Jump to content

User talk:Mr. Stradivarius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Last Angry Man (talk | contribs) at 12:10, 25 November 2011 (→Mediation?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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

Template:Archive box collapsible

Robert Zoellick bio

Dear Mr. Stradivarius: Nobody has considered the position of the Mediator from the Mediation Cabal, who supported the edits I proposed on the Zoellick talk pages, and then tendered his resignation in the middle of the mediation. The multiple, authoritative sources I cited for my edits were not considered, but simply ignored and in this so-called conflict resolution (a misnomer), the existence of these sources was denied. Closing a discussion because it is "stale" only three days after the posting of clearly erroneous comments is highly questionable. As for my "conflict of interest", the UK Parliament International Development Select Committee just announced an inquiry into the Department for International Development Annual Review and Multilateral Aid Review and requested comments from individuals. Thirteen World Bank whistleblowers intend to avail of this opportunity. http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/international-development-committee/inquiries/dar/ The best way I can think of to improve the Wikipedia site is to publicize what has happened here. Please convey to the rest of Wikipedia's community that as a cellist accustomed to the fellowship of chamber music, I am put off by aggressive, high-handed and nonsensical edicts. Currency1 (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right - I was just closing it based on advice by other editors here and at the BLP noticeboard thread. I think there is a clear consensus so far that you shouldn't edit the article itself, but as you obviously feel strongly about it, I will reopen the thread on the dispute resolution noticeboard for you. I'll have a look at the content you have provided and judge it on its merits with respect to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but I can't guarantee that I will come to a different conclusion than the other editors who looked at it. About the mediation cabal case - I can't seem to find it anywhere. Are you sure it was a mediation cabal case and not in some other location? I'd like to read the arguments there so that I can better inform myself of all the issues involved here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, the MedCab case was posted on my talk page, so some of it is now buried in my talk page archives. I think parts of it also got posted on user talk pages elsewhere. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Oddbodz#top, point 20, and see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:MEDCAB#New_and_Open_cases, where Demiurge1000, who didn't approve of my sources or edits, also complained about the mediator, forgetting to mention that he was involved in the dispute.Currency1 (talk) 03:53, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius, please inform me why you reverted the following comment which I placed on the Dispute resolution discussion page after you reopened the Robert Zoellick bio discussion?

The mediator from Mediation Cabal agreed that the sources justified Currency1's edits to the Zoellick bio: "If the sources you had added in revision 439152551 are what you mean, then yes. At least two of these are government sources. I think this is enough to justify a reversion... Oddbodz (talk) 11:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)"Currency1 (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Currency1 (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Currency1 (talk • contribs)

Hi again, Currency1. I'm not sure what you mean - I just checked the page, and that comment is still there (permanent link). I've been looking at the other disputes at the page first, admittedly, but I will get round to yours. Hold on while I read through the discussions. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stradivarius, you're correct. I must have linked to the previous version by mistake somehow.74.96.75.44 (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius, Demiurge could not refute the reliability of the primary and secondary sources I cited. Wikipedia is incorrect in branding the issues as a COI. This is a global governance and rule of law issue. I intend to request assistance from the Arbitration Committee on these problems. Currency1 (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Stradivarius, The Arbitration Committee obviously didn't consider the end to the gentlemen's agreement for appointment of the World Bank President by the US newsworthy enough for Wikipedia's readers, even though there was no justification for suppressing the recommendation of the mediator in Mediation Cabal to restore my edits to Robert Zoellick's biography. I am simply notifying you (and the Arbitration Committee) that the governance issues presented to Wikipedia are currently before the World Bank's member countries and various legislative bodies.Currency1 (talk) 09:36, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Thanks so much for your kind note. I might pop in there from time to time, when my aging content-grinder's on the blink (an increasingly frequent problem. Oh, to be built from user-serviceable parts!) Haploidavey (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just had to add the following. The more I think about it (DRN), the more excellent an invention it seems. Talk-page disputes too easily generate more heat than light, or walls of text stout enough to fend off even the idea of an exchange of ideas, or worse still, mountains of obfuscation (and that, I confess, is one of my favourite words but one of the most depressing tactics I've even encountered). DRN process requires honesty, humanity and sober precision. Good practice all round, eh? So yes, I guess I'll stick around, and thanks once again for the note. Haploidavey (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

I noticed your closing comment at the Dispute Resolution board for the Volunteer (Irish republican) discussion, and would like to say that several hours before you made it i opened an RfC on the matter first of all for more outside input, before possibly moving to the original research board. I may face a rehashing of all the same arguements, or maybe not, however i'll give a RfC a shot first of all. Thanks for all your help on this issue. Mabuska (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have checked for that. Thanks for letting me know about it. Hopefully the RfC will provide lots of outside input - I will keep an eye on it and maybe comment as well. We can decide any further course of action after the RfC has run its course - there's no need to jump the gun here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:19, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiousity could you make a comment at the RfC as Domer48 feels: "This is one example, were WP:DRN is not being represented fairly.". Can you look at my RfC request and judge as to whether or not i have so that i can amend it to represent the WP:DRN fairly. Mabuska (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Malabar Nasrani

Dear Mr.Stradivarius, Thank you for your guidance on editing the page: Syrian Malabar Nasrani in Wikipedia. I appreciate your views and would try to modify the article as you directed. --218.248.72.195 (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely designed RfC

Hey,

Just wanted to drop-by and register my admiration of a very clearly written RfC. Kudos. NickCT (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! This is the first content RfC that I've written, if you can believe that. I just hope it can actually settle the disputes on the page, which have been going on for a long time now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to quit Wikipedia

Thanks for the reminder that it is not worth someone like me trying to add pages to Wikipedia.

You have doubtless saved me hours of time that I might have spent trying to expand an American encyclopedia with unAmerican material! :Yonmei (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have another look at the page - I've added the references for you. I don't think there's any question that the book is notable. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Motto of the Day Motto Shop

Hello! My name is Belugaboy, and by now, you and I both have heard of the Motto Shop, and if not, there's a Motto Shop! It's an exclusive place where users can get their own motto to live by on the wiki. It's great, but we're really running slow, in fact, we haven't seen a customer in months. So we thought YOU, the contributors to Motto of the Day, could spread the word to your WikiFriends, heck, order yourself one, whether you have or haven't before. Thank you and warm regards to all of you!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of Belugaboy (talk) at 15:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Email

You've got email. — TransporterMan (TALK) 17:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Different strains of punks

I've just commented on that nomination about the "two different strains of punks...", but I've also approved it so I want to personally thank you for understanding! I feared I was too rude (that was not my intention, because I was kidding). All the best and, once again, thank you. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and don't worry, I'm not so easily offended. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:53, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Ouch! Ouch! This is way too rude for my taste! Even my watchlist is shaking... Fleet Command (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Malabar Nasrani page vandalism need help

Dear Mr. Stradivarius, I thought that there was resolution to the problem on the page Syrian Malabar Nasrani. But now Ashleypt indeed is engaging in vandalism. He is systematically removing all referenced passages dealing with jewish identity of the community. Removing referenced passages is indeed vandalism. Please stop this. I have tried reverting the edits but he keeps on removing the referenced passages. Please stop him from deleting referenced passages. Please help. thanks Robin klein (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robin! This looks like a content dispute to me, so the thing to do is go to the next stage in dispute resolution. Did you think of filing a new case at the Mediation Cabal like I suggested? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 21:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Mr. Stradivarius, I should say this is not a content issue. He or anyone may put in information with citations from peer reviewed journals. But nobody can delete passages with peer reviewed references. Ashleypt is deleting passages with references, and that is definitely vandalism. thanks Robin klein (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Removing referenced information isn't always vandalism. We also have to be careful to keep content relevant and avoid undue weight, and fixing issues such as these can mean removing content that is referenced to reliable sources. I'm not trying to suggest that that is what happened in this case, but I do think that the picture isn't as clear-cut as you make out. If it was clear-cut, repeated vandalism, for example, then the place to deal with it would be WP:AIV, but I suspect that the editors there would also point you towards dispute resolution. I suggest you read WP:VANDAL one more time, and then file a mediation case. All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:02, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Malabar Nasrani

Dear Stradivarius, I think, now the editing is moving in a convergent and positive way, though there are some aberrations. OK. I started explaining the things in Talk Page as you suggested. I was a little frustrated with Dispute resolution board because didn't find any serious attempt by anybody to mediate there. Also, it's not the issue between me and Robin, but due to the rivalry between to communities. I'm not trying to superimpose my side's view, but just trying to find a balanced presentation of history and tradition. I wish if some experts in history could comment on the article. --Ashleypt (talk) 15:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Ashleypt. I can appreciate that you might feel frustrated with the problems in the article not being addressed immediately at the dispute resolution noticeboard. The reason I referred it to further mediation was that it looked like it would take some time to work through the issues, and space on the noticeboard is limited. Would you be willing to undergo mediation at the Mediation Cabal? I can even file the request for you if necessary. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Stradivarius, I would like to invite your attention to a suggestion put forward by User:Cuchullain in the discussion page. He suggested to merge the articles: Syrian Malabar Nasrani and Saint Thomas Christians, as both deal with the same group of people.
It's better to move the article to Saint Thomas Christians. I came to observe the article Syrian Malabar Nasrani while searching Nasrani in Wikipedia and later on I was surprised to see another article Saint Thomas Christians with some contradictory contents on comparing both. In India, both the terms Saint Thomas Christians and Nasranis are synonymous and as Cúchullain stated the term Syrian Malabar Nasrani is an artificially formed name. But I would like to clarify that in India, the term Nasrani is exclusively used for Syrian Christians of Kerala only, not for all Christians and it should be considered as an ethno-religious group. The confusion could be avoided using Disambiguation page. If it is moved as suggested, we could concentrate in improving a single article on Nasranis, including the ethnic aspects as suggested by Mr. Robin. --Ashleypt (talk) 10:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a merge sounds like a good solution to the problem. You can add the Nasrani clarification inside the article itself if you like; you don't have to have a separate dismabiguation page just for that purpose. Of course, you will still need to cite sources that say this is the case, etc. Best of luck with it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Stradivarius, The discussion on the proposal for merging was going on from 13th Oct. But suddenly, User: Thom100 has deleted the Merge Tag from both articles blaming all others including me for conspiracy. He is also adamant to include a diagram and an equation which were observed as blatant hoaxes without any verifiable source. He has already got warnings against Vandalism two times, but still he is behaving erratically. Please help? --Ashleypt (talk) 09:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Because the merge is contested, it might be a good idea to get an uninvolved admin to assess the level of consensus and close the thread, rather than trying to assess the level of consensus yourself. If an uninvolved admin does it, there will probably be a lot less complaint from the other users. Or, alternatively, you could wait for another week or so to see if more people comment to make the consensus clearer. (If you do this then you should probably advertise the merger discussion at the relevant WikiProjects, etc.) It's probably best to separate the issues of a) whether to merge, and b) whether to include the content that Thom100 is talking about. If necessary you could think of having a separate RfC for the content issue. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 12:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities in Greece

Hello, and thank you very much for your taking the time to look into the dispute. However, I have absolutely no idea how to go about establishing which three sources the academic community considers most reliable on the subject. I can tell you which ones I consider most reliable, but how does one establish which ones the academic community considers most reliable? This isn't at all my field. Any suggestions would be very helpful. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes, I may have made that question a little bit too hard... In that case just finding some likely-looking books from the article and from a Google Books search should do the trick. The main idea is just to get an idea of what kind of sources we should be using to judge the weight to give to each subtopic in the article - I wasn't expecting anything that would require extensive knowledge of the field. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I responded to your request at the DR noticeboard. Thanks, Athenean (talk) 20:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese language

Hello, Stradivarius. User PedroPVZ changed the article "Portuguese language" again, returning it to the form he likes, that is, saying that the language was born just in Northern Portugal. I re-changed all again, writing down the quotes of the references to make it clear (I think they are necessary in order to avoid more changes by PedroPVZ or another users) and added that it was Portugal, not Galicia, that spread the language to South and overseas. Also I added that while Portugal spread the language Galicia decayed (and added a reference). I hope that change will please PedroPVZ.

Anyway, this is the last change I do in this article. I am bored and I don't want to loose my time arguing with people about things that anyone can verify in any library. I'm done and I don't want to keep standing the political ideas of anyone applyed to language items in Wikipedia. I'm a linguist, not a politician. In add, English is not a language I manage very well and I rather prefer to contribute to another versions of the project.

Thank you in advance,

Susomoinhos (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Susomoinhos, sorry to hear that you're still having trouble with the article. I think the most sensible thing to do now is to have a request for comments on the question. This is a very good way to get outside opinions on a question and to find a general consensus among Wikipedia editors. When you file it, you should give a brief, neutral overview of the dispute and then ask other editors for their opinions. I think it helps to give editors a clear question to respond to as well. You could ask something like "Should the article say that Portuguese originated in the Kingdom of Galicia, or in northern Portugal?" Before you file it, you should read through the guidelines at WP:RFC, and if you need more advice on how to word your request, just let me know. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 17:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor mediation

Just a quick note - I saw your edit to User talk:Volunteer Marek asking him/her for a statement regarding this mediation. It appears that they've retired as of October 8th (as per this, their most recent edit). Now, this may have no effect whatsoever, retirements being what they are on Wikipedia, but - since you say you need statements from all parties - I thought it worth a mention. FYI. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 19:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. It's certainly hard to keep track of all the participants when they keep retiring! I'll assume that Volunteer Marek won't be taking part. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new Wiki

Hi,

You had advised me sometime back on a Wiki that I had created. Among others, I had keenly observed your feedback and implemented stuff accordingly. Just wanted your (and other Wikipedians') feedback on a new Wiki that I have created. Does it meet Wiki standards? Does it suffice? It's a new Wiki and I will be posting more content about it in the next few days. I am a graphic novel enthusiast (love the genre) and am naturally excited that India is waking up to Graphic novels and this Wiki is about a particularly good graphic novel company. Would appreciate your comments and feedback (and help!) Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Varunr/Level10_Comics Varunr (talk) 15:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Varunr, do you mean a new article? A new wiki would mean you were creating an entirely different website. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! My bad! I meant new article. I am pretty happy with the current Wikipedia and have no intent of making another one! I was referring to a new article, yes. Requesting your feedback and advice. Varunr (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the first thing I'd be concerned about is notability. I see a few sources for the Jump magazine, which might make it notable, but only the one article in The Hindu that actually talks specifically about Level10. You should probably have a look at WP:CORP before you move the article to the mainspace. Another solid source about the company itself would do the trick in my opinion - others may be more lenient, I don't know. If you want more help, some good places to try are WP:EA or maybe to move your article to WP:AFC. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:25, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Thank you for the advice. I have added one more citation from The Hindu and one link from The Times of India. I have also cleaned up the external links section by removing links that aren't really noteworthy (eg. a review by a comic fan; their Twitter and Facebook profiles, etc.) Varunr (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor statement deadline

Hi. I've had a request to ask you to stop spamming users' talk pages with your messages about Holodomor statement deadline. One message should be enough. Thanks, and happy editing! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disregard that; there's some IP running amok on my tp and I put in a request to have it dealt with, which Kudpung misunderstood. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed that IP as I had your talk page on my watchlist. It seemed like just random spam to me - no idea what happened to attract IP spam to your page, but that's life, I suppose. Hopefully this exchange has cleared up the confusion. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities of Greece

Hi. Could you have a look at my questions at the dispute resolution page?[1] Sorry for bothering you but I do not have scholarly or extensive information on minorities and it is not easy to find correct sources. Besides I am suffering from a lack of time nowadays so I aplogogize in advance for my late replies. Filanca (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about the delay - I've left a reply on the noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Savage redux

Hi, following your closing of the recent Dan Savage DR, the two editors who did not achieve consensus for their wording have each further edited the disputed phrasing. I've reverted the one that was contrary to the DR, but (sensitive to EWing) would like your help on handling the second, which also removed sources. Thanks, Rostz (talk) 23:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think there could be more to this than meets the eye. I am curious as to the second edit summary containing "SEO", which I am pretty sure is short for "search engine optimisation". I want to know more about Gujamin means by this, so I'll leave a note on their talk page. I personally don't see any big difference between "Savage, who is gay, ..." and "As a gay male, Savage ...", so I advise leaving it in place for now. We can wait for a reply from Gujamin before deciding any further steps. As for the sources, are they also included in the body of the article? If they are included in the body then there is no particular need to have them in the lede, as it is a summary of the rest of the article anyway. If they aren't, then there must be a place in the body where they can be used, and I would say to insert them there rather then putting them back in the lede, as that would be less controversial at this time. Does that sound like a reasonable suggestion to you? — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The citations weren't duplicates; I added them specifically to support the "is gay" wording. The article body doesn't currently contain any such explicit statement, so your implied suggestion to create one is appropriate - thanks. Rostz (talk) 12:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I will admit to not paying too much attention to the edit history of the article, but I think the advice should stand anyway. If your addition of those sources to the article body is contested as well, then feel free to let me know and/or file another dispute resolution noticeboard post. We can decide on how best to deal with the situation after that. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skype

We still good for in 40mins? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 22:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Available to chat today? 12pm local time (in about an hour) would work well for me. Email me. Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 23:54, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you got some time today to jump on Skype? Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 06:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs you...

Wikipedia:DRN#Ra_One_-_Response_section. Started to spill onto WP:WQA, asked editors to keep at DRN. Best. Gerardw (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minorities in Greece

Re. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Minorities in Greece

Just to keep you informed - please see [2] [3] [4]

I hope that seems OK to you; of course, if not, let me know. Thanks very much for your continued help with this.  Chzz  ►  05:05, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking very nice indeed. It's you who I should be thanking for help! I really appreciate what you're doing, and I look forward to see how Filanca will respond to this. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 05:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing

Arabic A. My bad. Tony (talk) 08:16, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I did think that the section name should probably be shorter anyway, but I didn't fix it for whatever reason. I might have another look over it and see if there's a good way of doing it. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Education in Africa

Ive completed the edits to the Education in Africa that I proposed. Asiamcclearygaddy (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking very nice! Thank you for your great work. I have a couple of pointers for how you could make it even better:
  • First, you can't use Wikipedia as a source - it doesn't pass the criteria set out in our reliable sources guideline. The other sources you have used look fine, though.
  • If you state an opinion, you can't state it directly, in "Wikipedia's voice". You need to either attribute it to someone, or change it into a factual statement. For example, "They are being denied their basic human right to education" is an opinion, albeit one that many people would agree with. You need to change this somehow - I suggest saying something like, 'According to UNICEF, they are being denied their basic human right to education.(ref)' Or even better, use a quote: 'According to UNICEF spokesman John Smith, "these children are simply being denied their basic human right to education".(ref)'
  • If you want to group citations together, you can do it by using <ref name="blah">Blah</ref> for the first one and <ref name="blah" /> for the second one. For more details see WP:REFB.
  • The article's citation style is inconsistent at the moment. Try using {{cite web}} and {{cite book}} to get all the references looking the same.
  • Finally, be careful of putting a full stop before a reference and after it as well! The full stop should go directly before the ref tag, with no space.
This has been quite a long list - I hope it is useful! All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Li

Hi, I added this to AfD. Which criterion of WP:ACADEMIC do you think is met? Or what is the third party coverage that you think meets WP:GNG? Thanks. Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've commented over at AfD. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 16:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

Hi there, Mr. Stradivarius. I'm currently mediating a medical-based dispute at the DRN, but my medical knowledge is limited. I was wondering if you'd be able to provide any input to make up for my lack of medical knowledge? The dispute is about Spirulina. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ItsZippy, sorry for the delay. I'm no expert in medical matters either, but that shouldn't really be necessary as long as we remind editors to stick to WP:MEDRS. I've commented over at DRN. Again, thanks for your help on the noticeboard there; it really makes a difference. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:56, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply - much appreciated. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Dashboard task force

Hi Mr. Stradivarius,

Since you were a part of the WikiGuides project, I thought I'd give you a heads-up about a new way you can help/mentor newbies on en.wiki: we've recently released a feature called the Feedback Dashboard, a queue that updates in real time with feedback and editing questions from new registered contributors who have attempted to make at least one edit. Steven Walling and I are putting together a task force for experienced Wikipedians who might be interested in monitoring the queue and responding to the feedback: details are here at Wikipedia:Feedback Dashboard. Please sign up if you're interested in helping out! Thanks, Maryana (WMF) (talk) 22:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Language complexity

Hi,

I created this from another article, and noticed you had it on your to-do list. I added your refs as a bibliography. The article currently consists only of a single example, plus a short comment on creoles. — kwami (talk) 06:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know! This all goes back to when I was looking around for sources for difficulty of learning languages. I found those sources from that search, and thought I might have a go at making them into an article, but I ended up leaving it halfway through. I'll have a look and see if there's anything I can add. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hi Mr. Stradivarius, I have tried to open a case at the Mediation Cabal (see here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 November 2011/) regarding the Iraqi Turkmens article. It is the first time I have opened a case and I'm not sure if I have done it correctly; would you have a look and let me know if it is ok? Have a good day.Turco85 (Talk) 13:44, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page over to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/08 November 2011/Iraqi Turkmens, and made a few formatting changes. Hopefully that should do the trick. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you!Turco85 (Talk) 13:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on Astrology

Because you have participated in a related RfC on this article, or have recently contributed to it, you are hereby informed that your input would be highly appreciated on the new RfC here: [[5]]. Thank you! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spirulina

Dear Mr.Stradivarius, could you reply to my last comment @ Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Spirulina_.28dietary_supplement.29 before I decide whether I should follow your next suggested step. I would really appreciate your input. I understand I got some important things wrong originally but I really fail to see what is wrong in my very final suggestion. I am really just seeking to conform to sticking to secondary sources and eliminating primary and tertiary sources on the subject... Cheers Rdavout (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry for the delay. I'll go and take a look at it now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Lopez Page Controversy

Mr. Stradivarius - the author of the Kamala Lopez page, clearly a very close friend or family member OR Lopez herself (a non-identified SOCK PUPPET) continues to try to maintain the Lopez page as a fan site. If it were a page about a truly notable director, such as Martin Scorsese and one of his collaborators was unhappy with the work or there had been any kind of creative OR personal struggle that affected the outcome of the film, it would be discussed on their respective Wikipedia pages. The fact that JH Scribe is calling this a "personal issue" and blaming "Ms. Simpson" for trying to push it betrays an entirely personal bias on HIS (or her) part. The fact that the film is so poor despite its host of celebrities is interesting and historically notable, especially considering the historicity of its subject.Webberkenny (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Webberkenny, sorry to hear that you're still having problems at the article. I think the best thing to do is to file another request at the dispute resolution noticeboard, so that it will be seen by more people. Let me know if you have any questions about filing there again. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 02:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kamala Lopez page/webberkenney shenanigans

Mr. Stradivarius: I loathe to write to you again about issues with the Kamala Lopez page but "Webberkenny" insists on using the page to air her/his beef with Lopez. In reviewing information about "Webberkenny", she/he is self described as "a fan of Jeanmarie Simpson". Furthermore, she/he has a history of vandalizing and publicizing personal battles (see the Webberkenny talk page). Finally, Simpson's opinions are already posted on her wikipage (along with a picture for which she claims to have the copyright but does not).

I realize you must be inundated with petty squabbles and I would hope most issues are much larger than this but I'm clearly not going to be able to reason with her/him. Please let me know the next best steps.

Best,

John

JHScribe (talk) 06:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see "webberkenney"'s post until after I submitted mine. At least she and I agree on one thing - there is a problem. A ruling by you or another administrator is likely going to be the only way to resolve this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHScribe (talk • contribs) 06:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Thinking about it, maybe a good way to resolve this would be to open an RfC on the question on the article's talk page. That would get outside eyes on the dispute, which is usually the most efficient way of dealing with this kind of thing, in my experience. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 11:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I will do that. Meanwhile, what picture does Simpson not have the copyright to? Her headshot? Or the one with Judd Nelson? And how is JHScribe invested in that and why not challenge it? Yes, I am a huge fan of Simpson's and have been ever since I saw her play seven years ago. I'm trying to not have her page be a fan site, though, and if it comes off that way, please give me suggestions to help improve it, or even work to improve it yourself. I doubt that you'll do that, because you clearly have a personal bias and agenda against her.Webberkenny (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for admitting your bias. I will look at Simpson's page but my interest is only in national and international activists currently forwarding causes. I do have an evolving interest in Jeanette Rankin as it pertains to the fight for passage of the ERA. Apparently Lopez is a main player in promoting that cause. I have asked for permission to use pictures from Heroica Films but was told that they would not be available for general use and that they owned the copyright. That was true for ANY picture connected with the film. I would suggest that you address that issue yourself.
As for your insistence on forcing the critique into the article, Mr. Stradivarius addressed this issue by stating:
"...it is ok to have some criticism of the film in her biography, but only from mainstream film critics, and there should not be too much weight on the criticism compared to the other coverage of the film. Criticism from Simpson should probably be limited to the article on the film itself..."
The biggest issue is not whether or not there is a criticism of Lopez. If she has been convicted of something or acted inconsistently with her mission, that should be shown based on reliable sources. On the other hand, if Lopez has made controversial statements through a respected and mainstream source like The Huffington Post, that should be shown in my opinion and I will be adding that content.
I am not Kamala Lopez nor a sockpuppet nor grinding any axes on behalf of Lopez or any other related parties. And I will not relent in my desire to have an encyclopedic reference available for the public as the ERA moves towards ratification. I hope this doesn't become another Maury Ornest flash point for you.
You are definitely Lopez or her husband. What is the Ornest reference about? In what context are you talking about pics from the film? What is the HuffPo reference about? All I did was take out an uncited reference to Lopez having been invited by Arianna Huffington to become a blogger on the HuffPo site.
Simpson is and has been an artist on the national and international levels working in the peace movement, very notably since 9/11. You are trying to elevate Lopez (probably yourself) to Simpson's level, and the level of thousands (if not millions) of legitimate, hard working activist. Ask Cindy Sheehan or S. Brian Willson or Mimi Kennedy or Frank Dorrel or any of a host of other relevant peace activists today, and they will know and applaud Simpson's work and refute any claims you (Lopez) have of meaningful activism. Lopez (you) have a long and sordid history of alienating people including Ben Affleck, a well-respected political activist who has revealed Lopez's (your) narcissistic, phony tendencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webberkenny (talk • contribs) 03:16, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... thanks for the unrestrained rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JHScribe (talk • contribs) 03:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JHScribe (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank YOU for the phony intellectual blather. Webberkenny (talk) 05:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And also for not addressing a single one of the salient points or questions addressed to your previous accusatory post. Phony! Webberkenny (talk) 05:25, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to barge in here, but could you please file another request on this at the dispute resolution noticeboard rather than arguing about it on my talk page? This isn't really the right place to continue this conversation. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♫ 06:21, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

CSD

Hi Stradivarius. My sincere apologies. I had no intention of giving you a vandalism warning. I realise that I must have clicked on the wrong template - it should of course simply have been the 'Declined Speedy Deletion' notification. Sorry! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that was probably what happened, so no worries :) Your reading of the subject seems like a plausible one, but hopefully we can get the original author of the smart space page to update it a little more - I still can't bring myself to say that I can definitely tell what the subject is. Anyway, if it doesn't get updated, I think I'll take your suggestion and PROD it. Thanks — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your participation in the Dispute Resolution forum-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:21, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Glad I could be of assistance. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 15:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lyudmila Pavlichenko

Thank you for your input, as always. (And I think you know me well enough to realise, I'd have said that, regardless of whether or not we happened to agree!)

Keep up the good stuff. Best,  Chzz  ►  16:58, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kaimiloa

Can you translate カイミロア (砲艦) to Kaimiloa? Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go at it, though I haven't done the infobox yet. It still needs wikifying and you should probably verify the references too, just in case anything got lost in translation. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 08:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Hospital School dispute

Thanks for your balanced review of the Royal Hosptial School dispute.

I'm a bit baffled by your view that it's OK to remove something if it us uncited. I had thought this was only the case in certain circumstances (eg if it is damaging). Surely it's not the case that anything uncited can be removed? There wouldn't be much of WP left if that was the case. Not wishing to make trouble, just genuinely amazed that this is the standard.

Anyway, the good news is I found a citation for the point so have reinserted it, as well as meeting all the other points of your response.

Many thanks.

RHSAMember (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC) (formerly JustResignGC)[reply]

Amazing though it may be, that is indeed the standard. Please note that it's not really my view, but the contents of Wikipedia's policy of verifiability - it doesn't really matter what any one editor thinks about it. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. If I was cheeky I would suggest going away and deleting virtually the whole RHS article!! But I won't :-) That said, the deletion was made time and time again with absolutely no comment and no attempt at discussion. WP would quickly cease to function if that was considered acceptable behaviour. RHSAMember (talk) 09:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, it's usually better to talk things out on the discussion page and reach a consensus rather than edit warring. In all seriousness, though, if there are things in that article that can't be sourced, then they should be removed. You are also free to challenge material that isn't sourced and remove it yourself, and I don't think doing so would be "cheeky" at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 09:57, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of the page "Sagi Rama Krishnam Raju Enginnering College"

I would of course like to start by apologising for the creation of such a mock-up page. It was done in a bout of frustration that I was experiencing about the college. I would just like to say that this will not happen again, and I am not generally a Wikipedia vandal. Vasu619 (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear it. If you do feel like doing an odd bit of vandalism again you can use the sandbox - no-one will mind if you do it there. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams)

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Serbia international footballers (including predecessor teams). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

It would be great if you could help us at MotD

I do not know if it was my fault with "da punkY thingY", but since October I have not seen you at MotD. There are only three active users, right now: Benzaband, Hi878, and I. If you have time, it would be great if you could give us your contribution (help) by reviewing the nominations at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review.
All the best! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've been caught up with dispute resolution stuff, and work at WikiProject Linguistics. I haven't forgotten MotD though, honest! I'll come over and have a look. — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 10:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRN - Football

Firstly I do tend to agree with Silent Billy's comment (as blunt as it was) that you may have in fact missed the point... The reason I opted to go down the WP:DRN path was to instigate some dialogue on putting some closure on the matter once and for all because it IS needed. Talk page discussions are a waste of time because the SAME discussion is had on EVERY single australilan football article. The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) article needs to be revised and decided upon so all codes of football have an agreed naming convention. I must say that I am a little disappointed that the discussion didn't even stay open for 24 hours. In your comment on User talk:Silent Billy#Football, you talk about not liking to see editors wasting effort - it is wasted effort having to discuss page move's over and over again on every australian football talk page because some people do not like how it is. I'm happy to do the leg work, I just need to know where to start. Ck786 (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. It does sound like a good idea to decide specific conventions for all Australian football/soccer articles, and doing that would definitely help disputes over the names. In that case, the best thing to do would be to open an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia). To get a wide base of participants you should probably notify WikiProject Football, WikiProject Australia, and maybe Wikipedia talk:Article titles; and because it is still quite soon after the requested move, you should link to the requested move discussion in the RfC summary, and also notify all the editors who took part in it. Just be warned that you might need to accept a solution that you don't like, if it's the one that works for Wikipedia. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 00:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation?

Re your last message to my talk page, I already posted that I would speak for myself. Is this a case of I have to nominate a spokesperson? The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius&oldid=462398835"