User talk:Evanh2008/Archive 2

help me with my portal

Will you help my with My new Prtal, Portal:Call of duty. Thanks and please notify any experts on call of duty to help me or contact me. --Pacman451 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)--Pacman451 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)--Pacman451 (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

help with WikiProject

Will you Help me with WikiProject: Call of duty. You can be Co-Creator. Thanks- --Pacman451 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I very much appreciate the offers, Mr. Pacman, but video games and suchlike isn't a big strength of mine. If you need help with just grammar or copyediting or something like that, let me know. I appreciate the offer, though. : ) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:13, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please revert the changes made by you to the Indian Ordfnance Factories Board page.

Dear Evan, I edited an article "Ordnance Factories Board" which previously lacked vital information and was a stub. I provided the necessary citations and references from "reputable sources", even then, the page was reverted to its previous state. My father has worked in OFB for the past 33 years and is currently working as the General Manager of Ordnance Factory Tiruchirappalli. He has worked as a Scientist in the DRDO for 3 years. OFB is a great organisation and has a great sentimental value in our hearts. If you want, you can expand the article yourself or rollback changes you made. I'm an Electrical & Electronics engineer myself and a true patriotic son of my motherland, India. I won't do anything to defame its pride or its belongings'.

With all due respect (and I certainly don't doubt the qualifications of either you or your father), I'm only trying to help the article. Before I reverted to a previous revision the article was simply not up to standards, particularly linguistically. I removed quite a bit of material, true, but had I not, the article would still probably have needed to be rewritten entirely. I'll revert the article to what it was before my last revert, but it is in need of major, major work, so I. I wouldn't have reverted it if I thought it would have been easier, simpler or better to work with the article as it was.

I suppose I have enough free time (and I hope you to do) to commit to cleaning up the article to an acceptable standard, as soon as possible. But if there isn't major improvements on the article soon, someone else is going to come along and, very likely, do the same thing I did.

I'm restoring the content for now, so let's work together to make it better. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed "18th of March" to "March 18" in the lead section. Is that the correct date format for India, or would "18 March" be more common? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh thanks a lot dear, I'm kind of new to Wikipedia editing and I don't really know about the "quality" of the content maybe you can direct me on the required changes or it would be great if you can spare some time for editing before someone comes across it and deletes it. Yes, 18th of March is correct as in India, we follow the UK's date format (DD/MM/YYYY) but I guess the US format would be more apt. Please guide me on the issues below: 1.When I search for OFB, the wiki page doesn't show up in the first page of search engine's results. 2.There's a page "Ordnance Factories Organisation" which shows up in the disambiguation results. There's no such organisation in India. Please delete that page and link this page to the disambiguation list. 3.I was unable to put up the OFB logo and the photos of the products manufactured at its factories. I don't think that I'd be able to do all this by myself and I really need your help. I can mail you the photographs and logo with the captions as their filenames so that you can directly upload them. No information provided is made up, hyped or biased, would be genuine, backed up with facts.

thanking you for your kindness and future help :D

Sorry for the delayed response. To answer your questions:

1. On my search engine, the Ordnance Factories Board page is showing up as the fourth result.

2. Ordnance Factories Organisation is a redirect to Ordnance Factories Board. I'm not seeing it listed on any disambiguation page.

3. Yes, I could probably help you upload some pictures, but I'll need to know first of all where you got them from. We have very strict guidelines for fair use on images in our articles, so if you didn't take the pictures yourself, or if they aren't otherwise in the public domain, it will raise some issues. Most government documents are in the public domain in India, I believe, so if these are government-produced images, that shouldn't be a problem. Just let me know from where these pictures came, and we can upload them soon. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, I'm extremely sorry to have reverted some changes you made, like:

1.OFB is the largest and the oldest industrial setup run by the Government of India, employing a total workforce of about 150,000. TO 1*.OFB is the largest and the oldest industrial organisation run by the Government of India. It has a total workforce of about 150,000. Since, the the former one reflects that its largest in terms of workforce and there are MUCH larger government as well as private organisations in India in terms of workforce. I wonder what the "oldest" would have denoted. :P

2. "The Colonial Era" to "the beginning", as beginning sounds more appropriate when used to describe an initial state.

3. "Growth (1947-present)" was made a separate heading as it was listed under "History" as the "present" cannot be history today. Tomorrow, it surely will be!

4."Timeline" was changed to "Main Events" as timeline is a much more detailed and exhaustive list of either of the two and requires more events.

I sincerely hope you don't mind the above and I understand that my reasoning could be wrong. If so, please correct me. I finally was able to fix the disambiguation page. Yeah, the images of the products and the logo are on the website of the Board, which is maintained by the GoI. But, the images are of real bad quality and very low res. So, is there any way we can put up some images giving full credits to its author(s)?

Thanks in anticipation. :) --VivekMishra2010 (talk) 12:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response; I just noticed your last reply. I've since made some more edits to the article that I think are an improvement in the area you mentioned. I should have more time to get the article in proper condition later this week. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your inputs! I'm looking forward to some pictorial improvements.

Warm regards, Vivek Mishra. --VivekMishra2010 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

re Harrison albums

Hi Evanh2008. I've left a message for you on my talk page about the Harri albums thing. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at Frood's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frood! ^Ohai _{What did I break now?} 22:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Rollback

I think that if you just wait a day, ask on his talk page, you will get better results. WilliamH and I have very different ways of doing things, but my experience has been that he is a good guy and is very reasonable. He does take a more strict view on 3RR, but he is also quick to reconsider. I disagree with you on one point, in that this was not the proper place to use rollback. I would have instead explained this in great detail here, rather than take your rollback, but I understand (even if I disagree) with why he took it. In the interest of keeping the peace, respecting our differences of opinion, and restoring your rollback, I strongly suggest just talking with him about it in a calm way, on his talk page. At least give it a try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 13:03, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be glad to see this in the rear-view mirror, but I would just like to say (in case William happens to be reading this) that my problem was not with the fact that he took my rollback powers. My problem was that he did so while disregarding my repeated attempts at communication with the Nazi troll in question; and yes, I believe he violated policy in doing so. For someone with the responsibility of a longstanding admin, he should have (and, in fact, is required by policy to have) actually checked before acting hastily. Had he taken the time to thoroughly examine the diffs in question and to even check to see if I had attempted communication, which he clearly did not, and had he not come out of the gate with both guns blazing, asking for me to be blocked, this would not have escalated the way it did. I've seen new admins get de-sysopped for less. I can't disagree with your assessment of him personally; I can only go by what I saw yesterday.

That said, my incivility was out of line, and everyone was right to point that out. I thank you, User:BrownHairedGirl, and everyone else for getting in between us. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:46, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

McCartney's 2002 'Driving' tours merging

Hey, I was wondering, as it is now the Macca tour articles include three 'Driving' tours. These need to be merged into one, but as I have never attempted a merge I am ignorant as to how to proceed. Do you have the time, and are you willing to collaborate on this?

Driving USA Tour – 24 shows, 2002 Driving Mexico Tour – 3 shows, 2002 Driving Japan Tour – 5 shows, 2002

One might also argue that his Back in the U.S. tour should also be merged into the forthcoming "Driving" world tour article. Any thoughts, suggestions? — GabeMc (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hm. Interesting issue, that one. Will there need to be a proposal made before doing that, or would it be noncontroversial enough to not require that (or maybe there was a discussion already that I missed)?

Regardless, I'll do what I can to help. I've taken part in a few merge discussions in the past but I've never actually helped carry out the merge itself. I'll do some reading up on it, though. (I guess it's time I learned how anyway). If we were to just merge the "Driving" articles, I guess we could call the new article Driving World Tour or something like that? Not sure how that would be affected with the addition of Back in the US, but it does look as though that one should be included.

In short, I'm not totally sure how to proceed, but once we've figured it out, I'll be glad to help. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure how to proceed either. There has not been a discussion in this regard (that I know of), though I doubt anything about it would be contentious, I could be wrong. This could be a good learning experience for both of us. If you feel we need to open a discussion before proceding I'll defer to your judgement and agree, otherwise, I say lets just be bold and go for it. — GabeMc (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like anything contentious to me, so being bold should be fine in this case, I think. The whole process is actually a lot simpler than I expected it to be.

It looks like "Driving World Tour" is a common enough name to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME, particularly for the purposes of not having three or more extraneous articles cluttering up the topic. The most high-profile pages and/or templates that link to any of the to-be-merged articles should be updated with the new target link as soon as possible, so maybe one of us could create the content and the other go through and fix the wikilinks? Just a suggestion, but let me know if you have any thoughts on that. I should be online for a while longer tonight, so if you have the time we can get on this right now. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I agree and I think we are fine to take the initiative here. I'm willing to do whatever aspect of this operation you would prefer to avoid. So feel free to delegate the tasks as you see fit. Thanks Evan! I won't have much time to work on this tonight in any depth, but I could certianly pick-up my slack on the morrow, and in days to come. — GabeMc (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to creating the actual article, so if you want to get started on some of the more important articles that link to any of the articles in question, you could get started on that whenever you have the time. It's not actually as time-sensitive as I might have made it sound, given that the merged articles will be redirects to the new page. I'll get right on it! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Consider it merged! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

And actually, you probably don't need to worry about the links and stuff. WP:MERGE says that bots should take care of any problems in that regard. I fixed the template, and I think the article itself is in reasonably good order now. I kept each of the four "legs" as sections of the article, as they really were promoted as separate entities in a way, but we can discuss that if you disagree. If you see any problems, let me know. G'night! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Great work Evan! Thanks. — GabeMc (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at 70.248.176.136's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

70.248.176.136 (talk) 06:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Rock of Ages

If you read the plot, the two characters do enter into a committed homosexual relationship during the course of Rock of Ages. They kiss onscreen---I thought it was gross but there you have it. --70.49.220.226 (talk) 07:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. I misidentified the edit as vandalism, and have corrected myself. My apologies. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for the barnstar. It is much appreciated. By the way did you know that you are a Journeyman Editor? Can I put that service award on your user page? Surge_Elec (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

You're very welcome! Keep up the good work. And no, I didn't know I had attained any rank in particular. Go for it, if you feel like it! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:03, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I have put the award on your userpage. Hope you like it. Surge_Elec (talk) 08:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. : ) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at WilliamH's talk page.
Message added 22:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WilliamH (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Evanh2008. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy

Speedy A7 cannot be used for schools -- see WP:CSD. Even a primary or intermediate school can be redirected or merged somewhere--the town, or diocese or school board. DGG ( talk ) 04:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

St. Michael's High School

I was going to tell you how to do page protection and request such but I see you have beaten me to it! Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! I wonder what triggered that insanity. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

One wonders. Schools just out. Maybe texting, or a forum? Jim1138 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:ANISUCKS ! Jim1138 (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Truth. I try to avoid it as much as I possibly can. Thanks for the laugh! : ) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Reminds me of Jokes by numbers Lots of humor sprinkled about. Jim1138 (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wolf's Rain

"Looking back on this, everything except the bit about the Cyrillic lettering can stay" And why that's so? It's just facts, so you are vandaling good-faith changes. Or maybe you have some arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.242.61.168 (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:OR, which I cited in my original revert. You may also be interested in reading WP:NOT VANDALISM. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:24, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia rules, thanks. It is not original research, it is fact that understandable from the subject of article. Just look thia anime-serial and make sure of it. So, please, don't do vandal changes. Or I will need to adress to administration of english section wiki. And we will see who is right of us. You are just going againts facts. --188.242.61.168 (talk) 00:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Don't accuse me of vandalism. If you think I've vandalised, then take it to AN/I or AIV. Otherwise, I'm not interested in discussing your baseless accusations. If you can't cite sources when you add something to an article, don't get upset when it's removed. If you knew "Wikipedia rules", as you put it, you would already understand that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:36, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

If you say such things then you should delete more than half of Wikipedia content. It's like you want to say that even every word must be with sourse. Please, look WP:POINT. Obvious things that understandable from the article subject don't need sourses, just as I said. P.S. Sorry for not very good english. --188.242.61.168 (talk) 00:44, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

I've done nothing to violate WP:POINT. If you ask an administrator, they will tell you the same thing. On the other hand, what you added to the article is both original research and synthesis. If reliable, third-party sources have made the same observations, then you can cite the material and it can stay. Otherwise, my assessment of it as WP:OR and synthesis is correct. In the interests of civility (and not edit-warring) I'll give you twelve hours to provide a reliable source for your addition regarding the Cyrillic lettering. If you haven't provided one by then, the material will be removed. If you still believe I'm a vandal or that I'm disrupting the site to make a point, then you can feel free to go tell on me. Probably here is the best place to make a report. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Kheri shila

Hello Evanh2008, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kheri shila, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not nonsense - there is meaningful content. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. ϢereSpielChequers 09:02, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Living in the Material World GA assessment

Hi Evanh2008. I see you've made a number of changes to the article in line with the GA review comments for Living in the Material World, which is great, because you've done them well, without just following the instructions to the letter necessarily. Thought I'd get in touch because I in fact undid many of the changes (done by yeepsi previously) that the reviewer had requested, because it seemed to me that Rp0211 had asked for a lot of unnecessary, rather pedantic changes to be made (removing dates for single in infobox; adding year in parenthesis each and every time an album was named; having mentions of a year unabbreviated, as a blanket rule). Although a number of issues were raised in the review that were valid and very useful, I felt RP0211 really hadn't attempted to get into the spirit of the article, more a case of imposing a number of personally preferred style points (ones that I can't find at all in any MoS guidelines or the WikiAlbums style guide), and taking a lot away from the text in the process. Not only that, but the instructions were plain wrong at times: eg, the point about the song "So Sad" should be in parenthesis, because it's not on this album and the section in question is discussing songs written and recorded for LITMW; and, like "Living in the Material World (song)", "The Lord Loves the One (That Loves the Lord)" was also "Prabhupada-inspired", so they needed to be linked together. I realise I could've taken each issue up with the reviewer, but to be honest, it didn't seem worth it. As I've said (ranted?) on yeepsi (Time for a chat?)'s talk page, my feeling was to let this GA nom go (as it now has, with time having expired) rather than sacrifice a good article for the sake of a Good Article rating − particularly as another piece I did a lot of work on, Dark Horse, has just been successfully nominated as a GA without any of the unnecessary requirements that Rp0211 felt the need to impose on LITMW. So I'm thinking of re-submitting Living in the Material World soon and requesting that GreatOrangePumpkin (the DH reviewer) be the one to assess it, same with The Concert for Bangladesh. Not sure what luck I'll have there, but we'll see.

Anyway, I don't mean to sound "precious" about article content. It's just that, judging by the situation with the Dark Horse article, many of the Living in the Material World review's instructions are not in fact GA requirements, but they take a degree of accessibility away from the text. Please feel free to give me your comments − perhaps I've been in HarrisonAlbumLand a bit too long and need a reality check ... Just thought I'd raise this issue with you, so you won't be too surprised if I reword the "Prabhupada-inspired" mention, say, or reinstate brackets around the "So Sad" sentence. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, no worries! I got the same feeling about a few of the requested changes, so feel free to do whatever you think makes the article better. I've been planning for some time to go through each of the Harrison album articles and get them up to standard in a few areas where there's room for improvement. I think we can definitely squeeze a few Good Article statuses out of the bunch without sacrificing quality. Do you have any input on how we should go about getting consensus on how to order the albums in each article's lead section (i.e., whether Electronic Sound or All Things Must Pass should be listed as his first studio album)? That's something I feel we need to get a widespread agreement on soon. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey, good to meet someone else with a wiki-wide view of GH's album articles! Over the last six months I've been working on everything from All Things Must Pass up to The Best of, including song articles, trying to get the albums up to a B rating and the songs up to a C at least. The albums are all Bs now, which is great, but I agree, a few GAs are definitely possible. ATMP still needs quite a bit of work to tie the whole piece together, though. Anyway, your point about GH discography and the place of Elec Sound in the scheme of things − I guess the way to go would be a straw poll, not that I know too much about the process. Personally, as a lifelong fan, George's first proper studio album was ATMP; Wonderwall was a soundtrack (damn good, though), Electronic Sound was a Zapple experimental album. I'd say put it to the vote ... Cheers, JG66 (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just FYI, I've started a threaded discussion on the subject here. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Countries Applying Biometrics

Hi Evanh2008, you tagged Countries Applying Biometrics for deletion under "A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic." Per Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#A10:

"This does not include split pages or any article that expands or reorganizes an existing one or that contains referenced, mergeable material. "

The new article is, indeed, a split from Biometrics, as you can see from Special:Contributions/Octavius_SV. Please be more careful with this and other speedy deletion tags in the future. Thanks, Melchoir (talk) 07:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that just before you took down the tag. Apologies, and I'll keep a closer eye out in the future. Thanks for notifying me! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Poulenc

Thank you for your message. There are plenty of links in the text I have added which provide all the references needed. The page as it was before I added to it did not mention any works between the late 30s and the sonatas, at the end of the composer's life. Dialogues of the Carmelites is not even referred to. Please use all the links I have provided and you will see for yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.156.85 (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You haven't added any links to the article. What are you talking about? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:34, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

39 new links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.156.85 (talk) 02:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

No new links. Absolutely none. Do you think repeating it over and over again is going to make it true? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(Butting in) Hi Evan -- I think 82. means wikilinks. The added material, to my eye (going on memory -- I know Poulenc's music pretty well -- and reading the article in the French wiki) is accurate. It just needs references, which are also lacking in the French article, although there are several good biographies listed at the bottom from which it would be easy find citations, provided one had access. Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 02:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, yes, that's probably it. Thanks for clarifying. Anyway, I haven't reverted anything yet and don't intend to. I'd rather not get involved at all, really, but when I see large additions of content with no inline citations I feel the need to at least notify the user in question. If it's not contentious, it probably can stay until someone provides inline citations, but that should happen as soon as possible. Thanks! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

GA Review Anne Rice

I have initiated a review of the Anne Rice article you nominated for good article status. You can see the review page here.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

My final review has been put on hold so there can be additional changes made to the article. See my initial review to see where I think there is need for improvement.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Have a few final suggestions and we should be done.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2006

You added deadend and wikify tags to July 2006 but I think that was unjustified. The article is mostly transclusions of various templates and what little text is natural to the page doesn't need any linking, IMO. I think AWB might be in error here and I have removed the tags. Dismas|^(talk) 10:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me. AWB is a little weird sometimes, so you can feel free to revert anything I do with it that looks off-kilter or unhelpful. Thanks for letting me know! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Paul McCartney FAC

Are you able to find a WP:RS for "Sir Paul McCartney's agent was Hubert Chesshyre, LVO, Clarenceux King of Arms", I assume this is accurate, he seems to be the person who would have performed that duty, but I cannot find it in any reliable sources. Any help on that would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! ~ GabeMc (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this (it's a PDF, so you might have to right-click to download), which is an official publication of the Worshipful Company of Gold and Silver Wyre Drawers, an established Livery Company in London. It mentions McCartney as a "client" of Chesshyre's, which I believe would make Chesshyre, McCartney's "agent", though I'm not sure that's specific enough. I think it definitely meets WP:RS, though. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I think that pdf source was there before, and I may have judged it unreliable and deleted it, I could be wrong, it looks like a self-published newsletter. I've summarized this material now in the article chronology, so if we have to remove the arms altogether, that's not a big deal. You could run that source by the folks at WP:RSN if you have the time. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not self-published in the true sense (published directly by the author of the work), but it may be a little too WP:PRIMARY for these purposes. I'll take it to the WP:RSN to see what others say. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for making the effort to help out Evan, I hope you're right (that it's a RS). ~ GabeMc (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added some summary detail on Rubber Soul, Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper, per FAC comments. If you have the time, I'm sure the Beatles section could use a once over, as I am sure I must have left an error or two in my wake. ~ GabeMc (talk) 02:21, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Will do! I just made a few edits that I think tidy up a few problems right up until the section on Revolver. I'll go through the rest of the section later tonight. Great work so far! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again Evan! ~ GabeMc (talk)

You're welcome! I think I caught all or most of the punctuation and grammatical errors in the "Beatles" section, but I'll try to give the whole article another look tomorrow to see if anything ele jumps out at me. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. What did you think of the content? ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks great! I saw the comments at the FAC that you had gotten a little off-topic with it, but I don't think that's the case, overall. There may be a few places that could be trimmed a little bit, but I'm way too tired to go through and pick those spots out, if they even exist. I'll look through tomorrow and let you know if anything needs to be cut. Keep up the good work! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Most of the material relies on, or benefits from the support of the previous material or upcoming material, so I can't find a great place to trim. Though there may well be. I hear you on tired man, I'm averaging 4 hours per night this month, brutal! See if you can figure out how to avoid using three "Epstein's death"s in one graph. I can't find a solution without messing up the subject. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

The "Epstein's death" issue is resolved! Time to sleep. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Cool! Sleep well. : ) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If we remove the paragraph about the Pepper cover, then we have to remove the image as well. Also, I strongly disagree with you here. If Macca sketched the most famous album cover of all time, that that is surely notable. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Per, "I think also the last paragraph of this subsection (beginning "Between 1962 and 1970") is also unnecessary. We've already covered the major singles and albums in detail, and don't need to summarize here" Yeah, we mention them, but not their chart history, in fact it's not even mentioned that they had a #1 album at all, or a #1 single in the entire section, until the last graph, which is there is summarize the band's achievements. ~ GabeMc (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

You are correct about the lack of a chart history mention prior to that paragraph, so I will retract that suggestion. I would suggest, though, that it might be something that could fit better in the lede, perhaps in abbreviated form. Regarding the Pepper thing, notability isn't actually the criterion for inclusion an article (see WP:N, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article."). And I'm not sure the cover actually would have to be removed if we cut out the bit about Paul having sketched it, as it would still be adjacent to material related to the album (though fair use policy might disagree with me on that). In an ideal world, I don't think I'd cut anything from the section on the Beatles. As I said at the FAC, I don't actually think the article is too long, but people are telling you to cut, so I'm just trying to give some ideas in that regard by telling you which bits I could live without. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:06, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Noleander, who did the image review and supported as was, the article must critically analyze the content of the cover, or its not a good rationale for use, thus copyvio, thus not FA. I have to go with him on that. But thanks for the lesson on notability. I'm just really fatigued. ~ GabeMc (talk) 09:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Per your above suggestion: "it might be something that could fit better in the lede", nothing should be included in the lede, which isn't also included in the article body Evan.~ GabeMc (talk) 09:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about that. I should have thought that through before posting it. The only reason I mentioned it is that it breaks the chronological flow. After we've read through the Beatles' entire career, we're suddenly jumping back for an eight-year summary of their success, and then in the next paragraph we're talking about his solo career. I guess I mentioned putting it in the lead because it looked a summary statement to me, which it actually isn't, even though it kind of looks like one.

I might suggest putting it in the "Recognition and achievements" section, but maybe that would make it look too Macca-specific when we're talking about the whole band charting, etc.

Anyway, I've been knee-deep in secondary sources, doing research for another article for a few hours now and am not thinking too clearly. I didn't get to look through the McCartney article in as much depth today as I had planned, so I'll try to have some more clear-headed suggestions for you tomorrow. Good luck in the meantime. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you make a good point about the broken chrono, and I see what you mean about the redundancy. I think I fixed it now. ~ GabeMc (talk) 10:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I've trimmed alot of the article, but if you can see anything else that could be cut, please do let me know. ~ GabeMc (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! Just scrolling through the article, it looks great to me, but I'll give it a more thorough read here soon and let you know. As far as Pepper goes, I'd be glad to help out with that if I have the time. A lot of my time of late has been devoted to a GA review I'm currently working (at Anne Rice), so once that is over, hopefully later this week, I should have some free time. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

SM Mall of Asia

Please could you leave an explanation about the deletion of the Unity Run section and its references [1] at Talk:SM Mall of Asia? Thanks. 2.26.132.72 (talk) 11:44, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:36, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Sgt. Pepper

Hey, the next article I was planning on taking through FAC is "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band"; incredibly it is not even currently GA. Would you like to team-up on the article, as co-noms through FAC promotion? You would have to buy any of the books you don't already have of course, and I insist on the same Harv/sfn citation method I used at McCartney. Any thoughts? ~ GabeMc (talk) 01:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hi Evan, just so you know, I've flagged you with the Reviewer right. Message me if you have any questions! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I appreciate it. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:36, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

British English

In terms of consistency with British English, is describes equivalent to described? I notice we are switching over to wrote from writes for example. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:38, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't it the anonymous IP that's been inciting that? Anyway, it wasn't primarily the tense I was fixing, but the comma splice that had managed to sneak in there somewhere. The present participle (any verb form ending in ing) need not be limited to the present tense only. This link does a fairly good job of describing the exceptions. It's perfectly acceptable to use this in past-tense writing, and you'll see it at least once a page in any novel that's written in the past tense. As an example, a passage from Flow My Tears, the Policeman Said, by Philip K. Dick (it's not a perfect example, but it's the book I have closest at hand):

She sat on a high stool, hand-arranging a line of type. He made out pale hair, very long but thin, dribbling down the back of her neck onto her cotton work shirt.

All emphasis is mine, and I hope I'm explaining this adequately. The -ing words are still present participles, but they're expressed in a framework that makes them do the job of past-tense words. This is perfect acceptable English and, to my knowledge, there is no international variation in its acceptance. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Great explanation Evan, thanks. As far as tense, I'm pretty sure we do need to be present, in order to comply with BRitish English. I have a British/American English guidebook on its way to me, as well as the Chicago Mos and MLA handbook. Thanks again for the help. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Gabe! I'm taking copious notes on the article right now and will have a new revision with some fixes later tonight, as long as my power doesn't go out (it's thundering pretty loud right now, so I can't make any promises). Tomorrow afternoon at the latest; then this article will be perfect. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You rock! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I see User:Lfstevens has tied up all the loose ends I left. Looks perfect now; congratulations on all the hard work you've put into this, Gabe! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Evan, but without your, and numerous other editors help this would not have been possible. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, here's a dif

[2]
There was no mistake, nor any apology.

Now stay the fuck off my talk page. Radiopathy •talk• 02:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I only left a message at your talk page regarding your use of the undo function because I had recently gone through an ordeal which involved by rollback rights being temporarily removed after I used them to combat a Nazi troll at American Third Position Party. I was trying to be friendly and help you avoid getting into any similar trouble. Don't worry, I sure won't make that mistake again.

The world does not revolve around you, as hard as that may be to believe. When I make an edit, it's because I want to improve the article; when I leave a reply at a talk page, it's because I want to contribute to the discussion. The reply I left at Talk:Roger Waters was one I had been planning to make for some time, long before you came along. Whether you want to believe that or not is none of my concern. It is not my mission in life to make you happy or to satisfy your demands that I cease editing the same pages as you. The heliocentric model prevails once more.

Without fail, every one of the accusations you made in your initial post at my talk page was either off-base entirely or flat-out false. To name one example, you accused me of reverting your edits at Paul McCartney, something which I know for a fact I have never done. Your claim was a falsehood; in common parlance, a lie.

You have selected two edits I've made to the infobox at Alfred Hitchcock on which to hang your wholesale dismissal of me as nothing more than a wikihound, bent on discrediting you and undercutting your work (for some reason -- I still haven't figured out what my motivation is supposed to be). Of my c. 5,000 edits to Wikipedia, exactly two have involved reversion of edits made by you. If you think that's compelling evidence of wikihounding, you are fully capable of going to an administrator and telling on me. If you think that will accomplish something, then do it. As of now, your baseless posturing here and at Talk:The Beatles is ineffectual and utterly pointless.

As to your demands: No. I refuse to change my editing habits to placate your irrational paranoia. Get over yourself. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry man

Look, Lfstevens also said to remove the detail about the Pepper cover, just as you had a few days ago. Also, they suggested removing the summary graph at the end of the section, also your suggestion from last week. I want to apologize for being snippy. Yes, I was tired and fatigued and not at all my highest self, but that's not an excuse to be a jerk. So, I'm sorry. You were right, I was wrong. Also, I re-read what Noleandser said about fair-use, and I misread it. As long as the article discusses the album, then we can use the cover image. Sorry about that too, I'll listen better in the future. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all, man! I didn't take it as "snippy", and I thought it was clear that you were tired and probably (rightly) frustrated that the FAC was taking so long and whatnot. You're very kind to offer an apology, but it's not a problem at all. :-) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but really, I'll be more respectful in the future. That was very poor form and I want to be a better contributor than that! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Post noms in infobox at John Lennon

There is currently a discussion taking place here. Your input would be appreciated. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied. Thanks for the notification, Gabe! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for watching Macca

Thanks for keeping an eye on Macca. I was hoping I would not be the only one fighting off andreas' attempts to degrade the high-quality prose that numerous editors worked so hard to acheive. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

No need to thank me! I'm just trying to keep things sensible around here... Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:44, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

We share an opinion

The opinion shared by you, me, and almost all other editors is that IP Only editors make valid contributions. I see we each messaged the same editor on his talk page to tell him or her so. I was as disturbed as you by the curt reversion message. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Thanks for taking the initiative to let him know. Hopefully it'll make an impression. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I had a pleasant response. You may have seen it already. There is always hope in any awkward situation. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't give up!

That's exactly what the "Big T" faction wants, to wear us down to the point of quitting the argument. We can win this one, once and for all. Not with weak personal rationales but with reasoned rationales. What do your MoSs say on the subject. Don't let them run you out of Beatles articles. That is how and why they win. You are an asset to the project, hold fast! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Gabe. I just can't be part of this craziness anymore. I feel like I can contribute constructively in other parts of the project, and I can't contribute anything worthwhile to Beatles-related articles until the capitalisation issue is solved. I've said all I can on the subject in so many different threads. The English language is what it is, but so many people don't care about it. I care, and if there is another discussion, I'll consider taking part. But to be honest, the only way I can see this getting resolved permanently is through an ArbCom ruling backed up by an indefinite 1RR injunction on the issue. We need to draw attention to this continuing nonsense, and continued discussion isn't going to do that. It's a debate that's been going on long before either of us showed up. The administrators and bureaucrats have taken such a hands-off approach to it and the sides have become so entrenched that we've hit a stalemate. They don't get what a stumbling block this is to real improvement across the wikiproject.

I've formally asked for the SPI to be closed. I'm sincerely sorry to you if this throws off your attempts to defend yourself from the IP's BS attacks. No one should have to deal with crap like that. The thing is, it's a sock, but it's not Radiopathy's. I was rash to jump to that assumption, and I now have a major apology to make and a large amount of defamation to avoid in the case that Radio decides to look at the SPI as a continuation of the imaginary wikihounding.

In any case, that SPI has to end so we can figure out whose it is. If the issue gets solved, I'll consider looking at this recent spate of nonsense as an aberration and returning to the project, but this AN/I atrocity has to end and the sockmaster has to be found. As of now, admins don't care. They need to, or nonsense like this is just going to go on and on and on and on. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, this can never be solved until editors who care about the language as you do refuse to quit! Lets take this all the way to ArbCom. I am 100% confident that the strength of our argument will win out in the end. Everyone has given up fighting the cult of Big T. Don't leave this unresolved for someone else down the road to fix, don't pass this buck. "Perhaps the change you seek is in you." We will win if we see this through. Don't worry about Radio, you don't get caught socking three times and still retain a rep as an innocent editor. It could be DocKino, Andreas, DCGeist, who cares. What matters is, that ip is most certainly somebody's sock. That's the point. It's not your fault SPI requires you to name a name. They should just investigate the ip for correlation with known users and not require us to accuse, it's a policy failure, not an editor failure on your part. Don't feel guilty, do the right thing, and stand up for what's right. Don't quit because its getting heated, lets remain civil, and win with reasoning, versus the bullying tactics with which they have dominated us for years. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, throwing names around as possible sockpuppeteers without evidence-especially established respected contributors like DocKino and DCGeist-is really not a goood idea. You should consider striking that. Joefromrandb (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I get your point Gabe, and I sincerely appreciate your encouragement. You're correct that there should be a better and easier way for investigating socks in cases as obvious as this. If you think there's a chance we can get this fixed permanently, I'll go to ArbCom. Right now, I have to sleep. Good luck with everything in the meantime. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:02, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

As to the names you mentioned, I don't think it's any of them. Even when I've had disagreed with them in the past, I've always found them to be fairly intellectually honest. Especially Andreas and Doc; DCGeist I've had less interaction with, but he doesn't seem like a sockmaster to me. Naming names, even as hypotheticals, may not be helpful until we have hard evidence. G'night, all. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If you lot had done a bit more research, you would have found out that I would be the very last person on Earth to even think about bringing up the discussion of The/the. Even if I was the last person on Earth, I still wouldn't want to talk about it, not even to myself. BTW, I've never been accused of being a sock puppet before. That's a new one. :))--andreasegde (talk) 09:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Evan, have a nice rest. The Beatles article once had "The Beatles" all over it. There is progress. Rothorpe (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is important!

Please see my comments at the SPI you opened. I fear you may have the wrong user. Joefromrandb (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What other MoS guides say about "The/the"

FYI, I opened a formal mediation request here. Also, I found support for our position in five different style guides (see the bottom of the Pepper straw poll). The Chicago MoS states: "Chicago's preference is for sparing use of capitals—what is sometimes referred to as a "down" style." In fact, on page 416 of the sixteenth edition of the Chicago MoS, the work specifically mentions the Beatles, and the MoS states: "A the preceding a name, even when part of the official title, is lowercased in running text." Game, set, match? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to add your name there if you want to. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Done. Let's hope this brings results. Grammar is on our side, as I now see Chicago does specifically state. Thanks for all your work and research, Gabe! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

They have suspended the mediation request until the RfCs are completed, so I started a new straw poll and RfC the Beatles talk page, and I opened an RfC at the Macca talk page. If we do not reach a consensus and the RfCs are closed I will re-submit the mediation request. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I'll check all the pages later and add my input where appropriate. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, the poll and discussion at the Beatles is now re-opened. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "The Beatles". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 20 July 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Please have a say at ANI (notification)

You've been mentioned at ANI, as an editor who has abandoned the Beatles articles over the The/the bullshit. Rather than have other people go on to dispute who it was that upset you with this issue, I figure it would be better that you have the final say on how you feel on the issue. So please join in all the fun of the circus at the drama-board known as ANI.

The entry is here Penyulap ☏ 03:55, 14 Jul 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the notification. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Self-dialogues

There are many examples if you look deep, but look here for an example. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Please let me know when you've checked if my birth certificate is fake or not. I may want to run for president. :))--andreasegde (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Evan. I won't post anything like this on your talk page again. I don't want to make this worse, or fuel the flames. I just thought that diff was interesting. Feels really creepy to have your every moved watched, to me anyway, I'm not putting words in Evan's mouth. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Gabe, you can feel free to post anything at my talk page that you feel is relevant. I'm certainly not going to accuse you of "collusion", or other such nonsense. Anyway, I still don't think it's andreasegde, but I could be wrong. It's a troll and proably a sock as well, so if the community has any sense it will be inactive soon enough. For the record, I've felt more stalked by the IP than by Andreas, but I certainly can't speak to your experiences. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:52, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Evan, and yeah, I find the sock creepier than Andreas for sure, but I do feel wikistalked by both. I agree 100%, the ip 99 should already be blocked, as they are making a mockery of wikipedia. FWIW, DK stopped editing on 1 July, then ip 99 came on the scene 2 July. Is it weird that some say I shouldn't name names on a user talk page but editors are forced do do just that at SP/I? Maybe we can help that change as well. Glad it wasn't me who is driving you away. That really hurt my feelings at AN/I when I was blamed for running editors away from Beatles articles. That is a new one to me. I sure hope you don't feel that way, if you do please tell me and I will correct my behaviour asap! You are an asset to the project Evan! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Another example of a self-dialogue, though in only one voice this time. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:08, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly interesting; I'll give you that. I don't know, it could be. It's impossible to say definitively without a thorough investigation, of course. Definitely put me down as suspicious, though. I'd say that the odds of 99 not being a sock are rather astronomical at this point, and there are few users I'm willing to rule out completely. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

More examples here, here, here, here, here and here. Food for thought. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

• A pattern or a joke? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning The Beatles, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Beatles, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, User:WGFinley (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Not trout-worthy but a tad snarky

While I appreciate the help in reverting vandalism, I thought your "good job" edit summary was a little odd. It's highly likely that an article on an obscure British wine writer isn't sitting on too many people's watch list. In the almost 5 year history of the Pat Simon article and talk page, it has only being editted by 6 non-bot/non-anon accounts (not including yourself) with 4 of those accounts no longer active. And considering the drive-by clean up edit of the 5th editor, chances are that I'm probably the only editor actively watching this article along with the 13,000+ other pages on my watchlist. So, honestly, after being missed by the new changes patrollers it actually was a "good job" that this minor vandalism edit on a minor non-BLP page lasted only a little over 5 months. If that sentiment was your intent (and not just being sarcastic) then kindly accept my appreciation for your help with the page. But if your intent was to be more snarky then kindly accept this gentle minnow slapping. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess "snarky" is a fair way of describing the comment, but it was actually aimed at the vandals in question, not RC patrollers. It is, in my experience, rare to see vandalism stay on a page for that long, so in this case the vandals did a "good job" doing what they do, even if what they do is harmful to the encyclopedia. I can see how you might have read something else into it, though. Regardless, I probably shouldn't use edit summaries to editorialise, so I appreciate you dropping me a note about it. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:05, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

IP username

Hey Evan, I was wondering. Do you know of anyway non-admins can check to see if an IP is really an IP? I mean, what would prevent someone from using an IP addy as their username? The IP claims to be from Canada, but how do we know that is even their actual IP addy? Hope all is well. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Gabe. I'm not sure if there's any way to definitively check whether or not an IP is really an IP. However, I think one giveaway would be that you wouldn't see the "Geolocate" and other IP-related tools at the bottom of the user's contributions page. For example, compare the bottom of your contribs list with the bottom of a random IP's contribs list and you'll see what I mean. I think there might be a filter or something that prevents you from registering an account that uses IP address-like number sequences as a username. I remember reading something about that a long time ago; I'll see if I can dig it up. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you are correct here. Thanks for the reply! ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing, Gabe! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I just happened to notice your thread here. Yes, there are editors who register IP numbers as their usernames, and the method described above will show the difference between a registered username and a real IP editor. One must be careful to not assume that the number is actually their real IP address, though some may be dumb enough to do so. BTW, I happen to be one of those who favors mandatory registration for all editors, but only after an initial trial period. Let people rack up a certain number of edits as IPs, and then require registration. In the mean time, have many limits (more than we have now) on what types of edits anonymous IPs are allowed to make. That way we can significantly reduce vandalism and free up the time wasted on vandal fighting. I would also favor behind-the-scenes checkuser controls to prevent sockpuppetry. The legitimate use of sock puppets can still be allowed, but they would be registered with CUs. Any attempts by one IP to create multiple registered names (socks) would then be noted, they could be warned, and possibly blocked. If you want to discuss this last part, I'm going to start a thread on my own talk page for that purpose, rather than hijacking this threa. Carry on! -- Brangifer (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for dropping by, and for the well informed comments. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:05, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

AWB usage

Just so you're aware, Wikipedia:AWB#Rules of use #4 specifies that you should "avoid making insignificant or inconsequential edits", as you did here. Friendly note. --Izno (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! I'll keep it in mind. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Individual Olympic Athlete from South Sudan

I see on the International Olympic Committee,wich South Sudan athlete Guor Marial will be competing as Individual Olympíc Athlete (IOA),the Athletes from Netherlands Antilles will be using Individual Olympic Participants (IOP). They has this difference about the Athletes from Netherlands Antilles was coming from a former NOC,South Sudan´s Marial is coming from a country wich doesn´t have a NOC,this same procedure was used in Barcelona´92 ,when Yugoslavia was banned,but their individual athletes going to the games and East Timor in Sydney 2000 when send a team without have a NOC --Daniel Callegaro (talk) 02:04, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, they are all Independent Olympic Athletes (IOA), as far as I can tell. They were called "Individual Olympic Athletes" in Sydney 2000, but this year will all be known as "Independent Olympic Athletes". The title "Individual Olympic Participants" at this article is wrong, and will be corrected shortly. There is a discussion on the talk page that lays out the problems. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking over it now, I think I might be wrong. See Talk:2012 Summer Olympics for further discussion. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Evan,it´s true,but IOC has two NOC names reserved for these situations.Independent Participants was used for a NOC in a state of transition, suspension (Yugoslavia in 1992) or dissolution Netherlands Antilles,last year)).Individual Olympic Athletes is used for a country wich was recognized by the international community,but don´t has a National Olympic Committee,because was turning independent on middle of Olympic cycle.This is the same situation wich East Timor,was on 2000 Summer Games,IOC see this and give to they a special permission to compete as Individual Olympic Athletes.South Sudan,enter on this situation.The country is recognized by the UN, but they had time to form their National Committee on time for current Summer Olympics. Daniel Callegaro (talk) 02:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Having done some reading, I think you are probably correct here. The only thing I can't figure out is why the London 2012 site only lists the six IOPs, and not the IOA from South Sudan. In fact, there's no mention of him anywhere at all on that website. I expect we'll have this cleared up shortly. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah,they might correct the information on the next days,because this information it´s brand new.I see to the names of Brazilian athletes that have been cut.Three of these atletes are from Kuwait, which was suspended until yesterday.I think was better to waiting for the Wenesday,when the football games will started,and some new informations will be puted on official website.On the Pan-American Games of Guadalajara,Mexico,last year,they compete as Athletes from the Netherlands Antilles.Daniel Callegaro ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

As of now, it looks like you're absolutely right. The six athletes from Kuwait and the Netherlands Antilles are officially classified as IOPs according to all sources I've seen, and the South Sudanese fellow is definitely an IOA, according to olympic.org. Very confusing, but I think it's been sorted out now. I'll keep my eye open at the London 2012 site for a further mention of IOA's. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for clarifying! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Would you mind adding these sources at Talk:Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics#Requested move, as all the sources I have seen regarding athletes competing under the Olympic flag in 2012 have referred to them as Independent Olympic Athletes, and where country codes are given IOA. We must also consider that Wikipedia has had the wrong title for some time now, and several media outlets use it as a source. 85.167.109.186 (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

What a mess. I don't think I've ever been confused so much in one day. For the record, you were right -- it was IOA all the way through, for the Dutch islanders, for the three Kuwaiti nationals that are listed there (for some reason), and for the South Sudanese guy. My vote has been changed back to support once more. Early and often, right? :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Kuwait at London 2012

I'm not sure why you have removed Kuwait from the London 2012 article, when they have been granted their NOC status back and are now competing as Kuwait and not IOP/IOA. Sources to confirm this: London 2012 website, Olympic website, Kuwait's NOC website, and the news confirming the IOC's suspension on Kuwait has been lifted. Could you please revert your actions, thanks. Wesley Mouse 04:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of the finer details, but the London 2012 site says that the Kuwaiti athletes will be competing as Independent Olympic Participants (see here). The same is the case for the athletes from the Netherlands Antilles, who are not listed under their own flag because they too are competing as IOP's. Officially, the London 2012 website states that they have no NOC affiliation, and we need to list them according to what the most reliable sources state. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:02, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The link you have provided for IOA are not Kuwaiti nationals unfortunately. I did provide you with the link from London 2012 for Kuwaiti participants. Plus the official statement from the International Olympic Committee shows the true facts that Kuwait are no longer participating as an IOA but as their own nation now. This had been discussed on the article talk page weeks ago, hence why Kuwait was added under their own name. And please, no TBs on my talk page - I have this on my watch list. Wesley Mouse 05:06, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Fawaz Al Shammari is a Kuwaiti national; Mohammad Al-Azemi is a Kuwaiti national; Ali Mohamed Al-Zinkawi is a Kuwaiti national. But yes, you are correct. According to those sources, the Kuwaiti athletes will be competing under their own flag. Regardless, the IOP page at the London 2012 site needs updating. I should have read closer, so I apologize. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Those three are born in Kuwait, but are not participating for Kuwait - not sure why, although I could find out from the delegations during my Games Maker shift later today. Wesley Mouse 05:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That would be very helpful! I also just noticed that for some reason the article lists a total of eleven Kuwaiti participants, while the source only has seven. It's possible that someone was also counting the three IOP's, plus someone we don't know about? I don't know, but I'll be correcting that for now. Any clarification you can provide is very welcome. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:20, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I can seek clarification but it won't be allowed to be used as a source per WP:NOR. Plus due to the fact that I am a volunteer at the games and privy to inside knowledge, I keep my contributions to the article as minimal as possible to avoid WP:COI. Wesley Mouse 05:22, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I understand the OR thing completely. Anyway, I'll be seeking out reliable sources, and will see if I can get this ironed out. I imagine it should all be settled by next Friday. Cheers! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, I have just emailed the web team and told them about the numbers for Kuwait, and that 3 Kuwait nationsal are also appearing as IOAs - to see if there is an error, or if the numbers are correct. Wesley Mouse 05:30, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Evan, I've just noticed that you've readded the Kuwaiti participants to the IOA list on London 2012 article. Don't forget that they are on the source in error and are being move at some stage this week. Although when, I don't know. Wesley Mouse 00:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

So, in the "four IOAs" scenario, we would be counting the three people from the Netherlands Antilles, plus the South Sudanese guy, is that correct? I'm sorry for the confusion, but London 2012 and Olympic.org are currently leading me to believe that there are seven IOAs who will be competing. That's a verifiable number, and I can't verify that the three Kuwaitis listed as IOAs are going to be moved to the Kuwaiti team at a later date, even though that seems highly likely. I'm just trying to go by what the sources say. To be honest, I hope I'm wrong, because this is all monumentally confusing. Are you aware of an RS which states that there will be four IOAs, rather than seven? If so, I'll be happy to change the article to reflect that. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, it has become a bit of a farce and the organisational skills (or lack of them) at this end are making me pull my hair out in frustration, and I have hardly any hair to begin with. There are not reliable sources to verify the error on the London 2012 site, other than using common-sense at the fact 3 of them on the IOA profile are of Kuwaiti nationality and there now being a Kuwait profile. The only thing I could suggest would be to reflect the numbers based on the sources as they stand (until the corrections are made at this end) and then perhaps footnote them to explain that even though the source for IOA shows 7, there are 3 of Kuwait nationality. Wesley Mouse 00:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable way forward, so I'll go add a note clarifying the situation. Thanks very much for all your help and input! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

I suspect that an IP who has been engaged in contentious edits against you in the article Hispanic, 92.250.106.206, is a sockpuppet for a user who has been banned for abusive and unreasonable behavior similar to his behavior in Hispanic. If you would like to comment on the sockpuppet investigation, please go here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Y26Z3Goodsdrew (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)