User talk:Vaulter

The Signpost: 20 August 2012

• Op-ed: Wikimedians are rightfully wary

• News and notes: Core content competition in full swing; Wikinews fork taken offline

• In the news: American judges on citing Wikipedia

• Featured content: Enough for a week – but I'm damned if I see how the helican.

• Technology report: Lua onto test2wiki and news of a convention-al extension

• WikiProject report: Land of Calm and Contrast: Korea

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Re Nashville RM

Hot Stop, thanks for your perspective. Upfront, I believe all our policies and guidelines have too much wiggle room as you call it and as such we find ourselves in pointless and draining discussions where both sides want to wiggle a different way. The rationale for the Nashville, in deference to USPLACE was consistent with what I said in the Beverly Hills RM the same day (not moved in deference to USPLACE). At least I was consistent. Clearly there are conflicts of interpretation and practice with our WP:Title policy, MOS and naming conventions. Those conflicts won't go away with one RM decision. If you believe that USPLACE is not properly worded or being applied, then I would suggest you work to get things changed. I've been closing RMs long enough to know that an RM is not the place to get the policies and guidelines changed but its a great place to highlight the conflicts. --Mike Cline (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fall Out Boy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fall Out Boy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 August 2012

• News and notes: Tough journey for new travel guide

• Recent research: New influence graph visualizations; NPOV and history; 'low-hanging fruit'

• Technology report: Just how bad is the code review backlog?

• Featured content: Wikipedia rivals The New Yorker: Mark Arsten

• WikiProject report: From sonic screwdrivers to jelly babies: Doctor Who

• Discussion report: Sidebar and main page alterations; Recent Deaths; Education Program extension

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 05:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Beatles notice

by being dragged into the railroding seesion in the kangaroo mediation you are just adding to the list of unwilling participants supposedly agreeing with GabeMc's "mediation". Look at some history of the participants and you will find admins and almost a dozen editors that have been muzzled or blocked due to conflicting opinions in this matter. Repeated posts by the mediation officers stating thre will be no repercussions from stating your opinions have been followed by banns and muzzling the main contestants (by the same med officers) that have disagreed with the intiator attempting to say he had consensus to change thousands of music articles to his way. This message will likely be found by one his gang stalkers and removed prior to you seeing it. Get out and withdraw your name from any involvement and let the kangaroo mediation fail as it was recommended by a few particpants prior to the editors and teir comments disapearing in the mediation. You will only end up with black marks against youand not alter the foregone conclusionthat we all know will happen. 184.70.112.106 (talk) 06:02, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you check my talk page I will most likely be banned by now f or exposing the behind the scenes garbage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.112.106 (talk) 06:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your arguments in the the/The Beatles mediation are well said but please do not use sarcasm, as you have. As an old time chatter and Internet person it never comes across well, in text. There are dozens of lurkers watching, that have been disallowed to participate, through side issues found against them, and you are doing well with your arguments put forth. The whole article has been semiprotected against IPs from making contributions in this as a few pointed out the bias that has transpired. If the lowercase argument is won it will spread like a disease to all music articles and there are 1000s of them. This item was settled a year ago by User:Andreasegde (now muzzled by the request of the admins) as a semi-resolution but this pair of bulls will not collaborate with any methods than their own. Possible sockpuppets there. We don't want to see you have the same fate except that if nobody particpates then the mediation would show as a railroad, which it is. Note the list of particpants has been modified to reflect the casualties but was returned to full membership, each time. All participants attempting to remove their own names have been kicked in the balls due to conjured up side issues. Best of luck. Yeah it' me. Never permnently muzzled and Gabe is shaking in his boots 'cause he can't hurt me anymore. BTW: I was never a sock of anybody. I left clues to make Gabe sweat and Evan poop in his dungerees afer they treated me so badly without any cause. Looked good on the pair of excrements. LOL 64.134.128.53 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

2008 Election

Why did you remove my edit. It is relevant information, it represents a trend over the past five elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayday617 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But why is 300 special? Hot Stop 06:08, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

It represents a trend. Rjensen, the history professor, also said it was relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayday617 (talk • contribs) 06:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

But 300 is an unimportant number, considering it takes only 270 to win. Do we include that no Democrat has gotten 400 since LBJ Hot Stop 06:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but I'll take the history professor's opinion over yours any day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayday617 (talk • contribs) 06:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the rude comment, but I still say my edit is relevant. Jayday617 (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayday617 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

This would be better discussed at the article's talk page and not here since others reverted you too. Hot Stop 06:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. And also, the fact about LBJ's EV victory margin could indeed be included on the page for the 1964 election, and I think it is. Jayday617 (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be an argument for including it in the 1988 election page, not 2008. Hot Stop 07:28, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

huh? Including what in the 1988 election? Jayday617 (talk) 07:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

That would be the last election a Republican had 300 votes. Hot Stop 07:30, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Right, but why can't it be included on the 2008 page instead? Jayday617 (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Why should it be though? We don't include that bit of trivia on every subsequent's election page. Hot Stop 07:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it represents a trend from 1992 to 2008. What if it continues? Jayday617 (talk) 07:43, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Find some sources that call it an important/relevant/whatever trend, then try and get it added. Hot Stop 07:45, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I included an article from the Washington Post and you still removed it. Jayday617 (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

True, but that article doesn't explain why 300 is important, considering you only need 270 to win. Hot Stop 08:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your insight. Jayday617 (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "2008 Presidential Election talk page". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:48, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jimmy Wales. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 September 2012

• News and notes: World's largest photo competition kicks off; WMF legal fees proposal

• Technology report: Time for a MediaWiki Foundation?

• Featured content: Wikipedia's Seven Days of Terror

• Op-ed: Dispute resolution – where we're at, what we're doing well, and what needs fixing

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:07, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Creativemind15 - disruptive editing in 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential Election articles

I just discovered that Creativemind15 sneaked in the VP candidates into the presidential candidates sections of the 2008 and 2012 election articles. In the 2008 article, he did it within the past 24 hours, adding Biden and Palin, and their pics. And he added the words subtitles "Nominees" and "Withdrew" in both articles, even though those sections are just to list the presidential candidates. For example, see the Republican candidates sections in the 2012 article.[1] I just reverted what Creativemind did in the 2008 article and put in the edit comments that that section is for presidential candidates only; and that the VPs are only in the infobox. In the 2012 article, he started sneaking in the content at: 22:02, 14 August 2012‎ and apparently no one noticed. I can't revert it because the article is protected. He added Biden and Ryan, and their pics into the candidates section. I also notice he sneaks in changes of pics with comments like "I like this one better" or "This one is better", etc. Anyway, I fixed 2008, but I can't fix 2012 because it's protected. Here's the starting point in each article where he started added the VPs and their pics into the presidential candidates sections in the two articles: [2] (2008) and [3] (2012). Thanks. --76.189.126.159 (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)