User talk:Curb Chain

• Archive 1
• Archive 2

FC Seoul

Stating that Seoul is the capital most populous city in South Korea is irrelevant to the article

Not Seoul FC / FC Seoul is correct.

This is just your opinion, Seoul is the capital and most populous city these expression is just explanaion of Seoul If don't use This expression OR If you thhis expression, Both are right. But foreigners don't know seoul in detail So I think these expression is needed,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) , Diff1

FC서울에 대해 정확한 사실을 알고 싶으면 당신이 한국어 배워서 한번 내 말이 맞나 안 맞나 조사해 보세요. 한국어는 알지도 못 하면서 가이드라인이 어쩌구 저쩌구 트집만 잡고 짜증나서 당신들이랑 얘기 한 할거니까 그렇게 아세요.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Footwiks (talk • contribs) , Diff2

IMHO, it's better to remove this comment entirely and this message does not even deserved to be archived. ---PBJT (talk) 10:38, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Mitt Romney

Hi Curb Chain. I was looking through the volunteers at Mediation Cabal and saw in your edit history that you have touched up some political-related articles recently so thought you could give me the best measured opinion on this edit proposal here: Mitt Romney was technically registered as a Democrat for a brief time. I am a casual wiki editor and do not have the energy to continually answer new (rephrased) objections thrown my way; consequently, I'm at the point where i feel this wiki editing business is beyond help or reason. To be clear, I haven't made any edits to the main article but only made a proposal to change the article on the discussion page. Seeing that you have earned some praise from the coordinators of Mediation Cabal makes me comfortable to make a decision to continue or to acquiesce based on your advice here. What's funny is that I thought this would be a routine encounter with new information, achieve consensus on a proposed edit and add the citation wiki edit. Not so. K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 05:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

. Any feedback would be appreciated! K♪monkey@('_')@ _Talk⇉✌ 05:03, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Cuckoo Clock

Thanks for your great edits on this article. Really made things better. There's an issue on this page where user Jadf88 feels that the certification section should be deleted and made into a stand alone stub, which he has done, and been subsequently undone. He hasn't cited a reason for the stub generation. Could I ask you to have a look and put your opinion in? It is now posted for 3O (Third opinion) to resolve this matter. See the talk page of the article. Black Stripe (talk) 07:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning formatting on the SYTYCD franchise index

Hey Curb. I felt I was a little more strident than I needed to be on the So You Think You Can Dance talk page and edit summaries for the most recently debated issue. For reasons completely unrelated to you, I find myself being a bit short on that page this last week. I thought moving the discussion here (or to my talk page if you prefer) and employing some visual aids might help this get hammered out faster. So I'm going to create some screenshots, sample code and notes to illustrate what I'm getting at, but please give me a day or so to get it all together. In the meantime my arguments can be found in detail on the afore-mentioned talk page, though they basically boil down to the following: A) the majority of displays benefit from the width syntax being present, B) there are no real drawbacks including to the syntax (the very narrow displays will be messed up regardless of what we do, and the wider ones will work either way), C) the additional syntax is pretty minimal (11 characters at present) and well-justified for the benefits, and, lastly, D) syntax should be kept as clean as possible, but cleanliness of the markup has to take a back seat to cleanliness on the displayed page, rather than the other way around. I will attempt to show you why the debated piece of syntax best serves these priorities tomorrow. In the meantime I just wanted to touch bases briefly to assure you I'm not trying to arbitrary or dismissive of your approach. Snow (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Hey, screencaps as requested. Here's the first: this is my idea of what the table should ideally look like, in terms of the relative dimensions of the columns/rows. This is the version that should currently display, assuming a minimum font size of 13 and a screen aspect ratio of 4:5. Since few monitors will have resolutions with a smaller relative width, this means almost all PC monitors will display the table with a short profile; notice what I meant about a minimum amount of "real-estate" being used, as each row has an absolute minimum number of lines. Now here are the examples of the issues I was running into without the extra 1%: Notice the issues in the "hosts" column here, and the "channels" column here. Now these are just some example rows from two of the columns from various attempts to balance the table - changing almost any of the other columns by more than a few points of width (or in some cases, by even one) will lead to similar artifacts in other columns from which the extra space is "taken". I believed at the time that we started debating this that there was no way to keep all of the columns formatted with a minimum profile without that extra 1% of table space, but it turns out I was wrong; as I noted on the talk page, there actually is a way to get the "ideal" version to format at ratios down to 4:5 with a font of up to 13 (people who have higher fonts forced on their browsers will just have to deal with the overflow, since this is the absolute best that can be done with the space available. In the past I was able to maintain it at up to 14-pt. font, but we're well past that now. If you have any further questions/ideas, drop me a line on my talk page. Snow (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Curb Chain. You have new messages at Toddst1's talk page.
Message added 02:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Toddst1 (talk) 02:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have a specific issue with anon IP editing to the Sylosis article. As usual it is genre warring. Band is sourced as a number of specific genres in reliable sources, but a number of anon IPs seem to want to draw me into a slow-motion edit war. Obviously, I am unprepared to do this, so your input would be welcomed; a general revert to sourced content and semi-protection strikes me as appropriate, but that is an admin decision to make. Cheers in advance, 20:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion input request

Hi,

Last month I moved the list of experimental metal artists to its own list. Some of the entries have been challenged, and the discussion has stalled, as only me and the challenging editor have commented. I really don't care if the entries stay or are removed, I just want to get some third opinions. Check the talk page for the discussion.

Thanks, --¿3family6 _contribs 20:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Scarlett Johansson

Would this one do the job? http://www.askmen.com/celebs/women/actress/scarlett-johansson/

hello

Thanks for reply on Jerash talk, could you please take an action from your side (as a third party), cause I can't do that since I am a part of that dispute.--HF► 12:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello again,

Thank you for caring. you can now have a look here for evidences. Thanks in advance. --HF► 14:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Declining 3Os

Hey, Curb Chain, I saw that you declined a 3O request earlier, and I just wanted to remind you that, if you do decline a request, you should leave a note explaining that you have done so and why on the disputed talk page, or alternately the requester's talk page. That way, they're not just sitting around for the rest of eternity waiting for a 3O that'll never come, if they forgot to put the 3O board on their watchlist. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, but I feel that some editors use to the forum shop for opinions in a inappropriate way. Maybe I am denying their recognition, but I will try to give them a note later.Curb Chain (talk) 01:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jerash

From a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Jerash:

If you look at my latest post to "Jerash discussion", you will see that I have discovered what appears to be a problem with one of the sources. I would like to have another set of eyes look at it. Would you be so kind as to check it out? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

hey

would you care to weigh in on the fight about kid icarus flash game?

here ---- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard or here --- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kid_Icarus

thankies!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlesWhopper (talk • contribs) 13:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

3O declined

Hello Curb Chain, and thanks for leaving a comment at my talk page. It is now clear that I didn't fully understand what vandalism is and what WP:3O is about. I would not repost my issue at 3O, since I got the point that it is about content dispute only.

I've talk to Writ Keeper and tried to explain my situation at his talk page User_talk:Writ_Keeper#3O_declined. First of all, I was not trying to demand something unreasonable. I assumed that 3O is a informal channel, and thought that it is a good place to ask for help.

Regarding the dispute that I'm in now, I'm not confronting with another user's contribution with my own POV. I believe that I have provided a sensible way-out at Talk: List of naval battles#Japan defeated Korean navy: that is, "Please try to find a consensus at each battle page, not at the List of naval battles".

I could try my best to deliver my intention, but from my perspectives the IP refused my suggestion just because I'm from Korea and accused me of being nationalistic (however I may try it politely). Thus, I needed a third opinion in a informal manner. And I still need any help on that unresolved issue, and I would appreciate your input if you could provide a helping hand here. Best,

P.S. by the way, many thanks for your feedback! I think declined request is better than no feedback. ---PBJT (talk) 10:34, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comment!

Hello again Curb Chain, and thanks for your comment at my talk page. I really appreciate your help, and I think what you suggested is a logical thing to do. Although I didn't get any comment at the article's talk page, people at WP:3O have provided me enough tips and I'm grateful to all your feedback.

If I may add some minor detail, however, I don't see the issue as "content dispute" only. (the very reason why my request was declined.) The List of naval battles is not the only page that I have reverted User: 115.65.37.217's (talk, contribution) contribution. And I believe that some of the "ip"'s contributions are not neutral:

Extended content

Japan-Korea disputes: first edit, second edit for removing Hangul names for Zainichi Koreans (Korean Japanese). Hata clan: first edit, second edit for using non-neutral word. Naval history of Japan: first edit, second edit for including inaccurate historical fact. As for the List of naval battles page, the Korean navy's commander name in question was included as early as November 2007 and the conclusion of Battle of Busan (1592) was added in August 2005. For the record, only Japan-Korea disputes was on my watch list at first, and I found other pages (List of naval battles, Hata clan and Naval history of Japan) while I was checking the "ip"'s contributions. From the very beginning, I made it clear that I'm not a history buff. And it is not my job to search the history to provide a counter example to the "ip"'s claim: I just undid the contribution, and the ip should prove him right to correct an possible error. In short, I just patrolled the articles for possible vandalism.

I hided some of my comments because I'm not asking for your involvement or help. I think you have done more than enough for me from your feedback, and once again thank you for your help. If you want, feel free to ignore my message since my goal was explaining how I see the problem. Best Regards, --PBJT (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, now I understand that it was my mistake to report it to 3O. Thus, I wouldn't repost my issue anymore. Best regards, --PBJT (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Your comments on the DRN would be appreciated -- I revised the DRN to request discussion of only one specific dispute on the Lead section, and one specific dispute on the Criticism section. Thanks, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 03:10, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Jerash, Souf and Sakib Article

I would like to ask you intervention in the article Sakib, so that you treat the article in the same fashion you treated the article Souf. The user Historyfeelings tried to influence the discussion in the article Jerash by undermining the information in Souf article (which is all about the role of Sakib in Jerash versus the role of Souf). To make your intervention balanced, I kindly request that you impose the same criteria you applied to Souf article to Sakib article. All wrong, biased, and unverifiable information must be deleted. Thank you a lot. Banimustafa (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

List of gothic rock bands

Hi there, it's me again. There is some minor kerfuffel (is that how that's spelt? I've never written it down) over at the above linked article. Essentially it is one concerning sourcing; we have a new editor that is of the True Goff Is the Only Goff variety (you know, like the metal purists and punk purists that turn up on other lists). Unfortunately, this means that they don't really acknowledge that other viewpoints may exist (my opinion is irrelevant, obviously, but for the record I'm a tradgoth type of person, much like said editor, but realise that other viewpoints exist in reliable sources in the press; they however have perhaps just jumped on my username and made some assumptions). Sourced material is systematically removed with no reference to policy (well, apart from the fact that they disagree with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:RS in general), and whilst I have tried to remain civil in the light of a fair amount of abuse, I've left a final message at the bottom of the talk page with a solution that we've adopted at other contentious articles, e.g. the list of nu metal bands. I don't anticipate much positive reaction, but I did say I'd ask some other editors to look at it, particularly editors that I haven't always seen eye to eye with in the past, so as to avoid accusations of gaming the system. I thought you'd fit the bill as we've frequently disagreed about things but seem to be able to work together pretty well to improve the project :-) I'd appreciate it if you could spare some time to take a look, as I'm not going to commit a WP:3RR violation and I'm not getting anywhere through dialogue with this particular editor. (Sent to a couple of other people as well.) Cheers, Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hip hop

Nice work with the copyediting and ref checking. -Cntras (talk) 06:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Curb Chain. You have new messages at TransporterMan's talk page.
Message added 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TransporterMan (TALK) 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

St. Jimmy

Please reconsider your vote in the RfC in light of the fact that the song was covered by two notable artists, clearly passing NSONGS. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes to DRN

Hello there. I have recently made a proposal to change the way that disputes are handled and filed at DRN. As you've listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN, I would appreciate your input. You can find the thread here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Get involved in DR!} 02:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome Article

I write this section to complain against SandyGeorgia, apparently a well-reputed Wikipedia editor who has nevertheless modified the Asperger's Syndrome article in a rather uncivilized manner, doing away with most -if not all- my contributions to said article, all of which were found within the "Mechanism" section thereof. For one I ought to express my concern insofar as I had performed such contributions from a well-informed perspective, as I'm legitimately informed on the issue of Asperger's Syndrome, having done extensive research on the topic, and yet this user, SandyGeorgia, acting in apparent disdain for knowledge, perhaps in a personal tone, had turned the article's modifications into a confounded "edition war". From this I ascribe not to generalize in believing that this sort of users are blocking the influx of knowledgeable content and substituting it with rather misinformed and inexperienced contributions. I request for an explanation, if possible, and for a reinvindication of my previous contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFOH (talk • contribs) 04:28, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:DRN#Date_Windowing_deletion_proposal_and_Shadowjams_misconduct

Hey,

I noticed you closed the DRN I posted as "wrong venue". I'm wondering why you say its the wrong venue since WP:DR says "The Dispute resolution noticeboard can help diffuse small content and conduct issues". Also, I tried to get a third opinion, but was told thats not the proper venue for conduct issues. All that said, I'd appreciate if you (or someone) could look over our disagreements on his talk page, because I'm not sure how to resolve this problem. Thanks Fresheneesz (talk) 20:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Responded on my talk page, thanks Fresheneesz (talk) 21:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

AN discussion

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Reversion_after_failure_to_discuss to which you might wish to contribute. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Post on my User board

I am sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about? I made a 3PO request, which was rejected because other editors has commented on the post. I then made an RFC, as suggested over the editing dispute. It has been already commented upon by another editor? If I submitted this incorrectly, I would have hoped that they, or someone like yourself would let me know so I could correct it? How could this possible be considered vandalism? I would appreciate a prompt replay, as your time allows. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fomeister (talk • contribs) 07:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Swimming

Thanks for your help on tidying up my edits on Human Swimming.

There will be more edits to try and wrangle the page in to something sensible over the next few days.

I would be most grateful if you could hold off on removal of items as uncited, and tag them instead, just for a few days, whilst I get the article in to shape, before I do my run through of citations, as this will help we structure the citations better.

Thanks, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

White Tea EL / COI Discussion

I notice you've been contributing to the page on white tea recently. I wonder if you could comment on a discussion: Talk:White_tea#Suggested_External_Link_.2F_Conflict_of_Interest. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Information

In this thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=509705165#Easy_solution:_Try_a_short_ban

At an article's Talk page, an editor responded to a difficult editor with a *VERY* strong statement, and so that thread at AN/I began with people trying to decide how to deal with it. I made a suggestion in that section that says 'try a short ban', and several editors responded in an unfriendly way. BYK made an argument against me participating in the debate because he feels my edits have not yet earned me the right to have an opinion. You can read the thread for yourself. (By the way the curse words in 5th paragraph of that subsection that I say are quoting the editor who the entire thread is about; they are not really directed at BYK, I believe he knows that clearly, and if you read the thread as a whole it should be clear that its being said to demonstrate a point rather than to be rude.)

So that's why I later asked for his opinion and then later still asked him to refrain from saying anything if he wouldn't be willing to back it up with some helpful information. -- Avanu (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Failed verification

If you didn't know, failed verification is not a good reason to delete claims and their cited sources, as you did at Crocs. When the sources are clearly relevant to the article (about Crocs, or discuss Crocs), one helpful way to handle a verification failure is the {{Failed verification}} inline template. Also, the claims can be rewritten to be supported by the sources. In one case, I used a named ref from elsewhere in the article to support a deleted claim, so it pays to keep a look out. --Lexein (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

removing 3O requests

Hey, Curb Chain, I noticed that you removed a request for a 3O about a dispute in which you were involved. Just a suggestion: maybe don't do that in the future, please? If a 3O request is inappropriate, it'll get removed by someone else; if you do it, it could look like you're trying to stifle discussion. I mean, given the nature of 3O, it's not like it's a bad thing to request one, or a complicated process requiring consent from everyone like medcom. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

It is disruptive when the request is forum shopping.Curb Chain (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Where else did he place a request? DRN? I didn't see any, but I was late to the party, so maybe I missed it when I glanced through his contribs. Keep in mind, though, that 3O can't be forum-shopping if the discussion hasn't been taken anywhere but the talk page; otherwise, 3O (and the entirety of DR, really) would always be forum-shopping. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Use a little common sense: we edited the article and then he unscrupulously filed a request at 30. That's asking for outside opinion instead of continuing to discuss the matter.Curb Chain (talk) 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

An outside opinion is continuing to discuss the matter. What's the harm in asking somebody else's opinion? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion on the talk page where not content related before he filed the 30. What he should have done was continuing editing the article like we were as we were making progress but instead he went looking for other opinions before rebutting any of my arguments.Curb Chain (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

So? Sure, it's a bit out-of-process, and the request would probably be denied, but I'd hardly call it disruptive or forum-shopping. I'm not trying to bust your balls about this or anything, I just personally think that unless a request is clearly trollish or otherwise seriously disruptive (and I don't see how this could be considered such), it should at least be given a look at by an uninvolved 3Oer as a serious request before it's accepted or rejected. My point is that the request sitting there isn't doing any harm, so just let it sit there until someone else takes a look at it. Even just the appearance of neutrality in the process could be a significant benefit, without any real harm. That's all! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, it was seriously disruptive, but I have not reverted the adding back of the entry. My point is you need to seriously look at WP:DENY.Curb Chain (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at it? What part of that essay do you think applies here? You were having a dispute with him, he asked for an outside opinion, and that means he's a troll and/or vandal? Come on now. Maybe you need to look at some links of your own, starting with meta:What is a troll?. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, he went to 30 without discussing the issue. After he continued editing to improvement, he did not pull his request out of 30. Yes, I did that FOR him.Curb Chain (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

And that made him a seriously disruptive troll/vandal? I mean, was that just a poor choice of words or what? We get 3O requests when there's been no discussion all the time, it's not disruptive. Maybe if someone uninvolved had removed it and he kept adding it back in, but other than that...we just politely decline and send them on their way. I'm just trying to figure out your thought processes; I just don't think it's a good idea to treat such things as seriously disruptive or trolling. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 04:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed the entry citing "border [sic] forum shopping" per the reasons I have written above. "Serious" is subjective as such I do not use quantifiers as those. 30 is not the proper place to file request for a 3rd opinion between 2 disputing editors. If an editor used it for another purpose it is likely disruptive. I'm here to write an encyclopedia not to network with other people.Curb Chain (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

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

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

--The Olive Branch 18:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Behavior

What is your worried concern of my behavior on Wikipedia about?--MikeAnthNort (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC at WT:MOS

Hi Curb Chain. I am notifying you of an RFC at WT:MOS because you contributed to the discussion that led to it:

RfC: Internal consistency versus consistency across articles

I have notified all other editors in your situation, in accord with provisions at WP:CANVAS.
Best wishes,
Noetica^Tea? 23:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Noetica for the notification. Best regardsCurb Chain (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Just a reminder, Curb. Darkfrog is now counting up the numbers of supports and opposes in that RFC. You might want to review the situation.

Noetica^Tea? 05:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to comment at Monty Hall problem RfC

Because of your interest in dispute resolution,, I am inviting you to comment on the following RfC:

Talk:Monty Hall problem#Conditional or Simple solutions for the Monty Hall problem?

This dispute has been going on for over ten years and there have been over 1,300,000 words posted on the article talk page (by comparison, all of the Harry Potter books together total 1,084,170 words). Over the years the dispute has been through multiple noticeboards, mediators, and even the Arbitration Committee without resolving the conflict, so a lot of wisdom is needed here. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDMOS

We use "In other animals" for our section on vet med to emphasis that humans are animals to. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:36, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

This is the guideline we use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:53, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hi. I was wondering why you made this edit. In the grand scheme of things it's certainly nothing important, but the way I was trained in design, to achieve a balance in a composition; the weight to the left makes me really uncomfortable. I wonder if it may just be my monitor, or if there is some other wiki syntax reason for your change? Again: marginal, but I am curious. Take care. NTox · talk 02:57, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I've responded on my talk page, but rest assured this is not something I will challenge any further. Much larger things to worry about. Have a good one. NTox · talk 00:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Pipes in quote template

Please don't add useless pipes in {{quote}} templates to "move" the citation. The citation should directly follow the quotation, and should not be moved. The purpose of the pipe is to display the author and/or work which is being quoted. If something is displayed, then is it ok to move the citation following that display. It's not okay to put the pipe in for no reason. Here's an example of what the pipe is intended for:

I thot I saw a puddy cat.

— Tweety Bird

Thanks. Yworo (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Gangnam Style

Don't know why you removed the ABC News quote - the only reason I feel it should definitely be restored is the power and symbolism reflected in this particular quote by a major news organization, i.e., the omnipresent impact this phenomenon has exuded. Has nothing to do with POV whatsoever. I am not the warring type, so I hope you'll restore it after seeing this rationale. Castncoot (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

BRICs

Hi Curb Chain. I noticed your revert recently on BRICS. While I agree the IP's addition was not necessary, it was far from vandalism. Please make sure to assume good faith. Cheers, --Patrick (talk) 21:23, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ogonek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Polish, Native American and European (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Curb Chain. You have new messages at OrenBochman's talk page.
Message added 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BO | Talk 13:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of police-related slang terms (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Marathi

Muzio Clementi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Interpreted

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution volunteer survey

Dispute Resolution – Volunteer Survey Invite Hello Curb Chain. To follow up on the first survey in April, I am conducting a second survey to learn more about dispute resolution volunteers - their motivations for resolving disputes, the experiences they've had, and their ideas for the future. I would appreciate your thoughts. I hope that with the results of this survey, we will learn how to increase the amount of active, engaged volunteers, and further improve dispute resolution processes. The survey takes around five to ten minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have either listed yourself as a volunteer at a dispute resolution forum, or are a member of a dispute resolution committee. For more information, please see the page that describes my fellowship work which can be found here. Szhang (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Beyond My Ken

Yes, yes, yes! I am glad someone else sees what kind of trivial crap BMK obsesses over and tries to impose on every article he touches. Yworo (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Curb Chain. You have new messages at Yworo's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Style discussions

Do let me know if you have any talk page discussions about certain idiosyncratic styles and formatting you'd like support on. I'd be happy to help clean such stuff out of articles through consensus. Yworo (talk) 08:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

...And don't forget to notify me at the same time if we're gonna be canvassing such things, because I'd like to defend editorial prerogative over driveby gnome MOS vandalism through consensus. Carrite (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is what <!--spacing--> is.Curb Chain (talk) 06:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Your problematic editing

I just saw the ban proposal against you at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I have to agree with the complaints made about you there. I don't know how you think edits like this and this are acceptable, but they are not. In that first link, not only did you gut the lead and make it so that it does not satisfy WP:LEAD, but you removed validly sourced content with silly rationales. The second link is even worse, because of how you removed medical research supported by great sourcing with a silly rationale. Both of these edits, and ones you've made similar to them, show gross WP:COMPETENCE issues. The most glaring one is the "dead links" rationale that you use to remove content. See WP:Dead link. We are not supposed to remove material simply because it's currently supported by one or more dead links. These links were not always dead, of course. You are first and foremost supposed to check and see if the link(s) can be restored. Clearly, you haven't heard of Internet Archive, which is where you are supposed to look in cases like those. Further, speculation is perfectly acceptable in Wikipedia articles...as long as it's reliably sourced and is given WP:DUE WEIGHT, is not WP:FRINGE in a way that it shouldn't be given any weight at all, or is not a WP:BLP violation. Some Wikipedia science articles, for example (the Big Bang article being one), are full of speculation -- reliably sourced speculation. You have also most certainly referred to WP:SELFREF wrongly time and time again. Many Wikipedia articles direct readers to other sections in the article by stating "see [so and so section] above" or "see [so and so section] below," or simply "see above" or "see below," or by just linking to those sections without any accompanying words, and these include WP:GA and WP:FA articles. This practice is very much allowed on Wikipedia, not to mention in scholarly texts all the time. Readers may skip to a section and overlook details on something that is mentioned earlier or later in an article, which is why such a "see [so and so]" practice is allowed. And, lastly, just because not every line in a paragraph has the reference beside it...that does not mean that the line is not sourced; having one source that supports the entire paragraph placed at the end of the paragraph is done all the time on Wikipedia and is perfectly acceptable, per WP:Overreferencing. Looking at your archives, I also see that you've been pointed to the "If instead you think the material is verifiable, it is better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." line of WP:BURDEN, but apparently have been ignoring it. I'm sure that you don't think that all the stuff you've been removing can't be reliably sourced.

You need a WP:MENTOR a.s.a.p., as was mentioned to you before (looking at your archives). Either that, or you do indeed need a WP:RFC/U filed against you. Your currently clean blocklog means nothing to me, as problematic Wikipedia editors have gone without being blocked for years before their problematic edits were called into question and/or stopped. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

What username are you hiding under?Curb Chain (talk) 06:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Spare me. When links are "see ..." the material should be split into another article. That contravenes WP:OVERLINK. If information is unsourced, it is WITHIN POLICY to remove it.Curb Chain (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

[Same IP from bove] Riiight, because all IPs who know their way around Wikipedia are registered users (sarcasm).

Spare me as well because you barely know what you are talking about on these matters. No...when links are "see [so and so]," it does not mean that the article should be split into another article, and it's troubling that you would think that. What should and should not be split into a separate article is based on WP:SIZE, and even that is not binding. There is no policy or guideline against using "see [so and so]," and it's used for the reasons I've stated; it is not in any way overlinking if done correctly. In fact, WP:OVERLINK states "Do not link to pages that redirect back to the page the link is on (unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities that links to an appropriate section of the current article)." See where it says "unless the link is to a redirect with possibilities" for the part that I bolded? It also states, "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." Do you know what else it states? No, I don't think you do...because there is also the Piped links to sections of articles section. So, yes, you are wrong. And as for removing anything that is unsourced, what I stated has clearly gone over your head. The wording that states that it is "better to try to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag [unsourced material]" is also a part of the WP:BURDEN policy. If you are so convinced that anything that is unsourced should be removed, let's see you go around and blank out entire articles, including ones mostly supported by dead links, and see how long that type of editing of yours lasts. I'm surprised that you've lasted this long with your problematic editing. Things supported by dead links usually aren't unsourced because those references usually still exist. Read WP:Dead link. You are supposed to take yourself to the Internet Archive and refresh them; any experienced, truly experienced, Wikipedia editor will tell you that.

Once again, you have shown a severe lack of understanding of the way Wikipedia is supposed to work, and have very likely disregarded everything I've stated to you just so you can continue on with your damaging editing without having to face the fact that it is indeed damaging. So just know that if I come across you having made any highly inappropriate edits (which may be under this or another IP address), as I have seen you do in the diffs provided at the aforementioned noticeboard, I will be reverting you and/or reporting you for misconduct. You barely ever listen, just like you've had to be told more than once to follow WP:MEDMOS (seeing your archives), and that's one of the main problems with your editing this site. Like others, I'm certain that you've been blocked or banned from this site before; but nothing can be done about that. You certainly weren't new to editing Wikipedia when you began under this account, but it is what it is. 50.115.117.26 (talk) 08:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)