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 Archtexlic (talk | contribs) at 17:04, 18 March 2014 (→‎Total Siyapaa). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Welcome to my talk page! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Template:User talk disclaimer

Your block of Babel AutoCreate

Re your block of Babel AutoCreate (talk · contribs) - have you informed the bot's owner? --Redrose64 (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. The bot page doesn't list an owner, and the instructions are to post at Bugzilla for disabling categories, so I was just about to file a new bug or two. The Babel extension author, User:RobertL, hasn't edited on enwiki for more than two years, so I don't think there is an operator here to notify anyway. Having said that, if a separate user is in charge of the bot, and you know who it is, please let me know. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:41, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is said to be "not a bot": AN December 2012. Johnuniq (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might not be under BAG's jurisdiction, but I don't think anyone will mind if we call it a bot. If it looks like a bot, and smells like a bot... In any case, I've filed bugs at bugzilla:61993, bugzilla:61994 and bugzilla:61995 if either of you want to comment there. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If pages are being categorised in e.g. Category:User En, they should be fixed so that they categorise correctly (in Category:User en or whatever). --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that...

I didn't even realize I reverted you until I got the notification that you reverted me back. Complete accident. Sorry. Sergecross73 msg me 02:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I did think it was quite ironic though. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 02:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RPP

Sorry I messed up. Should've chosen the temporary one, dunno how it became indefinite... :p –HTD 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck

Hi, re the AN discussion, please see [1].

I hope this isn't 'canvassing' - I'm posting this to precisely 3 people (you, Britmax, and SarekOfVulcan), who expressed concern about the censorship, so I hope I'm OK. Best, 88.104.30.86 (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably just give this up. In two hours and ten minutes there won't even be any mention of the film on the front page at all. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute Resolution

Hello Mr_Stradivarius. I'd like to ask for your assistance as a volunteer in a dispute resolution on the thread Highland Clearances. I would be grateful. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.7.13 (talk) 12:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in replying. It looks like Keithbob has things under control there, so I don't think my help is really needed. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying Template:Uw-c&pmove

Hey! I would like to request you for modifying Template:Uw-c&pmove, I have found that most of the user/editors just copy and paste the template without signing (see here). If possible please add ~~~~ at the end of template tag. WOWIndian Talk 08:01, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would break Twinkle, as it automatically adds a signature after the template. If you added a signature to the template as well, you would end up outputting two signatures if you used it with Twinkle. If you want to change that, you should probably ask at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle - but that's the way Twinkle has worked for quite a long time, so beware that the Twinkle developers may not be so receptive to change. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:30, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let it be, that's not a big deal :) .WOWIndian Talk 08:20, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

75.191.173.190

Thank you for looking into the matter, which seemed to have been overlooked by the typically nasty, pile-on (especially so with Kaldari) drama that plagues the venue. "My master, Annatar the Great, bids thee welcome!" 00:44, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - fingers crossed that everything turns out ok. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:35, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thanls!

Thanks for your advice Mr Stradivarius, my first entry so I I will do my best to do it right! Yoelle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoellem (talk • contribs) 10:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Windows 8.1 Update 1

I have found and installed Windows 8.1 Update 1. I will be adding this to Microsoft Windows' Wikipedia page. Just letting you know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabe290 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. But why did you message me? I'm not really that interested in Microsoft articles... — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reece Leonard Block

I have a question about my block: The information that you posted on my talk page states that I can't appeal for at least six months, but numerous users supported the block with the reservation that I be allowed to appeal closer to three months. What are the logistics of this issue, exactly? Reece Leonard (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, it's not a block, it's a topic ban and interaction ban. Second, it was two users, not "numerous users". The logistics are that you may appeal after six months, as stated in the close. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually two users stated that I should receive a reduced sentence and two other users stated that I shouldn't have been banned from Lady Gaga pages at all, but if that's the way you see it, I won't argue with you because apparently debate constitutes grounds for blocking. Reece Leonard (talk) 05:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Reece Leonard: You are not blocked: if you were, you wouldn't have been able to post here; and you never have been blocked. A clean block log is something that you should strive to preserve. Blocks and bans are not the same thing. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your close at ANI

Hi, Mr. Stradivarius, I have seen your close of my request at ANI [2], and I think you have misunderstood my intentions. I am not asking for a comment on whether Sandstein has violated any policies, quite the opposite, I am asking for a community opinion of whether I have violated any policies. Is [3] right? The accusation, from over a year ago, is being made over and over again. And it's not true. But there is nothing, nothing, nothing I can point to when someone throws this in my face, to prove that it is not true. Surely the community opinion would mean something in this situation. —Neotarf (talk) 11:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neotarf. I was taking the second paragraph of your opening statement at face value, and to me it seemed more like a request for action than a request for review. Perhaps I had that wrong. But if it's review of your own actions that you are interested in, why not open Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Neotarf? That would provide an avenue for review that would be considerably calmer than ANI, and may be more likely to produce reasoned and informed debate. It won't be able to provide an official striking of your warning, but then neither would ANI - only ArbCom has the power to do that. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I am really looking for the thing to be vacated. That case page is where admins look when they are trying to decide how to treat you, so if I'm going to be hounded forever because of this thing, it isn't even worth trying to edit. I have seen the results from ANI taken to the Arbcom request page, that is really what I was going for.
Thanks for your advice, I'll think some on it. ANI may be a bit like herding cats, but sometimes you also find that one piece of information you are looking for that makes everything else fit. —Neotarf (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you misunderstand the arbitration enforcement appeals process. See: Wikipedia: Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Reversal of enforcement actions.
Section (b) there describes using noticeboards for consensus to overturn decisions:
(b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page.
So the appeal venue on ANI was entirely proper.
That said, I don't know that closing was wrong. BUT - I believe you need to ammend the closing statement to retract that particular claim regarding the venue being proper or not.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point - it might be a good idea to clarify that arbitration enforcement actions can in fact be reversed at ANI. However, it isn't clear whether a discretionary sanctions warning counts as an arbitration enforcement action that can be reversed. My close wasn't intended to imply that no arbitration enforcement action could be appealed at ANI; rather, I thought that the debate in this case was more about Arbcom's procedures than a specific enforcement action. Admittedly, "Matters relating to arbitration case pages are under ArbCom's jurisdiction, and can only be appealed to ArbCom" is not a very clear way of saying that. Is that the passage that you were objecting to, by the way? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole case has been a debacle. What happened was that a very tendentious and stupendously clueless editor (now indeffed) argued and argued and argued (in a very CIVIL manner), and then argued some more again and again in multiple locations. That editor brought an AE request shortly after someone had taken the disruptive editor to AE. Sandstein was possibly tired of the whole affair and made an extremely clumsy close of the second case which consisted of administering whacks all round, in equal dollops—four editors (diff + diff + diff + diff), with a log here—the last puts the four editors who should have been thanked for defending the project in the same public stocks as the indeffed user. Wikilawyers are quick to point out that the message is "just a warning"—but read what it says!

against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia

If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic ... blocks ...

The warning asserts in very pompous and pointy language that the four editors are guilty, when any reasonable reading of the situation is that they were driven to distraction by a now-indeffed user who is universally recognized as one of the most clueless yet CIVIL seen at Wikipedia (the point about CIVIL is that it was very hard to get them indeffed). What Sandstein should have done was to close the second AE case as obvious retribution, then, if warranted, deliver a personal note to anyone who was letting their exasperation get the better of them. What should happen now is that an ANI discussion should vacate the sanctions placed by Sandstein, but that may be difficult given that people are easily distracted and will start arguing about whether a warning can be regarded as a sanction (yes it can—just read it!). Johnuniq (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Johnuniq, and thanks for the summary. I had to remind myself why the Apteva case came to AE in the first place, but actually I was aware of most of the other details, as I commented on a few AE threads around that time (including the one where SMcCandlish was topic banned for a month). I was also watching the arbitration pages when the clarification requests about this issue were going on.[4][5] I probably should have mentioned these clarification requests in my post above as well, as they show that this is not just an AE issue that is being reviewed, but an issue that has been brought before Arbcom itself. I don't think that a consensus at ANI can override a decision by Arbcom itself, at least if my understanding of "final binding decision-maker" in the arbitration policy is correct. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, you saw it. I don't agree that the community cannot vacate the warning, but I do agree that some of the participants were too loud for their own good. That clarification request was another debacle where the arbs had clearly not read the warning, and instead offered obviously mistaken views with stuff like "nor does it allege misbehaviour"—reading the thing from the point of view of a recipient shows that is nonsense on a stick. I guess some things cannot be mended, but rewarding Apteva's tit-for-tat AE filing with such admonishments was among the dumbest things I've seen an admin do. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a typo in the above comment; the two diffs go to the same place.

That clarification request was not a request to review the outcome of the case. Since it was filed by Sandstein, he could hardly ask to have his own decision overturned. And the ArbCom never made a decision on the technicalities he posed either, they have just postponed it again and again. No one has ever asked for a ruling on the case itself.

I think everyone just wants this thing to go away, especially the users whose real names are linked to this thing, either publicly or privately, but no one can figure out the technicalities. —Neotarf (talk) 07:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Total Siyapaa

Dear Stradivarius kindly un do your decision in CRITICAL RECEPTION section of Total Siyapaa because it was based on FRAUD played by ZORDANLIGHTER , he misrepresented my edit summary for other protected edit request for Controversy section. He used that summary to show the WP consensus by me but that is not the case. He must also be blocked for playing CHEAT. Xcrescent9 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, what a mess. In that case, it appears that we don't have a consensus on what to do after all. However, there did seem to be a consensus that the old section should be replaced with something, so I am reluctant to change it back to the previous version. I think it would be best that you discuss further changes to the new critical reception content at Talk:Total Siyapaa, and submit another edit request when you have found a consensus on what to do. Let me know if you have any questions about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks on Total Siyapaa talk page

When I was reading the Total Siyapaa talk page. I found Xcrescent9 (talk) lauching personal attacks on ZORDANLIGHTER. He was blocked for that. As you were acting as an Administrator I decided to visit your talk page . Using terms like "cheat" , "fraud"should be considered as personal attack.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since Xcrescent9 has been blocked for those personal attacks, I don't think anything else needs doing here. Do you have any requests for specific administrative actions to be made? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:47, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of Xcrescent9 accusations that how wrongly consensus was achieved by misrepresentation, I will suggest a middle way. Whistlingwoods on behalf of ZORDANLIGHTER (since he is blocked ) will favour current critical reception section full cherry picking of negative reviews but that was with out consensus and ignores all positive reviews. On other hand Xcrescent9 after block removal will try to put all four positive reviews. Keeping in view all the reviews from both sides,It is a clear case of Mixed average reviews i.e. a combination of good and bad reviews. This fact is also supported by http://www.indicine.com/bollywood/total-siyapaa/reviews/ which says that movie got average reviews from critics with average score of 37. In pakistan too (from where the hero of the movie belongs) it got mixed reviews from movie critics on the premier please see http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival . Forth evidence of mixed reviews is IMBD rating of 6 out of 10 including nine critics see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2727028/. I think in order to wind up quickly this prolonged discussion. I request a new edit to critical reception section. Since we already know one pool stances of ZORDANLIGHTER , Whistlingwoods and Xcrescent9 no further discussion from them is invited on this proposed edit (see below).
Total Siyapaa received mixed reviews by domestic and overseas critics. Kirron Kher's performance and Ali Zafar comic timings were seen as one of the strong points of the movie. [1] [2] [3][4] However Critics were critical on the lack of a solid plot,[5][6].
  1. ^ http://www.indicine.com/bollywood/total-siyapaa/reviews/
  2. ^ http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/entertainment/13-Mar-2014/total-siyapaa-opens-to-mixed-reviews-moviegoers-treated-to-taj-cinema-s-revival
  3. ^ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2727028/
  4. ^ http://www.boxofficecapsule.com/review/Total-Siyapaa-172
  5. ^ Kamath, Sudhish (March 8, 2014). "Total Siyappa: Lamest Indo-Pak match". The Hindu.
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference HindustanTimes was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Mr. Stradivarius please take a quick decision to wind up this prolonged discussion.Archtexlic (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you need to propose this on the talk page, find a consensus, and then make a new edit request. It won't be done before that happens. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But earlier you did it with out WP concensus so in that case you are requested to kindly reverse your earlier decision. Archtexlic (talk) 04:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, there was a consensus that the section should have been something other than what it was before, even if there wasn't actually a consensus on exactly what. For this reason, I'm not sure that reverting back to the old version would be an improvement. If you want a third-party review of my decision, you can always ask at the administrators' noticeboard. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sir , kindly check this link, then you will know the truth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huon#Fraud_played_by_ZORDANLIGHTER_to_win_his_proposed_edit_in_CRITICAL_RECEPTION_section_of_Total_Siyapaa--Whistlingwoods (talk) 12:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius I will not take third-party review of your decision because I expect just action by you as a good admin. what you want to show Whistlingwoods. I talked to Huon , so what. Archtexlic (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Soka gakkai

Hi Stradivarius, You are right when you said " I behaved in a uncivilized way", excuse me. But just imagine a group of people in wikipedia including a administrative editor work with a sole aim of maligning an organisation. They even threatened the other person (safwan) that he will be blocked etc. All the lines added to the pages (Soka gakkai and Daisaku Ikeda) by them (catflap,kiriung and shii) are original research, vololate WP:NPOV. Majority opinion and weightage ?? so you think these 3 people constitute the majority of the world,what about 12 million people who are memebers of SGI ? Above all it hurts me a lot being a SGI member that when ever I read this articles I feel so disturbed and feel nauseated. So much of negetivity and maligning. Just imagine how a organisation of 12 million members around the world can be so wrong and greedy and fool around with out getting caught !!! Depriving a person of his beliefs and faith is a heinious and unpardonable crime. I believe wikipedia should only be a source where people can get basic idea of things. It should not serve as a platform for maligning or a tool for propaganda be it negetive or positive. For that !! controversial points and claims should be avoided and such people should be restricted from misusing wikipedia. Thanks for letting me understand how disputes are handled in wikipedia Naveen Reddy 14:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)(talk)

Behaviour including deletion of referenced material continues - it seems this has not only happened on this page. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:12, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius - Can a at least time limited blocking procedure be considered - Disruptive behaviour now on several articles. --Catflap08 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Nyttend has dealt with this already. It's a shame that this had to come to blocks - it would have been better to just post again in the ANI thread and wait for an administrator to intervene. And Naveen Reddy, undue weight is not about the number of Wikipedia editors that have a particular opinion, it is about the number and quality of reliable sources that have a particular opinion. Please read the policy again, because it looks like you haven't understood it properly. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Block Evading sock puppets

Some blocked user wrote all garbage in my talk page. At first I couldn't understand but reading the lines written in urdu usingEnglish alphabets(check the link-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Whistlingwoods#Mza_aya), it's clear the user is Xcrescent9 or Ibnebatutaji . The translation in English is this "I wrongly presented my statements to make sure my favorite movie gets good opening overseas................"rest is abuse in vulgar language which I don't want to translate. This person is writing in urdu so that International administrators don't understand what he is saying.--Whistlingwoods (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the IP. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And also, you are allowed to remove clear personal attacks from talk pages yourself. They are one of the exceptions to the talk page guidelines - see the "Removing harmful posts" part of WP:TPO. Just make sure that they are clear personal attacks - this exception doesn't extend to posts that are merely uncivil. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reasons to believe that this user Ibnebatutaji and LanguageXpert have created large number of socks. As when one gets blocked another user syas the same thing. They are using the same edits in my talk page and Total Siyapaa's talk page. As sock accusation without any solid evidence is considered personal attack, I can't accuse them directly. But they wrote in urdu that they were same. If wikipedia keeps log in details of user's IP address I think then administrators can know that Xcrescent9 Archtexlic ArjunPatel89 are the same person. How did I come to this conclusion? In order to explain I will have to type so many things. Check Revision History , Copy Paste Comments from {Total Siyapaa}} talk page. My own talk page. I will have to give details.I don't have any energy to do that anymore. --Whistlingwoods (talk) 11:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius&oldid=600182002"