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 PolandMEC (talk | contribs) at 13:41, 30 December 2014 (→‎Reliable sources that support the requested change on Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica Article: 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! Pull up a chair, and feel free to ask me anything.

Template:User talk disclaimer

Template:La, etc

( ... this should use the same separator as the other lx templates)

Fair enough. Given this, do you think there'd be consensus to switch to the dot/interpunct separator<aside>and/or, given the other the point made there, to use the default rather than monospaced font</aside>?
Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardanaphalus: I'd prefer to keep the pipe separator, but whichever we choose it should be consistent with the other link templates. To make a switch you'd need to have a discussion and find a consensus first, I think. Leaving a note at WP:VPT would probably be a good idea if you decide to do that. Also, note that the pipe separator is used in the MediaWiki in a lot of places, e.g. the talk/contribs links on history pages (although they switched from a pipe to U+007C VERTICAL LINE a while back, if I remember rightly). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds, then, that a consensus would be unlikely, so I'll move on. I'm intrigued, though, that<aside>as a visual separator rather than programming syntax</aside> the pipe/vertical-line isn't considered more potentially ambiguous or intrusive than the dot/interpunct (or something else). Thanks for your feedback/information, Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Hidden section top/doc

Template:Hidden section top/doc has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:11, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Testcase table

might as well delete it as well to erase any trace of my work? Frietjes (talk) 13:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: It sounds pretty cold when you put it like that... Your idea to write it was an inspired one and I probably wouldn't have thought to write Module:Testcase rows or Module:Template test case if you hadn't. But I suppose now that the functionality has been integrated into the template test case module it's not actually doing anything. We could just as easily put a note at the top saying that it's deprecated rather than deleting it if you would prefer. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 15:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
why not merge the history? Frietjes (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that might look a little strange. If people weren't aware that it was a history merge it would look like I deleted the whole module just to make a comment about a possible new design. But looking at the history I can see that I failed to give you proper attribution for your work on Module:Testcase table. I'll have to fix that when I get back to my computer. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 16:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) A history merge in this case would indeed be a bad idea. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
not a surprising response. life is so much easier when you don't have to worry about attribution, isn't it. Frietjes (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that attribution should be provided, just that a histmerge isn't the right way to do it. There are many other ways to provide it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Frietjes: I've added a header to the module to provide the attribution. Sorry for neglecting to do that originally. We can put a note in the docs or on the talk page as well if you want. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 01:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gap between testcases..?

Is it possible to set the width of the gap between the testcases – or is that meant to be handled by _style, _format..? Regards, Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Sardanaphalus: Not at the moment. Assuming you mean Template:Testcase table, right now the templates are put in table cells, each with a width of 100 % divided by the number of templates. So if there were two templates, each would be in a cell with a width of 50%, if there were three, each would be in a cell with a width of 33%, and so on. There's no width set on the table tag, though, so setting a width with |_style= might help if things are looking bunched up. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trying |_style hadn't occurred to me: thank you. (Yes, it was while using {{Testcase table}}.) I've also noticed that setting |_caption= (i.e. as nothing) no longer seems to remove {{Testcase table}}'s default "Side by side comparison" header. Have I been missing something or do you know if this is as intended..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 12:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sardanaphalus: That was sort of intended. I decided to trim whitespace and remove blank arguments for all the options, so as to make the whitespace behaviour uniform across all the templates. But if many people were using blank _caption arguments to purposefully suppress the caption, then breaking those templates is not ideal. How about using |_caption=no to achieve the same effect? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 December 2014

Untitled thread

Stop this shit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.19.51 (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. What seems to be the problem? I'm afraid I don't have any idea what you want me to stop. Maybe you could send me an email if you would like to keep it private? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They may be referring to changes you have made to Template:Random portal component. whatever they are, they seem to have made the links at portals to the archives of randomly selected portal items not work any more. See Portal:San Francisco Bay Area: all the "full set of selected foofaws" comments at the bottom of each portal component are not links any more, and they were before. I have no idea what your edits may have done, as i am a complete imbecile with such code, but since you have been editing it, you might want to revert it to what it was before you started, then work forward with any changes you feel are needed. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercurywoodrose: Somehow I doubt that's what the IP was getting at. But thank you for letting me know about the bug - I've fixed it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, and your probably right about the IP editor. You should check out this tiny violin: File:Silver violin - Miniature.JPG, may be used when people complain too much :) Mercurywoodrose (talk) 15:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2014-50

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • All users are now getting pages from servers that run the HHVM tool. HHVM should make pages load faster. [1]
  • You can join a video chat about Phabricator on December 11 at 18:00 (UTC). Phabricator is the new tool to report issues. [2]

Problems

  • There was a problem with Phabricator on November 29. It was due to a network issue. [3]

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf11) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since December 3. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from December 9. It will be on all Wikipedias from December 10 (calendar). [4]
  • You can now exit VisualEditor by pressing the "Esc" key. [5]
  • It is now easier to use VisualEditor with IMEs. Typing in Malayalam now works better. [6] [7]
  • The new version of OOjs UI fixed many issues with the size and layout of buttons in dialogs. [8] [9] [10]
  • (Lua) You can no longer use mw.text.unstrip to get the HTML from special page transclusion. You can see a list of scripts to fix. [11] [12]

Future changes

  • Starting next week JavaScript tools won't work if they use jQuery Migrate. [13]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

17:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Code review request

Hi, Mr. S. Can you make a quick check of Module:Requested move/sandbox? Thanks.

On another note, I've been concerned that anyone attempting to email me can't get through. I'm on Yahoo! mail, and I suspect mail attempts may be rejected per Error "554 5.7.9: Message not accepted for policy reasons". Can you try sending me an email to see whether that's the case, and if so, suggest a solution? Do I need to set up with a different email provider? Wbm1058 (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Wbm1058: I've just sent you an email through Special:EmailUser with the subject "Testing Wikipedia email". I'll have a look at the module now. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wbm1058: And I've now looked over your code and tested it, and it looks fine. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 23:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Primary sources

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Primary sources. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NAMESPACEID

Couldn't help but ask.... what was the downside with using magic-word {{NAMESPACENUMBER}} instead for the Edit notice core thing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3

@George Orwell III: Hmm, I didn't know about that one. Probably there is no downside. I wonder if that parser function existed when Template:NAMESPACEID was first written? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I found out - it was first added in MediaWiki 1.20, so the answer to my previous question is a "no". It also wasn't listed on Help:Magic words (I just added it). NAMESPACEID is a little different, though, in that it returns an error message rather than the blank string when passed an invalid title. A simple parser function implementation might be slightly faster than the Lua implementation because of the overhead in switching to Lua from PHP, although I don't think that's very important considering the template is only used in edit notices. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 December 2014

thank you for your welcome message

thanks - that sort of thing is helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalG (talk • contribs) 00:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2014-51

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • You may see a new tool tested on the mobile site of the English Wikipedia. It asks simple questions to make the article better. In the future, your answers will go to Wikidata. [14]
  • You can watch a video to learn how to use Phabricator to manage projects. [15]
  • You can test a new version of the Content Translation tool.

Software changes this week

  • The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf12) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since December 10. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from December 16. It will be on all Wikipedias from December 17 (calendar). [16]
  • You can now find and replace text in VisualEditor. You can open the tool via the menu, Ctrl+F or Cmd+F. [17]
  • VisualEditor now doesn't change the space at the end of a text that you make bold. [18]
  • The "Apply changes" button in the reference window of VisualEditor is now disabled until you make a change. [19]

Future changes

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

ResellerRatings

Discussion moved to Talk:ResellerRatings#Protected edit request on 18 December 2014. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 December 2014

NotTechimo / ResellerRatings

Hi @Mr. Stradivarius: It looks like the guy (or one of his friends, as 166.171.187.18) is back and edited my comments on the ResellerRatings talk page. Can you please revert his edit there and is there a way to semi protect the talk page so IP's can't edit? Thanks. Techimo (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr. Stradivarius: As you can see from the ResellerRatings talk history today, the single-purpose IP vandalism continues. One IP was blocked, but the same edit warring vandal is back (and reverted more edits on the talk page) under a dynamic ATT wireless IP, which is a single-purpose sock puppet account. Is it possible to indefinitely semi-protect this talk page? Thanks.

@Techimo: It looks like the page has already been protected. By the way, I want to echo Callanec's warning about posting personal information - Wikipedia's outing policy doesn't leave much room for interpretation, and if you keep breaking it you will end up being blocked, regardless of any merit your complaints might have. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks. Yes, I wasn't aware of the policy. After the warning I have not reposted the info (though some was reposted by an admin who reverted an edit). I will respect the policy. Techimo (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy!

Happy Holiday Cheer
Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys! Paine

Thank you Paine! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:31, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pleasure! – Paine 

Hi.

I've been meaning to simplify the Template:Section link myself but always overwhelmingly higher priorities (external mostly) distracted me; and now, you've converted it to a Lua module and it is out of my reach. I've recently written my first Lua script AND put into production after extensive testing but I'm still too new for this. That's why I thought perhaps you might be willing to help in your free time, if you have any.

Currently, the syntax to create a sole section link within the same page is {{section link| |Section title |np=y}}. But I think it can be safely made to do same when {{section link|Section title}} is supplied. There are 21293 transclusions of this template but I bet none of them is using this syntax to refer to Notes section. Still, there are ways to ascertain and mitigate the issue before the deployment of the change, right?

What do you think?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Codename Lisa: Sounds like a good idea to me. Could you propose it on the template talk page, in case anyone else wants to comment? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was in favor of bold action but alright. Discussion started. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... No replies yet. I think we must proceed per WP:SILENCE. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harrasment from a user

Hi, I hope you could help me as I really need to sort it out ASAP; I created my account today and I've done a few edits to Jagged Edge (group), various Rihanna articles etc etc and the user Binksternet has accused not only me but another user called Stanlyfe of being a sock puppet of a user called MariaJaydHicky; they have not only reverted all my edits he has accused me of being that user and when I wrote back why are they doing that they reverted my edits and have got the pages I've edited protected under sock puppetry can you please get them blocked as I find their behaviour harrasing and downright out of order and I am afraid no matter what I'll edit they'll revert it can you please help me? Muicfantasy (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection on Battle of Chawinda

Who had requested it? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Smsarmad. (talk page stalker) Jackmcbarn (talk) 02:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there was only one offending user who was removing the maintenance templates only for making the statement look real. I am contacting you because even if I am going to make a edit request on the page, you or someone else will tell me to "find consensus" and this user is clearly trying to bludgeoning the process, he believes that removing {{failed verification}} is justified if URL exists in the given citation. Can you restore the pre-edit war version or simply unprotect because it is only one user, in last 48 hours who is edit warring. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 02:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: I think this is a case of WP:WRONGVERSION. Whichever the right version is, it is probably better found through discussion among the editors involved than through any unilateral decision by me. I would wait for the RfC to conclude before changing anything there - if you want your edits there to stick around, you will need a consensus for them. That said, if you think any other users are bludgeoning the process, I would be happy to look at evidence in the form of diffs and links. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So I can open a edit request and inform other editors about it? Before reporting about the bludgeoning, I would probably give another chance. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: You can start a discussion about it, but an edit request would need to have consensus first - see WP:Edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:23, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had told that if the user is bludgeoning the process, I can report here. Here it is:- [24] [25]
Both diffs are at least 90% same(copy-paste) to each other, previous once include the false allegations of personal attacks when I have made none. In second diff he is actually saying that he "will repeat it" the same analysis that has been already debunked. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You had viewed the above evidence? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 15:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@OccultZone: Sorry, I was busy doing this. I think I should read through the talk page properly before commenting, so give me a little time. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@OccultZone: Well, I didn't read the whole thing, but I read enough of it to see that people on all sides of the debate are getting frayed tempers. I'm seeing friction between you and TopGun as well as between you and Nawabmalhi, and a few others as well. I think the best thing to do now would be to take a break from the article while the RfC is playing out. Once it's finished and there's a consensus about the infobox question, that will be a much better time to get back into editing the article. At the moment, arguing about details isn't really helping with the main issue, and it's getting everyone on edge as well. The alternative to sitting out the RfC would be to take this to ANI, and that probably won't end well. You'd do much better trying to make peace with everyone. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hop in, I just wanted to clarify: the only reason I copied and pasted into the other section because OccultZone was repeating the same argument and just created another section to do it. I specifically wrote that I was doing this as a formality and this was already discussed in detail above and did not want to indicate that I was ignoring him or that I felt that his maintenance template sugestions, in my view, were correct. It is just that I always thought it Wiki ettiquete to reply even though the points raised are repetitive assuming Good Faith but he seems to like to assume Bad Faith to anything or any user he is disagrees with. --Thank You Nawabmalhi (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stradivarius, have you also looked at their background? TopGun has been topic banned, TheSawtooth was indefinitely blocked for a while because he was pretending to be an admin, justice was blocked for edit warring. It tells that they are not enough capable to contribute along with other editors. This time it is Nawabmalhi who is fighting to misrepresent references(also policies), alleging of personal attacks and making a very unnecessary repetitive argument which do nothing except discourage editors from contributing. Also the edit warring he has done only for removing the issue tags. He already describes his disruptive actions as 'good faith' actions, how can he be tolerated? VandVictory (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not made a single personal attack in any shape or form and this this clear on the Chawinda Talk Page. On the otherhand VandVictory has on anyone who supports the Pakistani Victory stance whether it is me or anyone else. He put Colapse Tag on what I had written on the Maintenance Tag effectively pretending to be an administrator by tampering with what I had written and constantly engaging in editwaring on the page. --Nawabmalhi (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone can collapse unnecessary discussion. Where did I said that you have made personal attack? Accusing others of personal attacks is as disruptive. VandVictory (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica on Wiki

For your information, Justlettersandnumber user mentioned you have been decived https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica because he mentioned similar IP address, as for Montevideo Uruguay. Montevideo have 1,5 million citizens!! Also there is a local office for UNEM and a national website www.unem.edu.uy Over 300 students got their education at UNEM branch in Uruguay, so its unfair to mention IP address, since ALL citizens in Uruguay, over 3million people in all 19 states called DEPARTAMENTOS in spanish use the same IP address. Also Justlettersandnumbers user mention an old newspaper publication dated 2008 and for his information we are heading year 2015. I must underline, there are national branches in several countries, so as a student mentioned earlier, www.unem.cr is national based, mentime, www.unem.international is intended for worldwide users, and www.unem.edu.pl is where the first educational website was published and it reflects UNESCO whed listing.Furthermore Uruguay has its local website www.unem.edu.uy and also for your information in URUGUAY Universidad de la Republica UDELAR is the one that handles all dot EDU dot UY domains. I want o belive Justlettersandnumber user has no bad intentions, but only missinformation PolandMEC (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry

To you and yours

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bzuk: Thank you! Merry Christmas to you as well. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:57, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2014-52

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

  • The Technical Operations team is now using Phabricator to track their tasks. The Operations team manages the Wikimedia servers. In the future you will be able to see the tasks that are not private. [26]

Software changes this week

  • There will be no software changes this week and next week. This is because of the end-of-year holidays. The next update of MediaWiki will be on January 6. [27]

Future changes

  • The system that displays citations will change in the future. The new system will not change the style of citations. [28]
  • A new design for VisualEditor will come in January. You can try it now on test wikis. [29]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
AmaryllisGardener talk 19:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thank you AmaryllisGardener! Hope you have a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year too. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:38, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas & a big THANK YOU, too!

Happy Holidays!

Atsme☯Consult 02:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Atsme: You're welcome. :) Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too! — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

admin candidate

I think you are looking for admin candidates. Titodutta would make an excellent candidate. I've known him since he got started and have worked with him off wiki. He does work in spurts depending on real-life work and internet connection. An admin from India would be a definite plus. Bgwhite (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: I could certainly look over his edits. But first, Titodutta, are you willing to run? Doing a proper review takes time, and it's no fun to do it only to find that the editor you're reviewing isn't interested in adminship. That goes doubly so when they have 70,000 edits. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tito just returned from Swatantra 2014 on Wikipedia's dime. I can't remember the name of the Wikipedia conference in India he recently attended. If he is "fleecing" money from Wikipedia, you know he can talk bull with the best admins :) Bgwhite (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is not my decision. I'll leave it on @Moonriddengirl:, coach User:Moonriddengirl/Coaching. Note, MRG asked me to participate in DRN discussions, I have not got much time after that. --Tito☸Dutta 10:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Titodutta: That's very modest of you, but actually I need to hear it from you yourself. Are you interested in running for adminship in the near future? If so, I'll review your edits and let you know what I think (I usually do this privately by email). If not, then I'll wait until you're ready to run. All I want to know is that I won't waste my time looking through your edits if you're not willing to run - it doesn't have anything to do with whether I think you're ready. (In fact, everything that I've seen so far makes me think that you would be a very good candidate.) So, please let me know what you think, one way or the other. You can contact me by email if you prefer. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not my decision. :) When you asked me for coaching, Titodutta, I did mention that I was delighted to help you prepare but might not be able to nominate you myself given my time constraints. Particularly because our work areas do not overlap, I don't have any special insight into what you're doing beyond what you've disclosed on that coaching page. I have no objection whatsoever to your accepting nomination from someone else and am quite certain that User:Mr. Stradivarius is an excellent person to evaluate you and determine if it's a good time. :) He's far more experience in WP:RFA than I am. If you choose to accept, I will wish you great luck! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:51, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox album

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox album. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2014

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Mr. Stradivarius, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Thank you! Hope you are having a great Christmas too. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mele Kalikimaka

Have a bright Hawaiian Christmas!--Mark Miller (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We have snow here in Hokkaido so I don't think I could call it Hawaiian, but it certainly is bright. Merī Kurisumasu from Japan. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:06, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas everybody!!!
Merry Christmas everybody!!!

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

 !dea4u  11:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.[reply]

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.


Spread the cheer by adding {{Subst:Xmas4}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you! Merry Christmas to you too. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:34, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ebola/west africa

sorry to bother you about this , but we requested semi protection very early on Saturday for ebola virus epidemic in west Africa and have gotten no response?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ozzie10aaaa: Sorry, I was in bed. Looks like Mr.Z-man has already dealt with this. In the future, if WP:RFPP is backlogged then WP:AN is probably the best place to ask people to deal with it. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mass disruption at the e-cig articles

The edit request protection did not involve removing "mist" from the lede.

  1. Remove (mist) from lede The proposal to remove "mist" from the lede was stricken. The closing of the RFC was to reduce mist not eliminate it. There was no discussion of a possible alternative wording in the lede for the word "mist". Some editors were disagreeing with using mist in the lede. I and others disagree with removing "mist" from the lede. There is no consensus to remove from the lede. Having the synonym mist in the lede only benefits the reader. See this diff.

You should be aware of this. There has been mass disruption. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#E-cig editors. QuackGuru (talk) 03:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@QuackGuru: Hi QuackGuru. I am aware that the lead alteration was struck from the edit request, but that does not mean that it was not discussed. I took the entirety of the discussion into account in my decision. And yes, I was aware of the ANI thread. I considered closing the section on the proposed topic ban on TheNorlo myself, but in the end I thought it would be better if another admin did it. Plus, there is a concerning shortage of experienced, uninvolved editors commenting there. As to the edit request, my reasoning went like this:
  • There was no consensus evident in the edit request discussion as to whether "mist" should appear in the lead.
  • Normally, WP:NOCONSENSUS directs us to stick with the status quo in discussions about article content.
  • However, in the RfC there was a consensus that "aerosol" and "vapour" should generally be preferred over "mist".
  • When discussing whether to use "mist" in e-cigarette articles, the more specific guidance in the RfC should be preferred over the advice in WP:NOCONSENSUS, as it represents a consensus as to what to do, whereas WP:NOCONSENSUS merely directs editors on what to when there is no consensus.
  • Therefore, the "no consensus" position on using "mist" in e-cigarette articles is to not use the word unless there is a consensus for it.
I hope this makes my position clearer. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a consensus to remove it from the lede and there was a previous consensus and compromise to include mist in the lede. Before mist was added to the lede there was a discussion. The latest discussion was for supporting mist in the lede. SPACKlick,[30] Doc James,[31] QuackGuru,[32] Tsavage,[33] and Formerly 98.[34] That is at least five editors supported keeping mist in the lede. See Talk:Electronic cigarette#Removal of Mist. I hope you realise that ""The word "mist" was present, and there needs to be a consensus to change it. In the absence of consensus policy is that the status quo prevails.". If you think there was no consensus please explain which editors specifically did not want mist in the lede. I also did not find any good reason for removing mist from the lede. Consensus is determined by the strength of the arguments. We are talking about including information in a page that may be of interest to the general reader. That is our primary mission as an encyclopedia. For example, there are synonyms for the word e-cigs in the lede. See "An electronic cigarette (e-cig or e-cigarette), personal vaporizer (PV) or electronic nicotine delivery system (ENDS)...". The top three synonyms are "aerosol" and "vapour" and "mist" for the exhaled smoke-like mist. The agreement was that "aerosol" and "vapour" should generally be preferred over "mist". But the RFC also said Editors wish to reduce the use of "mist". Being generally preferred over "mist" does not mean eliminating mist entirely from the article. And the RFC was not specifically about removing the synonym mist from the lede. Editors made much stronger arguments for keeping mist in the lede.[35] QuackGuru (talk) 08:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MS, Just wanted to drop you a note to thank you for your efforts on the article and calming the edit warring over there. Seems like a lot of work, and fairly tedious work at that. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) I wasn't trying to mediate or anything, though - all I did was answer a couple of edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:23, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assyrian propaganda on Wikipedia

Is this the way how you handle problems on Wikipedia by simply closing the case without finding a compromise? What happens, if I put Aramean continuity related topics to the "Assyrian people" article and everything will be deleted or distorted by Assyrian fascists again, because they think they are the owner of this article? They even have a WikiProject called Assyria and don't care about neutrality and support Assyrianism. We are fed up that all our contributions on Wikpedia even with references are getting removed without a valid reason. Are you there to check it and undo it? This is why I was in favour for a neutral common page called Assyrian/Syriac people, Syriac people or whatever focused only on our Christian heritage, where we all agree on. What's wrong with the idea to create articles within a common page to express each groups views? The current Assyrian people article mixed up with Assyrian plus Aramean topics would led to edit wars again.

Read this Link and see how Assyrian fascists from all over the world try to Assyrianize everything on Wikipedia: http://www.assyrianvoice.net/forum/index.php?topic=16628.95;wap2 --Suryoyo124 (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Suryoyo124: The basic reason why we don't have separate pages is outlined at WP:POVFORK. I'm not saying that the Assyrian people page is perfect - by all means, it could use a lot of work - but now that the deletion review has closed as "endorse", it is going to be where the Syriac people redirect points. If you want to improve the Assyrian people page, please go ahead, by all means. And if you get in a content dispute about what the page should contain, you should use dispute resolution. (Also, the forum that you linked to is from January 2008 - a lot can change in almost 7 years.) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Interview (2014 film)

This article needs time extension on protection. There have been reverts on good-faith additions lately. Can you trust IPs on editing it? --George Ho (talk) 02:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@George Ho: This is probably better filed at WP:RFPP. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 06:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2015-01

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Software changes

  • There are no technical changes this week.

Feedback about Tech News in 2014

  • The writers of the technical newsletter are asking for your opinion. Did you get the information you wanted this year? Did we miss important technical news in 2014? What kind of information was too late? Please tell us at m:Talk:Tech/News. You can write in your language. Thank you!

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:52, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Nanking

For the article on the Battle of Nanking I was thinking about having the dispute on the talk page, concerning the appropriate range of estimates for the death toll of the Nanking Massacre, sent to the dispute resolution noticeboard. Do you think that this would be a good idea? If so, would you mind starting the process of setting this up because I've never done it myself.CurtisNaito (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CurtisNaito: Ah, sorry, I saw your email about this but completely forgot about it. Actually, WP:DRN has a nice friendly wizard that you can use to file cases properly.[1] So I would try that first - it's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request - and then ask on WT:DRN if you get stuck. If in doubt, just file the case, and the DRN volunteers are usually pretty good about fixing up the formatting. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ His name is TransporterMan. Joke! I'm talking about a software wizard, of course.

Revision after protection expired

Hello you were right to block [36] Vand. He did 17 revisions. Now he revised again after protection expired [37] he says see talk but talk page is still dispute discussion RFC is still open and he is starting same editwar. ---TheSawTooth (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TheSawTooth: This would be best left as a message at the ANI discussion, so that others can also take a look at it. And if protection is needed again, you can as at WP:RFPP. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 11:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources that support the requested change on Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica Article

Greetings, sir Regarding your request for reliable sources to edit Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica Article on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica#Protected_edit_request_on_21_December_2014 This used to be the accurate information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica&oldid=638183616

Regarding Valid Sources 1) The listing of the Ministry Of Education in Costa Rica (CONESUP) up to December 2014 (Number 38 in the listing) http://www.mep.go.cr/sites/default/files/pregunta_frecuente/documentos/lista_universidades_aprobadas_CONESUP.pdf 2) UNESCO WHED (World higher Education Database) up to December 2014 where www.unem.edu.pl is the official website http://www.whed.net/detail_institution.php?id=17738 3) DMOZ Listing where www.unem.edu.pl is the official website http://www.dmoz.org/search?q=unem 4) http://www.unem.edu/ its a dead site changed for the local domain www.unem.cr 5) Copyright certificate where POLAND is depicted as first country for the published website for UNIVERSIDAD EMPRESARIAL DE COSTA RICA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Copyright_Universidad_Empresarial_de_Costa_Rica.jpg 6) Unesco Centre www.unesco.vg listing Universidad Empresarial de Costa Rica in good standing under Costa Rica list http://unesco.vg/Unesco_2011_List.pdf

So, a sensacionalist newspaper with information published on 2008 with no solid ground, cannot be used to damage University and students reputation.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mr._Stradivarius&oldid=640237876"