User talk:Complainer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I find your new articles on troubadours really useful -- I hope you have time to continue. As you may have seen, I've just added links, on the page List of troubadours, to other useful lists of troubadours that I've found elsewhere in Wikipedia. I've also added a brief article Azalais de Porcairagues and added details and references to Folquet de Marselha. Andrew Dalby 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

On spellings of names, I agree with you that Provençal/Occitan names are much better than Frenchified ones. If I were you, I would standardize on Provençal forms wherever possible. Andrew Dalby 16:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added Maria de Ventadorn; I've also made some additions to Gaucelm Faidit, mainly based on the Biographies des Troubadours and the useful commentary by Boutière and Schutz. I hope you approve! Andrew Dalby 15:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever names are used primarily (and for titling), it is important to have the various other versions (Gallicisations) somewhere in the article for searchability and comprehensiveness. Secondly, having noticed the various new Troubadour articles cropping up here and there, is there a category "Troubadours" yet? If not, it's a good idea to create it. Srnec 01:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)


Ciao Complainer, mi sa che hanno vandalizzato la tua pagina... Sinigagl 10:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ma quel "Template:User hell atheist" in cima al Babel è tuo? Sinigagl 16:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Leonardo Malcovati[edit]

Hi. I doubt the notability of Leonardo Malcovati as per WP:BIO, and have prodded it for deletion review. Please also note, since you claim to be this person, please be aware that it is discouraged to write about yourself, and that you may not be neutral in this respect. Hope this does not hurt your feeling too much. -- Chris 73 | Talk 03:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Five years later, I would like to point out that I neither created the article nor voted against its deletion.complainer (talk) 11:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Image:Logo Politecnico Milano.png[edit]

Hello, Complainer. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Logo Politecnico Milano.png) was found at the following location: User:Complainer. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 18:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Logo Politecnico Milano.png[edit]

Hello Complainer, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Logo Politecnico Milano.png) was found at the following location: User:Complainer. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 13:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Category:Jewish atheists up for deletion[edit]

Hello, I saw your name on the talk page for Atheist Jew, so I thought you might like to know that Category:Jewish atheists has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_25#Category:Jewish_atheists. The discussion is now in its third day, so don't delay if you would like to participate. Cgingold 15:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Impatiens_kilimanjiari_big.JPG[edit]


Thank you for uploading File:Impatiens_kilimanjiari_big.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Restaurant Notability[edit]

*Note: I am sending this to all participants of the Kebab House deletion discussion


I recently opened up a policy change proposal regarding the notability requirements for restaurants here and I would like your input, be it in support or opposition. Thank you - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there Complainer, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:Complainer. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you![edit]

Thanks for the pat on the back. Keep up the good work, —Stepheng3 (talk) 23:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Arnaut de Mareuil, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Petrarca (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) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Taenia taeniaeformis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taenia (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) 10:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


I cant figure out what is your concern with these words in the lead paragraph of Hexafluorosilicic acid: " It is a product of the production of hydrogen fluoride and the production of phosphate fertilizers. The majority of the hexafluorosilicic acid is used for the production of aluminium metal. Hexafluorosilicic acid is also commonly used for water fluoridation." The source is cited in the article which discusses the phosphate rock and sulfuric reaction. Seems like pretty benign wording about the context for this boring compound, so I was surprised that something about this phrasing bothers you. Waiting for your response with bemused curiosity, --Smokefoot (talk) 17:26, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, it is the part about phosphate fertilizer that is a factoid, I have just cut too deep. complainer (talk) 17:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
What is wrong with the factoid that it is kind of a spin off from making fertilizer, I am pretty sure and the records suggest. Thanks for your quick response. I was kind of wondering. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Your changes to Bondebyen[edit]

In Danish, there is only room for one clause before the verb. Normally this is the subject, but if another clause is moved forward, the subject moves after the verb.

Danish: "Han bor i nummer 5", but "I nummer 5 bor han"

English never does this:

English: "He lives in number 5", "In number 5 he lives"

"In number 5 lives he" is just plain wrong in English. I have no idea what the German syntax is, and it is hardly relevant here. --Klausok (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The construction "In Høstvej nr. 6 [...] Janus lived" is correct (as far as I know) in German, but definitely wrong in English. The common English construction is "Janus lived in Høstvej nr. 6", as you point out. I used "On Høstvej nr. 6 lived Janus", which, in English, is archaic/poetic only because I translated the article from Danish, and that is closer to the Danish word order. The usage of "on" is American English (whereas "in" is British), which I admit is inconsistent with my the rest of the article (which, ironically enough, I have written myself); but such inconsistencies are found throughout wikipedia, and I think we have a policy of tolerating them. Feel free to use the common English construction and particles, but your previous edit moved the article further away from the Queen's English. complainer (talk) 09:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Bianca Jade page[edit]

Hi. I missed the the discussions about deleting the Bianca Jade page, and have now noticed that I came in for some criticism for having worked on it. I'm neither surprised nor particularly sorry the page has been deleted (though I do feel a bit foolish for having spent time on it). But I do regret missing that there was a discussion going on in which my editing was criticized.

Unfortunately, the record of the discussions I had with ShanaScala, who created the page, as well as my edits to the page, are now down the memory hole. But if they were available, they would show that my first edit (a massive effort to tighten the page and make it more encyclopedic) was summarily reverted by ShanaScala. I told her that her work on the page smacked of promotion, and noted that the page had already been nominated for deletion. She replied, we discussed, and I came to conclude that she was actually acting in good faith (if also a newbie and completely unfamiliar with WP norms). So I tried to explain what she was doing wrong, and began systematically working the article over to bring it in line with WP standards: cutting, condensing, de-fluffing, requesting citations, etc. Perhaps it was a lost cause; perhaps Bianca Jade is indeed non-notable. But (as I explained to ShanaScala), I'm a WP:NOTPAPER kind of guy, and I was content to improve rather than delete the article. Ultimately, I took the page off my watchlist and moved on.

I did not anticipate that a discussion about deleting the article would cast aspersions on my editing; I would have thought that the substance of my edits as well as my discussion of them on the article's Talk page would have clearly shown their intent. I hope this explanation casts my work in a better light. Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, and it is indeed your time you wasted on the article; however, to the point of telling you things you know already, I would point out that:
  1. ShanaScala is a single-purpose account to promote "Bianca Jade"; these accounts are, generally, pests; if you look at her contributions, you'll notice she's a borderline troll, too.
  2. I think you are saying you are an inclusionist; normally, I am too (I am also a destructionist, but this means I want to keep articles as concise as possible by avoiding duplicate information, not that I want to keep as few articles as possible or actualyl remove useful information). However, the biography kind of troll, once achieved its main purpose, then proceeds to soil other articles with links, and to create "notability clusters", namely articles about everybody who has an even remote relationship with the main subject. If we hadn't stopped Bianca Jade, within days, it would have links on Fitness, blog, training, health and god knows how many others (there is one on Physique 57 already), plus pages for MizzFit, her husband, program, dog, and every co-worker present and past.
  3. I mentioned I would like to have everybody who worked at the article banned (albeit I didn't actually mean everybody, just main contributors) because it was my impression that ShanaScala was the actual Bianca Jade, and that she was using some PR people to help with the larding; in this context, your choice of nick didn't help, I have to admit. I am still perplexed: ShaniaScala does indeed do her own larding but some of her assertions, like that BJ is notable because "she's a Latina" do not sound like those of a professional.

I do want to point out that, of course, I bear you no grudge, nor do I think you have done anything detrimental: you have just, unwittingly, fed a troll. complainer (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: it turns out that ShaniaScala is, indeed, a professional: as it appears from here,, she is a publicist, if not a very good one. complainer (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, so you suggested banning "everybody" but intended something different, and evidently gave my handle some weight against my edits, edit history, discussion on the Talk page, etc. A little less "ready, fire, aim" next time? Cheers. PRRfan (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I said "everybody who worked on it", if I recall, meaning to keep out people doing ordinary maintenance. Let's share the blame: I agree I am too quick on the trigger, you that you have helped a PR shill in order to prove an (inclusionist) point. complainer (talk) 10:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edit summaries[edit]

Your edit summaries are atrocious. You need to not be insulting and degrading to people. multiple examples are here. PumpkinSky talk 23:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Be fair: only 16% of my recent edit summaries are unconventional, and only a fraction of those could be construed as insulting, and that only by the touchiest of editors. These summaries consistently employ the words "brainfart" and "blah blah"; unfortunately, an edit summary needs to be short, and it is very hard to describe these phenomena differently in the space given. I am sorry an edit you cared for (albeit, I seem to understand, not one you made) ended up labelled as a brainfart, but it is hard to define "She is known by just her first name" in an article that consistently uses Mrs. Bauer's last name as something else. Had it just been an unsourced statement based on the fact that Kafka just called her "Felice" (as if one would use her family name when talking to his ex), it would have sounded something like "she is usually referred to by her first name only". In that case, I would have removed it with a different summary. However, the placement in the lead, together with the Slavic syntax and lack of any context, clearly indicate the kind of edit one makes on the spur of the moment without any consideration for sensible editing habits. This is the definition of a brainfart; I'd be happy to insert it in every summary, but it is just too long. complainer (talk) 07:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for proving my point. PumpkinSky talk 10:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Who's this new littlun? He's trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
No hard feelings, but a official policy very reasonable essay keeps me from contributing to this thread. If anyone has grievances/questions about a specific edit, please start a new one. complainer (talk) 11:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's a mere essay and you're using it to troll both of us now. See below; I added a new section for you ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Bzzt. Grow up, twerp, and get a mirror. You're using that to call reasonable editors trolls, which woud be trolling. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 11:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I am a volunteer at WP:DRN who ended up looking here while researching a case. I have a message for both of you Br'er Rabbit: Knock it off. You are lucky that an administrator hasn't noticed your little war and blocked both of you from editing Wikipedia for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Please stop now. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
But I haven't said anything! Surely, you don't imply I can't remove these proposals from my own talk page?? complainer (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Oops. Brain Fart. For some reason I looked at Br'er Rabbit and didn't notice that he was replying to himself instead of the usual alternation. I apologize for the error. Sorry about that. I have edited my comment above. (Note to self: next time, smoke crack after editing Wikipedia.) --Guy Macon (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Need for evidence[edit]

Please familiarise yourself with WP:AOHA. Accusing other editors of harassment without evidence is itself a sanctionable offence. Additionally you need to be aware that making an accusation of vandalism requires substantiation or you will leave yourself open to a charge of personal attack. Our page on vandalism is clear: Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Mislabelling good-faith edits as vandalism can be considered harmful. The burden of proof that an edit is not good faith falls on the one making the accusation of vandalism.

I see that in these edits, you have made explicit accusations of harassment and vandalism without providing any evidence:

You need to either substantiate your accusations or remove them. Failure to do so will almost certainly leave you in breach of our policies. It is tempting to personalise content disputes and assume that editors who disagree with you are automatically guilty of bad intentions, but you are required to assume good faith even in those circumstances. With due respect, --RexxS (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I admit I reported harassment in the wrong forum (DRN), and I didn't pursue this further. The edits to User:Br'er Rabbit are an attempt at resolving the matter amically: Br'er Rabbit knows which edits I am referring to, and the message is meant for him, and I don't see any reason to clutter it with links. The idea was that, if I receive no answer, I will report the single pieces of vandalism and/or harassment to the noticeboard. For your perusal, I am reporting them here as well:



If you want violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, you can find a plethora of them in the paragraph preceding this one. In the meanwhile, Br'er Rabbit has been reported to WP:ANI already for harassing other users; I am unsure whether I should, if the dispute is not resolved amically, file a new report or participate in the existing one. Incidentally, I have a problem seeing how you can call this a "content dispute". Very little content is involved and, as you can see, I haven't actually answered any of the edits, so it is hard to characterize it as a dispute. Incidentally, an accusation of vandalism is a content-related accusation, which is not really a WP:NPA violation albeit, if proven wrong, it probably violates another half dozen policies. As a counterexample, calling people "twerp" is a WP:NPA violation. Telling them to grow up is, likewise, a WP:NPA violation. The list could go on. complainer (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Fancy that: Br'er Rabbit was a global troll with dozens of sock puppets; how any editor in good standing could tarnish his reputation by defending his case, sometimes over and over again, is anybody's wonder. complainer (talk) 14:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Sock at Ole miss riots of 2012 AfD[edit]

Hi Complainer, at first I thought you were right, and that there was an unjust accusation of sockpuppetry at the Ole miss riots of 2012 AfD. As I was looking into it, however, I found out that that editor is indeed blocked. See this section of the user's talk page. This is just a courtesy notice to let you know I collapsed comments from you and me that aren't related to the AfD discussion. Thanks, BDD (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bdd, and thank you for the explanation; however, when the user made that edit he wasn't, of course, (yet) blocked: does this kind of block remove voting rights retroactively? There is no sign that he voted twice on Ole miss riots of 2012 AfD, in any case, and his argument made more sense than, e.g., mine.complainer (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Good point. This is standard practice for block evaders, but I'm not sure it should retroactively apply. This occurred just a few hours before the block, however. --BDD (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


While I admire you perseverence, your repeated efforts to remove the second paragraph of the lede in the Sestina article is not being helpful. I don't like quoting MoS guidelines to people, but in this case I don't see any other choice. The purpose of the lede is to (per WP:LEAD):

"... briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."

And: "In general, the emphasis given to material in the lead should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to reliable sources."

And: "It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

By removing that second paragraph, which intends to summarise the section on the sestina's "Effects", you are essentially removing the lede's ability to adequately summarise the article content. Whether or not it is poorly worded (I certainly agree it was) is besides the point.

As for your response: "been noted...been hailed": 1- weaseling is not a replacement for sources; 2- this is editorializing: we are to define sestina, not to give pointers to wishful poets" (Sestina history) ... if you find the section on "Effects" you will note that it is as reliably sourced as any other section of the article, and, as per above, the purpose is not to give pointer to wishful poets, but to adequately summarise. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me start with saying that I am not trying to be a philistine: I have puslished a book about verse form, have a section about sestina, and this section has a sub-section about effect. I have also been the first, in 1996, to put Daniel's original sestina on the web. I am by no means advocating the removal of the effects section. The reason I deleted that paragraph from the lead is mostly formal:
1 - it is one paragraph summarizing a section made up of three; this is ridiculous, albeit common on wikipedia; the section is, in fact so short that the only way to summarize it would be to repeat it in its entirety, and it is just not relevant enough to do so.
2 - the weasel words ("been hailed", a.s.f.) are a disgrace. I think the reader is much, much better off having to scroll half a page down than being welcomed by one of the Plagues of Wikipedia. De-weaseling would perhaps be too bold, and would require further explanation--therefore, again, a literal repetition of the section.
I am familiar with the policies you mention; however, those, like most editorial policies, assume one has a very large, comprehensive article, which is not practical for all subjects and, most of the times, is not there even when it is practical. When dealing with articles of a few hundred words, summarizing often means making the article slower, not faster, to skim through. complainer (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay, perhaps the solution is to exclude it for the moment and then re-introduce a modified version once I get around to expanding the article (post-Christmas), and particularly that section. I hope I can count on you to help with that, if you're interested, considering your expertise. All the best till then. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Of course, just give me a shout here in case I forget. complainer (talk) 11:25, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I have partially reviewed your review; in particular, I have curtailed a bit of the notes explaining what troubadours are about, since we have wikilinks for that, I have mentioned Bertran de Born (which is a lot less obscure than the other guy), and made the point that Provence is still, well, in France. complainer (talk) 15:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


I edited as an ip, my log in timed out, I guess, sorry about that. Rather than get into a silly edit war, which is where we seem to be heading, can we move it to talk. Ceoil (talk) 14:56, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll take it to talk; however, your summary is not a meaningful one, and I don't even know what a literalist is; if anything, I am a keepingitshortandcuttingthechitchattionist. complainer (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
You seem a bit hung up on an edit summary I made three reverts ago. I can do what about that now? And you did precicly what I asked you not to do since. Ceoil (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Actually, you are wrong on both count: I am hung up on an edit summary you did not make, and I am hung up on you making a mockery of it. And I have done precisely what you asked me to do (not that I have any obligation to do what you ask, incidentally), i.e., I have taken it to talk, and have given a fair warning before reverting. You ignored the talk, and sniped my revert: while the other editors who reverted are merely confused about sourcing duties, you seem to be confused on the subject of etiquette. I advise you read about it in our policies, and not force me to waste my time bringing a single tendentious statement to dispute resolution, which process would end up banning you from editing an article that seems to be close to your heart. I will, as a sign of good will, wait another 24 hours before reverting the edit. If you can source it properly by then, I will accept it. If you revert again, I'll take it to dispute resolution without wasting more bytes on this, or the article's, talk. complainer (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Your talking to me as if context means nothing and its just about percieved behaviour, or how you might frame it later. I'm usually curt with people I see that might be inclinded that way. Ceoil (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
If this is what I seem to be conveying, I have to apologize for my lack of clarity: I haven't made that edit out of formalism: I see hundreds of unsourced statements on wikipedia every day, and leave them alone. I have made that edit because I genuinely believe the statement to be false or, in the very least misleading. I have researched the matter, and haven't found anything to confirm it, quite the opposite, actually--I have written so in the talk page. As it is, the article seems to imply that, while the papacy forbade some books, Catholic institutions of higher learnings ignored it and went their own way. If not utterly false, which it could well be, it's the kind of controversial statement that can't just get away with a "source missing" tag. complainer (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Descort, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Form and Vida (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) 10:56, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Complainer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Recent Sable Island Edit[edit]

I notice that you took out a reference to great white sharks being found in the waters off Sable - just curious as to why. It is my understanding that there are many species of sharks in those waters, but unfortunately the Green Horse Society web site (the most comprehensive source of info for the island) has been under construction for quite a while and I can't confirm whether or evidence of great whites has been found there. HiFlyChick (talk) 12:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The statement is unsourced, placed in a position (right after a citation and right before the end of a paragraph) where fantastic information is traditionally inserted, and Sable Island seems to be (if by only a few hundred km) outside of the accepted distribution range of the great white shark. complainer (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


Per WP:BLANK, you should simply not blank pages. If you feel that it is harmful and should be deleted, then list it at WP:RFD, but blanking the page is not the way to go. Any refutations before I reinstate it? Because I do not wish to have an edit war. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 01:12, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

RFD doesn't make any sense, here: the subject is obviously relevant. The problem is that the choice seems to be between a page that actually worsens the knowledge of the subject one might have before visiting it (i.e., it is misleading) and violating the form of a rule. I say we write "Artamidae is a family of [non] passerine birds", no redirects, and we're good with both things. complainer (talk) 01:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
All right. Sure. Ramaksoud2000 (Talk to me) 02:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I got carried away and tried to do a proper job. If you are an expert in the field, you'd probably better review it. Thanks, complainer (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Living fossil may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Southern Pulse may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • 2012|deadurl=no|location=[[Washington, D.C.]]|page=14}}</ref> The organization currently based in [[Annapolis, Maryland].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)


Hi, I'd just like to say that the mention of a Japanese firm's selling of starfish recipes is notable in this featured and very thoroughly reviewed article, since the products are very rarely eaten and may well be somewhat toxic. We editors have, needless to say, no connection at all with the company, and the company has not been involved in any way in the article. Since this is on the front page today this is a sensitive matter; of course I'd be really pleased if we could simply restore the deleted text, which is not any form of advertising. Hoping for your understanding and collaboration, all the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

On reflection, if it's all right with you, I'd like to restore this for today, and ask you not to touch it again while the article is on the front page. Please feel free to discuss the matter here or on the article's talk page, we'll try to work something out in slow time. Many thanks in advance for your co-operation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
The argument that the article is "thoroughly reviewed" is not a valid one. Thorougly reviewed as it might be, people can add things to it after the review, just as I have. The fact that the product is not generally eaten is mentioned, and why it isn't is mentioned as well. Since the only source for the existence of the ebook is a page from the company itself, it is to be considered self-promotion, and it has to be deleted; furthermore, the Amakusa TV Company has no wikipedia entry and is most likely not notable in itself, let alone its single product. So no, unless you have stronger arguments I will remove it; the article of the day is our frontpage and it is essential that it is free of non-encyclopedic content in general, and of advertisement in particular. If for nothing else, because it gives people ideas.complainer (talk) 12:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
There is no advertisement there, as I've said. However, the sole point of the mention is to prove that starfish are, very occasionally, used as food; I will edit the paragraph now, with a new reference (as food in Tobi); since the existing source shows Japan is also a place where starfish are eaten, it remains a relevant source, but we may be able to find another - I will remove the company's name from the text, if you'll give me a few minutes. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Framekillers killers[edit]

While perhaps information is not up to date, I as a reader undone your edit, because some websites links to those valuable informations and just entirely deleting them instead of rewriting makes losing of important informations for readers of Wikipedia just as mine.

While I can't citate any Wikipedia rule to justify by revert-undo. I appeal to common sense to try to improve this section instead of entirely deleting it. The reason for that is that links to this Wikipedia section in comments and it might be just valuable information too.

A reader of the article without this section might believe there's no way to prevent breaking out of iframe, which is in my hereby opinion as a reader - false impression.

I appeal again to instead of deleting this section Framekiller killers in article It should be rewritten. (talk) 19:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't really argument against an edit motivated by wikipedia policies without quoting a wikipedia policy; it is tantamount to saying "well, screw wikipedia, I don't like it". Wikipedia is not a coding manual. It particularly isn't a coding manual for wannabe hackers writing unpleasant scripts. Wikipedia is also sourced by reliable sources, not by dubious blogs. Finally, wikipedia is royally indifferent to the broken links of, or, indeed any other website. Unless you have reasons to keep, or rewrite, the paragraph, that are within the framework of wikipedia's goals and methods, it will go, and stay gone.complainer (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

"Like a Rolling Stone"[edit]

Hi Complainer, I reverted your changes to LARS article. You deplored the lead para as "an unsourced combination of weaseling, propaganda and fandom..." But the lead summarises points from the body of the article and does not contain cites or sources. Each of the points occurs in body of LARS text, many in the Legacy section, where each point has a cite. Lead of article was in this form when promoted to WP:FA in February 2010. Am willing to discuss on Talk page if you wish. Best, Mick gold (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your note; I will not revert or adjust the "lede" because it definitely falls under the "Can't be bothered" line but, just for academic discussion, will point out that is isn't only an issue of sourcing. Saying "Bob Dylan sold a million copies" is ok on wikipedia. Saying "Bob Dylan is iconic" simply isn't: our adjectives need to be clear and demonstrable and there simply isn't an objective criterion for iconicity. One can say "This and that critic called B.D. iconic": that is ok too; but just popping it in the lede is...misleding. complainer (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
You make good points. I've copy-edited LARS to tone down the "fandom" prose. Mick gold (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

cracked me[edit]

i like your username and your user page. gave me a smile today. thanks for removing hogwash! Jytdog (talk) 16:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

English level 5?[edit]

From what I can tell from reading your user page your level of speaking English is not professional. Yeah sure, you learned English here on the internet in such way that you didn't need formal education, but everyone of this generation has that asset and it has nothing to do with professionalism. And your English is not professional. I'm sorry that I might be acting like a dick right now but just don't make such claims if you haven't studied English. Because you clearly haven't.

BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 07:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am conflicted about answering this; however, contrary to reason, I'll assume good faith, and presume you are not simply a troll. I am the author of an essay about English prosody; this was published in the States, which, I assume, is your native country, by a reputable publisher. I have also written professionally, in English, for magazines. This makes my English literally professional, as opposed to people who claim such a thing merely for having been born in an English-speaking country, no matter how sloppy the educational system might be there. I am not sure what your problem with my English is--I would not write something like "of this generation", for example--and whether you have been stalking my edits and found mistakes there. Sometimes, I admit, I do not re-read things, but it is haste, not non-professionalism. Now, what about doing something actually useful with your time on wikipedia? complainer (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah well I had noticed some errors and then I saw the English level five and I assumed you were some pretentious kid. I was kinda bored because I was sitting in school so I stumbled upon this. It was early in the morning so I was in a bad mood. I'm not from the US tho; I'm just a simple dutch guy representing 010.

peace BeefDaeRoastLXG praat 09:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for input[edit]

Should the Combination tone article you edited, which includes a section on Resultant tones include information about the use of resultant tones in heavy metal music power chords? For talk page discussion, see here.OnBeyondZebraxTALK 02:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I regret I don't have the competence to answer that; the one edit I made was of administrative (I removed a non-notable link), not technical nature complainer (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

it seems to me[edit]

that you might be interested in this article, Missouri Executive Order 44, on the grounds that wikipedia editors are also wikipedia users. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the Scaly-foot gastropod article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. --Laser brain (talk) 14:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

"Parasitic" wasps[edit]

You are close to reverts on something that you are not willing to talk about. The term parasitic is used for symphyta families as they are plant parasites, therefore the use of the term by me was fine, please take your concerns to the Ulteramus talk page.--Kevmin § 22:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that, if the criterion is that any animal that eats a plant whereupon it survives is a plant parasite, giraffes are parasites too, and nobody in its right mind would open the giraffe article with "'s a genus of parasite mammals"; come to think of it, we would be parasites too, of laurel plants at the very least. The point here is that a parasitic wasp in the accepted entomological parlance is a completely different thing: technically, it isn't even a parasite, but a parasitoid. Confusing people on a dubious technicality and demanding to "take it to talk" is disruptive to wikipedia: if one had to discuss every such edit, we would have a total of 100 articles, and do nothing but wrangle about it. complainer (talk) 11:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Complainer. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Heraclea Lyncestis[edit]

Hi, to be honest i only noticed your removal of the footnote and not of the sentence further down, which left me wonder about your edit summary, sorry for this. Not a bad idea eliminating the double mention actually, although i don't see any political motivation behind it, the "after he had conquered the surrounding region" part seems useful to me and could remain. The talk page consensus i was talking was about the footnote clarification, i've seen this kind of footnotes being used elsewhere, usually with letter symbols to differentiate them from citation numbering. Formatting aside, i think it's useful and harmless, but i don't care enough to reinsert it again. It would be better to use the article's talk page for any further discussion so that any interested user can participate. GroGaBa (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Grenfell tower fire[edit]

I appreciate the reasoning behind your removals, but on balance I think that said removals are not to the overall benefit of the article. It would probably be better to tag with {{better source}} which flags the issue up to other editors. As the article is being heavily edited, there is a good chance that doing so will result in fairly quick action. Mjroots (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it is clear that, especially in an article of that type, we need reliable sources. Here, we are talking about, what, half a dozen peoeple in a neighbourhood association whose competence in the matter boils down to "were afraid of fires" and might, for all we know, be doctoring their blog as we speak. They are just not encyclopedia material by any standard. Even if they aren't, if you live in a large enough estate, you probably have people blogging about fire safety there too; it doesn't mean you risk being braised anytime soon. complainer (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)