivarius i see that you have deleted VU Telepresence page. I think just like Cisco Telepresence and LifeSize Vu page also deserves a place. I agree that i may have been very fast in pushing the page up but i dont know how things work here. Plus i only got active recently on Wiki, so as the guidelines of wiki stage all you senior editors should help us rather than punishing us and destroying our work. Please let me know how can i restart the pageCyberhawk 5 (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Hello Cyberhawk. I'm sorry if I caused any offence by deleting the page - I assure you that none was meant. Although I was the one who deleted it, I was merely judging the consensus that was found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu TelePresence. If the consensus was that the page should be kept, I would have closed the debate as "keep" instead. My personal opinions did not enter into it. If you think that I deleted the page in error, you are welcome to bring your case to deletion review, however. Let me know if you have any questions about this. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, regarding the existence of the Cisco Telepresence and LifeSize pages, I'm afraid such arguments are traditionally given very little weight in deletion discussions. You might find this page instructive here. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Bernie Crouch

Hello,

you recently deleted the article Bernie Crouch, was this because of the automated message from VWBot or did I do something else wrong?

Tommytoplad (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tommytoplad. I deleted the page because it didn't indicate how Crouch was important - that is, why he should have a page in an encyclopaedia. In Wikipedia we require subjects to pass certain "notability guidelines" before they can have a page. Have a read of the notability guidelines for biographies and this quick explanation of notability and let me know if you have any questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 22:14, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:V -- wow!

Dear Strad -- I missed your AfD but looking over it I saw reference to your work on the WP:V mediation. Wow! That must be the best handling of an extremely contentious mediation that I've ever seen. Thanks for giving a gold standard that the rest of us can look up to. Best, -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It was a team effort, though. Most of the credit belongs to the mediation participants, who stuck with the process right to the end, and the admins who monitored and closed the RfC. And I wouldn't call the mediation a "gold standard" - there were quite a few things that I could have done better, and I'm still learning a lot about how to mediate. Although of course, I'm delighted that the RfC went so smoothly and that we have a consensus on the issue now. Thanks for your vote of confidence. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

By AfD, I of course meant RfA -- which did go about as smoothly as is humanly possible. Looking forward to working with you more.

Sri Shyam Sundar Goswami

Dear Stradivarius,

The undersigned is the supposed infringer of his legal right to inform, objectively and with documented references to late Sri Syam Sundar Goswami.

The idea of creating an article about one of the major pioneers of contemporaneous Yoga came to my 82-old year mind when I incidentally found an article of the patronym Goswami and bearers of the name but not that of the above person.

Whatever the policy prevailing with Wikipedia, I found somewhat peculiar the so-called speedy deletion of an article drafted most objectively in yogic spirit, that is it faithful to the principle of truth.

The pragmatic man I am now asks: how to proceed to straighten out this anomaly by either creating a one-line edit to the existing Goswami article, or, preferably by dedicating a quite new article to Sri Shyam Sundar Goswami?

Bests regards,

Basile P Catoméris Catome (talk) 08:25, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Basile, and thanks for your message. I'm sorry if I distressed you by tagging the page for speedy deletion. The problem is that the text was copied word for word from this site, and therefore counts as a copyright violation of the original authors of the text. (See the copyright FAQ for more details, and also the notice on your talk page has a good overview.) Copyright violations cannot go in Wikipedia, I'm afraid.

If you are able to prove that Sri Shyam Sundar Goswami passes the notability guidelines for biographies, though, you are welcome to create a new article about him. Make sure that you use your own words, however - further copyright violations will also be removed or deleted. Also, please note that you don't have any right to free speech on Wikipedia. Your articles and edits must conform to Wikipedia policies if you want them to be included. Let me know if you have any questions about any of this, and I'll be glad to help you out. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 16:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Muhammad Iqbal. 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) 14:15, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Second language acquisition

I've re-raised the hyphen issue but I didn't think to notify people. Please see Talk:Second language acquisition#Hyphen and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 12#Category:Second-language acquisition. Thanks, rʨanaɢ (talk) 17:44, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know - I've reverted the move for now and left a comment on the talk page. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 18:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

article deletion question

Dear Mr Stradivarius

I'm not quite sure if I'm messaging an appropriate person about this - I've occasionally edited Wiki articles on contemporary classical music for the last year or two, but still haven't managed to work out a lot of the talk-related stuff. However, I just happened to notice this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Keeley_(composer) and am a bit concerned about it, for a couple of reasons ...

I can't actually work out whether the deleted article is archived somewhere, so can't judge how useful it was in its state immediately prior to deletion, but I'm a bit surprised by both the content and the tone of some of the discussion (particularly from users J04n and The Blade of the Northern Lights).

(a) Keeley has at least two albums out - I know this because I own a copy of one which is not the one mentioned by user J04n. (It seems you can find them both by googling "rob keeley chamber music". It could be the variation between Robert and Rob causing the confusion, maybe??) (b) It's certainly not true that the album J04n does mention has not had a single review. I've read two if not three reviews of it - not sure they were all online but at least one was in The Times (should be online but behind a paywall). (c) Both users J04n and The Blade of the Northern Lights talk about "releasing an album". But that can't be expected to be a condition of notoriety for a classical composer. (Composers don't release albums; performers record their music. The composer isn't even necessarily involved in that process.)

I'm not really disputing this particular deletion decision - I'm heavily involved in this field, and while I think Keeley's reasonably well known I wouldn't claim he's one of the most important people working in the field - but I'm concerned (a) that classical composer entries seem to be being deleted by people who are judging them by criteria more relevant to pop/rock ("releasing albums" etc.), and (b) that they're being deleted on the grounds of statements which are demonstrably untrue (e.g. only one album of his music; album has received no reviews).

Grateful for your advice, or if you can tell me who else I should be raising this kind of worry with ...

Many thanks! worldisnow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldisnow (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Worldisnow. You raise good points - let me go through both of them. As you may already be aware, we have guidelines on how to judge the notability of subjects on Wikipedia. The guideline that many of the participants in the deletion debate pointed to - WP:NMUSIC - actually has a section specifically for composers and lyricists. This is a result of multiple discussions about the need to have different notability criteria for classical composers etc. than for other kinds of musicians or ensembles. The talk about "just one album" is a bit of a red herring here - the real reason for deletion is that none of the criteria on this page are met, not that the album has any special significance. If you have any evidence that he does pass any of the criteria on that page, please let me know, and I may well un-delete the article if the evidence is good. (I can also email you a copy of the deleted article if you want to take a look.)

As well as the music-specific guideline, you should be aware of the general notability guideline, which applies to all articles (also see this simplified explanation). If there is any significant coverage of Keeley in reliable sources, then we could use that to prove his notability independently of the criteria at WP:NMUSIC. As a general rule, we would need to see newspaper or book coverage about him or a significant part of his career for this to apply. Again, if you are aware of such sources, let me know, and we can discuss the possibility of un-deleting the article.

The closing administrator at articles for deletion will usually ignore comments that aren't based on any of the notability guidelines or other valid reasons for deletion, so there really isn't much need to worry about users who get the guidelines muddled up or who comment purely based on personal preference. You can usually trust the admins to know what they're doing. :) Of course, sometimes admins make bad decisions, but for that, we have deletion review. Hopefully this has cleared things up a bit, but do let me know if you have any other questions. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 11:20, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 August 2012

• Op-ed: Small Wikipedias' burden

• News and notes: Bangla-language survey suggests the challenges for small Wikipedias

• Arbitration report: You really can request for arbitration

• Featured content: On the road again

• Technology report: "Phabricating" a serious alternative to Gerrit

• WikiProject report: Dispute Resolution

• Discussion report: Image placeholders, machine translations, Mediation Committee, de-adminship

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Hi, what did you mean when you said I needed to find sources that would indicate the website passes? That I needed to find websites that say the same thing I said on my article? Because, for example, the Survivor Sucks article only has references that link back to the part about the American Idol scandal, and non about the rest of the article. So, if I were to find a few pages that link back to a certain topic on the website, would that make it notable?